I'm just theorizing to myself here, but if time went by quicker, wouldn't maple syrup flow like water? And conversely, if we perceived "normal" seconds going by like years, wouldn't we see water flow like glass?
212715
Yes, but something with a high viscosity in "normal" time would still have a high viscosity reletive to other substances in "fast-world" time.  Like any other form of measuerment, it can not stand alone without reference objects.\n\nSomething flows "slowly" only when compared to things that flow faster than it.  For example when I'm working on low-mass stellar evolution, anything that doesn't take a million years to happen I tend to describe as "a very fast event"
222262
Sounds like a Math/Science type question to me. Why are you posting it here?\n\nBesides, I have the the slightest idea.
239750
when u swirl the water, if the object floating on it is not moving at the same speed, it would have a lower outward force. They r then pull by gravity towards the lower point... the middle of the swirling water. whichever thing slows down first, it will "drop" to the middle.\n\nI notice too that even if the thing does not float, like sugar, they r concentrated at the middle in the bottom. I think that's due to gravity too. When u swirl, water goes to the side and when the roundabout motion slows, water slowly falls back down to the middle. there's a net flow toward the middle and hence dragging the sugar to the middle.
184891
I don't have a scientific answer for you, except to say that's just how it works. You could say it's the same reason that water expands when it freezes, as opposed to almost everything else which contracts.
540784
that's so weird, we're doing something similar in my bio class...\n\nI would agree with you....glucose should be broken down faster...perhaps theres some error in ur results.\n\nI did the same experiment...and I had glucose produce a little more CO2 than sucrose.
515463
All decent explanations so far; I hope I can add to what has already been posted.\n\nLiquid and Ice most definitely can exist at the same temperature and Ice can be and often does get colder than 0C.\n \nFirst of all the Triple Point of water is the pressure and temperature at which Ice, Liquid Water and Water Vapor exist at the same time in equilibrium.  Vapor is the right word, not steam although you can argue that the only time that Water Vapor and Steam are the same thing is at a very low pressure.  The Triple point of water only happens at a near perfect vacuum, 0.0063 ATM to be precise.\n\nAdding Salt to water will lower the freezing point, but then it isn't water anymore, it's salt water.  Even so, Liquid Salt Water and Ice Salt Water can also exist at the same place and time at the same temperature, slightly below 0C.  But let's stick to water.\n\nIce can easily be lower than 0 degrees.  Consider a bucket of water, liquid water sitting outside and the air temperature is -10C.  Little by Little, as the liquid reaches 0.0098 C, liquid starts to become ice.  The ice crystals form in the bucket, around the walls of the bucket and on the surface first.  The air is still -10C so the bucket, the liquid and the ice will keep getting colder.  The ice on the surface will drop to slightly below 0C but very slowly since it is still absorbing the heat of the not-yet-frozen water.  Eventually, the entire bucket of water will be frozen and will be just below 0C.  First the walls of the bucket will reach -10C (same as the air tempertaure).  The ice near the walls of the bucket and on the surface will reach -10C first, continually absorbing the heat energy from the relatively warmer ice near the center of the bucket.  Until finally, the entire bucket of ice is steady at -10C.  That is until the sun comes out or the day gets warmer.\n\n\nAnd by the Way, dry ice is not water, it's frozen CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)\n\nOne more thing, at a near perfect vacuum, you can actually cool liquid water to less than 0C without it freezing.  Never tried that but I did accidently freeze a beer last night...
53745
Well for an eight year old....(sounds like an intelligent one to me though)... The reason water freezes slower is because the particles of salt and sugar get in the way of water making a ice crystal.  Salt takes longer because when dissolved it "ionizes" or breaks apart into 2 particles while sugar remains as one.  Salt having two particles it is able to disturb more molecules of water from making ice crystals. I hope that helps! It excites me to here a child of such a young age interested in such things.
287506
Man, oh, MAN!  I don't know whether to laugh or cry at Poutine's pathetic response...  Apparently, she forgot the tiny detail that Einstein discovered the basis of his 'Theory of Relativity' long before he was an 'immigrant' in the U.S.\n\nIt's people like Poutine who make me feel like I’m a post-apocalyptic survivor of some cyberworld-holocaust, trudging through vast stretches of broadband wastelands and risking encounters with mindless, digitally-mutated low beasts.  And all with only the bleakest hope that my wanderings will turn up others, like yourself, whose mental 'files' are  secure and uncorrupted…
188099
it's not that easy to define a "liquid" in a conventional way: take for example the glass for windows, it has its own volume and shape so we would define it a solid, but its microscopic disordered structure would make us call it a liquid! If we could wait ages we would see it flowing (as they say it happens for the windows in Chartres Cathedral.\nSo in material science liquid is a system that on ordinary observation time scale (years) shows a viscosity (the property of flowing  eg water is less viscous than honey) below 10^12 Pa*s
22086
Opinion. Indications are that it's both. There are few truly continuous things, but there seem, emphasis on seem, to be some. Light, for example is continuous....but it's also discrete. It behaves and a wave and as a particle. But as a wave it can travel through a vaccumn, which means there are no supporting particles to transmit it, and thus it varies continuously with no discrete intervals. To explain further; sound for example, is a wave, but it must travel via a media ( gas((air)), liquid, solid) which is made up of particles, and thus sound waves are actually discrete, while light doesn't seem to be. Light is involved in some ways with time. Speed, which is travel/time, at speeds approaching light speed, will vary perceptions of time, or for practical purposes, the passage of time. Very complicated question, not to be answered by me for sure, and evading our best minds in physics and philosophy. Finally, does it mater? I mean, if there are intervals, is reality dependant on time for it's existence? And if so, would it, and we, cease to be during intervals in time...so that nothing could happen then, and we would never be ever to sense or measure these intervals, or be affected by them. So for us time is continuous, unlike river flow and the sound of music.
149837
'Flatland' must be a very exciting story. I wish I have read it.\n--a 2d world surely is a more interesting place compared to a 1d world. Roughly speaking, the added options would be 'left', 'right', 'up', 'down', which are far more entertaining than the 'forward' and 'backward' of the 1d space. \n-- the 3d world easily beats a 2d world and needs few comments. we get 'depth', just to name one thing we would miss in the 2d world. there are many others, no doubt.\n-- a 4d world would be an awesome place. before else, the question is what do we put on the 4th dimension. whatever would be it must have the dimension of space. so it can be time times velocity. let's say we neglect what velocity would mean and just focus on time. now things are going to heat up. what can we do with time, if we are able to use it just as we use the ordinary space? surely we would like to move forward and backward in time. still, I would not think we would be able to see .... ohhh wait a second!! this is really cool! I think I just got your idea of seeing 'inside and out, of every object and event in the entire univers'. yes, it must be this, because we would be able to travel in time, along the 4th direction, and we would be able to see things as they evolve; suddenly appearing in what was before an apparently empty space, turning into real objects and dissapear eventually. hehe I like it
188785
Time is a concept.  We measured it initially with the passing of seasons and days.  We could still see the other planets moving, and we have mechanical tools to measure the passage of time now, so time would continue to pass.
438091
Buddy, your query holds weight in all of its concern, yet to monotonous these days to my knowledge. Since I have soothed such a query in past, I am withdrawn to another fabrication. Yet my previous answers weaved in a way can subside your curiosity as well. Consume a chunk of your time reading it. It may also answer your other questions: -\n\nThe concept holds itself in such an abstruse enigma, that centuries have failed to decipher its existence in a logical form. Scores of fiction writers have sculpted sci-fi books upon the behavior of time. We all have speculated over the so-called ‘Time Travel’ and have rummaged over the numerous possibilities that it may offer.\n\nFor the sweet sake of knowledge, once in a while, just sit down and think over the existence of time. When one questions ‘What is life?’ one is indirectly doubting his flow in time. Sometimes, time bears mercy upon you and hastens up, yet at other times, bestows upon you the curse of its viscous flow.\n\nYet, in reality what WE call time, is nothing but a theoretical fabrication that we, humans have crafted so as to better understand this “Fourth Dimension”. We assume we recognize time and its workings, yet mark my letters, we know absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G. We mortals imprint everything that we perceive in our brain, and then we analyze over it, yet never in its crude form. We find ourselves confined to the rigid boundaries of our senses. We bear to our knowledge the sphere of our vision and touch.\n\nThe notion bears itself in utmost simplicity. We can only conclude on matters we are able perceive in a correct mannerism. We do not bear such a sense organ nor are we able to implement over 4% of our brain, so as to perceive the concept of time in a proper ideology. Therefore we cannot chisel a concept concrete enough to bear the yoke of our questions.\n \nWe foolish mortals don’t even have the ability to measure time in its proper state. The state of time is always subjected to our memory, thoughts, personality, the circumstances, and innumerable other factors. You can’t even correspond two events in the same mannerism! Fragments from your memory are always erased, resulting to the unjustifiable way in which we perceive time.\n\nYet we can ALWAYS speculate! And we HAVE speculated! In such speculations, we have come to many ways to understand time. Scientists were entangled in similar doubts, yet they fashioned a theory that best satisfied the debatable world of ‘Philosophical Physics’. The theory states that time is completely relative to the individual who experiences it and furthermore a relationship exists between the three basic dimensions of space and time, leading to the birth of the space-time ideology. (I swear they stole the idea from me!)\n\nAnother speculation (Fasten your seatbelts for a Psycho Ride!). Suppose time is a fabric. (A complete supposition) A vast expanse of infinite non-molecular material. This fabric is existent yet not perceivable by our limited senses. If we are to possess a way to make a ‘cut’ in this fabric, we CAN gain access to two different periods in time. But then again, that is theoretical, and humanly impossible. \n\nSo far we have considered time to be a concept in whose relation we all exist. But in technical truth, time is relative to every individual! What we consider time is the manufacture of us mortals. What if time exists independently for everyone? When one perishes, he actually repeats his so called 'life'. Perhaps the period from the Big Bang to the collapse of the universe has repeated itself millions of times already! There is no telling, for there is no concrete platform, to which we can relate existence. We just have to relate everything to everything else!\n\n Now those are speculations. No one can state them correct or incorrect, for one does not bear a perception that great. Perhaps we are just the play-stuff of a superior colossal existence. Then again, what is existence?
523704
*sigh* Another debatable query enslaved to the limited senses of us mortals, yet forced in all its calamity by our fascination. Here goes.\n\nEinstein shook the fundaments of the Scientific Community when he introduced his Theory Of Relativity and Special Theory Of Relativity back in 1905. He was considered everything from Nostradamus to Jesus. This pinnacle of his life was not attained in mere pondering. Let me expalin to you this fragment of his theory.\n\n  In theoretical suppositions, the space-time connoction bear themselves in alliance. Any change inflicted on one dimension is prone to affect another.\n\n When we say that we will only age a bit, while the Earth has conquered years and decades, we mean to say, that, time being relative to every individual, along with its flow, may hasten up, if we start to function at a velocity of extremes.\n\n If time IS relative (No humane way to confirm), then a higher velocity achieved could result in a hastened flow in the fluid of the "Fourth Dimension" of time. Such relativity was all that he wished to make us understand.\n\n As far as the aging is concerned, provided that we have armour to protect us from the friction effects of such a speed, we are going to age alright. Since our molecules are being relative to the molecules of the rest of the universe, they are not going to change much. Yet RELATIVELY they will alter a decade or more (backwards)!\n\n*sniff* Einstein, I salute you!
424160
Buddy, your query holds weight in all of its concern, yet to monotonous these days to my knowledge. Since I have soothed such a query in past, I am withdrawn to another fabrication. Yet my previous answers weaved in a way can subside your curiosity as well. Consume a chunk of your time reading it. It may also answer your other questions: -\n\nThe concept holds itself in such an abstruse enigma, that centuries have failed to decipher its existence in a logical form. Scores of fiction writers have sculpted sci-fi books upon the behavior of time. We all have speculated over the so-called ‘Time Travel’ and have rummaged over the numerous possibilities that it may offer.\n\nFor the sweet sake of knowledge, once in a while, just sit down and think over the existence of time. When one questions ‘What is life?’ one is indirectly doubting his flow in time. Sometimes, time bears mercy upon you and hastens up, yet at other times, bestows upon you the curse of its viscous flow.\n\nYet, in reality what WE call time, is nothing but a theoretical fabrication that we, humans have crafted so as to better understand this “Fourth Dimension”. We assume we recognize time and its workings, yet mark my letters, we know absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G. We mortals imprint everything that we perceive in our brain, and then we analyze over it, yet never in its crude form. We find ourselves confined to the rigid boundaries of our senses. We bear to our knowledge the sphere of our vision and touch.\n\nThe notion bears itself in utmost simplicity. We can only conclude on matters we are able perceive in a correct mannerism. We do not bear such a sense organ nor are we able to implement over 4% of our brain, so as to perceive the concept of time in a proper ideology. Therefore we cannot chisel a concept concrete enough to bear the yoke of our questions.\n\nWe foolish mortals don’t even have the ability to measure time in its proper state. The state of time is always subjected to our memory, thoughts, personality, the circumstances, and innumerable other factors. You can’t even correspond two events in the same mannerism! Fragments from your memory are always erased, resulting to the unjustifiable way in which we perceive time.\n\nYet we can ALWAYS speculate! And we HAVE speculated! In such speculations, we have come to many ways to understand time. Scientists were entangled in similar doubts, yet they fashioned a theory that best satisfied the debatable world of ‘Philosophical Physics’. The theory states that time is completely relative to the individual who experiences it and furthermore a relationship exists between the three basic dimensions of space and time, leading to the birth of the space-time ideology. (I swear they stole the idea from me!)\n\nAnother speculation (Fasten your seatbelts for a Psycho Ride!). Suppose time is a fabric. (A complete supposition) A vast expanse of infinite non-molecular material. This fabric is existent yet not perceivable by our limited senses. If we are to possess a way to make a ‘cut’ in this fabric, we CAN gain access to two different periods in time. But then again, that is theoretical, and humanly impossible. \n\nSo far we have considered time to be a concept in whose relation we all exist. But in technical truth, time is relative to every individual! What we consider time is the manufacture of us mortals. What if time exists independently for everyone? When one perishes, he actually repeats his so called 'life'. Perhaps the period from the Big Bang to the collapse of the universe has repeated itself millions of times already! There is no telling, for there is no concrete platform, to which we can relate existence. We just have to relate everything to everything else!\n\nNow those are speculations. No one can state them correct or incorrect, for one does not bear a perception that great. Perhaps we are just the play-stuff of a superior colossal existence. Then again, what is existence?
367407
Everybody who answered is right it turns to ice at -5c. Not really a hard question to be honest. If you factor in pressure then you can make things more even. If you decrease the pressure of the -5c water and up the pressure (atmos) of the 25c you can change the internal state of the water, thus effecting the travel time of the ball.\n\nAbout your point about the bible. No offence, but God didn't come down and write the bible. Mortals wrote the bible, infact every holy book in the world was written by mortals (the bible wasn't written by jesus). It's a collection of tales regarding jesus life as told by people who were with him. So essentially it's somebodys point of view of what they belive jesus meant when he said whatever he said. You could study the bible for years, but if you believed everything your read in it most of the advanced physics classes would contradict what is said in it. \n\nWater to Wine?\nH20 to C2H6O-(residual acids from grapes)? Hardly, they can just about convert graphite to diamond (same molecules)\n\nWorld in 7 days?\nNo offence, stating God has to 'rest' is tantamount to saying he's mortal. In that sense you say God somehow needs to take 6 days to create earth. How long did it take him to create Mars? Venus? Jupiter? The Sun? The galaxy? The notion is to constricted, i personally belive that the universe is some derivative of God, the anti matter paradox, the balance of electrons/protons is just something which smacks of God.\n\nWorld 6000 years old?\nCarbon dating is a fact. We have artifacts much older 6000 years old. Look at dinosaurs for example. In the rock, we work through layers to find fossils from millions of years ago. Did god happen to make earth in its form with these fossils embedded? For what reason?\n\nAdam And Eve\nIt doesn't hold. To believe it would infact advocate evolution. Just where did everybody else come from? i mean did God put every person of colour on this world. Surely all these people would also know about God on his terms, which would assume everybody in the world would know about catholism and the bible. In fact, this whole adam and eve thing is written in the bible 2000 years ago. So between god creating the earth and jesus being born, 4000 years, nobody knows about adam and eve, then suddenly 2000 years ago it's mainstream fact. Yet hindus choose to worship multiple gods, different religions of islam, budahism, jewish etc thrive around the world. Whats going on here? Just why did all these people who God may have placed around the world choose to forget their roots? If you don't believe God put all the other races in the world on earth, but belive they all decended from adam and eve's children ... then lets talk about evolution. Another taboo in the bible. How the hell did you get black babies from a white adam and eve. Lets suppose adam and eve were black, how do you get white babies from two black parents. Adam is white, eve is black - where do oriental people come from. It's inconceivable to think that all the races in this world came from two people. Genetically it's not possible\n\nThe Ark\nEvery animal that exists on the earth today is here because God put it here. Since evolution is not allowed, then every animal that exists, from the ant, the the lion, to the caterpillar must have been saved at some point on the ark. You can't argue that fact. Now how long do you think it would have taken Noah to go round the globe picking up every animal that exists today. 1 day? Lets bear in mid, there are no trains, aeroplanes or busses. Noah would literally have to go to every corner of the globe. This would assume that noah actually discovered america first, and australia, and asia and the carribean and the galapogos etc. The next thing is, once he has two of every animal, he needs a boat big enough to house them all. And not just to house the animals, but the space needed for the food to feed them. Lets nor forget th
147338
Your mind is the greatest portal to the past. Beyond that little is presently known about the possibility of going beyond temporal boundries.\n\nThere are 4 types of clouds. It sounds ridiculously simple, but there are low clouds, middle clouds, high clouds, and of course, clouds with extensive vertical development. \n\nThe non-moving cloud may have been in a different layer. The wind does not always blow the same at different heights.\n\nAnother possibility is that the cloud was an artifact of the right combo of temperature, sun and wind relative to a big mountain or lake or some other big geographical quirk.\n\nFor instance, imagine the wind blowing over a lake that is near a mountain. The warm, moist air comes off the lake toward a mountain. Since the wind can't go though the mountain it has to go over. But its cooler at higher levels so the water vapor condenses and you see a cloud. Clouds already in existence would appear to move normally while this one stays put.\n\nHawks are examples of birds that are highly skilled at detecting and taking advantage of rising air currents. Once they find rising air, they can float and float and float upwards and upwards without much need to flap their wings