Science desk
< September 29	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	October 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 30

DNA

Is it possible to take a DNA sample from a living person to confirm if that person is still alive? And then take a DNA sample after death to estimate how long that person has been dead? And is it possible to determine the cause of death from that sample e.g heart attack, cancer etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneelr (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no and no, in that order. DNA doesn't provide any very useful functions in any of those areas. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be safe let's say that there is no known way of doing any of that. It is barely possible that epigenetics might give useful information, but nobody would currently be able to decipher it. Cancer is an exception: the DNA of cells that belong to cancerous tumors is often greatly altered. Looie496 (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To take an example, imagine a body received in the morgue with an obvious fatal gunshot wound to the head. The DNA extracted from the victims legs would not have been altered by the bullet: in fact, the bullet wouldn't have altered the DNA in the brain in any way that we could decipher as referring to a gunshot wound. The whole point of DNA in the body is that it's not supposed to change, even if there are practical limits on how little it can change over time. So the vast majority of cells in you body still have the same DNA sequence as the cells when you were born, and this will remain true until you die (of whatever causes). Physchim62 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consider eg. telomeres, however. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence of bases in the DNA does not change, but as the epigenetics article explains, there is a lot more going on in DNA than that. This is one of the major discoveries in genetics in recent years, and the story is still rapidly emerging. Of course, as you say, the DNA in the legs couldn't possibly say that a person died of a gunshot wound to the head, but I don't think we can quite rule out that there is a systematic sequence of epigenetic changes after death. Looie496 (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The decay of DNA has been used to estimate how long ago an organism died (subject to large uncertainties). Such applications are typically associated with anthropology and paleontology though (i.e. thousands of years or more) and not recent deaths. It generally requires that the organism's remains have been preserved in a way that minimized both predation and bacterial activity (such as trapped in ice or tar) so that the decay of DNA is limited to spontaneous thermal processes. Given knowledge of the rate at which DNA spontaneously decays as a function of temperature, and the ability to measure the amount of decay in a well-preserved sample, one can estimate roughly how long the organism has been dead. However, in most cases, one can do at least as well with carbon dating and related techniques, so it is not clear that measuring DNA decay is very useful in practice. Dragons flight (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. my mention of telomeres above: they get shorter each time a cell divides. This can be used to get a rough idea of age-at-death from a suitable post-mortem tissue-sample: Telomeres in forensic science. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 06:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it's worth re-emphasizing that you already have to know the person is dead and that the sample was taken after death. The DNA itself can't tell you whether the person is alive or dead, or the cause, any more than a fingerprint can. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life 2.0?

The usual story I hear about how life started is the amino acids come together in some way and life began. Is it possible that this is happening on any given random day still? Do we know enough about the beginnings of life to be able to answer this question? Dismas|^(talk) 03:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The event that caused life on Earth is assumed to have been so uncommon that it likely only happened once, whatever that event was. For one thing, conditions today are very different, in almost every way, than they were some 4-5 billion years ago. However, reasonable people believe that if it happened on Earth, than it must be happening somewhere else, possibly right now. Even if you confine it to our galaxy (out of the millions of known galaxies), the Drake equation says that we're likely not alone. --Jayron32 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason it probably isn't happening on Earth today is that if you start to get an accumulation of complex organic matter anywhere that can support life, some animal will come along and eat it. Looie496 (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason it isn't happening on Earth today is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has decided that Web 2.0 is such an appallingly cliched piece of jargon that she cannot bring herself to steal the terminology. HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Jayron, I doubt it was that unlikely (although we may differ in definitions of unlikely; I consider one event every ~10 million years to qualify as extremely likely when it comes to something this mindblowing). All you need is the most basic of self-replicating organisms to arise (a la RNA world), and evolution will take care of the rest. But anyway, I agree with Looie that any complex organic matter would soon be eaten by some existing organisms. Additionally, the high concentration of oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere (which was not the case with prebiotic Earth) disfavors the spontaneous formation of stable sugars and amino acids. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Abiogenesis#Pasteur and Darwin. "...[such newly generated organisms] would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed". HTH, Robinh (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question has been considered by researchers, for what's that worth. The idea is that life arose before the late heavy bombardment and migrated underground into rock before the surface got sterilized by the bombardment 3.9 billion years ago.[1] Then life could have arosen spontaneously a second time on the surface, but those first microbes could still be down there. (Paul Davies and Charles Lineweaver, 2005 in the journal astrobiology). If it could be shown that life had arisen independently twice on earth, it would be proof that life evolves as soon as the conditions are right and is not dependent on some incredible coincidence. EverGreg (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were a bunch of articles on this not too long ago regarding Davie's work (e.g. [2]). We haven't really looked too hard for "aliens among us" in this sense. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another theory I've read about assumes that the complex molecules essential for life were cooked up in comets. The idea here is that the cold environment in comets provides for an environment in which unstable molecules become meta stable. So, you can have far from thermal equilibrium conditions which will be effectively frozen. In the early solar system, small objects where kicked out from the solar neighborhood via the interactions with the planets. Some ended up as comets in the Oort cloud. When they get kicked out of the Oort cloud (e.g. due to collisons), they can end up in a highly elliptic orbit that brings it close to the Sun for a short amount of time.

When the comet is far from the Sun, molecules that happen to be practically on top of each other can react with each other, e.g. due to irradiation by cosmic rays. All sorts of weird molecules can form. When the comet comes closer to the Sun you can get chemical reactions between these molecules. Most such reactions lead to the weird molecules being reduced to smaller familial compounds. But in some cases two weird molecules may combine to form a larger more stable compound that may react further to become even larger or be inert; but it won't fall apart due to further reactions at the higher temperatures during the few months the comet is closer to the Sun.

Then the comet moves further away from the Sun for a very long time. Molecules that by accident happen to have ended up frozen on top of each other can react with each other via irradiation with cosmic rays without interference from nearby molecules, and you'll now get the second generation of weird compounds. After hundreds of thousands of generations, during which the comet's closest distance to the Sun gradually decreased, you may have formed the essential building blocks for life. Count Iblis (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out our nice article on the theory of panspermia. Also, as to the liklihood of life forming from non-life, Stuart Kaufman has a good book At home in the universe that discusses how it is very reasonable to expect auto-catalytic sets of chemicals to form as an emergent property of interaction networks. This book is pop-sci, but he also has an academic text `Origins of order' that you can look into if you can hang with some serious math and chemistry. Basically, both books from a decently strong rebuttal to the Watchmaker_analogy. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to your question specifically, Kauffman would say it is highly likely that the process of biogenesis is going on all over the universe, all the time. I find his arguments compelling. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helium balloon deflation vs air balloons

Why do helium balloons deflate more quickly than natural air balloons?--220.253.244.122 (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I was given the simple but highly credible explanation that it's because helium molecules are much smaller than air molecules (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) and so are more likely to sneak out through tiny holes in the rubber membrane of the ballon. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 is pretty much right on. See Graham's law. The rate at which a gas will move through a pore in the balloon is inversely proportional to the square root of the molar mass of the gas. In layman's terms, helium, at a molar mass of 4, is much smaller than the two main components of air, being nitrogen (molar mass 28) and oxygen (molar mass 32). Being smaller, helium atoms stand a better chance of escaping through the pores in the balloon than do the larger nitrogen and oxygen molecules in air. Thus, the helium in the balloon will escape much faster than a similar balloon filled with air. --Jayron32 06:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like that description. You presume that balloons have pores, but the same observation should hold regardless of whether the balloon actually has pores. Smaller molecules will diffuse (not just effuse) through the latex / foil of the balloon more quickly than large ones. My impression has been (perhaps erroneously) that it is diffusion and not effusion that is usually responsible for the deflation of (good quality) balloons. Dragons flight (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DF, maybe with really high quality well tied balloons which deflate over weeks not days. But the variability in rate at the end of a typical kids party makes me believe seaking through the knot is most likely in practise. --BozMo talk 13:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DF, you are just debating semantics now. If there is helium and/or air molecules moving through the baloon, there must be some spaces through which the atoms can fit. Those are, by definition, tiny little holes, or "pores", by any defintion of the word pore I have ever heard. They may be small enough as the interatomic spaces in the rubber crystal lattice. But they are still pores. Besides which, Graham's law applies equally to effusion and diffusion. It makes little difference. --Jayron32 03:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the confusion is the idea that Graham's law has to do with helium being "smaller". It doesn't. The point is, helium is lighter, which means that molecule by molecule, it is fasterwhen hammered with the same amount of kinetic energy. Wnt (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a semantic difference at all. Effusion assumes the existence of a small but permanent hole that the gas passes through. Diffusion of gas through a solid does not require any such holes, and occurs as gas molecules slip through the interatomic spaces in the solid lattice (see atomic diffusion). For large diffusing gases, this requires that the lattice vibrations open temporary spaces in the solid large enough for a single particle of gas to move by one lattice spacing. Hence diffusivity is strongly influenced by both mass and size. By contrast, effusion assumes that the permanent hole is much larger than the dimension of a single atom / molecule, and hence the rate of gas loss depends on mass but not on size. Graham's Law applies to effusion but does not apply to diffusion through solids. To give an example from my own research, the diffusive flux of He through solid ice is 5000 times faster than N2 due to He's much smaller size, but Graham's Law predicts only a difference of ~2.5 based on the difference in masses. Dragons flight (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go! --Jayron32 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would the rates of deflation of balloons filled with hydrogen and helium compare? H₂ weighs half that of He, but does the mono-atomic nature of He help it escape? -- 58.147.58.211 (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it will leave the balloon at a rate of the square root of (4/2) times faster, or roughly 1.41 times faster. --Jayron32 03:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When is an intron not an intron?

Why are introns called introns and exons called exons and not the other way around? The 'in' implies inclusion and 'ex' exclusion, right? Yet they're named in the complete opposite fashion. Nice one! >:( --129.215.47.59 (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well as our intron notes, the name derives from intragenic region (although could also be taken as intervening sequence or region). ~~While exon may seem unclear, in fact if you look at the ref which coined the term, exon doesn't seem to derive for anything in particular, it's just to differentiate it from intron~~ Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually exon stands for expressed sequence or region [3]. And it is actually mentioned in the ref that coined the term and in fact our article quotes the part, just that it doesn't directly specify it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I've updated our article to make it clearer [4] Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a atom?

Asked and answered, and OP blocked for vandalism. Nothing more to see here. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im looking for trustworthy information on atoms.

What are they? What are they made of? ect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.251.228 (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article on atoms? All of your questions are answered there, with additional information in the related articles. — Lomn 14:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article? It's very good, well written and well sourced. They are made of protons and neutrons, and are surrounded by electrons. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 14:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd phrase that "made of protons, neutrons, and electrons"; your phrasing better fits the nucleus — Lomn 14:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's just semantics but I equally agree with your description. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im looking for trustworthy information. Not wikipedia, everything hears made up ya know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.251.228 (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, our atom article is one of our featured articles, and is heavily referenced to external sources. Virtually everything there can be independently validated. Alternately, if everything here is made up, why are you trusting any answers we provide? — Lomn 15:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol - someone's trolling; best to ignore it.--Ludwigs2 16:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you die by choking on an ice-cube?

Could a healthy, average man choke to death on an ice-cube, or would it melt quickly enough to stop him dying? Icy Choke (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the inherent slipperiness of your standard ice cube would make it difficult to choke on without coughing it up or swallowing it, but I too am curious to see what the answer is. Googlemeister (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, one can choke on any solid object. Ice does not melt fast enough at body temperature for a cube to dissolve sufficiently to remove a blockage in the couple of minutes it takes to choke to death (try holding an ice cube in your fist and timing how long it takes to melt away - don't hold it for more than 15 minutes, however, or you risk a burn). --Ludwigs2 19:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have asked this question and have not received a good answer (for example, http://www.bannination.com/comments/5048545, http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070601192658AAjVdIw, http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=850649). I could not find any authoritative references on the matter (like from a .gov or .edu website). The two best references that I found both said that you could choke to death.

"Absolutely. You could easily suffocate before the ice cube melted if it were large enough and it were not dislodged by yourself or someone else. Source(s): Certified CPR, First Aid, AED Instructor." (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091022181815AAPYTwG)

Answer from Google Answers (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=141287)174.131.80.53 (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such choking will also induce a rush of adrenaline which will constrict the local blood vessels further, so slowing the rate of melting.--Aspro (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could constricting of blood vessels actually change the temperature in the throat enough to noticeably change the melting rate? Seems very unlikely. Beach drifter (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess yes when there's an ice cube there. Constricting blood flow probably has little affect on temperature when your throat is already at 37 C, but when there's a huge heat sink there, the rate at which heat is being brought in becomes pretty important. Rckrone (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is how long does it take an ice cube, big enough to choke on, to melt to the point where you can breathe again? If it's take so long you will be unconcious from lack of oxygen, that may well be enough to kill you. Where the melting water goes also matters as if it goes into you lungs it's not good. Whether that is a major factor when actually choking to death I don't know. How much water in your lungs does it take to drown?. Dry drowning and Laryngospasm may be relevant. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 02:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar and bleach

If you were to evaporate bleach, would it leave you with all of the oxidizers inside of it (e.g. sodium hypochlorite, sodium perborate, sodium percarbonate, and sodium persulfate)? And if you were to mix it with sucrose, would you get a large fireball as the oxidizers oxidize the sucrose? I saw an animation of this somewhere, of some sodium compound doing this with sucrose, but I couldn't find it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion of RefDesk Guidelines moved to talk page APL (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What talk page? I don't see anything. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, took me a couple of seconds. You're too quick for me. APL (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Chlorate and concentrated sulfuric acid (very dangerous!!!) and sugar = fireball and black residue. Sodium hypochlorite would convert to a mixture of sodium chlorate and sodium chloride as it dries. I was curious about the same thing--although I had no intention of creating a bomb. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sodium chlorate and sugar would blow up by themselves, but they can probably be ignited providing a mixture similar to rocket candy. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you get a fireball would depend on many factors, which I won't discuss for obvious reasons. Depending on the speed of the reaction, you could get an explosion, which is why any chemical safety manual will warn you against mixing strong oxidants with organic substances unless you are certain how the reaction is going to proceed. Physchim62 (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually attempted to dry a solution of bleach? I mean sometimes when I am sterilising some nasty kitchen stuff I leave a solution of bleach out for days. I suspect that evaporation favours the generation of chlorine and sodium hydroxide, really...water stabilises hypochlorite. John Riemann Soong (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't get solid sodium hypochlorite, no, people have tried and it's generally reckoned to be impossible. If you leave bleach out to dry, you will just drive off chlorine gas. Even if you choose cleverer ways of trying to remove the water, you just end up speeding up the disproportionation to chlorate and chloride. Physchim62 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought when hypochlorite was warmed it disproportionates. Then when it is boiled there is NaCl and NaClO3 left. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true: you make sodium chlorate in the same way you make bleach, but at 80ºC. But bleach will still slowly disproportionate at room temperature, and faster if you try to concentrate it. When I used to use bleach in the lab (for decontamining glassware covered with smelly sulfur compounds), I always stored the containers in the fridge to keep it as strong as possible. Physchim62 (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Solutions of up to 40% sodium hypochlorite are available, but solid sodium hypochlorite is not commercially used...Sodium hypochlorite solutions can liberate dangerous amounts of chlorine or chloramine if mixed with acids or ammonia. Anhydrous sodium hypochlorite is very explosive."[5] According to a MSDS sodium hypochlorite is hygroscopic,[6] so I don't think you should have to worry about a container of bleach drying out completely and exploding, even in the high desert, but I'm not offering any warranty. Of course if you're considering deliberately converting it into fireworks, there are lots of "anarchist cookbook" recipes, but obviously store-bought perchlorate is the better bet for safety. Wnt (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of warming bleach to about 80°C to make it disproportionate into chlorate and chloride, then boil it, more and more gently as it gets more concentrated, to make sodium chlorate and sodium chloride crystals. Sodium chloride is more than 3 times less soluble than sodium chlorate. That would concentrate the chlorate in the solution, which can be evaporated and dried. Anyway, this is an extremely tedious process that provides an impure result. 3 NaClO → NaClO3 + 2 NaCl --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I'm surprised — I just checked the TM 31-210 Improvised Munition Handbook and there's not a single recipe in it for hypochlorite, except to make a battery. Anyway, I'm not sure what the question is at this point. Wnt (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fiberglass

is there formaldehyde in fiberglass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kj650 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Formaldehyde is used for preserving things, and since fiberglass does not rot, I see no benefit it would give. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even a cursory reading of Formaldehyde#Uses makes it clear that it is used for more than just preserving things and has many, many applications in industrial resins, plastics, adhesives, and finishers. Please don't answer with baseless speculation and loose reasoning... --Mr.98 (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some fiberglass insulation is advertised as "formaldehyde free", but I don't know if their competitors have non-trace formaldehyde or not. APL (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Not in the fiberglass itself, but if it's being glued to anything, the adhesive is likely urea-formaldehyde based, a typical example being the backing on fiberglass insulation as well as the binder holding the insulation fibers together. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fiberglass" is often used to refer to glass-reinforced plastic (GRP), and some forms of GRP (there are lots of different forms) are based on formaldehyde resins. You shouldn't get much exposure to free formaldehyde from a finished product, although the manufacturing process can be quite nasty. Given that formaldehyde is high on the "Bad List" of common chemicals at the moment, I can see the advantage of advertizing your products as "formaldehyde free". Physchim62 (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need guidance In the following - Physics

I have done some work on relative motion but don't know to whom I should present for review therefore I need some help in this regard. Help may be advising websites. Please delete my question if it is against the rule.24.114.236.36 (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)khattak#1[reply]

The question is not against the rules, but it is impossible to answer without knowing a little bit about your work. If you could give a very short idea of what you have done, it would help. Looie496 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is new and totally different from laureates of conceiving a falling object in moving ship for an observer on shore.74.198.148.76 (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have a question about your idea...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - they're asking who they should contact to get their idea reviewed. Vimescarrot (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a journal to publish your work in, List of scientific journals in physics. However, the romantic image of the non-professional getting groundbreaking work published hasn't happened in about 100 years. Occasionally, you get something like the Mpemba effect or other amateur work, but usually it is very hard for someone who is otherwise uncredentialed and unproven to have their work published by a reputable source. The path of least resistance would be to work towards a formal education in physics, and to try to work with professors who study in the same area that you are interested in. --Jayron32 05:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our gripes about the bureaucracy and culture of academic research, but there is no substitute for learning the foundational skills in physics before you try to debunk them. Particularly, it would help if you knew the specific research that you believe your work counter-indicates. It will be hard to convince anybody that "all of published science is wrong" - what specific paper(s), book(s), or author(s) do you plan to update, improve, or replace? Of course, in order to answer this question, you will first have to read and understand many papers, books, and authors - in other words, formal academic training, preferably from an accredited university (but you can pursue any route you choose to educate yourself). Only after that learning stage is complete can you really begin to have a meaningful disagreement with some particular scientific norm (especially one that is well-established). People who have a reputation for excellence in the scientific community do get taken seriously when they present a new and different opinion or theory - but you have to work very hard to make that reputation by being consistently correct in other areas first. Attempting to discredit such a well-established concept as relativity will require an extraordinarily rigorous and overwhelmingly convincing piece of work. Nimur (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand all above but it's just a two page written work and probably an animation will take a couple of seconds to get into the crux but unfortunately I don't have computer skills at that level.

I can post my work on anyone personal talk page upon agreement. I'm upbeat they will also concur on my idea as I consider you all above and top pundits have the level of expertise and in this way I'll get confidence as well as green signal or may be not if unconvincing.68.147.41.231 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can put it here. At some point in the future I'll re-use that page but it's open for now. Franamax (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's posted now, here. I haven't examined the thesis in detail, but one thing that jumps out on first inspection is the term "gravitational lines" (GLs) - but I see no rigourous definition of what exactly a GL traces, so it's hard to go further. And of course if you do go further in your mathematical treatment it will be far beyond my own capacity to reason out. Anyway, there is the statement and others can comment at will. Franamax (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just my idea and an idea may not necessarily be true.74.198.148.70 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]