Things about science and nature you find interesting

[Ajna]

the shortcomings of and predictability of human nature is funny

And that, kids, is what we call irony in the form of a faulty parallelism. Y'see, when you mix a description that is one tense with another, it creates a faulty parallelism. And when the topic of the sentence is why humanity is a failure, why... It's just amusing, it is.

 

[Lukeje]

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

Call me a n00b but what is heavy water?

I think its water with an extra oxygen particle. Or is it hydrogen? I don't know, its one of those.

Neither. It's water with deuterium instead of hydrogen; i.e. water with two extra neutrons.

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?

It doesn't 'explode' it 'expands'. An explosion would require a centre, whereas expansion occurs at every point relative to every other point. And if you think that empty space is actually empty, you should look up quantum electrodynamics (QED) that shows that empty space actually has a non-zero zero-point energy.

 

[Oopsie]

My first real mind boggler was the way colours work. It asthonished me.

 

[DrummerM]

I find octopi rather interesting to learn about.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I like all nature personally. Anything that lives, I love and am interested in.

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

Is there a way that statement isn't trolling?

Also: (Please note, I support the Theory of Evolution, so take this with a grain of salt) Evolution is, by definition, a theory. There are several kinks in the theory, such as the evolution of the eye. In order for an eye to work properly, several parts of it must develop simultaneously. Just as an example: The eye itself, rods and cones (not necessarily both, but most likely), the optic nerves, the section of the brain that would interpret these signals, and the eye socket. Alone, none of these give an advantage over the lack of them, so if, say, a creature were born with eye sockets, but nothing in them, it would likely die. It may even be more likely to die, because the socket would be an easily contaminated area. Basically, the idea of the eye evolving, and in probably millions (I say "probably", because I don't want to look for the actual number) of species, is currently ridiculous, because the point where all species that have evolved some form of eye converge... Well, they didn't have eyes back then.

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.

Evolution of certain insect families also defy explanation and throw doubt onto theories of natural selection, specifically the Apocrita and Isoptera families. Basically, these animals have evolved so that most of their population can't breed (drones, workers, soldiers etc). If evolution is fueled by the ability of one creature to pass on its genetic material to the next generation, how does an animal evolve by specifically not passing on its genes?

 

[Sevre]

I like Physics.

 

[ix_tab]

Exoplanets! I've been fascinated with astronomy since I was a kid, andd the discovery of solar systems other than our own is so goddamn awesome. I love learning about the different sorts of planet types that exist, like the 'hot Jupiter' planets, massive gas giant planets that orbit closer to their sun than Mercury does to ours.

It's mindboggling!

 

[AhumbleKnight]

How in aircraft cooling systems they use super heated vapor to cool liquid!

I love anything that explains how things work. Science is mind blowingly awesome. But the one thing that puts me in a state of awe more than anything else is how wonderfuly miniscule and not even worth mentioning our planets entire history is in the grand scheme of things.

Bring on the Total Perspective Vortex, I will die with a smile on my face

 

[Davey Woo]

A crocodile (maybe alligator too) will never, EVER outgrow the body of water it lives in.
I don't know if they shrink if they move to a smaller pool though.

Also, you know you're always told to run in zig-zags from crocodiles? Well they're learning! They'll follow you in a straight line if they catch on to what you're doing.

 

[Skeleon]

Evolution of certain insect families also defy explanation and throw doubt onto theories of natural selection, specifically the Apocrita and Isoptera families. Basically, these animals have evolved so that most of their population can't breed (drones, workers, soldiers etc). If evolution is fueled by the ability of one creature to pass on its genetic material to the next generation, how does an animal evolve by specifically not passing on its genes?

Well, this is comparable to our drive to preserve our relatives' lives more than strangers'.
"The egotistical gene" makes us protect not only our own kids but our relatives' with fervor because their genetical sequence is very similar to our own.
Or you can consider those individual animals as external limbs of the main animal, the queen, protecting and serving her like your hand serves you. Your hand doesn't procreate either, does it? Successfully, I mean.
I don't see how these examples cast doubt on evolution, it's simply a way of procreation that is very different from our own that has proven successful as well. (Most) bacteria don't have sex (or the single cell equivalent thereof) either and they procreate just fine. That's the beauty of evolution, we (as all of nature) are not limited to one, single solution to a specific problem.
By the way, drones do breed. It's their only purpose in life.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Electromagnetism

 

[Gilrond]

I think that fractals are really amazing.

I agree with you on that. I'd tike to add Time too, everything about it

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Evolution of certain insect families also defy explanation and throw doubt onto theories of natural selection, specifically the Apocrita and Isoptera families. Basically, these animals have evolved so that most of their population can't breed (drones, workers, soldiers etc). If evolution is fueled by the ability of one creature to pass on its genetic material to the next generation, how does an animal evolve by specifically not passing on its genes?

Well, this is comparable to our drive to preserve our relatives' lives more than strangers'.
"The egotistical gene" makes us protect not only our own kids but our relatives' with fervor because their genetical sequence is very similar to our own.
Or you can consider those individual animals as external limbs of the main animal, the queen, protecting and serving her like your hand serves you. Your hand doesn't procreate either, does it? Successfully, I mean. I don't see how these examples cast doubt on evolution, it's simply a way of procreation that is very different from our own that has proven successful as well. (Most) bacteria don't have sex (or the single cell equivalent thereof) either and they procreate just fine. That's the beauty of evolution, we (as all of nature) are not limited to one, single solution to a specific problem.
By the way, drones do breed. It's their only purpose in life.

My hand is not a seperate entity to me. Bacteria do reproduce, and have sex (it is called asexual reproduction). The genetic sequence of your relatives might be similar to yours, but your relatives have not evolved to be specifically unable to breed, simply to help you raise your kids. Your examples bear no relationship to the questions raised by those animal groups, and thus the questions surrounding how natural selection could produce them remain.

 

[vxicepickxv]

Bacteria do reproduce, and have sex (it is called asexual reproduction)

Actually, the whole asexual reproduction is reproduction without having sex. the letter a in front of some terms basically is like saying not. asexual is a word. Another one is atheist, as opposed to theist.

Come to think of it, the evolution of languages is kind of neat too.

 

[Skeleon]

My hand is not a seperate entity to me. Bacteria do reproduce, and have sex (it is called asexual reproduction). The genetic sequence of your relatives might be similar to yours, but your relatives have not evolved to be specifically unable to breed, simply to help you raise your kids. Your examples bear no relationship to the questions raised by those animal groups, and thus the questions surrounding how natural selection could produce them remain.

First of all, I said it's comparable. Of course it's not the same. Imagine you're sterile, say through an accident, your drive to protect your relatives' kids will still remain. Again, that isn't the same thing, I'm just trying to make an example that is remotely similar to the way it is for these insects.

Second, no, it's called asexual because it's asexual = without sex = a splitting of a cell into two cells. Also, I said "(most) bacteria" for a reason, there are some that have sex-pili which allow for the transference of genetic material from one bacteria to another (even across species), granting advantages to this cell. For example, sometimes genes coding for the resistance against antibiotics are transferred this way. However, this isn't really sex, either, since it's only the transfer of genetic material without creation of offspring.

Spoiler: Picture of sex-pili

I can't understand wherein exactly the problem lies. There are queens and drones (females and males) that procreate the species and there are workers and soldiers that protect them and help them procreate by defending them and providing them with food.
It works. Imagine the queens who, by some genetic defect, cannot create soldiers. Their hives are, for example, destroyed by another species which the soldiers would've protected them from. The queens die.
They cannot procreate new queens.
Therefore, the genetic trait "cannot-breed-soldiers" dies out.
The soldiers serve a function which is indirectly still linked to procreation. They are not the animals procreating but, obviously, during the evolution of this species, they were essential to it through the protection they provided against other animals.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

They are not the animals procreating but, obviously, during the evolution of this species, they were essential to it through the protection they provided against other animals.

Exactly, the animals that are essential for the survival of the species have evolved to die out without breeding. The 'laws' of natural selection dictate this species should die out, as it is the species has been remarkably successful by defying genetic natural selection altogether. So how does this state of affairs continue?

Look dude, you want to argue about this and say it's all been explained you are talking to the wrong guy. Go argue with the evolutionary biologists who are struggling to explain this [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119075542/HTMLSTART]. I am sure they will be thrilled to find out that you have the answers.

 

[lenin_117]

Electromagnetism

What about electromagnetism? As a word it isn't that crash hot and we're not here to discuss words. ARGH! Tell us an interaction you think is the best thing since toast!