Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sordid]

You know animals can tell when natural disasters are coming, and are often able to avert them?

Say what? How?

We are the only creatures with a brain incapable of doing that

The fact that plenty of animals die during natural disasters would seem to indicate you're wrong on that one.

We will look death in the face just to stay where we are.  We didn't use to.

The fact that people try to get the hell out of there when a disaster warning is issued would seem to indicate you are wrong on this one too.

[G-Flex]

Funny, I thought humans were perfectly capable of anticipating and averting natural disasters sometimes. Or is the National Weather service nonexistent?

Also, it's incredibly naive and foolish, quite frankly, to say any animal "is the only animal" to be unable to do something, because then the other group includes everything from chimps to sloths to ants.

Animals don't have magical earthquake sensors either. And for the record, humans in general would be better at intuitive knowledge of weather/other natural patterns if we actually tried to be instead of relying on technological solutions all the time.

[LegoLord]

Not all of them.  And we didn't always have a hurricane warning system as good as we do now.  We have to rely on technology to know one is coming.

And animals can migrate.  They tend to do that when their current environment is unsafe.  Oh, I see, you're thinking of domestic animals.  No, those are locked up with people.  Wild animals aren't.

G-Flex, that is not how things work.  A blind fish does not just try to see, and then become better at it.

[Sordid]

Last time I checked plenty of wild animals died during natural disasters, too.
I've seen nothing really solid to support the idea that animals can sense impending disasters, but even if they can so what? Human senses are total crap. Pick a sense and there is a lot of creatures in the animal kingdom that can outperform you in it by several orders of magnitude. So what exactly is your point, where are you going with this, LL? How is it relevant to the discussion?

[Andir]

And for Wiggles... I don't want to get into an argument on observational study again, but how can we be absolutely certain that light doesn't ever slow down and/or have a wavelength that is visible for the first 1 billion billion billion billion... kilometers?  I still feel as though we don't have the information needed to make a definitive rule on what the properties and rules of light and matter are... yet.  Speculate all you want.  So will I.

Ever listen to Richard Feyman lectures?

We also don't need absolute knowledge. One of the assumptions which science works under that that the rules are the same everywhere. The rules are same at ever time. Gravity pull is the same in New York in 1945 as it is at Pluto in 4356.

Since science seem to be working, these assumptions are holding.

There has yet reason to show these assumptions are false. We know from a variety of reason that time and space is relative and its relation to the speed of light. Plenty of nice videos on you tube. I can readily foster one up explaining red shift, though its in the context of rebuttal to creationist claims. There also this great series explaining general and special relativity.

We can do some cool stuff with knowing that c is constant. We can do some cool stuff like using gravitational lensing effect to use a group of stars to see further into space. They act like a focusing lenses.  Yes, the laws of the universe may not be the same everywhere. For now, it really really really seems like they do.

I never said rules were different depending on where you are... but relativity (as in it's strictly relative to our finite view) kicks in when you think that light could be emitted and die off after a period of travel.  We possibly can't see it or assume that the universe is only so big because we cannot technically observe it happening.  Light speed could be a constant from our POV like the car traveling past you on the highway is traveling twice as fast as you.  You also have to precision.  If light speed is slowing or speeding up at minute fractions, we may never observe it because we lack the tools precise enough to measure it.

It's also all about your point of view and I think our point of view is still miniscule even though distance in space is calculated in the time it takes for perceived light to travel.  For all we know, that red star off in the distance is not the edge of the universe, but the beginning of a something that refracts that light.  Hell, as far as I know, aether could be real and that's what's causing the close stars to appear blue and the far red shift to happen.  Yeah, I know attempts have been made to detect it and I've read many... many scientific theories (theories!) on all aspects of our universe, but I still think we lack the ability to measure the "big picture" and assuming that there was a big bang that caused all and solves all answers is a bit naive.  I don't believe the big bang was the beginning, the end, or the middle.  It may have happened, it may not.  And I don't believe a wizard in the space did it all either.

Also, if you like to believe that one formula solves all, then why do Einstein's theories bump up against Quantum theory?  Why do Atoms behave different from Planets?

It's sort of like how we don't know the true value of PI.  We can make measurements with an estimated value of such and get a close estimate, but until we can find that last digit of PI, we can never know it's true properties.  Light speed is an estimated value.  There's no precise number to define that speed.  Who's to say it's truly constant?

[G-Flex]

Not all of them.  And we didn't always have a hurricane warning system as good as we do now.  We have to rely on technology to know one is coming.

And animals can migrate.  They tend to do that when their current environment is unsafe.  Oh, I see, you're thinking of domestic animals.  No, those are locked up with people.  Wild animals aren't.

No idea where you got the idea that I was saying that.

Also, this apparently will surprise you, but humans are naturally nomadic. When they see that an area isn't going too swell for them, they leave in search of better food/game/living conditions. The fact that we're tied down to houses and communities and stuff now makes people a little less willing, but we naturally have nomadic tendencies and yes, we damn well know to get going when things get bad.

Seriously, do you think an entire forest just empties out when a massive fire starts? It doesn't. Tons of things die. A lot of animals won't realize what's going on, won't be able to predict it, or won't be able to leave. And if you think animals generally know how to predict tornados, you're probably a bit confused; a lot of animals are pretty good at intuitively knowing what's going on with things like the weather and certain other events, but not to the degree to which you say.


My other point, which you seemed to be very confused about, was that humans could indeed be naturally good at that sort of predictive behavior as well, but our senses for it have been dulled by never actually using them. It's not an issue of magically growing or losing another sense organ, it's an issue of using or not using what your natural capabilities provide.

[MrWiggles]

I never said rules were different depending on where you are...

You did when you said we couldn't know what photon are doing billions of years ago. That also implies distance. It takes an exact and artificial environment to have a photon stand still. So the photons must be moving.

but relativity (as in it's strictly relative to our finite view) kicks in when you think that light could be emitted and die off after a period of travel.

I've read that photon will decay eventually. A photon lifespan is mind numbingly large though. Its explanation was over my head, so I would defer that to an expert. I don't understand the first part. So light can be traveling and emit more light is what your saying? I don't want to reply until I know what your asking.

We possibly can't see it or assume that the universe is only so big because we cannot technically observe it happening.

We can't. There an event horizon and particle horizon. These beyond the event horizon are independent to us. The particle horizon, iirc is condition on how the universe is for the intervening distance to be crossed.

  Light speed could be a constant from our POV like the car traveling past you on the highway is traveling twice as fast as you.  You also have to precision.  If light speed is slowing or speeding up at minute fractions, we may never observe it because we lack the tools precise enough to measure it.
It's also all about your point of view and I think our point of view is still miniscule even though distance in space is calculated in the time it takes for perceived light to travel.  For all we know, that red star off in the distance is not the edge of the universe, but the beginning of a something that refracts that light.  Hell, as far as I know, aether could be real and that's what's causing the close stars to appear blue and the far red shift to happen.

Yeah, I know attempts have been made to detect it and I've read many... many scientific theories (theories!) on all aspects of our universe, but I still think we lack the ability to measure the "big picture" and assuming that there was a big bang that caused all and solves all answers is a bit naive.

What does the word theory mean to you, because you use in similarly to light hearted guess.

And we dont lack the ability to measure the big bang. The background radiation predicted by the big bang model was found out by accident. We have quite the complete radiometric map of this energetic space. Its current fits in very well that understanding. Its a well reasoned and supported explantion. It also very good that the big bang isn't used for an explanation of everything. Because its not.

I don't believe the big bang was the beginning, the end, or the middle.  It may have happened, it may not.  And I don't believe a wizard in the space did it all either.

Well, as for the big bang. Yes, it indeed fact did happen. There very little doubt about that. As for it to be the start or end. We don't know. It probably wasn't. Though what ever if anything that happen before the big bang means little to us, as its ineffectual.

Also, if you like to believe that one formula solves all, then why do Einstein's theories bump up against Quantum theory?  Why do Atoms behave different from Planets?

It's sort of like how we don't know the true value of PI.  We can make measurements with an estimated value of such and get a close estimate, but until we can find that last digit of PI, we can never know it's true properties.  Light speed is an estimated value.  There's no precise number to define that speed.  Who's to say it's truly constant?

Well, I don't believe there one formula. Science isn't a matter of belief. It is not a matter of faith. That asinine.  There lots. And lots of model. If I want to look how stars and planets are formed, I don't go to general relativity, I go nebula star formation theory.

Light is not an estimated value. It been measured by many poeple, a lot of times, each new measurement more and more finite then the last. Each one confirming the last one taken.

Science says Light is Constant, everywhere at every time. As per its assumptions. With these assumption the application of c being constant have given fruits of knowledge. Assuming the rules are the same everywhere every time, seem to work out very well. Of course like all things within science if these assumptions no longer work, then they will be changed.

It does not come to this conclusion lightly. In fact the measurement of light, was an endeavor that took over a hundred years, if I recall correctly.

And even considering aether explanation, abysmal understanding.

[MrWiggles]

Not all of them.  And we didn't always have a hurricane warning system as good as we do now.  We have to rely on technology to know one is coming.

And animals can migrate.  They tend to do that when their current environment is unsafe.  Oh, I see, you're thinking of domestic animals.  No, those are locked up with people.  Wild animals aren't.

No idea where you got the idea that I was saying that.

Also, this apparently will surprise you, but humans are naturally nomadic. When they see that an area isn't going too swell for them, they leave in search of better food/game/living conditions. The fact that we're tied down to houses and communities and stuff now makes people a little less willing, but we naturally have nomadic tendencies and yes, we damn well know to get going when things get bad.

Seriously, do you think an entire forest just empties out when a massive fire starts? It doesn't. Tons of things die. A lot of animals won't realize what's going on, won't be able to predict it, or won't be able to leave. And if you think animals generally know how to predict tornados, you're probably a bit confused; a lot of animals are pretty good at intuitively knowing what's going on with things like the weather and certain other events, but not to the degree to which you say.


My other point, which you seemed to be very confused about, was that humans could indeed be naturally good at that sort of predictive behavior as well, but our senses for it have been dulled by never actually using them. It's not an issue of magically growing or losing another sense organ, it's an issue of using or not using what your natural capabilities provide.

Human sense aren't dulled. They can become heighten, but they arent needed to live. There nothing to suggest that stone age humans had better senses.

For human, are sense are odd. Unlike most mammals, human predominate sense is sight. It more dev. most other mammals. We see a lot more colors, we are better at pattern recognition, and like most predators we have very good at tracking objects in motion.

Beside that, our senses were not as favored as our brian. Human don't rely out sense. We rely on out hugely over developed brian to protect us. We think our way out we don't sense our way out.

[G-Flex]

Exactly. Different theories "bump up against" each other for many possible reasons. Maybe they work best in different contexts, or one is more abstracted/simplified for the purposes of certain things (like newton's laws). Maybe one is simply newer and generally more accurate than the other.

It's sort of like how we don't know the true value of PI.  We can make measurements with an estimated value of such and get a close estimate, but until we can find that last digit of PI, we can never know it's true properties.  Light speed is an estimated value.  There's no precise number to define that speed.  Who's to say it's truly constant?

You clearly don't know how these things work.

For one thing, there is no "last digit" of pi. It's an irrational number. There is, by definition, no last digit. It is non-repeating and non-terminating.

Also, you can still prove that something is constant without knowing "every digit" (as if that were even possible). The square root of 2 is constant, and this should be extremely obvious. Does that mean we can ever get "the last digit" of that number? No. That's impossible, because it's an irrational number, but it's still incredibly foolish to think that because of that, we don't know that it's constant; it is by definition, no less than the number 2 itself is constant.

Sure, any value you use in calculations for an irrational number will be an estimate to some number of significant digits, but that doesn't have anything to do with it being constant or not. We might find more digits of pi, but we'll not find any that somehow contradict the ones we already have.

[G-Flex]

Not all of them.  And we didn't always have a hurricane warning system as good as we do now.  We have to rely on technology to know one is coming.

And animals can migrate.  They tend to do that when their current environment is unsafe.  Oh, I see, you're thinking of domestic animals.  No, those are locked up with people.  Wild animals aren't.

No idea where you got the idea that I was saying that.

Also, this apparently will surprise you, but humans are naturally nomadic. When they see that an area isn't going too swell for them, they leave in search of better food/game/living conditions. The fact that we're tied down to houses and communities and stuff now makes people a little less willing, but we naturally have nomadic tendencies and yes, we damn well know to get going when things get bad.

Seriously, do you think an entire forest just empties out when a massive fire starts? It doesn't. Tons of things die. A lot of animals won't realize what's going on, won't be able to predict it, or won't be able to leave. And if you think animals generally know how to predict tornados, you're probably a bit confused; a lot of animals are pretty good at intuitively knowing what's going on with things like the weather and certain other events, but not to the degree to which you say.


My other point, which you seemed to be very confused about, was that humans could indeed be naturally good at that sort of predictive behavior as well, but our senses for it have been dulled by never actually using them. It's not an issue of magically growing or losing another sense organ, it's an issue of using or not using what your natural capabilities provide.

Human sense aren't dulled. They can become heighten, but they arent needed to live. There nothing to suggest that stone age humans had better senses.

This doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not talking about our natural senses being worse than they were some thousands of years ago at all.

I'm talking about us being less able to use them in some ways because we simply don't. Applications of senses.

For instance, if you spend a hell of a lot of time outside, in some sort of tribal community, and you pay a lot of attention to the weather, you will learn how to interpret it intuitively much better than someone who sits inside his apartment all day on the computer and gets all his weather information from the internet and TV news and doesn't ever make any real attempt to interpret how to predict weather patterns on his own.

Again, I'm not saying that human senses are naturally any worse than they ever were, just that the ability to actually apply them for things like predicting natural events is something that can be both learned and unlearned.

[Osmosis Jones]

Ninja'd

Also, if you like to believe that one formula solves all, then why do Einstein's theories bump up against Quantum theory?  Why do Atoms behave different from Planets?

It's sort of like how we don't know the true value of PI.  We can make measurements with an estimated value of such and get a close estimate, but until we can find that last digit of PI, we can never know it's true properties.  Light speed is an estimated value.  There's no precise number to define that speed.  Who's to say it's truly constant?

Einsteins theories bump up against quantum theory because of the mathematical assumptions made; relativity hinges on the assumption that the universe is infitely divisible (i.e. there is no 'smallest length'), while quantum theory inherently deals with said size ranges.
As relativity usually functions on length scales of light years, and the Planck length is minisicule (~0.00000000000000000000000000000000001m, 10^-35, when an atom is at most 10^-10) it is a perfectly valid assumption. Basically, just because a theory doesn't work outside of the range it was constructed for, doesn't mean it fails inside its range.

Pi is not known to a decimal point, but that doesn't mean it is not known. Just like it is more accurate to express 1/3 as a fraction rather than 0.3333333333333333333, it is more accurate to treat pi in different ways. Incidentally, we've calculated pi to over the trillionth place, which is faaaaaaar in excess of any reasonable need.

As for knowing c, you're right, we don't know c to an arbitrary precision. However, we are constantly working to refine our knowledge, which so far suggests it is constant and invariant.



Also, Mr Wiggles, are you sure you don't mean protons? I know their half life is longer than the predicted max age of the universe.

[MrWiggles]

Not all of them.  And we didn't always have a hurricane warning system as good as we do now.  We have to rely on technology to know one is coming.

And animals can migrate.  They tend to do that when their current environment is unsafe.  Oh, I see, you're thinking of domestic animals.  No, those are locked up with people.  Wild animals aren't.

No idea where you got the idea that I was saying that.

Also, this apparently will surprise you, but humans are naturally nomadic. When they see that an area isn't going too swell for them, they leave in search of better food/game/living conditions. The fact that we're tied down to houses and communities and stuff now makes people a little less willing, but we naturally have nomadic tendencies and yes, we damn well know to get going when things get bad.

Seriously, do you think an entire forest just empties out when a massive fire starts? It doesn't. Tons of things die. A lot of animals won't realize what's going on, won't be able to predict it, or won't be able to leave. And if you think animals generally know how to predict tornados, you're probably a bit confused; a lot of animals are pretty good at intuitively knowing what's going on with things like the weather and certain other events, but not to the degree to which you say.


My other point, which you seemed to be very confused about, was that humans could indeed be naturally good at that sort of predictive behavior as well, but our senses for it have been dulled by never actually using them. It's not an issue of magically growing or losing another sense organ, it's an issue of using or not using what your natural capabilities provide.

Human sense aren't dulled. They can become heighten, but they arent needed to live. There nothing to suggest that stone age humans had better senses.

This doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not talking about our natural senses being worse than they were some thousands of years ago at all.

I'm talking about us being less able to use them in some ways because we simply don't. Applications of senses.

For instance, if you spend a hell of a lot of time outside, in some sort of tribal community, and you pay a lot of attention to the weather, you will learn how to interpret it intuitively much better than someone who sits inside his apartment all day on the computer and gets all his weather information from the internet and TV news and doesn't ever make any real attempt to interpret how to predict weather patterns on his own.

Again, I'm not saying that human senses are naturally any worse than they ever were, just that the ability to actually apply them for things like predicting natural events is something that can be both learned and unlearned.

I'm sorry about, I was pointing back that before we had tech to inform us of these dangers that our ability to uses are five senses was anymore polished.

Beyond that though, human senses will never be as accurate as the applications of technology we have constructed. Each passing year, we are getting better are predicting these horribly chaotic systems.

We're even on the brink of having earthquake detection system to give us, I think hours maybe even days warning. Admittedly no sense of touch can predict a tectonic plate shift. Personally I don't know how it does that. Something with pressure and micro trembles.

[MrWiggles]

Ninja'd

Also, if you like to believe that one formula solves all, then why do Einstein's theories bump up against Quantum theory?  Why do Atoms behave different from Planets?

It's sort of like how we don't know the true value of PI.  We can make measurements with an estimated value of such and get a close estimate, but until we can find that last digit of PI, we can never know it's true properties.  Light speed is an estimated value.  There's no precise number to define that speed.  Who's to say it's truly constant?

Einsteins theories bump up against quantum theory because of the mathematical assumptions made; relativity hinges on the assumption that the universe is infitely divisible (i.e. there is no 'smallest length'), while quantum theory inherently deals with said size ranges.
As relativity usually functions on length scales of light years, and the Planck length is minisicule (~0.00000000000000000000000000000000001m, 10^-35, when an atom is at most 10^-10) it is a perfectly valid assumption. Basically, just because a theory doesn't work outside of the range it was constructed for, doesn't mean it fails inside its range.

Pi is not known to a decimal point, but that doesn't mean it is not known. Just like it is more accurate to express 1/3 as a fraction rather than 0.3333333333333333333, it is more accurate to treat pi in different ways. Incidentally, we've calculated pi to over the trillionth place, which is faaaaaaar in excess of any reasonable need.

As for knowing c, you're right, we don't know c to an arbitrary precision. However, we are constantly working to refine our knowledge, which so far suggests it is constant and invariant.



Also, Mr Wiggles, are you sure you don't mean protons? I know their half life is longer than the predicted max age of the universe.

For Photon Decay? I remember it was photon, I do know that proton decay is hellishly long. I might be getting them confused, I hope not.

[G-Flex]

Not all of them.  And we didn't always have a hurricane warning system as good as we do now.  We have to rely on technology to know one is coming.

And animals can migrate.  They tend to do that when their current environment is unsafe.  Oh, I see, you're thinking of domestic animals.  No, those are locked up with people.  Wild animals aren't.

No idea where you got the idea that I was saying that.

Also, this apparently will surprise you, but humans are naturally nomadic. When they see that an area isn't going too swell for them, they leave in search of better food/game/living conditions. The fact that we're tied down to houses and communities and stuff now makes people a little less willing, but we naturally have nomadic tendencies and yes, we damn well know to get going when things get bad.

Seriously, do you think an entire forest just empties out when a massive fire starts? It doesn't. Tons of things die. A lot of animals won't realize what's going on, won't be able to predict it, or won't be able to leave. And if you think animals generally know how to predict tornados, you're probably a bit confused; a lot of animals are pretty good at intuitively knowing what's going on with things like the weather and certain other events, but not to the degree to which you say.


My other point, which you seemed to be very confused about, was that humans could indeed be naturally good at that sort of predictive behavior as well, but our senses for it have been dulled by never actually using them. It's not an issue of magically growing or losing another sense organ, it's an issue of using or not using what your natural capabilities provide.

Human sense aren't dulled. They can become heighten, but they arent needed to live. There nothing to suggest that stone age humans had better senses.

This doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not talking about our natural senses being worse than they were some thousands of years ago at all.

I'm talking about us being less able to use them in some ways because we simply don't. Applications of senses.

For instance, if you spend a hell of a lot of time outside, in some sort of tribal community, and you pay a lot of attention to the weather, you will learn how to interpret it intuitively much better than someone who sits inside his apartment all day on the computer and gets all his weather information from the internet and TV news and doesn't ever make any real attempt to interpret how to predict weather patterns on his own.

Again, I'm not saying that human senses are naturally any worse than they ever were, just that the ability to actually apply them for things like predicting natural events is something that can be both learned and unlearned.

I'm sorry about, I was pointing back that before we had tech to inform us of these dangers that our ability to uses are five senses was anymore polished.

Beyond that though, human senses will never be as accurate as the applications of technology we have constructed. Each passing year, we are getting better are predicting these horribly chaotic systems.

We're even on the brink of having earthquake detection system to give us, I think hours maybe even days warning. Admittedly no sense of touch can predict a tectonic plate shift. Personally I don't know how it does that. Something with pressure and micro trembles.

I know, I was mostly just arguing against the "humans are more terrible at naturally predicting events than other animals" point with my own point that if we suck at it so bad, it's probably just because we never use the skill and rely on technology instead.

[Grek]

To sweep away suffering, a human creation, one would have to either wipe out the human race or free will.

False dichotomy. An Omnipotent being can have no suffering and free will. He can do anything he wants, even things which break logic. He can have object be made out of wood and concrete at the same time. He can make dry water. To say that an omnipotent god must either do X or do Y and cannot do both X and Y is to say that they are not omnipotent.

Omnipotence is paralogical.