Science quiz

Wren

Flaccid Member
Oct 16, 2006
423
0
0
I got all 11 right. Yay?

The bigger picture to me though is how many people have no idea what science is. If we could teach people to recognize science, then I'm willing to let slide some of these factiods that it has helped us find. "Scientists say that eggs are good for you!" Right.

We have a whole generation of people who don't understand basic things like the fact that you can't scientifically test if things are "good for you" because you'll have to define what that means first. Almost undoubtedly, any question like that is going to come out "it depends based on how you define 'good for you'".

Nobody knows what's needed to create a scientific study that will zero in on the truth like it's supposed to do, so we keep getting peddled crap.
 

thrawn

Flaccid Member
Oct 13, 2004
14,850
0
0
I missed three, but that's cause I don't agree with the huge explosion one and the "humans came from ameobas". The other one I missed was the Lasers, I have no clue how those work.

Why don't you agree with the giant explosion? Is it because of your faith?

And yes, I am being completely serious.
 

Wren

Flaccid Member
Oct 16, 2006
423
0
0
Why don't you agree with the giant explosion? Is it because of your faith?

And yes, I am being completely serious.

I almost said false just because "explosion" is such a terrible way to describe it.
 

thrawn

Flaccid Member
Oct 13, 2004
14,850
0
0
I almost said false just because "explosion" is such a terrible way to describe it.



I realize explosion is not the correct word but most people call it an explosion. Most people do not know what an explosion really is. I wasn't really looking to argue that, just what influenced her comment.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
21,043
642
548
<3
People always put 'science' at odds with religion, though it's mostly the faults of the practitioners of each rather than the systems themselves.

The big bang is a physical cosmology. It's hilarious when atheists, whatever, etc. try to adopt it as their religions-r-not-cool argument since the guy who first theorized it was a catholic priest. There is no inherent disconnect with "God created the world" and "A day without yesterday' or creation ex nihlo.

I still think assuming the universe is a discrete, finite and deterministic system is stupid. For various reasons. Which is what fly normally argues.

As for evolution, if you cant figure out the semantic difference between a rigorous theory and 'law' as used colloquially you probably shouldnt be arguing about it. In any formal logic a statement which takes assumptions that are unproved, no matter how obvious those assumptions are, is called a theory. Everyone assumes they are living in a space that is experienced the same way as the other entities in that space, so you might as well call it the theory of actually being there (or here).

Denial of a theory without stating your own or another alternate is the same thing as throwing a temper tantrum and on top of it people are going to assume you subscribe to a popular alternate.
 

eileenbunny

Druish Princess
May 25, 2005
13,349
2,299
573
46
Columbia, Maryland, United States
Sure it does, its part of the universe expanding infinitely. Every point is rotating around every other point...

I have no real knowledge of this and nothing to back up what I think, but in this great infinite universe is it completely impossible that somewhere out there are two points that are in fact moving parallel to one another?
 

taivas

Erect Member
Aug 12, 2008
1,512
23
41
35
coffeeland
People always put 'science' at odds with religion, though it's mostly the faults of the practitioners of each rather than the systems themselves.

Word.

Science is supposed to be the how, religion is supposed to be the why.

Some, though, insist that their particular preference is both the how AND the why. /shrug
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
72,381
23,940
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
I have no real knowledge of this and nothing to back up what I think, but in this great infinite universe is it completely impossible that somewhere out there are two points that are in fact moving parallel to one another?

Since *everything* is expanding, I'd think things could run in parallel. I don't really know though, I must look this up! You phrase interesting questions...
 

kiwi

Messin’ with Sasquatch
Apr 22, 2005
20,434
8,317
623
Summer
Why don't you agree with the giant explosion? Is it because of your faith?

And yes, I am being completely serious.

Yes, I believe the world and universe was organized to the form it is in today. How that exactly happened I don't know, but it wasn't from a random explosion and things just "fell together".
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
44
Austin
^Who couldn't miss posts like that!!! (Edit: Fuck 15ppp)

Oh man, I wanna argue with you physics dude, but you give me no ammo! Your mother is fat.

Suns and planets revolve around their barycenter (around 270 miles from the sun's center, in the case of the earth and the sun) due to gravitational interaction and translation, not the general, infinite expansion of the universe. Break it down, Holmes.
 
Last edited:

Wren

Flaccid Member
Oct 16, 2006
423
0
0
I have no real knowledge of this and nothing to back up what I think, but in this great infinite universe is it completely impossible that somewhere out there are two points that are in fact moving parallel to one another?

When you're talking about things of that size, and how they work, it's difficult to apply the meaning of "parallel". Imagine that you're standing by some train tracks, looking at the train go by. On the train, a kid throws a ball up and catches it. From your perspective, during the throw the ball moved forward 50 feet. From the perspective of the kid, it moved forward 0 feet. So what is the movement of the ball?

So how can you tell what the speed of anything is? On a cosmic level, the answer that gained Einstein such fame is to reject the notion of absolute space and absolute time, but instead to think of them together as space-time.

The long story short is that this messes everything up for how we normally think of things moving. For example, in space-time the earth is falling straight towards the sun. It looks curved when you think of it in one less dimension (aka normal thought). A good analogy is what a flight plan map looks like. When you see how a plane flies put on a map, it looks like they're curving, but really they're taking the shortest way possible, because it's reducing a dimension.

So the answer is yes, no, and a tuna sandwich.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
72,381
23,940
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
Suns and planets revolve around their barycenter (around 270 miles from the sun's center, in the case of the earth and the sun) due to gravitational interaction and translation, not the general, infinite expansion of the universe. Break it down, Holmes.

Okay, I understand what you're saying now. It's really all perspective though.
 

Jonny_B

Erect Member
Oct 14, 2004
9,162
26
41
Yes, I believe the world and universe was organized to the form it is in today. How that exactly happened I don't know, but it wasn't from a random explosion and things just "fell together".
that is the currently accepted story until someone proves otherwise.

I got 11/11