BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Laboratory >

Stupid Science Questions 2

  
  

Page: 1 ... 34567(8)910111213... 15

 
 
Dragon
03:47 / 15.07.06
One thing that I've wondered about, which may be explained satisfactorily to you, is the initial super-inflation of spacetime after the Big Bang, followed by a slowdown. It seems there must have been some kind of balance struck for reasons unknown to me. Any thoughts on this?
 
 
Dragon
22:58 / 18.07.06
"Why don't the colors change continuously?"

They do.

Maybe I didn't ask a good question, then. Let me put it to you this way:

"Why does a rainbow appear to be in the form of bands if it is actually continuous?" That better?
 
 
grant
23:37 / 18.07.06
I think you're going to get answers about the psychology of color perception -- rainbows appear to have distinct bands because we're trained from pre-school to see them there. Obviously, there's a bit that's green that's between a red area and a purplish area, but finding the line between red and orange or blue and green or indigo (!) and violet is impossible and arbitrary.
(And actually, as mentioned earlier in either this thread or another Lab thread, not all cultures can agree on what "blue" is, or even if "green" exists independently - see "linguistic determinism.)
 
 
grant
23:45 / 18.07.06
If it helps, here:


Try to find the line that divides green from blue.

It's a lot easier on a picture like this:


But that's not what actually happens with sunlight in the sky.
 
 
Dragon
04:41 / 19.07.06
Very good! BTW, your answer reminded me of an article I read, recently.
 
 
Wristwatch Nuke
(prev. Evil Scientist)
12:39 / 19.07.06
How much of a role does the centrifugal force of the Earth rotating contribute to keeping us on the ground? If the Earth stopped rotating, for instance, would the planet's gravity alone be enough to stop us flailing off into space?

Also, on another subject, what's the difference between inertia and momentum? Assume I'm an idiot on the subject.
 
 
nameinuse
15:15 / 19.07.06
Centrifugal force doesn't hold things that are spinning to the ground at all (that would be pretty counter-intuitive - a spinning object doesn't pull things to it's surface no matter how hard it's spinning). In fact, this force doesn't exist at all (though there is a genuine centrifulgal force, as covered by Wikipedia). Things travel in a straight line unless there's a force acting on them, so the rotation of the earth would actually work to reduce gravity (at least a little bit).

In sci-fi, at least sensible sci-fi, rotation us used to mimic gravity by putting people inside a spinning object, and making the outer skin of the object the floor. If the object spins at a steady speed, the net effect of the motion is for things to push outward.

It'd be a lot easier to explain this all with a diagram...

On the other question, intertia is the amount of force it takes to change something's velocity (that is to change it's speed/direction). An object with low inertia takes less energy to change than one with large inertia. Momenutum is a measure of the energy a moving object has. In classical mechanics it's as simple as mass x velocity.
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
17:58 / 19.07.06
"I think you're going to get answers about the psychology of color perception" (grant)

Well actually I was going to answer more brusquely myself, but here's my stupid science question- why don't people look on the internet before asking questions, or even, you know, look at the fucking sky?
 
 
Henningjohnathan
00:19 / 20.07.06
none
 
 
Henningjohnathan
00:24 / 20.07.06
I think you're going to get answers about the psychology of color perception
Speaking of - is there anything physical in the soundwave-form of a musical note or chord versus dissonant sound, or is resonance and dissonance in music a matter of human perception?

As far as the perception of color, there may be inborn traits to the perception of warm (red, orange)and cool (blue, green) colors, but there is definitely a part of the brain that processes color (even the memory of color). Since color is a "hardwired" concept in the brain, I wonder if one could imagine a color that could never exist in reality.

Can you think of a color that would not exist? Can color be a concept entirely devoid of our experience of external perception? Could we determine this or would it be entirely subjective?

Basically, is our ability to conceive limited by our ability to perceive or the possibility of our perception?
 
 
grant
01:02 / 20.07.06
On the dissonance/consonance thing, I refer you to our sister thread in Music. Basically, dissonance has a physical reality, but we only think of it as dissonance for cultural reasons. (Use "microtonalism" as Google search word for more.)

A color that would not exist is a strange concept. Do mean something like visualizing what ultraviolet must look like to those creatures that can see ultraviolet (like honeybees)? (And follow the link in that entry -- you might be seeing fewer colors than you think.) Or do you mean more like Gene Wolfe's "fuligin", the color blacker than black (which was more apparently a description of a physical property of a fictional material interacting with light)?

Writers often write about imaginary colors -- more red than red, a combination of pink and turquoise that had nothing of purple in it, those kinds of things. Poetic stabs.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
01:22 / 20.07.06
Okay. Something like this.

You can see red in reality. And you can conceive of red ("think of" or "imagine" or "remember") even when not looking directly at it. Those colors though - the ability to think of and see them - are processed by a specific area of the brain. If it was damaged, then not only would you not be able to see color, you would not be able to even tell that you couldn't see color. The entire concept of color would be completely erased from your mind and even your memories.

So, if we look at color not as a wavelength of light but as a specific activity of the brain/mind, then the brain will certainly perform the "green" function when we're looking at a blade of grass. It will also perform the "green" function when we think about but are not seeing an emerald for example.

However, if we see color as a conceptual function of the brain or consciousness, then could a function in that "concept" occur that does not correspond to any actual perceptible color or color concept that we could experience or create in external experience?

Possibly, it could be phrased with ultraviolet or infrared in mind. If these are functions or concepts with specific relationships, then blue/violet is on one end of the scale and red is on the other. If red has a specific heirarchical "infra" relationship to orange on that band, then could we conceive of an "imaginary" color that has the same "infra" relationship to red even though we could never actually see it in reality or show it to someone else? Or would the function always correspond to an actual perceptible color that we've seen or could recreate with the proper pigment? How could we tell if we are conceiving/thinking of an "impossible" color?
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
02:54 / 20.07.06
I don't know. We're capable of clearly visualising things which have no objective reality (numbers, for instance), but our palette for imagining colours is limited to those we perceive directly. Perhaps to imagine more, we could associate a known colour with, say, a sound? So that to imagine infra-green (I'm looking at a beer bottle) we might imagine green and a deep note, or to imagine ultra-green we might imagine green and a high note. In the same way that a two-dimensional map can represent a three-dimensional terrain by using colours to denote height, we could add an extra dimension to colour by using sound - in our imagination - to denote different types of a colour. Or we could visually superpose numbers, or hatched lines, or any number of other identifiers. It all sounds fun to me!

I'm now staring at that bottle and hearing humming noises. I suspect I'm cursed to do so for the rest of my life. Maybe you are too, if the meme is pernicious enough...
 
 
grant
04:55 / 20.07.06
If it was damaged, then not only would you not be able to see color, you would not be able to even tell that you couldn't see color. The entire concept of color would be completely erased from your mind and even your memories.

That sounds really hinky to me. I know colorblind people who weren't aware they were missing out on something until somebody pointed it out to them (some folks don't learn about it until they have to take a driving exam). But they manage to map red and green and things related to them in various ways. Not like seeing them, but conceptually.

The fact that it's a conceptual map and not a recognition of a color would probably be a big clue as to what your brain was doing.
 
 
Olulabelle
11:16 / 20.07.06
That rainbow in the song is completely wrong though. I have never understood why that is.

This conversation about colour is fascinating and I almost feel bad about interrupting it but I need to ask about toast energy and how long it takes to get to my legs. This morning for breakfast I had Alpen without sugar and then I cycled 6 miles. I found it much more difficult than usual; I felt like I had no energy at all. For breakfast normally I have toast and honey or jam and I am fine, so I think it must be something to do with the toast energy working more quickly than cereal energy.

Am I right? Is it the sugar in the jam or honey that gets to work quickly? If so, and if I wanted to eat cereal, how much time should I leave between eating it and making my journey?
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
12:17 / 20.07.06
I'm no expert but as far as I know it *is* the sugar, your body metabolises it more quickly than starchy things (thus all the sugary sports drinks, glucose is a form of sugar that's even easier to get the energy from). Oats and stuff take a while longer to digest, unless you 'pre-digest' them a bit by grinding or cooking (thus ready-brek and porridge).

resonance and dissonance in music

Not just music but any waves, independent of human experience, have resonance etc. For example Nikolai Tesla's earthquake machine worked by pounding rhythmically at the natural frequency of the building (so it harmonised and reinforced itself each time) until it shook itself apart.
Basically imagine a child on a swing- if you push them every time they swing back to you they will gradually swing higher and higher (harmonic resonance), if you push them out of sequence they won't because the forces oppose each other.
That's how opera singers break glasses with their voice, they make a tone that resonates the glass at it's natural frequency. wikipedia article here.
"In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate with high amplitude when excited by energy at a certain frequency. This frequency is known as the system's natural frequency of vibration or resonant frequency)."
 
 
Henningjohnathan
16:39 / 20.07.06
That sounds really hinky to me. I know colorblind people who weren't aware they were missing out on something until somebody pointed it out to them (some folks don't learn about it until they have to take a driving exam). But they manage to map red and green and things related to them in various ways. Not like seeing them, but conceptually.

The fact that it's a conceptual map and not a recognition of a color would probably be a big clue as to what your brain was doing.
Oliver Sacks in AN ANTHROPOLOGIST ON MARS devotes a chapter about an artist who suffered brain damage and, after he got out of the hospital, tried to paint like he had been. He knew something was wrong, but couldn't see what was different. Turned out that the color in his brain had been completely destroyed. His mind could no longer process color or even remember it. The artist knew something was wrong, but there was no way you could "point it out" to him and then he'd see the difference. Color had become an alien concept to him even though prior to his stroke he had worked with it closely his entire life.

I went to school with a designer who was born without that part of his brain, but he studied the "rules of color" in art so closely that he convinced everyone he could see color with his designs even though in reality he couldn't tell the difference between a black and white and color photograph.

I suspect that psychologically we are dealing with a closed system. That if you asked what is the color "infra" to red in the same way that red is "infra" to orange, using our artistic color systems as an ad-hoc guide, psychologically the mind would say that violet is the answer. The rainbow spectrum is actually a loop - blue is to violet as violet is to red as red is to orange as orange is to yellow as yellow is to green as green is to blue as blue is to violet and so on.

It may not be possible for there to be a function outside the perceptual system. In other words, all possible color in the mind must correspond to all possible perceivable colors. Our brain is hardwired based upon its environment and though we can conceive of impossible things - the conception is still limited by possible perception.

This may be the major hurdle when attempting to conceive of environments that do not correspond to our perceived one such as at the quantum level or multidimensional.
 
 
astrojax69
01:44 / 21.07.06
of course, by somehow altering our brain we may be able to broaden the range of potential experience, thereby expand the realms of thoughts, ideas, creativity. just as parts missing = concepts absent, so too may we find ways to add parts, so = new concepts.
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
20:25 / 21.07.06
somehow altering our brain

How about altering our brain *chemistry*, using psychoactive drugs for example? Then we see crazy colours, without neurosurgery or cyberenhancement.
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
21:21 / 21.07.06
New question- why do we sweat more under the arms etc? Why are there more sweat glands there than elsewhere?
 
 
Dance to the Beat
(prev. Better Be Ready)
21:36 / 21.07.06
Good question. And why is there more hair in there than elsewhere too?

I'd guess it's because it's a naturally warmer place of the body, being an all directions-rotating joint and all. Much like the groins, which is also a particularly sweaty and hairy place of the body. But it's just a guess of mine, not an empirical fact.
 
 
astrojax69
08:24 / 24.07.06
back on colour for a minute, and why is th the sky blue?

found this and thought of barbelith...

sorry, back to underarms...
 
 
Dragon
16:27 / 24.07.06
Quantum

why don't people look on the internet before asking questions, or even, you know, look at the fucking sky?

I suppose you would have given a similar non-reply if I had been asking about how the moon appears larger when it is closer to the horizen? Go outside and look at it? Get a grip on your temper, please.
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
17:04 / 24.07.06
Non-reply? Does a link to an article about it and a quote explaining it not count then?
The Pozzi illusion is a good example, because the moon actually *does* look bigger, but a rainbow *doesn't* look like coloured bands. To me. Does it look like coloured bands to you?
Point taken though, temper being reigned in. Time for a Barbevacation methinks.
 
 
Dragon
17:27 / 24.07.06
Thanks Quantum, no need for a "Barbevacation." I admit not seeing a rainbow for quite awhile. Even if it does rain, and it has rained rarely the past few months, conditions are not always favorable for a rainbow. What I -remember- are bands that aren't quite continuous. I clearly 'see' yellow, for example, in my mind's eye, when it should be gradations of yellow. I will be looking at a rainbown, hopefully in the not-too-distant future.

Still, Grant's second reply sounded interesting as a possible explanation. If I DO actually get to see a rainbow and don't perceive it to be continuous, then maybe I'll just declare myself wierd...
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
17:54 / 24.07.06
Before I go, here's my attempt at the recent unanswered questions-
does the Anthropic Principle really have anything to it that makes it more reasonable than Intelligent Design? HenningJonathan

That's a misrepresentation by the dude who wrote the book I think, the Anthropic principle usually means any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with the existence of human beings to make up the theory.

One thing that I've wondered about, which may be explained satisfactorily to you, is the initial super-inflation of spacetime after the Big Bang, followed by a slowdown. It seems there must have been some kind of balance struck for reasons unknown to me. Any thoughts on this?
Dragon

"The inflationary epoch is the term used in physical cosmology to describe the brief time in the very early universe when, according to inflation theory, the universe was expanding exponentially... in a process called symmetry breaking, a phase transition caused by the cooling of the universe occurred as the strong force stopped being unified with the weak and electromagnetic forces." check out the link, fascinating stuff.

Here's a graphical timeline of the big bang, and a bit on symmetry breaking.
Enjoy.

How much of a role does the centrifugal force of the Earth rotating contribute to keeping us on the ground? If the Earth stopped rotating, for instance, would the planet's gravity alone be enough to stop us flailing off into space?

As answered I think, if the Earth stopped spinning we'd experience a slight increase in gravity. It's mass that produces gravity which sticks us to the ground.

Also, on another subject, what's the difference between inertia and momentum? Assume I'm an idiot on the subject. Evil Scientist
In normal conversational use, inertia is what opposes you when you try to move something, momentum is what opposes you when you try and stop something moving. Momentum keeps you going, Inertia keeps you still. In Physics inertia covers both because they're the same thing, an object's tendency to keep doing what something's doing.

Thank you and goodnight sweet Lab, I'll be in the Temple if you want me.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
18:02 / 24.07.06
New question- why do we sweat more under the arms etc? Why are there more sweat glands there than elsewhere?


Good question. And why is there more hair in there than elsewhere too?

I'd guess it's because it's a naturally warmer place of the body, being an all directions-rotating joint and all. Much like the groins, which is also a particularly sweaty and hairy place of the body. But it's just a guess of mine, not an empirical fact.

I believe that the hair is there to relieve friction (which would explain all the hair on genitals as well). I wonder why we don't have a lot more hair all over our bodies like other primates? Or why facial hair in humans, if left uncut, actually impedes eating? - seems evolutionarily like a bad idea.
 
 
Dance to the Beat
(prev. Better Be Ready)
21:32 / 24.07.06
As answered I think, if the Earth stopped spinning we'd experience a slight increase in gravity. It's mass that produces gravity which sticks us to the ground.

Assuming, of course, that it stops gradually. If it stops at once, inertia will throw everything into space at, what?, 30.000 km/h. (almost 20.000 mph)

Well, inertia is the general law that states that a body stays still or stays in constant motion (i.e. no acceleration)unless a force is applied upon it, either making it speed up or slow down, while momentukm is the force that must be apllied to a body in motion to make it stop completely (calculates multiplying the mass of the body by its current speed). The faster you go, the more momemtum you have, and the harder you be to make you stop. So, momemtum is a force that exists because of the law of inertia...

I believe that the hair is there to relieve friction

Which explains why shaving your genitals, although possibly aestethically pleasant, may not be a good idea...

I admit not seeing a rainbow for quite awhile

Anyone else find that so very sad a thing?
 
 
Dragon
08:42 / 25.07.06
I've occassionally seen a rainbow or halo around the moon, but that doesn't count because they are way too faint.
 
 
Quantum - terribly nonplussed
(prev. Quantum of Solace)
17:45 / 25.07.06
There are pictures of rainbows on the internet apparently. *goes away again*
 
 
petunia
20:11 / 25.07.06
How do animals and plants create electricity?

I'm getting increasingly interested in the wonderrealm that is renewable energy, and I figure it would be a great thing to be able to harness some kind of organic electric-making force.

Just imagine a greenhouse or a forest that was actually a powerplant. Or a house powered by its pond.

Electric eels spring to mind, but I'm aware that most (all?) animals have some degree of electro-stuff happening inside them.

So how do we create it?

Has anybody already gone down this train of thought?

Or is it just sci-fi?
 
 
Henningjohnathan
20:25 / 25.07.06
Don't fuel cells basically use a similar chemical process to create electricity?
 
 
Dance to the Beat
(prev. Better Be Ready)
23:43 / 25.07.06
How do animals and plants create electricity?

Well, the nervous system of every animal is based on eletrical diferential between inside the cell and outside the cell. That is accomplished, if I remember correctly by creating ans osmotic diferential of calcium ions throught active transport throught the cell embrane by means of adapted protein pathways (I learned all that in Portuguese and ten years ago, so the terminology may need fine-tuning)

Some animals have adapted organs that are made to produce - or detect - eletricity. Eels, for instance, have adapted muscles that, instead of using biochemincal energy to contract and expand, they use to generate eletricity, like a batery. Sharks have special sensory cell in their noses to detect the natural eletric field generated by other animals, and they use iot for hunting. But eletrical organs such as these under water. The air is not a very good conductive material and it takes an immense amount of eletrical power to brake such limitation - hence, we have lightning instead of a continuous eletrical field beneath storm clouds, and there's no known land-dwelling eletrical animal that I've heard of (except, of course Pikachu and other eletrical pokemons).

So, your idea of a biological eletrical power plant probably wouldn't work.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
00:43 / 26.07.06
Unless it was under water! Ha ha!!

Actually, they aren't really eels. They are a breed of "knifefish."

Personally, I think "Electric Knifefish" is a much better name, anyway.
 
 
Dragon
04:46 / 26.07.06
Seems to me, as I carefully study this rainbow, I do see small bands, but I think it's possible the computer monitor is unable to faithfully reproduce it.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 34567(8)910111213... 15

 
  
Add Your Reply