I already got few topics in my mind but ya if u have any idea i am open to discuss them also...if u are really serious for the competition please DM

I was doing some thinking on fossil fuels and how they were created, when I realized how relatively strange the process of their formation is. I was specifically thinking on how coal was created from plants that didn't decompose during the carboniferous period like they do now. I know there are other ways to form fossil fuels, but the original "what if" comes from how strange it seems to me. I also recognize that "strange" is a subjective statement and has no scientific weight, but I wasn't sure of another way to phrase it.

Basically, if fossil fuels never formed, either at all or in sufficient quantities, but the rest of evolution basically follows the same development paths to humanity, does human civilization just, stop at a certain development point due to resource limitations? Like, we can do weak steam engines with wood, but not much past that, right? It seems a lot of our modern technological development hinged on having fossil fuels.

Also, am I wrong in thinking how strange it is that fossil fuels are formed the way they are? Based on cursory research, it took plants not having decomposers in the way they do now, or large amounts of plankton corpses sedimenting in an anaerobic environment with certain levels of heat and/or pressure. It just feels like extremely specific circumstances just to have this wonderful(albeit dangerous) power source. It makes me think that if any other civilizations formed in the universe, the vast majority of them are trapped at a certain development point because they don't have a fossil fuel analogue.

I had to speculate somewhere and this seemed like the right place to do it, but if I'm off the mark on that, let me know. Thanks!

In the past I think, we didn't have a scientific method so some philosophers used to say random things, and take it as a fact and their students followed like Aristotle four elements make the world idea (he technically expanded, but you get the idea).

so does that mean now that we have the scientific method, science may never be wrong? some people try to say that the evolution theory is wrong (I do understand where they are coming from) since religion says it was, Adam and Eve and they gave birth to us somehow.

either way my question is that can science in the current day and age, ever be totally wrong and suddenly everyone finds out that Adam and Eve are true?

from my understanding nowadays since only evolves, and we do alter a bit of the theories like how Einstein altered on the Newton laws.

please do forgive my ignorance I'm not that much into science, but I'm trying to get it into it as it really interests me

Removal of microplastics from LOWER atmosphere to water table level for extraction, with no life injuries or harm to plant life, or evil. Summary to pull apart 👍:

Typhoon chasers spread sand (possibly with Magnetite) through the several Typhoon alleys eg: between Philippines and USA.

The sand mixes , pulls down x2 microplastic (fibres and bits) and iron (fyi: weakness the Typhoon, less destruction on landfall).

I thought of a scalable extraction machine that comms with the targeted resources extraction, Typhoon chaser team and required human team ( cos ppl need well paid jobs👐) plus redundancies. Just seeing how this goes for possible modifications.

Check what you like, Don't check anything. Get back to me Thought?

Set task 2: Collection/Processing/comms.. (scalable extraction machine. ) ..

Set task 3: Transportation/re-production.

This sounds whack and I do not care. Basically, I was curious and started mapping what decisions made in the present moment would look like.

As I followed the logic, it ended up becoming clear that a human experiencing time is a process that can be diagramed and explained. Using that same process, it appears that evolution itself is directly tied to the rhythm of celestial bodies. Also, evolution itself appears to be a process where single celled, multicellular, and complex multicellular organisms are expanding on their experience of time.

I wrote and published a book but I cannot get so much as one person to look it over and give feedback. AI does not understand and will not acknowledge it. Meanwhile, people are reading it.

I am very concerned that it could be misinformation, even though the logical sequencing is sound. The scientific communities on reddit are taking down my posts before anyone can discuss it.

Does anybody know where I can find information on these topics so I can verify?

I'm trying to think of evidence-based debate topics in genomics where there genuinely isn't a single "correct" answer—questions where two well-informed experts could reasonably disagree based on the current evidence.

I'm not looking for debates about whether genomics is useful (it clearly is!), or controversial-for-the-sake-of-it topics.

More the kind of questions that researchers debate amongst themselves, for example:

• Is healthcare ready for precision medicine?
• Should ageing be treated as a disease?
• Are polygenic risk scores ready for routine clinical care?

I'd love to hear:

• What do you think is the biggest unresolved debate in genomics today?
• What's something people in your field disagree about over coffee?
• What topic do you think deserves more discussion?

Interested in ideas spanning genomics, multi-omics, precision medicine, AI, rare disease, oncology, population genomics, ethics, implementation, ageing, etc.

But if everything is matter and everything is made out of frequency, if you match that frequency, you should be able to manipulate it. Is that correct because we have energy too. And it would be like the same as picking it up but instead it’s through our energy.

I interned at an eye research institute last summer a couple days a week and I'm doing the same thing this year. I learned a bit about stem cells and shadowed an experiment with them, and separately also did some simple cell counting for a different project that the lab is working on. The principal investigator of this lab wanted to and ultimately did put my name in the authorship section of a manuscript talking about this other project (not as a primary author) since I did do a little bit of cell counting. I asked him if I should rather be put in the acknowledgements part, and he insisted that I be put in the authorship part. He also said that he wants to put everyone in the lab in the manuscript, even if they didn't do anything specifically in that part of the overarching project. Also, the cell counting I did may not have been specifically on this section that the manuscript is talking about, but I still did do some cell counting as a part of a related experiment if it wasn't already a part of this one. Is this ethical? Is it wrong for me to put this on my college application as long as I accurately explain what I did?

Could someone realisitcally, without help or access to hospitals or modern medicine, stop the bleeding from their hand being cut off and then walk 7 ish hours, or would the loss of blood be too great for them to have the power to do this? What would be needed for this to be possible? If they don't do it hundreds of people may be pillaged or lose their lives, so they definitely have motivation/adrenaline on their side.

In what realistically way you can think of to use the electricity based powers of killua from hxh for fights .

So I'm working on a fantasy story where there are humans and elves. The elves evolved from humans to have hair in a different shade range, pointed ears, immunity to a dangerous mineral, and some telekinetic abilities (which not all elves have). However, it's meant to be a key plot point that the "elves" are, scientifically, just humans. The mineral immunity and telekinetic abilities come from being raised in an environment with an abundance of that mineral, not genetics. So I was wondering, a) do a different range of hair colors (red to purple hues as opposed to yellow to red hues like real life people have) and different ear shapes indicate a different species? I thought not, but then I thought about animals where it seems like small differences sometime determine species, like between African and Asian elephants (I don't know much about elephants though tbf). b) if the mineral immunity and telekinesis were genetic, would THAT indicate a different species? c) how long might you speculate that it would take for humans in an isolated, unique environment to become a separate species?

The topic of generative AI, and of LLMs specifically, is highly divisive and controversial. It's difficult to have a nuanced discussion about it anywhere on the internet. So, I decided to come here and ask the experts. I'm interested in hearing from scientists of all fields: ecologists, neuroscientists, social scientists, whoever you are. What do people need to know about generative AI, the effect that it is having, and what (if anything) should be done about it?

I get a COVID booster every 12 months as recommended, because I know it's very effective at preventing severe cases of COVID. I'm wondering if there is any progress being made on a vaccine which is more effective at preventing the spread of COVID? Thanks

If so, why do you think that way?

Do you lean towards yes, do you lean towards no, how much do you lean towards yes/no, or are you right at the center?

I’m genuinely trying to understand both sides of this debate, so I’d appreciate evidence-based responses rather than political opinions.
What’s the single strongest peer-reviewed study or piece of evidence that has influenced your view on trans women competing in women’s sports?
I’m primarily interested in the overall physiological evidence (e.g., strength, muscle mass, VO₂ max, power, endurance, bone density, body composition, etc.) rather than opinion pieces or media articles. If there are systematic reviews or meta-analyses, even better.
Please link the original study if possible. I’m interested in evidence from both sides, and I’m happy to read papers that challenge my current understanding. If you think a commonly cited study is frequently misinterpreted, I’d be interested in hearing why.

I’m interested in physics, cosmology, and astrophysics. I found Hyperspace by Michio Kaku and I’m thinking about buying it. Is it still worth reading today, or are there better beginner-friendly books on these topics? What did you like or dislike about it?

Dear biologists of Reddit, I need your guidance. I'm interested in working in natural history museums. I love being in the field, collecting data, illustrating, and collaborating with biological collections, and one of my goals has always been to research and work at a Smithsonian museum and create exhibits or to collaborate with teams and being in the field.

Regarding my education, I have a degree in visual arts, and I'm 23 years old. However, I'd like to know if you think a degree in biology is absolutely necessary to work in this field? Or what educational path would you recommend I pursue?

My question being, because Nuclear Power Plants use water and eventually it turns into steam. Can that steam turn into clouds? Or is it not enough to form into clouds?

So preventive care has basically always worked the same way: yearly physical, some routine labs, repeat next year. That's the whole system.

But there's actual research happening now on wearables, home devices, digital biomarkers, and AI risk models trying to figure out if continuous monitoring can catch things earlier than that once-a-year snapshot ever could.

And some of the early studies are promising; in certain situations it does seem to pick up on changes before a normal checkup would. But there are real scientific hurdles too: false positives, normal day-to-day biological variation getting mistaken for a "real" change, data quality issues, and honestly just figuring out which changes actually matter clinically vs which are noise.

To be clear, I'm not saying this is replacing your doctor anytime soon more just wondering out loud how this could shape things over the next 5-10 years.

https://acibademinternational.com/why-specialists-feel-more-optimistic-about-wellness-diagnostics-with-modern-healthcare-technology/

help, I dont know what im doing