Science Discussion thread.

This is the thread where you can discuss, show, and give opinions on scientific matters, such as theories, hypothesis and thing defined by general consensus. You can also put forth your own hypothesis.

This is no place for religious debate, take those to Private Massages.

I would like to introduce the concept of space-time. Space time is generally accepted in the physics community and theories the "time" is a dimension, in a way similar to the three spatial dimensions we are used to. Time is also affected by gravity, and places with a strong gravity "slows down" time. Basically, if you would put a space ship in orbit around a black hole, time would have been slowed down enough that you would be able to "travel" forward in time. We can move in the three spatial dimension, we can move up, down, forward and so on, but "time" always moves forward, this is called "The arrow of time". Time is also dependent on so called "Time Frames". It says that if I stay still, and watches someone move in my direction, time for them goes "faster" and slower for me. On most levels, this has no direct impact whatsoever.

The theory of space-time has been explored a lot, and Einstein worked with it in his "theory of special relativity."


Not all of these discussions has to be about physics, chemistry and so forth, but try to keep away from pseudo-sciences.

I can't help but find the irony that a thread with potential for insane complexity was created by a 15 year old

I mean no offence, but the level of physics you will have from your schooling compared to the guys i know at uni is of minuscule proportions.. It's like measuring a tabby cat next to a lion :razz:

Sadly though I won't be able to contribute much to this thread, my specialty as a few of you know is in different field of science

I think you should clarify what 'pseudo-science' is, because there are many people who believe that things like sociology and psychology are fully fledged sciences of their own standing

Anyways- why do rainbows show up in perfect concentric layers of light, in the exact same colour every time?

go.

Serious_Much wrote:It's like measuring a tabby cat next to a lion

He never claimed he was anything other than a cat.

WhatDoesThePendantDo? wrote:

Serious_Much wrote:It's like measuring a tabby cat next to a lion

He never claimed he was anything other than a cat.

Lol I guess i kinda fell into that whole 'cat' thing you guys have been on about haha :razz:

Serious_Much wrote:I can't help but find the irony that a thread with potential for insane complexity was created by a 15 year old

I mean no offence, but the level of physics you will have from your schooling compared to the guys i know at uni is of minuscule proportions.. It's like measuring a tabby cat next to a lion :razz:

Sadly though I won't be able to contribute much to this thread, my specialty as a few of you know is in different field of science

I think you should clarify what 'pseudo-science' is, because there are many people who believe that things like sociology and psychology are fully fledged sciences of their own standing

Anyways- why do rainbows show up in perfect concentric layers of light, in the exact same colour every time?

go.

To be honest, I never thought I was anywhere near those that study it seriously, and I only plan to contribute to what little I know. I am more scientifically inclined then most my age. I thought there should have been a thread like this. If there is any kind of discussion I could contribute it´s probably religion or philosophy, and we know how that works out.

If I understand the rainbow question correctly, I think it is because different colors of light are different frequencies and different frequencies bends differently when reflected through raindrops.

What makes the Elements of Harmony so special?
jk

I like science, but I hate the math part of it.
How things happen is fascinating.

Bah, forgot to make this thread for you yesterday Doom. Ah well.

You mentioned putting a ship around a black hole. I don't know how well that will work, especially because a black hole is one of the most dangerous things in space. The ship would still have to be quite a few thousand miles away from it.

GrinTwist wrote:Bah, forgot to make this thread for you yesterday Doom. Ah well.

You mentioned putting a ship around a black hole. I don't know how well that will work, especially because a black hole is one of the most dangerous things in space. The ship would still have to be quite a few thousand miles away from it.

It is, of course, a hypothetical scenario and would only be possible if we had the means to withstand all the incredibly strong forces at work there, including the huge amounts of radiation it emits.

Of course, it all depends on the size of the black hole, you would only be in danger of "falling into it" if you pass into the event horizon.

Tehdoomgrasp wrote:

GrinTwist wrote:Bah, forgot to make this thread for you yesterday Doom. Ah well.

You mentioned putting a ship around a black hole. I don't know how well that will work, especially because a black hole is one of the most dangerous things in space. The ship would still have to be quite a few thousand miles away from it.

It is, of course, a hypothetical scenario and would only be possible if we had the means to withstand all the incredibly strong forces at work there, including the huge amounts of radiation it emits.

Of course, it all depends on the size of the black hole, you would only be in danger of "falling into it" if you pass into the event horizon.

Right my biggest concern was "falling into it", to be honest I think even with hour best technology years from now we would only be able to do it at a very small black hole.

@Grin A few thousand miles isn't very far for a black hole, seeing as they can engulf solar systems. Being close, I believe it would be inside of the event horizon, where it is impossible to see anything due to time and light being distorted and captured by the black hole. Though the time warping effect might extend beyond the event horizon, so I do not know exactly how close one would need to be.

@Vinyl I assume that is a MLP reference...

@Doom Yes, that part about the rainbow is correct. Also I am a firm believer in the relativity of time, where as someone might be going slower in it and another faster, so to speak. Someone playing a sport and waiting for the ball to get close to them will have time be going as a much slower pace then someone, say, reading a book, as the person reading the book would most likely have time fly by them. As far as that goes I am thinking that, concerning the human minds perspective, that we interrupt the passing of time based on the detail we are paying attention around us. So the sports player is paying attention to as many things as he possibly can, while the book reader is trying to not pay attention to anything but the book, which would explain the difference in their perspective of time at that moment. Though, from a standpoint of a third person perspective whereas we are all passing through time at a pretty constant and even rate, I am very iffy about that. Everyone must go through time at an even pace, or else you would see one person aging only a day in the time span of a month, and another person aging a few years in the time span of a month. So, at this point I am thinking of time as this thing that mainly is a constant effect in our universe, altered only by gravity, and our minds taking different perspectives of it depending on what our frame of mind is at the moment.

GrinTwist wrote:

Tehdoomgrasp wrote:

GrinTwist wrote:Bah, forgot to make this thread for you yesterday Doom. Ah well.

You mentioned putting a ship around a black hole. I don't know how well that will work, especially because a black hole is one of the most dangerous things in space. The ship would still have to be quite a few thousand miles away from it.

It is, of course, a hypothetical scenario and would only be possible if we had the means to withstand all the incredibly strong forces at work there, including the huge amounts of radiation it emits.

Of course, it all depends on the size of the black hole, you would only be in danger of "falling into it" if you pass into the event horizon.

Right my biggest concern was "falling into it", to be honest I think even with hour best technology years from now we would only be able to do it at a very small black hole.

On a side note, the technical term for falling into one is "spaghettification".

Even then there is concern for the amount of radiation that is emitted. Today we have a hard time containing it, and the amount of all electromagnetic radiation that a Black Hole radiates are far far "Stronger" then anything encountered on Earth.

In fact I believe that even if humanity survived long enough for technology to withstand the gravitational forces in the vicinity of a black hole, they would never be used in any effective way... Now worm-holes though...

SirArchmage wrote:@Grin A few thousand miles isn't very far for a black hole, seeing as they can engulf solar systems. Being close, I believe it would be inside of the event horizon, where it is impossible to see anything due to time and light being distorted and captured by the black hole. Though the time warping effect might extend beyond the event horizon, so I do not know exactly how close one would need to be.

Yeah I realize that, I was just putting a random number out there

To be honest, I'm going on what I know about the subject at hand and I'm sure it would be quite a while away from the black hole. How long a way? I have no idea, I'm not all to competent at the subject.

We don't even measure distance in space by miles, we tend to go by parsecs.

Spoiler:

well the rainbow things because of light refraction, and actually the bands of color aren't the same every time, they do vary in thickness also nowadays the color can actually vary a bit due to air pollutants... as for why light refraction works the way it does... hell if I know

First, let's define theory, hypothesis, and law: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

It seems a bit counter-intuitive. Hypothesis is an idea. Once it has been thoroughly vetted and confirmed by other observations, independent tests, etc, it turns into a theory.

A theory is pretty much assumed to be the pinnacle, basically it is a "fact", to the absolute best of our ability to know. An example is Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Law is very similar to theory. Except a theory often answers the question "why".

Science admits we will never know something to an absolute certainty.
In fact, that is what makes it powerful. Since nothing is 100% certain,
it is always up for scrutiny, and proving something wrong is as
important as proving a new hypothesis. The reason this is so important is once you feel you know everything, you stop seeking new answers or questioning the answers you have. You cease to grow.

reim0027 wrote:First, let's define theory, hypothesis, and law: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

It seems a bit counter-intuitive. Hypothesis is an idea. Once it has been thoroughly vetted and confirmed by other observations, independent tests, etc, it turns into a theory.

A theory is pretty much assumed to be the pinnacle, basically it is a "fact", to the absolute best of our ability to know. An example is Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Law is very similar to theory. Except a theory often answers the question "why".

Science admits we will never know something to an absolute certainty.
In fact, that is what makes it powerful. Since nothing is 100% certain,
it is always up for scrutiny, and proving something wrong is as
important as proving a new hypothesis. The reason this is so important is once you feel you know everything, you stop seeking new answers or questioning the answers you have. You cease to grow.

Thank you, I was just about to define that. There is a large amount of people that think that because, for example the theory of evolution, if called a theory there is doubt among the scientific community about it.

Now you can of course believe what you want about evolution, but if you do not believe it at least know enough about it to criticize it.

Edit: Most things are able to become black holes by compressing them into small enough place. Any object has a so called "Schwarzschild Radius." Anything compressed into something smaller than it will become a black hole.