Pharyngula

Uh, yeah, I just have 2 questions.
What is the Law?
And, uh, are we not men?

Posted by: dorkafork | May 16, 2006 4:24 PM

In Megaman Powered Up, how do you get past that last set of dropping platforms in Gutsman stage on Medium difficulty level? (New Style mode)

*reads a translation phrasebook*

"Do you waa... Do you waaant to go beck to my place? Bouncy, bouncy."

What is the question to life, the universe, and everything?

Did you bring me any presents?

Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 16, 2006 4:34 PM

When a cell starts to divide, how are chromosomes pulled apart... what triggers it, how do they move and what determines which way they get pulled to?

Posted by: James | May 16, 2006 4:35 PM

How do you explain PYGMIES + DWARVES????!!!!

(I can't believe no one's submitted that question yet...)

Posted by: trixie | May 16, 2006 4:43 PM

My son is a math geek and he can't help me. There are math symbols for "approaching" infinity. Well, if you can approach it, it must be a point and you should be able to get there. How, and what will I see when I get there? What is on the other side. Same question with the "universe" -- It's a physical object and should have a boundary. What is one step beyond the edge?

Posted by: shyster | May 16, 2006 4:47 PM

Same question with the "universe" -- It's a physical object and should have a boundary. What is one step beyond the edge?

I'll go ahead and get this one: The universe is like an old "wrap-around" videogame: When you go off the edge of the screen, you come out on the other side of the screen. Except there isn't really a screen: Any "edge" you make up in 3D space is arbitrary.

This part might take a little stretch of your imagination. (I recommend Sphereland: A Sequel to Flatland): All of our 3D space is the "edge" of the universe, like the 2D skin of a balloon. The center is outside our space (in the center of the balloon, not a part of the skin)

Or at least, that's how it comes across to me.

Anyway, back to silly questions.

Why are borogoves mimsy?

Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 16, 2006 4:55 PM

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics explain the existence of creationists?

Posted by: Dendroica | May 16, 2006 5:03 PM

I have a few questions.

1) Prior to the big bang all of the mass of the universe existed as a singularity. If the instant before the big bang is taken as t=0 and entropy is considered to be increasing from this point how is it that the big bang even happened? Time dilates in the presence of mass and the entirety of all mass should be a massive gravity well. Is all the mass in the universe insufficient to lower the Lorentz factor to 0 or were the laws of the universe so different at that time that this was not an issue? With no delta t I don't see how a delta S would mathematically cause a change. I have never had this adequately explained for me and the issue has confused me for years.

2) Are viruses alive? (Personally I say no but the person I share an office with disagrees with me.)

3) Why don't human males have a baculum? How does this effect the Argumentum ad Baculum?

4) When Jesus rose from the dead what type of undead did he come back as?

Posted by: Oggutho | May 16, 2006 5:04 PM

okay, i'll be a killjoy and try to ask a serious biological question.

popular science falls all over the role of DNA in genetic inheritance, to the point of identifying the individual organism with the information in their DNA. this is emphasized over and over in shows like CSI.

yet, during embryonic development, it seems the availability of resources and perhaps just chance the coding contained in DNA might be expressed in different ways accordingly.

so, my first serious question is, How much does the DNA in a fertilized ovum determine how the resulting organism will look and how they will behave?

my second serious question is, Since we never find organized nucleic acids, DNA or RNA, apart from its container, a cell or at least a protein sheath, how much of what is an organism lies in the nucleic acids, and how much is in the plasm?

Posted by: ekzept | May 16, 2006 5:11 PM

BronzeDog... borogroves aren't usually mimsy. That's why Carrol had to comment on it at the time.

Posted by: ArtK | May 16, 2006 5:17 PM

Why are Earth and Titan the only bodies in our Solar system with Nitrogen atmospheres?

Posted by: The Science Pundit | May 16, 2006 5:18 PM

Borogroves are always a little mimsy around brillig. The sound of the mome raths outgrabing really grates on them.

Posted by: FrumiousB | May 16, 2006 5:28 PM

Why do entomologists tend to live longer than people in other professions?

Oggutho, Jesus was obviously a zombie. He certainly wasn't a litch. And since he still had his wounds we can be pretty sure he was animated and not resurrected ;)

Posted by: Nymphalidae | May 16, 2006 5:29 PM

There are math symbols for "approaching" infinity. Well, if you can approach it, it must be a point and you should be able to get there. How, and what will I see when I get there?

I'm going to be a geek and answer a question that probably wasn't looking to be answered...

Actually, there are lots of ways of answering this. I'm assuming you're thinking of limits of functions at infinity, which has a precise meaning -- it means that you can get within some specified (arbitrarily small, but not zero) distance of the limit value by looking at sufficiently large inputs (larger than some number N).

There are all sorts of fun ways to actually reach infinity, though. Projective geometry is one approach; "one point compactifications" (look into a topology book for details) is another way. Both basically involve wrapping your space into a ball.

Posted by: Davis | May 16, 2006 5:34 PM

"Are we not men?"

No. Some of us are women.

And as for the music that makes me groove to my labwork, it's Bjork.

Posted by: K8 | May 16, 2006 5:40 PM

Oggutho, Jesus was obviously a zombie. He certainly wasn't a litch.

um, i believe you meant lich, not litch. but, then, hey, maybe Mary Magdelene had some fetishes.

Posted by: ekzept | May 16, 2006 5:58 PM

Was Jesus a Turner?

Is Dubyah a Down?

Is Dembski with him?

Is PZ a clown?

Posted by: Fred J | May 16, 2006 6:54 PM

How would the world be different if no one had ever invented the concept of zero?

Posted by: Carlie | May 16, 2006 7:32 PM

Tara inquired

Do you have a collection of regular polyhedrons with numbered sides?

This, although clever, may allow PZ an escape if he is (or was) a whitewolf or MERP player. Since these systems rely entirely on the d10, he could cheerfully say "no".

Though this actually leads me to my question:

When constructing a die shape, you want all die faces to be
equally likely (and also have the result face in an unambigious direction). Thus, can we construct a classification scheme for all dice based upon their symmetries?

Posted by: archgoon | May 16, 2006 7:38 PM

What were the first 8 plans from outer space like?

Why do so many creationists say "I don't believe we came from dirt, therefore Genesis 2:7 must be literally true?

Can science explain why ninjas are so awesome?

Posted by: wintermute23 | May 16, 2006 8:02 PM

How many roads must a man walk down?

What is the air-speed of an unladen swallow (African or European, take your pick)?

What is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything?

Posted by: Zarquon | May 16, 2006 8:09 PM

*wonders how long it'll take someone to suggest "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"*

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 16, 2006 8:19 PM

Q: That we have a finite entropy is a good argument why theories where choosen vacuum states has lower degrees of freedom, like string theory, is preferable over "quantum foam descriptions". But since there are several kinds of entropy, one could perhaps envision one where the vacuum state entropy is baselined out. How do we really know that the vacuum state is simple?

And now for some answers, they are fun too:
"There are math symbols for "approaching" infinity. Well, if you can approach it, it must be a point and you should be able to get there. How, and what will I see when I get there? What is on the other side."

Some mathematical entities (or their physical embodiments) are ambigious or context dependent, such as the meaning and behaviour of infinities and the related concept of singularities. Infinities are typically added on as some way to "reach infinity".

They behaves in some ways differently from the underlaying mathematical object. (Real number line +oo + 1 = + oo, for example.) In cases of plane geometry, complex analysis or topology there is actually "a point at infinity" since you can wrap your plane around a ball (see Davis space wrapping) and you find this point opposite of origo.

Warning: I'm not a mathematician, so the details are most likely wrong. Hopefully the measure of those details approaches zero. No guarantees, though.

"Same question with the "universe" -- It's a physical object and should have a boundary. What is one step beyond the edge?"

There is no boundary. Well, in some cosmologies the start (the bigbang singularity) and/or the end (infinite time) are boundaries, but in general they don't have to be. General relativity (which doesn't apply to the bigbang singularity) is a selfcontained effective field theory. So the gravitational fields used in this description are also a selfcontained description. It gives a picture without any external physical boundaries or any 'beyond'. There is no 'space' to embed the spacetime of our universe in.

"Prior to the big bang all of the mass of the universe existed as a singularity. If the instant before the big bang is taken as t=0 and entropy is considered to be increasing from this point how is it that the big bang even happened?"

The simplest explanation to these questions is the newer theories where bigbang is embedded in a larger infinite time universe. There are a number of those theories, the endless inflation multiverse and the ekpyrotic (colliding brane) universe are probably the most known. The endless inflation multiverse may be slightly favored by the latest WMAP microwave background measurements. Bigbangs starts new universes by wormholes from old ones. It happens whenever the vacuum state fluctuations are large enough in the particular inflation model.

Entropy may be a problem for these descriptions as you say. However no quantum gravity theory exists to explain the bigbang start of a new universe. Similarly different types of entropy for different physical situations are studied. For an explicit solution to the problems of entropy and the arrow of time, see Sean Carroll et al timereversal invariant cosmology. (Introduction and links in the "The Arrow of Time" post at http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_preposterousuniverse_archive.html )

"Time dilates in the presence of mass and the entirety of all mass should be a massive gravity well. Is all the mass in the universe insufficient to lower the Lorentz factor to 0 or were the laws of the universe so different at that time that this was not an issue?"

Nobody knows. Physicists seem to think we must have a quantum gravitation theory to even begin to describe the bigbang singularity reasonable well.

"Are viruses alive?"

"Life" is hard to define, but viruses lacks some usual aspects (metabolism). I used to think of sick organisms (like virusinfected) as ones that are more complex than nonsick (new behaviours, sometimes external invading organisms) so a philosophical answer I had was that the system animals + viruses were as alive as animals.

Now Pharyngula has posts that explains viruses might not initally or always be RNA or DNA let loose, since some looks most like simplified organisms. Maybe the idea that they are alive when it counts (for replication) is valid. OTOH it would cover prions too, which isn't necessary what people like to see as "alive".

"Why are Earth and Titan the only bodies in our Solar system with Nitrogen atmospheres?"

I don't have a good answer for that, but I note that Venus has double the amount of nitrogen as Earth (while CO2 dominates) and that Mars has a sizable amount too (a tenth of CO2), so I would include those in the question too.

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | May 16, 2006 8:58 PM

PhaWRONGula (Ratty) asks:

The floor has been opened, and so
It's time we got on with the show:
Which is more sorry--
Behe, or Horrie?
The peanut crowd's dying to know.

Posted by: Virge | May 16, 2006 9:11 PM

"Can science explain why ninjas are so awesome?" -- wintermute23

Sort of. Science can explain why you think ninjas are so awesome:

http://www.thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_04/i_04_cr/i_04_cr_peu/i_04_cr_peu.htm

----------------

My question for all you Mr. Science-Heads out there: What happens in schizophrenics who have schizophrenic episodes induced by gluten and or casin? For example, does gluten effect a certain receptor in the mesocortical circuit? Which one?

Mrs., Ms., Miss, or Madam Science-Heads could answer, too. Really any Science-Head. Except Powder Blue colored Science-Heads; they freak me out.

Mike Fox

Posted by: Mike Fox | May 16, 2006 9:30 PM

Some more answers:

"The center is outside our space (in the center of the balloon, not a part of the skin)"

I'm not sure what and if that means anything. There is no 'outside' and 'center' of our universe.

"The mathematical distance between one and two is infinity -- wad up wid dat?"

Um, no. There is an infinite number of algoritmic steps or segments or points for the real line that covers a distance between A and B. One must separate the limes (approach process) from the distance measured. What is amazing is that one can add up an infinite number of segments and get a finite answer. That is way cool! The first time, and the second time, and ...

"In light of Electroweak symmetry breaking, please explain the behavior of gravity at the Planck length."

Is that even a question? String phycisists insists that all interactions and particles must be accounted for in the description of quantum gravity that is needed to explain physics at Plank scales, including the electroweak interaction. Maybe that is an answer for you?

"Just what, exactly, is the functional or philosophical difference between String Theory and Intelligent Design? Hint: Neither make testable predictions or are falsifiable..."

Um, no. String theory is functionally constrained and makes plenty of predictions, many falsifiable. Some of them are compatibility tests with old (einstein action, flat space, renormalization) and new (AdS/CFT holography, gravitons, curved space, tachyons) physics. Some are Planck scale predictions and not immediately practically testable.

For a model independent falsifiable prediction that are in progress of testing, see Jacques Distler http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000808.html#more .

This makes one IMHO less concerned about nonfalsifiable smaller parts of string theory, like an anthropic selected landscape of vacua.

While ID isn't even a fully usable hypotheses without an acting agent, IC is nonfalsifiable, and SCI is a nonstarter.

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | May 16, 2006 9:40 PM

"Thataway" is not answer to the infinity question. "Approaching" usually means you get closer. My son said -- not so with math because English and math are not compatable.

Your son is right. There are quite a few words (compact, normal, space, open/closed come to mind) that have mathematical meanings which only loosely match their English meanings.

He then told me that you can fractionalize (my word) the distance between the numbers 1 (one) and 2 (two) so that, counting each fraction you never get to two. The mathematical distance between one and two is infinity -- wad up wid dat?

The mathematical distance between one and two is one in the Euclidean (i.e. the usual) metric, and it's never infinite by the definition of a metric (which is what mathematicans usually mean by distance). The number of points between one and two is infinite, but that's a different question.

Posted by: roystgnr | May 16, 2006 9:50 PM

As a non-scientist, I have always wanted to know why there something rather than nothing, and whether it is possible to say there is a "place" beyond the know universe where nothing exists. Is there non-universe? And are these answerable questions?

Posted by: George | May 16, 2006 10:25 PM

...

...

ORGASM QUESTION (a "guy" question, obviously):

Considering that orgasm involves the momentary firing of probably no more than a few grams of nerve tissue (ounces of contractile tissue?), how is it that we devote major portions of our lives to setting up situations in which THAT tiny scrap will fire off? How can we be such puppets to this little snippet of us? What is the mechanism by which it proves to be SO reinforcing over such a broad spectrum of our behavior?

...

...

Posted by: woofsterNY | May 17, 2006 12:53 AM

Thanks Azkyroth and thwaite, I'll be looking more into those references you mentioned.

Posted by: Nyarlathotep | May 17, 2006 1:58 AM

How would the world be different if no one had ever invented the concept of zero?

Megaman X would be heterosexual.

Posted by: lytefoot | May 17, 2006 4:03 AM

woofsterNY

It's kinda sad that you think that's a "guy" question. And that so many people probably agree with that framing. Suggest you read up on the female orgasm.

Posted by: RickD | May 17, 2006 5:08 AM

'Are we not men?' We are Devo!

Maybe a bit old-school for this crowd, but it seemed to fit....

Posted by: NelC | May 17, 2006 7:35 AM

Regarding crows and use of tools, a while back I watched two crows fighting over a bit of food. When one of them seemed to have gotten the best of it, the other flew off, only to return after a minute or so carrying an empty soda can, holding on to it by the opening in the top. He proceeded to bonk his antagonist over the head with it. So not only do crows use tools, at least one of them apparently had the capacity to use them as weapons.

Posted by: James Wynne | May 17, 2006 8:19 AM

Colin - we have those dandelions too! They're all over my campus. I thought they were some pesticide-caused mutant. Now I'm even more curious about them.

Posted by: Carlie | May 17, 2006 8:42 AM

Just what, exactly, is the functional or philosophical difference between String Theory and Intelligent Design? Hint: Neither make testable predictions or are falsifiable...

I don't know much about string theory, but if I had to guess: They might be able to figure out a way to falsify string theory, someday.

But that's only speaking from my armchair.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 17, 2006 9:36 AM