I know the air inside the lungs makes people float and just like that,the air inside a ship decreases the density of the total volume and hence makes the ship float.But what happens if you vacuum the air inside the ship and then seal it somehow,just like exhaling air from your lungs,does the ship sink cause the density of the total volume will just be the density of them metals inside the ship despite the airless big space in it?

Back in the early 60s I knew a man with a keen interest in science.  He   explained to me how he had developed an analogue memory which consisted of a shallow rectangular non-conducting dish filled with a super saturated solution of ? and with 2 rows of electrical contacts down opposite sides so that when an ac current of a particular frequency and waveform was made to pass from a contact on one side to a contact on the other side it set up a crystalised path with the waveform of the current. Many such waves could be set up in the same dish, even crossing each other which could then be used as wave "gates" for that particular frequency and waveform. I do not know what the solution was and I would guess that it would be rather sensitive to knocks and movement.

SInce light slows down in mediums, would it ever be possible to slow light down to a speed where a human could observe its movement?

If the 20th century insight that the universe is fundamentally discrete rather than continuous is agreed to be true, then why are ever more convoluted models of a continuous universe being pursued and applauded?

How does ice split an open vessel such as a galvanised watering can? Does the ice continue to expand after it is sufficiently solid to exert pressure on the walls of such an open vessel?

The Schrodingers cat experiment says the cat is still dead and alive at the same time because whether or not the cat is dead or alive has not been measured. I may have misunderstood the experiment- but why doesn't the cat seeing whether or not the vial has broken count as a measurement, even if it is only the cat who knows. The experiment implies a difference between the cat's consciousness and that of the human, which of course there is, but what is this difference and how do we know about the cat's consciousness?

Some have claimed that using a dimmer to slowly turn on or off an incandescent light bulb would (in a practical sense) allow it to last forever. At last check, there's some light bulb in a Northern California fire station that is said to be burning continuously for about a century.

An expert claimed to have some quantum mechanical explanation, but I never did hear it. Can anyone explain this phenomena in English? Has anyone seen a bulb blow out when not being turned on? (I think I've seen one blow out in the middle of usage -- after about ten minutes -- but I can't swear to it.)

In reading any classical description of the ‘Doppler Effect’ the question of the energy of a photon is never discussed.

The energy of a photon is E=hv. Where h = Planck constant and v = frequency. Ignoring Planck constant we can simply say the energy of a photon is equal to its frequency.

The ‘Doppler Effect’ states that the measured frequency of light at a receiver will be altered by the motion of the source or the receiver.

I can then rewrite the ‘Doppler Effect’ to read the measured energy of a photon will be altered by the motion of the source or receiver.

I am exploring the properties of waves when traveling thorough a transparent medium. I observed that when white light is shone through a prism the blue light refracts more than the red light in the spectrum. This is due to the interaction between the blue light and the molecules within that medium. 

I wish to know if anyone can give me more details the nature of this interaction.

A more through explanation as to why wavelength of the light effects the speed through a medium would be appreciated and any relevant laws or theories as this is a mystery to me.

Human beings have identified four fundamental forces of nature (the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and gravity), and it appears that these four fundamental forces enable us to account for everything we observe in the universe (including all matter – i.e. all particles and subatomic particles are understood to be stable manifestations of these four fundamental forces). It appears that all other forces observed in nature can be derived from these four fundamental forces.

If it is correct that Energy is defined not by what it is but by what it can do, then is it correct to assume that energy must be some measure of the fundamental forces of nature acting upon one another?

The fact that mass (such as matter) can be converted into energy (such as in a nuclear explosion) in accordance with Einstein’s equation suggests that everything we observe in the universe is simply the various stable manifestations of the four fundamental forces acting upon one another. If this is correct, then what is a force, exactly (i.e. what is a force, not what does it do)?

According to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy of a closed system always tends towards equilibrium (because an equilibrium state has a higher probability than any other) and the overall entropy always increases. Can energy (all forms including heat, potential energy, kinetic energy, chemical energy etc.) be explained and defined by the fundamental forces of nature tending towards equilibrium?