Science Questions

[Bjossi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Classification

[BTGBullseye]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Classification

Yes, but that still doesn't say the 'why'... The IAU has had significant opposition by some of the greatest astronomers out there concerning this issue.

[Dan-95]

@Smartguy

I wasn't suggesting time travel, just relative differences. Also, i wasn't aware of these advancements. Guess that's what happens when your school textbooks are from the early 90s -.-

Lets just eat cake.

 

@BTG

Small, barely has an atmosphere. Not really a big deal, just a classification.

[BTGBullseye]

@BTG

Small, barely has an atmosphere. Not really a big deal, just a classification.

But that still doesn't say why... The classification actually removes from "planet" status Earth, but I see no change there.

[WonSul]

A thread dedicated to answering questions related to science. Before we start, BTG and pro-evolution debaters, don't let it go there, please. In scientific context we shall refer to the theory of evolution as fact, don't bother debating this, my bottom point is that we're doing this just because it's more scientifically fun. Anyways...

 

Question: Can quantum entanglement violate causality?

 

I haven't worked with quantum mechanics in a while so forgive any mistakes.

If the pair of atoms are set up to send bits, then one person decides to travel near speed of light or hang out near a heavy mass and time moves differently for both, couldn't we violate causality by sending messeges?

 

You would be able to communicate to the future(and vice versa)

 

You could set up an experiment where while (future person) interacting with (past person in future{longer wait}) while sending a messege to past person in past not to interact.

 

So, what would happen or where did i go wrong? Or is this chopped up as an incompatibility between relativity andthe quantum world.

 

You seem to be assuming that time itself is moving differently for the two people in your experiment. That is incorrect. As the only thing moving differently is the rate of time that their respective clocks measure. example. you have two clocks, you leave one on earth and take the other and travel away from Earth at the speed of light. The Earth clock might read 10 years. While the light traveled clock will only read 1 year. Time didn't slow down for the one traveling, what slowed down is his clock. which is still calibrated for Earth conditions.

[ProHypster]

A thread dedicated to answering questions related to science. Before we start, BTG and pro-evolution debaters, don't let it go there, please. In scientific context we shall refer to the theory of evolution as fact, don't bother debating this, my bottom point is that we're doing this just because it's more scientifically fun. Anyways...

 

Question: Can quantum entanglement violate causality?

 

I haven't worked with quantum mechanics in a while so forgive any mistakes.

If the pair of atoms are set up to send bits, then one person decides to travel near speed of light or hang out near a heavy mass and time moves differently for both, couldn't we violate causality by sending messeges?

 

You would be able to communicate to the future(and vice versa)

 

You could set up an experiment where while (future person) interacting with (past person in future{longer wait}) while sending a messege to past person in past not to interact.

 

So, what would happen or where did i go wrong? Or is this chopped up as an incompatibility between relativity andthe quantum world.

 

You seem to be assuming that time itself is moving differently for the two people in your experiment. That is incorrect. As the only thing moving differently is the rate of time that their respective clocks measure. example. you have two clocks, you leave one on earth and take the other and travel away from Earth at the speed of light. The Earth clock might read 10 years. While the light traveled clock will only read 1 year. Time didn't slow down for the one traveling, what slowed down is his clock. which is still calibrated for Earth conditions.

Exactly what I tried to express in my diagram.

 

EDIT:

So here's a question, though it's not scientific, it's philosophical.

 

Why are we given (humans) choice in our daily lives?

[Blue]

Why are we given (humans) choice in our daily lives?

Choice is because we have a consciousness different from animals.

 

My definition for why this consciousness is different is because of purpose of life and existence as Stipulated by Christ.

[WonSul]

EDIT:

So here's a question, though it's not scientific, it's philosophical.

 

Why are we given (humans) choice in our daily lives?

 

what do you mean given?

 

Are you asking why we have to choose throughout life? well that's because life is pretty much just a constant stream of choices to make. It's not a why question, it's just a matter of fact really. Life is the choices you do or do not make.

Why does choice exist? because options/alternatives also exist. It's hard to have one without the other. And even not choosing is a choice. Like how an inaction is an action.

Of course by no means is choice exclusive to humans.

 

I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than that without turning into something unreasonable.

[ProHypster]

 

I'm sorry, I misstated, since this is a scientific thread, I asked sepcifically to the evolutionists/scientists

 

What we know: Evolution and Natural Selection = Progress. Humans are the smartest, the most "developed" animals on earth (Since we can destroy the earth with our power while no other animal can)

But we are also given choice unlike most/all animals.

Why did evolution and natural selection give us choice over death, sex... things that natural selection wouldn't give to other animals.

More then this, choice seems to be a close ingredient to chaos to nature itself. (Threat of Nuclear weapons, Greenhosue gas speed-up, wars, crime, abortions etc etc)

 

Why would nature make us so, that we destroy nature.

 

I know what choice means in the religions, philosophies... I asked the queston to evolutionists/scientists so I can hear their opinion.

 

To poster above:

 

Just change the question to why we have choice over things we shouldn't have choice over if you believe animals also have choice.

(Sex, Crime, Gluttony, Lies)

 

[Doom Shepherd]

We're only "smart" (more or less) because smartness was a survival characteristic for our ancestors. For some reason, being smart gave our ancestors an edge over their less-smart relatives. We're not the "most developed" life form, we're just adapted to our original surroundings.

 

It's very likely that if climate of the part of Africa where our ancestored originated hadn't changed, leading to less trees and more grassland, we would never have come down from them in order to forage for food, never needed to evolve the ability to walk upright (to see over high grass, and to avoid predators), and remained more physically and mentally like our ape cousins.

[WonSul]

I'm sorry, I misstated, since this is a scientific thread, I asked sepcifically to the evolutionists/scientists

 

What we know: Evolution and Natural Selection = Progress. Humans are the smartest, the most "developed" animals on earth (Since we can destroy the earth with our power while no other animal can)

But we are also given choice unlike most/all animals.

Why did evolution and natural selection give us choice over death, sex... things that natural selection wouldn't give to other animals.

More then this, choice seems to be a close ingredient to chaos to nature itself. (Threat of Nuclear weapons, Greenhosue gas speed-up, wars, crime, abortions etc etc)

 

Why would nature make us so, that we destroy nature.

 

I know what choice means in the religions, philosophies... I asked the queston to evolutionists/scientists so I can hear their opinion.

 

To poster above:

 

Just change the question to why we have choice over things we shouldn't have choice over if you believe animals also have choice.

(Sex, Crime, Gluttony, Lies)

 

We destroy nature because of people's desire to control the world around them. The lack of control is frightening, and the only solution people can think of is to control it. That way it's not as scary. Just try living in the wild without anything. The only thing under your control there is your actions. These so called higher end choices are due to intelligence, ability, and awareness. By being aware of the potential consequences and having the ability to carry out the actions. The choices become available to us. It's a consequence of knowledge and trying to implement knowledge. Even on the most basic of levels. Irrigation and farming. On a small scale does not hurt the nature around us. Yet large farms and clear cutting trees will cause the soil to blow away with the wind. Leaving behind a desert. We eliminate the very environment that sustains us by trying to progress and control it. Maybe it's ironic.

 

However by no means is chaos to nature exclusive to humans. If left unchecked a population of any animal could cause the environment they live in to be ruined forever or for just a very long period of time. Leave some deer on an island with no predators and plenty of food and they will all die from starvation after multiplying beyond the population their food can sustain. I suppose the only thing unique to humans is our ability to try to create a solution to the problems we ourselves cause. Both on the short term and on the long term. But those choices weren't given to us. We acquired them through hundreds of millions of evolutionary steps. Most prominently, when our brains became our strong point. I guess maybe Homo Habilis. but I'm no biologist.

 

As for crime, sex, gluttony, lies? They are a consequence of intelligence, society, and the desire to be better than those around you (competition for the highest chance of survival or the most pleasant quality of life). I'm not sure why you put sex in there though. I'd say indulgence and lack of self control is another explanation.

[ProHypster]

To the posters above:

 

This is all facts that don't explain us. By the way, I found them pretty weak, but that's my opinion.

I will rephrase my question then, I guess you didn't understand it.

 

Why do we have unecessary choice? Is choice, (taking evolution as a fact) going to dissapear through evolution since choice kills nature and us

[danielsangeo]

I would just like to take this time to express that while we're different from other animals, it doesn't mean that other animals do not have traits like we have....survival instinct, emotions such as love and hate, desire to control the environment around them, all of these and more appear in other animals.

 

To say that we are the "smartest" animals on Earth is a complete tautology because we measure "smartness" based on human intelligence. Of course humans have the best human intelligence. That's just silly. We have a DIFFERENT intelligence than other animals. We are a "higher" species, sure, but "smartest"? Really? I could even say that a great numbers of humans are stupid given human intelligence capabilities.

[WonSul]

To the posters above:

 

This is all facts that don't explain us. By the way, I found them pretty weak, but that's my opinion.

I will rephrase my question then, I guess you didn't understand it.

 

Why do we have unecessary choice? Is choice, (taking evolution as a fact) going to dissapear through evolution since choice kills nature and us

 

I can only give, at best, a weak answer to a weak question.

 

not that I think I'm wrong. why don't you try explaining what you think Unnecessary choice even means before you ask the question from everyone else here? To me it sounds like you're really grasping at a vague idea that shouldn't even be in this so called thread of "science".

 

The only way for human choice to disappear is for humans to become extinct. I don't know what your preconception of evolution is but it doesn't work the way your question is implying. Killing nature or the possibility to kill oneself are not factors that affect evolution. Why don't you try to explain why you believe that just because you think "choice can kill nature and us" that it's eligible to be removed via evolution?

[ProHypster]

Fine, don't answer the question, I won't ask any more "Weak questions" here.

But I don't want to ask science questions here either, boooring.

 

@Danielsangeo

Yeah I know what you mean, but I'm not going to post everything what you did and for the sake of clear communication I just said "smartest" in quotes.

 

And, of course we aren't the most developed either, we are equally developed, but "developed" by power/influence on nature values I meant.

 

EDIT: let's not bother clearing up every terminology untill it comes to a direct conflict where someone in the argument got the wrong term meaning.

 

I tried to clear every important term in the begining of Atheism: Philosophicaly redundant and people still misused them and got confused.

[Bjossi]

But I don't want to ask science questions here either, boooring.

 

Then please click the back button and let people interested in science have a science conversation.

[ProHypster]

I said, I don't want to ask them, not answer or contribute....

 

But really all science questions are answered, there's nothing to debate about in the science world, I'll just steal something from Encyclopaedia Brittanica

[Ecorp99]

I've got a theory on time travel. Tell me what you think of it.

It has been proven that space, or spacetime rather, bends. If a strand of spacetime were to be bended all the way around to create a loop, a wormhole could form, that would open up to a random point in the spacetime continum. If you were to go through the wormhole, you would be at whatever random point in time it opened up to, past or future. But say you did travel into the past or the future, you could not be a living human being, because either you have been born and there is already a you there, or you haven't been born and you can't exist. I've theorized that you would be something similar to a ghost. If you were to see your past or future self, there would be a paradox, and one way to solve it is for one of you to cease to exist. But what about this, say you went back and time and killed your grandmother, another paradox would be formed where either your grandmother and all future generations ceased to exist, or the whole family tree would cease to exist. Time travel is a tricky thing to understand, but could be possible. A machine that took a strand of spacetime and stretched it around to make a wormhole could be called a time machine. But you wouldn't be able to choose were you would go, and you would have to refill the supply of spacetime for every wormhole.

[BrainBlow]

*raises hand cautiously* I have a question. Why do men have nipples?

 

Sorry for not answering to your question, Dan-95.

Dunno if anyone answered this, but I think I can give a rough answer:

It is simply because female is the de facto gender. Evolution, baby! You get the nipples as an embryo even before your gender has been "chosen".

Before genders had really even evolved, organisms were female.

We still have such organisms today.

It simply sticks to us. Hell, men can actually produce milk. *flinch*

[danielsangeo]

If you do the research, it's very possible for men to lactate and nurse. (Oops, missed the last part of BrainBlow's post)