Ask a question

Does This Make Scientific Sense

Does it make scientific sense to think we're "overdue" for an earthquake?

Short answer is yes.  Earthquakes are caused by two crust plates moving across or alongside each other.  At points where the plates lock together, strain builds up because overall plate movement cannot be stopped.  The plates deform "somewhat" elastically about the locked points to accommodate the movement, increasing the stress on the locked points the longer they are locked together.So the greater time between earthquake events, the greater the likelihood of an event occurring because the greater the stress built up in the points locked together (presuming the plates haven't suddenly found a way to slip alongside each other without causing a noticeable earthquake event, quite unlikely).

Scientific names for senses?

Smell: olfactory
Touch: tactile
Balance: equilibrioception

How many of your senses can help you make scientific observations?

I think human can make scientific observations by all his senses,eyesight,hearing,taste,smell,touc... and even 6th sense,but he should just pay attention to everything he communicates with that!

Has there been any scientific studies done how animals can sense earthquakes way before they actually happen?

Personally, i do not know much about this subject, however i can share up to a certain extent before my nausea kicks in so…You know those particularly smart animals or ones with good memory? Like elephants. So if there is any sign of an earthquake, any type of signal that tells them that something will happen, it will remember. Like Memory T/B cells in your lymphatic system after your body beats up a pathogen/microbe. So lets say a drought happened. Firstly, lets say there was cracked ground, the elephant may link this as the result of a drought. I think that it is entirely possible you can find some kind of animals that can detect earthquakes and predict when and where it could happen.

In what form do our thoughts take in a more scientific sense?

All thoughts (and emotions) are derived from interacting circuits (networks) via brain-wave activity …Brain circuits (universally) only know how to make ‘associations' between one thing … and another thing.This is true for all sentient organisms.Mother Nature is very good at ‘conserving' simple, effective, ideas.

Does it make good scientific sense to say that something only exists when you can see it and feel it?

No, of course not, which is why scientists do not say that.Indeed, science relies heavily on mathematics as its language, and only the most ardent Platonist would believe that numbers actually exist as real identities.Actually, I know it’s not quite the same thing as what you were asking, but to only consider the existence of things that have been proven, in any way, would be contrary to the Popperian philosophy of science (and to some degree even the antiquated Baconian philosophy of science that you YECs think scientists still use, but don’t).

The word "theory" used in a scientific sense means...?

a. That of which the scientist is most certain. Notice that it doesn't say completely certain. A theory is an hypothesis that has been repeatedly tested by various means and has withstood every test. In other words, it has plenty of evidence, has no evidence that proves it is wrong, but hasn't been completely proven true.

Does the plan of Elon Musk to "colonize" Mars make scientific sense and are his plans realistic?

At the moment, they are not.Musk was banking on a lot of things when he announced the IPT. First off was that he'd be able to bankroll the development by attracting government backing to use the system for their own mission. That government backing is highly unlikely to materialize in the current climate, and by the time it does it's possible that the IPT will be obsolete.The other thing he was depending on was that other companies would develop all the infrastructure needed to actually build the colony. All he has is a blueprint for a very big bus. SpaceX is not prepared to build and maintain the plethora of technologies needed to make a surface habitat workable. But with the latest NASA budget, they've had to trim back on all the projects that would have funded the development of those technologies, meaning there's no longer a compelling financial incentive for anyone to invest in the project.As for if his ideas are possible from a technical perspective, it's still uncertain. The landing of anything as large as the IPT is pretty much unprecedented, and the supersonic retropropulsion technique he wants to employ has never been successfully implemented at that scale. There are very real concerns that the technology is not yet mature enough to work. Also, the only way that the IPT can get off the ground is if he can prove that he can build a working rocket out of composite materials, something that aerospace contractors have been trying and failing to do for decades now.It's an ambitious project and if he gets over even one hurdle it represents a leap forward for space travel as a whole, but for the colony to work the way he's laid out is probably an extreme longshot.