What fascinates you?

HoneyNut said:
I'm not sure if it is called Geology and Earth Sciences but I enjoy learning about things like rivers, ecosystems, and critters.





Click to expand...
Ze Frank (the bottom video) is one of my favorite youtubers.

Another really good one is OddAnimalSpecimens. It's this guy who works at a lab that houses "every animal on the planet".
 

I'm not as fascinated with stuff that fascinated me before I turned ...mm, 40, I'd say. I've lost interest in the cosmos and marine life, except for the deepest sea life...Challenger Deep level. There's some extraordinary, super-weird stuff down there. Sports isn't fascinating anymore. Art and art history is still kind of interesting, but not fascinating like it used to be. I used to be really into science fiction. I had a pretty big library of science fiction novels that I gave to my son a couple decades ago.

About the only thing that fascinates me these days is what goes on right here at home.
 
oldpop said:
Ancient civilizations/Archeology. Quantum Physics also fascinates me. Probably because I cannot quite wrap my head around it. It seems to constantly change which makes it hard to follow. For me anyway.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. Plus it's really hard to separate facts from theories. Some physicists talk about the theories as though they're facts, so you have to really listen (or read). Well, and then you have to remember, and that's where I have the most trouble.
 
My ancestors! My whole life I was told my grandfather's family was no good drunks. I never knew them. Once I started using Ancestry, I discovered so much about them going back really far. Sometimes I dream about them and they are talking to me. They helped settle parts of the northeast states including Rhinebeck, NY. I can work on Ancestry for hours but presently I had to stop my subscription due to the expense and I miss it so much. Yes, I am fascinated by them.
 
Murrmurr said:
I had a spider-buddy who did the same thing. I didn't necessarily want her to move away altogether, so here's what I did - I glued a twig across the corner of the door frame hoping it would serve a double-purpose; a webbing anchor point and boundary line, you know what I mean? Like, that upper-left corner was hers, the twig was our property line.

It worked! She lived and died on her side of the twig; up high enough to keep her webs out of my face, but still plenty of room for her meals.
Click to expand...
MacGyver, is that you? :giggle:
 
What fascinates me?

Life! what can be more fascinating than life itself. We have only scratched the surface…there is so much more to know, to learn, to create and to enjoy.

I am fascinated by man’s endeavours to explore other planets… by nature’s tenacity that despite all that befalls it….it still rises to the occasion!!

What can be more fascinating than to wake up each morning with a tabular rasa and have the opportunity to put one’s mark on a bright new day!

🌻🌻
 
Murrmurr said:
Yes, it does. Plus it's really hard to separate facts from theories. Some physicists talk about the theories as though they're facts, so you have to really listen (or read). Well, and then you have to remember, and that's where I have the most trouble.
Click to expand...
It's all new to me. It's difficult to understand plus remember.

I find it helps to listen to different podcasts (supplemented by reading). If it's difficult the first time, it might make sense the second time.

Never gets boring, because every presenter or author comes at it from a different angle.
 
Wellll...I guess I'm just shallow because what fascinates me is the hanging solar lights in the garden. They're like wind chimes, but just lights instead. One is six butterflies, the other is six hummingbirds. I could look at them for hours.

No quantum physics for me. Don't really care if one hand clapping makes a sound or not.

I'm gonna get more of those solar lights.

ETA: It's not just that they're solar...they change colors. That's what makes them fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Murrmurr said:
Yes, it does. Plus it's really hard to separate facts from theories. Some physicists talk about the theories as though they're facts, so you have to really listen (or read). Well, and then you have to remember, and that's where I have the most trouble.
Click to expand...

I don't think some scientists explain themselves very well when thay say 'theory'.

I suppose the thing is, some scientist consider theories as facts for a reason. You & I might have a traditional understanding or definition of the word, theory. But I believe a scientist might view & use the word differently. A “scientific theory” is not a guess or a hunch.

A “scientific theory” is a well-substantiated explanation of a “set of other facts” that have been repeatedly confirmed through experimentation and observation. Understanding their use of this word gives a different take & a better understanding of what a scientist means when they say ‘theory’. A “scientific theory” is something that’s considered to be reliable and accurate. It’s a theory that is build up from other related scientific facts.

My own simple definition of a 'fact' is something that doesn’t necessarily need to be supported by theory or opinions.

Opinions are important, of cause that are, in that they are the driver to establish a theory, which then drives to find a ‘scientific theory’. Which then goes towards finding & establishing facts.

In an oversimplified way, an opinion needs facts/direct evidence to qualify it, but facts have no use for opinions.
 
Last edited:
fuzzybuddy said:
For some unknown reason, I got hooked on Ancient Egypt. We all have something that fascinates us. What fascinates you?
Click to expand...
That if we were at STNG level, we could fly from one end to the universe to the other and it would be unlikely that we'd hit a star, planet or moon.

There's a whole lot of empty space out there. The "Deep Field" event on YouTube is a wild video of what we can't see to the naked eye, but the Hubble could.
 
Magna-Carta said:
I don't think some scientists explain themselves very well when thay say 'theory'.

I suppose the thing is, some scientist consider theories as facts for a reason. You & I might have a traditional understanding or definition of the word, theory. But I believe a scientist might view & use the word differently. A “scientific theory” is not a guess or a hunch.

A “scientific theory” is a well-substantiated explanation of a “set of other facts” that have been repeatedly confirmed through experimentation and observation. Understanding their use of this word gives a different take & a better understanding of what a scientist means when they say ‘theory’. A “scientific theory” is something that’s considered to be reliable and accurate. It’s a theory that is build up from other related scientific facts.

My own simple definition of a 'fact' is something that doesn’t necessarily need to be supported by theory or opinions.

Opinions are important, of cause that are, in that they are the driver to establish a theory, which then drives to find a ‘scientific theory’. Which then goes towards finding & establishing facts.

In an oversimplified way, an opinion needs facts/direct evidence to qualify it, but facts have no use for opinions.
Click to expand...
Theories are conclusions based on evidence, but are yet to be proven as fact. Some physicists are saying Einstein's theory of relativity was recently disproven, but it's still debatable.

I agree with your last sentence 100%. Well put.
 
Murrmurr said:
Theories are conclusions based on evidence, but are yet to be proven as fact. Some physicists are saying Einstein's theory of relativity was recently disproven, but it's still debatable.

I agree with your last sentence 100%. Well put.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe your first sentence is pretty much what I said, and is ‘generally’ correct.

If we were to take the word ‘theory’ in isolation, then I could make a theory up right now, on many subjects, as we all can. But it wouldn’t necessarily be a ‘scientific theory’.

In my example I was trying to make the point that specifically a ‘scientific theory’ goes beyond that. Scientific theories are supported by a large amount of evidence that have withstood rigorous testing and scrutiny. Including being openly scrutinised by other scientists in other countries independently. And then supported by any separate known ‘facts’. So much so that some scientist might put it across as sounding like 100% factual.

Scientific theories can still be modified however, or even overturned in light of new evidence or a better explanation. This would be a normal and healthy part of the scientific process. And for life in general for that matter.

This in part is why I struggle with religion – and people who want to debate it with me by just simply quoting me scripture, and giving me circular arguments. And see it all as facts in absence of a free thinking mind. I suppose its called 'faith' for a reason?

I don’t want to pick on semantics, but I would say that if there are some physicists, as you point out, saying “Einstein's theory of relativity was recently disproven” as a matter of fact, then I would say that those physicists aren’t physicists/scientist – it would seem to be a strange thing for them to say. I would have thought that if it’s been ‘disproven’ then it would be so significant that it would be headline international news, but it’s not. Then the follow up words, “but it's still debatable” in the same sentance wouldn’t make sence to me either. As for me they are too much of a contradiction to have in the same sentence.

EDIT / Update. I suppose if there is any theory that disproves Einstein's theory of relativity (which one, his general theory or special theory), then that too should/will be subject to scrutiny and debate by people who know the subject much better than I. And based on being tested in order to make accurate predictions that can be repeated. That’s what science is all about after all.
 
Last edited:
The vastness of the Universe.
Think about this, the closest Galaxy, Andromeda, is 2,537 million light years away from us.
1 light year is, 5.8 trillion miles, 9.46 trillion kms...2537 million light years...
The furthest - the galaxy GN-z11 is 13.4 billion light-years away...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top