Things about science and nature you find interesting

[oktalist]

Yes but as I said to the other fellow, that success doesn't actually mean much when we are trying to explain how it got there. Look at the examples of bees I gave. You know what north is. You know what a mile is. So if I told you to head 5 miles north you would know where to go. But only because you have been to a school/otherwise had education on this. Bees don't have that. They do a little dance which tells other bees the exact direction and distance of good flowers. How do the bees know this 'language'? Has it evolved? If so how? The queen isn't involved in this dance, and the drones all die without reproducing?

The [edit][del]drones[/del] workers[/edit] are all exact clones of each other, containing copies of one of the queen's two sets of chromosomes. Hence the colony can be thought of as a single individual, with the workers being autonomous appendages of the queen. See gene-centric evolution, below. It's literally a "hive mind," and explains, along with everything else, why bees and other social insects will so readily die in the defence of their nest; from the individual's perspective, there is no difference between her death or her twin sister's death, as her behaviour is defined by her genes and as such is adapted to propagate those genes. [edit]Communication between worker bees/ants (by pheromones, dance, or whatever) evolved in basically the same way as communication between human sense organs, brain and muscles (by electrochemical impulse), because worker bees/ants in the same colony all have the same genes just like the cells in your body all have the same genes.[/edit]

I think ants are my favourite animal for these reasons, and also because they account for between 15 and 25 percent of all land animal biomass; how's that for dominance? ;-)

But one thing is important to remember: indidivuals do not evolve. Species evolve. In the case of ants and wasps, some individuals sacrifice their own genes for the benefit of the whole species. It's like pure communism.

This is where you are going wrong. This is the exact opposite of the theory of natural selection. Species don't evolve, families do.

Almost there. Species, families and individuals all clearly evolve, but only as a side-effect of genes evolving. Genes are the base unit in animal evolution and any attempt to explain the evolution of some trait will be incomplete if not seen from the perspective of genes. It explains among other things, altruism; individuals of the same species in close geographic proximity are likely to share many of the same genes, so a behaviour that benefits another individual of the same species will be selected for if it is not significantly detrimental to the individual exhibiting the behaviour, because statistically it is [edit]somewhat[/edit] beneficial to the propagation of her genes, and her genes define her behaviour. This effect is especially pronounced for close relatives in a family unit.

 

[KaiRai]

Almost anything the mythbusters do

This.
Also, under the sea. It fascinates me so much if I see anything even closely relating to it I'm glued to the TV till it's finished
And Loch Ness. Oh god I love Loch Ness

 

[Ajna]

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.

That's erm not how it works.

Me and a physics major already went through that particular arguement on pages 1 & 2 of this thread...

 

[Sgt Doom]

The sheer mind-boggling scale of the universe.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Biological immortality interests me. Animals that can only be killed through trauma.

I think that is the story behind the elves in Lord of the Rings.

 

[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 know what your doing and i love doing it, your just arguing to argue even though you agree with me lol. its fun, but its also fun being on the other side for once.

Who is the all powerful one then?

Well, that depends on who you ask. A catholic would say "God", a muslim would say "Allah", it's a matter of who you are talking to.

I personally am an Agnostic. Because that is a very broad group, here's what my specific belief is: I believe that there is some higher intelligence, or at least, there was one that created the big bang. I feel that they, for whatever reason they choose, have let the system remain shut from their interference since then. I do not, however, believe that any one religion is correct, because there is no way for them to prove that they have the correct answer. I instead refer to "God/the gods" as "Hojo". Just my catchall term for any God/gods that may exist.

My personal theory on life is this: Say there's a pie in front of you. Does it matter who baked the pie, or not, assuming that you've received permission to eat the pie? Up until someone breaks this perfectly good analogy with a comment of "what if it's poisoned?", I say "No, it does not matter, now please leave me and the pie in peace."

Postscript: Also, you were correct. I love to debate... I'm trying to help a teacher at the local High School get enough kids together for a competitive debate team. Inter-school style. Very fun, by all reasoning.

 

[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

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 know what your doing and i love doing it, your just arguing to argue even though you agree with me lol. its fun, but its also fun being on the other side for once.

Who is the all powerful one then?

Well, that depends on who you ask. A catholic would say "God", a muslim would say "Allah", it's a matter of who you are talking to.

I personally am an Agnostic. Because that is a very broad group, here's what my specific belief is: I believe that there is some higher intelligence, or at least, there was one that created the big bang. I feel that they, for whatever reason they choose, have let the system remain shut from their interference since then. I do not, however, believe that any one religion is correct, because there is no way for them to prove that they have the correct answer. I instead refer to "God/the gods" as "Hojo". Just my catchall term for any God/gods that may exist.

My personal theory on life is this: Say there's a pie in front of you. Does it matter who baked the pie, or not, assuming that you've received permission to eat the pie? Up until someone breaks this perfectly good analogy with a comment of "what if it's poisoned?", I say "No, it does not matter, now please leave me and the pie in peace."

Postscript: Also, you were correct. I love to debate... I'm trying to help a teacher at the local High School get enough kids together for a competitive debate team. Inter-school style. Very fun, by all reasoning.

Ah but God and Allah are the same thing. Just named differently. They all translate to the same person and or creator.

I am also agnostic but my belief of it is that "God" created the big bang which caused all of us to be here but does it care no, not really. I just believe in a higher power and that is it.

Debates are fun but especially fun when you face a bigot right?

 

[oktalist]

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.

That's erm not how it works.

Me and a physics major already went through that particular arguement on pages 1 & 2 of this thread...

And the result of that was, you can use time dilation to effectively travel forward through time faster than usual, but not backward.

Also, I have a problem with this effect that no-one seems to have twigged: surely the equivalence of inertial reference frames means that a spaceship travelling away from Earth at .9c is equivalent to the Earth travelling away from the spaceship at .9c, so it is equally correct to say that both (a) the spaceship aged 1 day while the Earth aged 500 years and (b) the Earth aged 1 day while the spaceship aged 500 years.

 

[hopeneverdies]

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.

So what if i went that speed around the world in the opposite direction of Earth's rotation? Could I go back in time?

 

[Ajna]

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.

That's erm not how it works.

Me and a physics major already went through that particular arguement on pages 1 & 2 of this thread...

And the result of that was, you can use time dilation to effectively travel forward through time faster than usual, but not backward.

Also, I have a problem with this effect that no-one seems to have twigged: surely the equivalence of inertial reference frames means that a spaceship travelling away from Earth at .9c is equivalent to the Earth travelling away from the spaceship at .9c, so it is equally correct to say that both (a) the spaceship aged 1 day while the Earth aged 500 years and (b) the Earth aged 1 day while the spaceship aged 500 years.

I'm sorry, but statement (b) just is not making sense to me there...

 

[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 know what your doing and i love doing it, your just arguing to argue even though you agree with me lol. its fun, but its also fun being on the other side for once.

Who is the all powerful one then?

Well, that depends on who you ask. A catholic would say "God", a muslim would say "Allah", it's a matter of who you are talking to.

I personally am an Agnostic. Because that is a very broad group, here's what my specific belief is: I believe that there is some higher intelligence, or at least, there was one that created the big bang. I feel that they, for whatever reason they choose, have let the system remain shut from their interference since then. I do not, however, believe that any one religion is correct, because there is no way for them to prove that they have the correct answer. I instead refer to "God/the gods" as "Hojo". Just my catchall term for any God/gods that may exist.

My personal theory on life is this: Say there's a pie in front of you. Does it matter who baked the pie, or not, assuming that you've received permission to eat the pie? Up until someone breaks this perfectly good analogy with a comment of "what if it's poisoned?", I say "No, it does not matter, now please leave me and the pie in peace."

Postscript: Also, you were correct. I love to debate... I'm trying to help a teacher at the local High School get enough kids together for a competitive debate team. Inter-school style. Very fun, by all reasoning.

Ah but God and Allah are the same thing. Just named differently. They all translate to the same person and or creator.

I am also agnostic but my belief of it is that "God" created the big bang which caused all of us to be here but does it care no, not really. I just believe in a higher power and that is it.

Debates are fun but especially fun when you face a bigot right?

Debates are less fun when you face a bigot, because they notice you're having fun, and try to stop that. I've argued with two types of Creationists: Those who respect other beliefs, and those who did not. It was only fun with those who did.

Also, the bit about God and Allah being the same thing...

That was kind of my point. >.<

 

[Ajna]

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.

So what if i went that speed around the world in the opposite direction of Earth's rotation? Could I go back in time?

Uhh... No.

Though, you can make a day last longer (by your perspective) by hopping across timezones. The book "Ringworld" opens up with a guy doing this, making his 200th birthday last longer than 24 hours.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

The idea that the universe was possibly a black hole the size of an atom when it began is rather amazing.

 

[Danny Ocean]

I'd have to say the big bang, I mean nothing explodes and produces everything. One teeny problem I have with it though, how does nothing at all actually explode?

That's not it. Everything was concentrated to a single point, or singularity, which then expanded outwards with a massive outpouring of matter.

There's no explosion involved.

[del]Black[/del] dark matter...

Can't be seen, can't be felt or tampered with, can't be contained by anything man made..

Who says it can't be felt, tampered with or contained?

I was going to say, it's just a catch-all term for matter we can't see, isn't it?

 

[Danny Ocean]

Double. Sorry, I'm tired.

 

[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

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 know what your doing and i love doing it, your just arguing to argue even though you agree with me lol. its fun, but its also fun being on the other side for once.

Who is the all powerful one then?

Well, that depends on who you ask. A catholic would say "God", a muslim would say "Allah", it's a matter of who you are talking to.

I personally am an Agnostic. Because that is a very broad group, here's what my specific belief is: I believe that there is some higher intelligence, or at least, there was one that created the big bang. I feel that they, for whatever reason they choose, have let the system remain shut from their interference since then. I do not, however, believe that any one religion is correct, because there is no way for them to prove that they have the correct answer. I instead refer to "God/the gods" as "Hojo". Just my catchall term for any God/gods that may exist.

My personal theory on life is this: Say there's a pie in front of you. Does it matter who baked the pie, or not, assuming that you've received permission to eat the pie? Up until someone breaks this perfectly good analogy with a comment of "what if it's poisoned?", I say "No, it does not matter, now please leave me and the pie in peace."

Postscript: Also, you were correct. I love to debate... I'm trying to help a teacher at the local High School get enough kids together for a competitive debate team. Inter-school style. Very fun, by all reasoning.

Ah but God and Allah are the same thing. Just named differently. They all translate to the same person and or creator.

I am also agnostic but my belief of it is that "God" created the big bang which caused all of us to be here but does it care no, not really. I just believe in a higher power and that is it.

Debates are fun but especially fun when you face a bigot right?

Debates are less fun when you face a bigot, because they notice you're having fun, and try to stop that. I've argued with two types of Creationists: Those who respect other beliefs, and those who did not. It was only fun with those who did.

Also, the bit about God and Allah being the same thing...

That was kind of my point. >.<

lol.

 

[oktalist]

Also, I have a problem with this effect that no-one seems to have twigged: surely the equivalence of inertial reference frames means that a spaceship travelling away from Earth at .9c is equivalent to the Earth travelling away from the spaceship at .9c, so it is equally correct to say that both (a) the spaceship aged 1 day while the Earth aged 500 years and (b) the Earth aged 1 day while the spaceship aged 500 years.

I'm sorry, but statement (b) just is not making sense to me there...

Physics doesn't have to make sense.

It's the logical conclusion that comes from realising that "spaceship travelling 'north' while everything else stationary" is the same as "spaceship stationary while everything else travelling 'south'".

 

[Spacelord]

Talking about counterintuitive shit: the theory of evolution.

I mean. LOOK AT FUCKING CEPHALOPODS. HOW DOES NATURE RESORT TO SUCH ABOMINATIONS?

Also, I tried reading A Brief History of Time several times. Usually on the bus. It usually ended up with me reading a page or two, then staring out the window utterly flabbergasted by the implications for half an hour...

 

[Ajna]

Also, I have a problem with this effect that no-one seems to have twigged: surely the equivalence of inertial reference frames means that a spaceship travelling away from Earth at .9c is equivalent to the Earth travelling away from the spaceship at .9c, so it is equally correct to say that both (a) the spaceship aged 1 day while the Earth aged 500 years and (b) the Earth aged 1 day while the spaceship aged 500 years.

I'm sorry, but statement (b) just is not making sense to me there...

Physics doesn't have to make sense.

It's the logical conclusion that comes from realising that "spaceship travelling 'north' while everything else stationary" is the same as "spaceship stationary while everything else travelling 'south'".

I'm pretty sure physics does have to make sense. I think congress passed a law regarding it in '86.

But yeah, it still doesn't make sense. If the earth had only aged one day, then how is it that 500 years worth of time still passed for the people on it?

Is there any "For further reading" postscript you can add for me?

 

[pffh]

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.

That's erm not how it works.

Me and a physics major already went through that particular arguement on pages 1 & 2 of this thread...

Ah sorry didn't see that. Seems he has explained everything I'll just go and be useless in the corner.