Things about science and nature you find interesting

[Ajna]

the fact that science disproves Creationism. Go Evolution!!!!

Now if we could just figure out how it all started in the first place. Seriously, where'd the first single cell organism come from? It'd be interesting to know.

Actually, we're reasonably sure we know this. To simplify it: Electric currents in the water caused some elements to combine, forming protein strands. These eventually became DNA, which slowly, as it mutated, turned into...

I forget which single celled species. It was some form of prokaryote, I recall. The entire reason for sex was actually a mutation of this, because when carnivores came about, they had no genetic difference, and were all just as doomed. Eventually, some mutation made a few cells exchange DNA in their children, and a few of these children lived better than their parents.

At least, that's what the theory of evolution states. There are many theories, including one that claims that "seeds of life" are spread throughout the galaxy, and any of these can begin the process if they reach an area with the right conditions (water, oxygen/CO2, etc.). If you've played the game Spore, the opening cinematic of the falling meteor shows this (though the developers originally intended to include a pre-cell stage that would be played similar to "Tetris" and would show the molecular theory I talked about earlier).

 

[traceur_]

I find water tension to be quite fascinating, how the "jesus christ" lizard is capable of running across water, and if you have a drop of water on a desk or something, gently put the point of a pencil into the water, the water "jumps" up the pencil, it's quite cool.

 

[Ajna]

ah but i never said that science had proved evolution. just that it disproved creationism. And you KNOW that is true. correct?

In what way has it disproved creationism? Check out the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Though it's intended as a satire, it's true: For all you know, an omniscient being created every bit of physics there is, and then figured they'd stay out of it. Think of an ant farm: You put all of the stuff there: Dirt, food, an area to live, ants, etc. But you just leave it there and watch. You don't really interfere unless something bad happens (e.g.: The container breaks).

Again, I'd like to point out: I support evolution. I just think that saying "Science disproves creationism" is a statement that is ridiculous. Also, I have what is called "Opposition Defiance Disorder". I like to take the opposite side of arguments. Makes things interesting.

 

[traceur_]

Again, I think evolution is correct, but science hasn't proved it correct yet, and who are you to say what is the correct answer?

It's 42, by the way.

what the hell is 42?

 

[I_LIKE_CAKE]

Similar to the Theory of Relativity one, but a bit more specific:

Because the faster you go, the slower time goes for you, theoretically, there is a speed you can reach where time would actually appear to flow backwards to you. E.G.: Time Travel. Because of that whole "Fly 500 lightyears away, then come back" bit, which means you could go 1000 years in the future and age a day, this means you'd be able to come right back, too. Naturally, we can't actually reach these speeds, but the concept is cool.

Mainly because I'd go 1000 years into the future, swipe something cool, and come back and claim to have invented it. If your head just exploded, that's okay.

Um....That's not quite how it works. Time dilation occurs when observers moving in different inertial frames of reference obtain different(though equally valid) measurements for an interval of time. Time moves slower for an object moving at relativistically significant speeds, that is significant when compared to the speed of light, than it does when compared to something moving at lesser speeds or at rest. So, if you get on a space ship, take off at nearly the speed of light, then turn around and come back, you may have experienced only a short trip, but to an observer on Earth, you will have been gone for far longer. Note that neither answer is more correct than the other, they are both right.

You will have moved through time at different speeds, but the forward direction is inescapable. In order for you to actually go back in time, you would need to move faster than light, which is impossible according to the foundations of Relativity.

Actually, time dilation is observable at speeds much less then C, some very cool experiments have been done, and time dilation has to be taken into account by GPS satellites.

Now as to the actual thread, I think the fact that light doesn't actually reflect off of surfaces is very cool. What we perceive as reflection is actually photons being absorbed by electrons, and then the electron vibrating to give off a new photon. This electron-photon interaction are how EM waves actually "reflect" and travel through matter.

 

[Ajna]

Again, I think evolution is correct, but science hasn't proved it correct yet, and who are you to say what is the correct answer?

It's 42, by the way.

what the hell is 42?

It's a reference to an old book: "The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy". Immortalized in Internet culture for... Well, ever.

Basically, an alien race that exists on a much higher dimension than ours created a super computer so that they could finally answer the question "What is the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything?" The computer then set about its task, and a large expanse of time later (it was in either the millions or billions of years, I can't recall. The point being it was a long time.), the oh-so-great-grandchildren of the people who asked the question returned to the machine and asked for The Answer. The machine replied with "42", and that it was unable to give the question. A better computer needed to be built (this being Earth). Tragically, the new computer was destroyed minutes before giving The Question.

 

[Raziel_Likes_Souls]

Mixing Scientific sodium and water.

 

[Ajna]

Um....That's not quite how it works. Time dilation occurs when observers moving in different inertial frames of reference obtain different(though equally valid) measurements for an interval of time. Time moves slower for an object moving at relativistically significant speeds, that is significant when compared to the speed of light, than it does when compared to something moving at lesser speeds or at rest. So, if you get on a space ship, take off at nearly the speed of light, then turn around and come back, you may have experienced only a short trip, but to an observer on Earth, you will have been gone for far longer. Note that neither answer is more correct than the other, they are both right.

You will have moved through time at different speeds, but the forward direction is inescapable. In order for you to actually go back in time, you would need to move faster than light, which is impossible according to the foundations of Relativity.

Actually, time dilation is observable at speeds much less then C, some very cool experiments have been done, and time dilation has to be taken into account by GPS satellites.

Now as to the actual thread, I think the fact that light doesn't actually reflect off of surfaces is very cool. What we perceive as reflection is actually photons being absorbed by electrons, and then the electron vibrating to give off a new photon. This electron-photon interaction are how EM waves actually "reflect" and travel through matter.

Two things:

1) It is possible to travel faster than light. Several particles have been found with that ability. For a human to travel that fast? Not so much.

2) What I said is true. Somebody a while back figured that once you passed a certain point, time stopped "slowing down" (from your perspective), and started "rewinding" (from your perspective).

 

[wwjdftw]

i find relativitey, space time, anything by einstien, and atoms quite fascinating. Just imagine, everything you touch, no matter what it is is made up of trillions upon trillions of tiny particles held together loosly. the computer your on, only works beacse the copper atoms in the sodders have the ability to trasnfers electrons intesnly fast. The apple you ate for breakfst, only tasted sweet because some elements hooked up and formed a simple sugar. The reason your toenail is gone out on the pavement. because the concrete had more mass due to i bonding with other atoms, and the atoms in your tissues were not as strong as the concrete was. even WE are made of little particles everythinng all of these particles bonded together to form tissue that eveolved into something that is living and breathing, and more importantly CONCISE.

it can totally BLOW YOUR DAMN MIND if you apply it to your life offten

 

[supermaster1337]

ah but i never said that science had proved evolution. just that it disproved creationism. And you KNOW that is true. correct?

In what way has it disproved creationism? Check out the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Though it's intended as a satire, it's true: For all you know, an omniscient being created every bit of physics there is, and then figured they'd stay out of it. Think of an ant farm: You put all of the stuff there: Dirt, food, an area to live, ants, etc. But you just leave it there and watch. You don't really interfere unless something bad happens (e.g.: The container breaks).

Again, I'd like to point out: I support evolution. I just think that saying "Science disproves creationism" is a statement that is ridiculous. Also, I have what is called "Opposition Defiance Disorder". I like to take the opposite side of arguments. Makes things interesting.

yes but im talking about the creationism in which we were created 5000 years ago i believe it says. We definately know that is not true, im not denying that something may have created us but 5000 years ago. I dont think so.

 

[I_LIKE_CAKE]

snip

1. Several particles have been [em]theorized[/em] to have the property to always move faster then C, none have been observed, as it would be difficult to detect something moving faster then C.

2. The point to which you refer happens to be the speed of light in a vacuum. In order to take and object and accelerate it to the speed of light, you need infinite energy. as the velocity of a particle nears C, you need exponentially increasing amount of energy to further increase the speed. What has been observed, is that as you get very close to C, velocities stop increasing, and any further energy added causes the mass of the particle to increase.

Now if you want to talk about Quantum Mechanics, different rules apply, and it is possible for a particle to appear to move faster then light, because in quantum, it is possible for a particle to move from one point to another without passing through the intervening space [em]or[/em] time.

BTW before you reply, you should know you are arguing with a physics major.

 

[Ajna]

ah but i never said that science had proved evolution. just that it disproved creationism. And you KNOW that is true. correct?

In what way has it disproved creationism? Check out the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Though it's intended as a satire, it's true: For all you know, an omniscient being created every bit of physics there is, and then figured they'd stay out of it. Think of an ant farm: You put all of the stuff there: Dirt, food, an area to live, ants, etc. But you just leave it there and watch. You don't really interfere unless something bad happens (e.g.: The container breaks).

Again, I'd like to point out: I support evolution. I just think that saying "Science disproves creationism" is a statement that is ridiculous. Also, I have what is called "Opposition Defiance Disorder". I like to take the opposite side of arguments. Makes things interesting.

yes but im talking about the creationism in which we were created 5000 years ago i believe it says. We definately know that is not true, im not denying that something may have created us but 5000 years ago. I dont think so.

Those statements are contradictory. And the first of the two is false.

We do not "definitely" know that is not true. We have evidence that supports that. But if an omniscient deity can create the planet, why can't they put set amounts of Carbon-14 in the earth to make different objects appear to be older than they are?

Also, the second of them is false, too. If the first statement you made in the above pyramid quote ("ah but i never said that science had proved evolution. just that it disproved creationism. And you KNOW that is true. correct?") is your belief, you obviously are denying that something created us 5000 years ago.

Also, I believe the number is 6000, not 5000. [Insert "What does the scanner read?" joke here]

 

[Ajna]

BTW before you reply, you should know you are arguing with a physics major.

In that case, I'm not going to bother arguing. I've had arguments about politics with drunk polish people (RE: The left half of my family), and know when I can't win. The extent of my knowledge of physics is basically "A briefer history of time". The book Stephen Hawking wrote when he realized most of us are too dumb for "A Brief History of Time".

 

[supermaster1337]

ah but i never said that science had proved evolution. just that it disproved creationism. And you KNOW that is true. correct?

In what way has it disproved creationism? Check out the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Though it's intended as a satire, it's true: For all you know, an omniscient being created every bit of physics there is, and then figured they'd stay out of it. Think of an ant farm: You put all of the stuff there: Dirt, food, an area to live, ants, etc. But you just leave it there and watch. You don't really interfere unless something bad happens (e.g.: The container breaks).

Again, I'd like to point out: I support evolution. I just think that saying "Science disproves creationism" is a statement that is ridiculous. Also, I have what is called "Opposition Defiance Disorder". I like to take the opposite side of arguments. Makes things interesting.

yes but im talking about the creationism in which we were created 5000 years ago i believe it says. We definately know that is not true, im not denying that something may have created us but 5000 years ago. I dont think so.

Those statements are contradictory. And the first of the two is false.

We do not "definitely" know that is not true. We have evidence that supports that. But if an omniscient deity can create the planet, why can't they put set amounts of Carbon-14 in the earth to make different objects appear to be older than they are?

Also, the second of them is false, too. If the first statement you made in the above pyramid quote ("ah but i never said that science had proved evolution. just that it disproved creationism. And you KNOW that is true. correct?") is your belief, you obviously are denying that something created us 5000 years ago.

Also, I believe the number is 6000, not 5000. [Insert "What does the scanner read?" joke here]

I wasnt sure how many years ago that is why i said i believe.

And i was stating that yes im denying that something created us or anything 5000 years ago because we/earth/other are definately older.

i guess scientists could do that but do you honestly believe that.

and dont worry the power is not over 9000 lol

 

[Ajna]

ah but i never said that science had proved evolution. just that it disproved creationism. And you KNOW that is true. correct?

In what way has it disproved creationism? Check out the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Though it's intended as a satire, it's true: For all you know, an omniscient being created every bit of physics there is, and then figured they'd stay out of it. Think of an ant farm: You put all of the stuff there: Dirt, food, an area to live, ants, etc. But you just leave it there and watch. You don't really interfere unless something bad happens (e.g.: The container breaks).

Again, I'd like to point out: I support evolution. I just think that saying "Science disproves creationism" is a statement that is ridiculous. Also, I have what is called "Opposition Defiance Disorder". I like to take the opposite side of arguments. Makes things interesting.

yes but im talking about the creationism in which we were created 5000 years ago i believe it says. We definately know that is not true, im not denying that something may have created us but 5000 years ago. I dont think so.

Those statements are contradictory. And the first of the two is false.

We do not "definitely" know that is not true. We have evidence that supports that. But if an omniscient deity can create the planet, why can't they put set amounts of Carbon-14 in the earth to make different objects appear to be older than they are?

Also, the second of them is false, too. If the first statement you made in the above pyramid quote ("ah but i never said that science had proved evolution. just that it disproved creationism. And you KNOW that is true. correct?") is your belief, you obviously are denying that something created us 5000 years ago.

Also, I believe the number is 6000, not 5000. [Insert "What does the scanner read?" joke here]

I wasnt sure how many years ago that is why i said i believe.

And i was stating that yes im denying that something created us or anything 5000 years ago because we/earth/other are definately older.

i guess scientists could do that but do you honestly believe that.

and dont worry the power is not over 9000 lol

Again: In what world is an omnipotent being capable of creating existence incapable of making amounts of Carbon-14 be higher than they "should" be? They could have created the universe "as-is" a few thousand years ago, but made it so that everything appeared to trace backwards to a different beginning. If I was all-powerful, I'd screw with people's minds like that.

 

[I_LIKE_CAKE]

BTW before you reply, you should know you are arguing with a physics major.

In that case, I'm not going to bother arguing. I've had arguments about politics with drunk polish people (RE: The left half of my family), and know when I can't win. The extent of my knowledge of physics is basically "A briefer history of time". The book Stephen Hawking wrote when he realized most of us are too dumb for "A Brief History of Time".

I will take the comparison to a drunk Pole as a compliment, and I am glad to see a fellow Escapian with a broad love of science. Gook luck with the evolution argument, you've got it in the bag.

 

[Skeleon]

I like how evolution always finds a way to fill an open niche with life.
Think of deserts or hot pools, snowy mountain-tops or the deepest reaches of the oceans.
Also, things like Australia and the Galapagos Isles where evolution took a slightly different turn because of their isolation. I love the huge variety of animal and plant life this enabled.

 

[Ajna]

BTW before you reply, you should know you are arguing with a physics major.

In that case, I'm not going to bother arguing. I've had arguments about politics with drunk polish people (RE: The left half of my family), and know when I can't win. The extent of my knowledge of physics is basically "A briefer history of time". The book Stephen Hawking wrote when he realized most of us are too dumb for "A Brief History of Time".

I will take the comparison to a drunk Pole as a compliment, and I am glad to see a fellow Escapian with a broad love of science. Gook luck with the evolution argument, you've got it in the bag.

If you ever get into an arguement with a drunken polish person over politics, you'll lose. That's one of the few things I've learned in life.

 

[Dommyboy]

I find heavy water to be quite interesting. Experimenting with it would be quite awesome.

Call me a n00b but what is heavy water?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water

Google and Wikipedia are your friends here.