BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Stupid Science Questions 2

 
  

Page: 1 ... 678910(11)12131415

 
 
Henningjohnathan
20:32 / 15.09.06
I'm looking at humanity more as a set of genetic material. Really, from the individual to the superorganism to the media (technology, cities, industry, art) we invent and use, it is all driven by the genetic impulses, capabilities and limitations. Until we create something that develops independent of that biological motor, it all rests on the genes. Cities are driven by citizens; literature exists to be read; tools are simply objects until we use them and we seem to be the tools of the genes.
 
 
sn00p
16:48 / 16.09.06
"Not the end point of evolution. The end point of evolution by natural selection."

No i think if a species could fully control DNA it would reach an end point. I wasn't talking about humans, because we have nowhere near that kind of technology. Imagine a species that could turn itself into a "super survivor", and then increase it's intelligence by massive amounts, and then feed that intelligence back into the process, i think eventualy you would arrive at the ultimate being for surviving in our universe.

I'm not saying this is a fact, it just seems like a logical end point to DNA based life.
 
 
Axolotl
16:25 / 17.09.06
Except that DNA doesn't have an end point or act logically. It's easy to fall into the trap that evolution is progressing towards something when in fact survival is its only aim.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
18:02 / 17.09.06
Or is that the only observable purpose we can state definitively based on certain scientific parameters? It coule be a bit reductionist to say that other purposes are absent simply because they don't fit into a basic empirical rationale. Just as it is a limited point of view to say that the human organism's entire purpose is to survive and reproduce.
 
 
Mirror
00:58 / 18.09.06
From a scientific standpoint it's hard for me to identify anything other than reproductive success that might qualify as being a "purpose" for the existence of the human organism; perhaps my view is somewhat colored by a recent read of "The Selfish Gene." That is to say, I'm not sure we have any other externally determined purpose; the purpose to which we decide to put our existence is something else altogether.

To go headshoppy for a minute, doesn't the notion of purpose presuppose a purposer?
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
13:48 / 18.09.06
from a point of view based more on math or probability, evolution doesn't have to have anything to do with DNA. on a small scale evolution is random and in fact even goes back and forth over the same ground, showing "regression", depending on what is going on in the environment which the lifeforms are adapting to. however, if you zoom way, way out to a timeline something along the lines of "age of the universe", it might well be that the apparent randomness flattens out and you can see a general trend. the simple way to say it is, things which are more likely to be around, are more likely to be around. as time goes on, you are more and more likely to see things that are very, very good at adapting or very, very hard to kill. if we (or whoever) somehow loaded our conciousnesses into diamond asteroids and floated them around in the empty places between galaxies where nothing bad ever happens, our lifespans might end up getting measured in millions of years. lifeforms which live for millions of years are, statistically speaking, more likely to be there when you sample life in the universe at a random time than lifeforms which survive for a day. in this sense, evolution could be said to have an "endpoint" - namely that, assuming such a thing is possible, any lifeform which manages to reach a point where it is functionally immortal and/or very good at adaptation is not going to need to evolve into anything else.

it doesn't require a mind directing it's purpose any more than entropy requires one to go in one direction.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
13:52 / 18.09.06
I had a question about GR: as I understand it, curved space-time, which is another way of saying "gravity", has its own energy. according to e=mc^2, energy is in some way equivalent to mass. so in other words, when something is heavy and makes a gravity well (like a planet), the gravity itself is more energy which is more mass which adds to the weight of the planet which curves spacetime more. the effect is small because the c^2 factor is big, but in a black hole, if I understand correctly, space-time ends up becoming "infinitely" curved at the singularity. how then can we talk about the mass of a black hole as a finite number? am I wrong about the infinite curvature? or is this one of the reasons people say that the laws of physics "break down" at the singularity?
 
 
grant
14:37 / 18.09.06
I'm a little confused by your question -- it might be useful, to start with, to review some of the earlier comments in here about gravity (it's not exactly an "energy" the way things like light, heat, radiation and electricity are).

It also might be useful to think of the mass of a black hole in terms of size -- the "hole" (or folding-outward, or pinhole in space-time) has a certain size related to its mass.

If you know the rubber-sheet analogy for gravity curving space-time, then the mass of the black hole would be related to the size of the hole in the rubber sheet (and the steepness of the curvature leading into it).
 
 
Axolotl
17:04 / 18.09.06
I didn't say humans' only aim is reproduction and survival, I said DNA's only aim is survival. You could argue that they're one and the same, but I'd argue that's definitely reductionist.
In fact isn't it a bit suspect to talk about the purpose (in the sense of intention or desire) of a bunch of chemicals?
As a semi thread-rotty aside, if we uploaded our conciousness into diamond asteroids/immortal robot bodies/ clouds of nanites, haven't we just in fact made DNA redundant? It would then fail in its task of passing on copies of itself as we wouldn't be doing so. Either way we are probably slipping out of the realms of the Lab and into murkier waters.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
18:11 / 18.09.06
However, can you really even claim that DNA's its only aim is survival? Right now, I think that describes what it does, and it makes sense that chemical reactions that replicate themselves will naturally outlast those that do not, but I don't think we have enough information to absolutely define the complete aim or purpose for any aspects to life since they are connected to and underly vast permutations (such as all of human civilization).
 
 
grant
19:14 / 18.09.06
This might be a good time to start a new thread on evolution and the destiny of DNA.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
13:51 / 19.09.06
Possibly, that would be an interesting topic. Really, though, and I'm not trying to get into a semantic argument, I think that scientific pronouncements like "the only aim of" or the "purpose" of some aspect of nature is as much an act of faith as religious belief and obviously would rankle those who hold religion beliefs. Really, DNA's replication is a function of the chemical process - is a function likely to be the sole purpose or is it an assumption to claim it is?
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
16:03 / 19.09.06
hmm, I had a look in both stupid science questions and didn't really see anything on gravity I haven't seen before.

I am (somewhat) famililar with general relativity and I do (somewhat) understand the idea of curved space and how it's not exactly the same as a "force" model...but still, it provides energy to falling objects and obeys laws of thermodynamics and things. anyway, I didn't make up the idea of curved space-time having mass, I read it somewhere...guess I'm going to have to figure that out and come back with it.

I could try to start the evo thread, if work quits giving me things to do.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
19:03 / 19.09.06
Does it provide energy per se? Is falling in space an energetic act?

I think the big problem is reconciling the view of gravity from a relativistic perspective with a quantum perspective. If gravity is a "warp" in spacetime, then what is the quantum "substance" of spacetime that is bending?
 
 
Mirror
13:42 / 20.09.06
Falling is not an energetic act - it is the conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy. No energy is actually gained or lost; this is the problem that prevents the creation of gravitationally powered perpetual motion machines.

Now, a gravitational field can be used to transfer kinetic energy from one body to another: this is the principle behind how we use large planets as gravitational slingshots to accelerate space probes. We just transfer a tiny fraction of the planet's orbital momentum to the satellite.
 
 
Quantum
12:39 / 23.09.06
curved space-time having mass

Mass-energy tells space-time how to curve, the curvature of space-time tells mass-energy how to move. Space-time cannot have mass I'm afraid.

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html

The main features of General Relativity are:

1. Space and space-time are not rigid arenas in which events take place. They have form and structure which are influenced by the matter and energy content of the universe.
2. Matter and energy tell space (and space-time) how to curve.
3. Space tells matter how to move. In particular small objects travel along the straightest possible lines in curved space (space-time).

(Note the above descriptions of General Relativity are due to John Wheeler.)
 
 
Quantum
13:58 / 23.09.06
I think the big problem is reconciling the view of gravity from a relativistic perspective with a quantum perspective

That's the Holy Grail of physics right now, the TOE- Theory Of Everything.
'Quantum gravity is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify quantum mechanics, which describes three of the fundamental forces of nature, with general relativity, the theory of the fourth fundamental force: gravity. The ultimate goal of some is a unified framework for all fundamental forces—a "theory of everything".'
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
20:42 / 24.09.06
Erm... Sorry if this has been asked before, but...

Can an individual's personal home computer be easily hacked from the outside (i.e. without another physically touching their hard-drive [etc])? And I mean: MAC and/or PC; whether online or not.

Of course, there are any number of reasons why a hacker would even bother to hack an individual, and I personally do not believe I'd warrant such attention. However, how would one know if this had happened/is happening?

Afterall, "Forearmed is forewarned", or whatever the saying is.. Plus, this might come in handy one day for my own narrative-related purposes, so...

So, what signs can/should one look out for? Any linky's (etc) that might help me. I'm fairly shit at computer-type stuff.

(I also hope this is the right thread to ask this in.)
 
 
nameinuse
07:30 / 26.09.06
paranoidwriter - A PC or Mac can be cracked (us geeky types use "hack" to describe something that's made to work in an unexpected way and is usually a positive thing, wheras "crack" means to gain unathorised entry to a system) over a network, whether that's the internet or your home wireless connection, or even, conceivably-but-not-realistically, Bluetooth or something like that.

It'd be very hard to gain access to a machine that wasn't connected to any network at all. The best you could hope to do was snoop on the data currently being accessed, and even that would be remarkably ropey (really paranoid places like the CIA have such sensetive machines used in rooms with embedded Faraday Cages, but for normal computer use that's the equivalent of a tinfoil beanie).

The two most likely methods of infection are surfing to a malicious web page with a browser whose weakness the page was designed to exploit (normally this means IE, but not always), or opening an email attachment that takes advantage of some weakness in windows, or pretends not to be a program when actually it is (e.g. picture.jpg.exe). It's very unlikely, unless you've aggravated a script kiddie in IRC, that someone would deliberately try and crack your machine specifically. Most attacks work in the same way that spam does - they rely on a gullable few falling for the trick.

Any specific attack on your machine would look for software that was running on it which could be contacted over the network, and try to exploit a known weakness in the program to give the remote user more control of the machine than was intented by the program.

The best way to know is to monitor what's going on via your firewall - if there are connections happening that you didn't make yourself and that can't be traced to a bit of software you installed, or that is part of the OS (and there are lots of things like that which do connect from time to time) then there could be something dodgy going on.

Stopping infection in the first place is the best bet, though. Good virus protection, up to date software, all appropriate patches, a well set up firewall and a removal of the desire to open every email attachment recieved is as close as you can get to a guarantee of safety. If you do this, you can sleep soundly in the knowledge that your computer is very unlikely to be compromised, as there's always lower-hanging fruit.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
09:50 / 26.09.06
Thanks, nameinuse, especially for taking the time to type such a detailed, informative, polite, and considered reply. Yours is really cool advice (IMO): I'll be sure to take it on board and I'll also use it to help me research a story I plan to write (hopefully) at some point in the near future.

Many, many thanks, comrade.
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:50 / 26.09.06
I'd add: a weakness of current internet mail technology is that any address at all can be put as the "from" part of the mail. Lots of spam does this, making it appear that the mail originated from somewhere other. I guess its main advantage is that the bounce /& undeliverable reports get dumped towards whoever catches mail for the domain name spoofed into the "from" field. So getting 'mail undeliverable' reports for emails that you didn't send isn't a sign of your machine having been cracked, only a sign that your address got onto some spammer's list.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
09:57 / 26.09.06
And thanks also, to Saturn's Nod. I got an Email from accounts@paranoidwriter.com once: freaked me the fuck out: "I have an accounts department and they're Emailing me?!" Mind you, I'm stupid enough to open SPAM that has the word "hello" in the subject title.
 
 
nameinuse
08:12 / 27.09.06
I'd missed out on mail and security completely, Saturn's nod, thanks for adding that in.

I should have said that everything that's sent in an email (including the username and password you log on to the mailbox with if you're using normal POP or IMAP) is sent in plain text, and thus can be read by anyone packet sniffing (i.e. looking at the communication between the two computers) at the time. Therefore email account passwords should never be high security ones (that you share with other uses), and you should consider the privacy of an email roughly equivalent to that of a postcard.

Like lots of internet stuff the mail systems were originally intended for a small, closed, academic network where no-one considered that anyone would want to use anything maliciously, at lest beyond the level of a practical joke. This has proved to be somewhat of a weakness in the design of the internet.

paradnoidwriter - Thanks, glad I could be of service. Your story sounds interesting, let us know how it goes.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
09:52 / 27.09.06
naminuse, in my humble and "Jacob of all trades" opinion, you type STRONG TRUTH! I owe you a big favour -- a long story, which I can't explain here, on this open forum.

Seriously, I owe you something nice. If I ever become a money-rich person, there will be a postcard coming to you in the post, followed (hopefully) by a huge "piss-up" in your honour, paid for by yours truly (of course). 'Twill be my pleasure.

And that bit about "academia" and the origins of this system made my jaw drop. Literally. Class. Again, cheers, comrade.
 
 
HCE
16:14 / 27.09.06
Am doing a short presentation on the temporal and occipital lobes. Will cover basic structure & function. Do you know of anything interesting or curious that I should include?
 
 
grant
16:57 / 27.09.06
Everything I know about them is interesting or curious. Try using the fancy search for "transcranial magnetic stimulation." Turn on or off bits of the temporal lobes, and all kinds of weird states follow.

Perception. Identity. Recognition.
 
 
grant
19:24 / 27.09.06
I don't want to let on how familiar this seems (from a page on temporal lobe lesions) :
There is a temporal lobe personality. There is an emphasis on trivia and the small details of daily life. There is egocentricity, pedantic speech, perseveration of speech, paranoia, religious preoccupations and a tendency to aggressive outbursts, especially after right temporal lobectomy. Perseveration is when there is a continuous but futile attempt to produce a word or perform an action long after others would have given up or tried a different approach.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
17:14 / 19.10.06
Yay stupid science questions! I just had a fleeting thought, which I’m hoping someone can enlighten me on. Mammal bones are filled with bone marrow, which create new blood cells, which is good, since blood cells don’t last all that long. But what about birds, who have hollow bones? As I understand it (and I could be wrong), their bones are hollow to make them light weight and therefore capable of flight. So do they just have much less bone marrow proportionately than mammals do? Are blood cells formed somewhere else for them? How does that all work? I’m just curious.
 
 
grant
18:05 / 19.10.06
Mad Scientists have an answer

Birds do have "hollow" bones which are lighter for flight. They are lighter, however, because they have more cancellous bone and less cortical bone. It is in the cancellous bone, which is a honeycomb-like network criss-crossing the bone, where red blood cell production takes place. This network results in a very high surface area to maximize production of red cells.

You can check this for yourself by breaking open a leg bone next time you eat chicken. Chickens may not fly too much, but their bones are just like those in birds that do fly.


It's true. Chickens got marrow.
 
 
Spyder Todd 2008
18:32 / 19.10.06
Well all right then. So they loose some of the density that weighs more but keep the important blood cell-creating marrow. That makes sense. Thanks, grant!
 
 
Mirror
19:04 / 19.10.06
The fact that red blood cells are generated in bone marrow has always intrigued me. Inside of a bone casing is arguably the most secure place in the body - the only other major organs to get such treatment are the brain and spinal cord. What's more, the production of blood cells is distributed throughout the body whereas the nervous system is centralized. So, production of red blood cells has the most protected and fault-tolerant system in the body, and yet mammalian red blood cells don't have a nucleus and thus don't contain any DNA (except for mitochondrial DNA). From an evolutionary standpoint, I find this very weird.
 
 
ORA ORA ORA ORAAAA!!
22:19 / 29.10.06
Just wondering something which is pretty dumb, but I'm interested to know: if the speed of light relative to you is always C, no matter your own velocity, is it possible to decompose light's vector into many C components?

That is, if light is going away from you at 45 degrees from north, for instance, and you could measure the distance between the first particle and your x axis, and your y axis, would both distances be increasing at C/second?

It seems that they must be, from the fact that if you were moving along x at C yourself, light must still be moving along y at C away from you. And so on.

But then you've got two vector triangles with a right angle and two 45 degree angles and three equal sides each.

what? probably I am very wrong, but any clarification would be great.
 
 
Quantum
01:27 / 31.10.06
You're right in a way. If you are travelling at 0.9c on a supertrain, a supercar travelling 0.8c alongside at an angle will have a component vector of c. It's counterintuitive, but remember you can't be going at C, it's impossible (you'd have infinite mass).

But then you've got two vector triangles with a right angle and two 45 degree angles and three equal sides each.

No because you can't go at c, but stranger things have happened and that's the least of youur worries.
 
 
SiliconDream
01:14 / 07.11.06
That is, if light is going away from you at 45 degrees from north, for instance, and you could measure the distance between the first particle and your x axis, and your y axis, would both distances be increasing at C/second?

It seems that they must be, from the fact that if you were moving along x at C yourself, light must still be moving along y at C away from you. And so on.


But once you're moving along x or y, you're not in the same reference frame anymore, so your measurements won't be valid for the original observer O1 staying at the origin. In particular, if you're moving at C along the x-axis, spatial contraction compresses the universe down to a single vertical line, so while you *would* see light as moving along y at C (in the infinitesimal instant your journey took from your reference frame), that would provide O1 with no information whatsoever; all light rays move along that axis from your perspective.

Now you go along the x-axis at only C/sqrt(2), keeping pace with the light ray's horizontal component, so you don't get you'll still report that the light ray is moving directly upwards at C. But since you're moving relative to O1, your time is dilated by a factor of exactly 1/sqrt(2), as it turns out. So from O1's POV all your speed measurements are going to be sqrt(2) times faster than they ought to be. Correcting for that, O1 will conclude that the vertical component of the light ray's velocity is only C/sqrt(2), as it should be.

Geometry is saved!
 
 
jentacular dreams
10:09 / 08.11.06
Why would I have infinite mass if travelling at C when a photon is capable of maintaining a substantially slimmer figure?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 678910(11)12131415

 
  
Add Your Reply