Lets Talk About Things Science Cannot Explain

[JunkMonkey]

Snow isn't opaque.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Been thinking about this.

I'm assuming that the fox is hunting by sight, so it looking for movement beneath the snow - for small moving shadows cast in a raking light. If the fox was facing side-on to the sun, any shadows caused by movement beneath the snow would appear as horizontal lines on the bright snow's surface. This would tell the fox the angle (in relation to it's line of sight) of the thing casting the shadow but not how far away it was. Having spotted a potential prey like this, it would make sense for the fox to circle round till it is facing into the sun. with the prey in front of it. Facing south, the shadows of prey would appear shorter, but, with the sun in sight and other shadows as a guide, it would be easier to triangulate its distance away for the final jump.

In the Antarctic the fox would, obviously, be better off facing north for its final attack.

 

[LordOfWizards]

Snow isn't opaque.

Wouldn't that depend on the depth/and or other snow conditions? If it were fresh fallen snow it could be very thick and completely cover the prey's dwelling entrance. On the other hand, tracks in the snow would make the fox's work much easier. @Stephen Palmer , @mosaix is there a link you could share to this information? Is it all written in books only?

 

[LordOfWizards]

Sorry for being lazy. I found it: Foxes use the Earth’s magnetic field as a targeting system - Not Exactly Rocket Science

The article says the fox is using it's ears along with the hypothesized targeting system.

 

[LordOfWizards]

 

[BAYLOR]

Sorry for being lazy. I found it: Foxes use the Earth’s magnetic field as a targeting system - Not Exactly Rocket Science

The article says the fox is using it's ears along with the hypothesized targeting system.

Unlike humans, animals are in tune with the earth around them. If we were as in tune and aware, perhaps we might treat this world alot better then we do?

 

[Stewart Hotston]

As with many things I guess, it's not all one thing nor another but a more nuanced, complex, system

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I suspect it very likely is a combination of factors. The fox thing is debatable, for sure. More defined is birds' use during migration, which still has much to be explained.

 

[BAYLOR]

That which is below the subatomic level.

 

[BAYLOR]

Unexpected election results?

 

[RJM Corbet]

Science can only explain 4 per cent

 

[BAYLOR]

Science can only explain 4 per cent

That much?

 

[RJM Corbet]

Let's say: 96 per cent of 'reality' cannot be explained by the standard model

 

[BAYLOR]

Let's say: 96 per cent of 'reality' cannot be explained by the standard model

That, I can agree with.

 

[BAYLOR]

What beyond the universe we know?

 

[BAYLOR]

Whats at the exact center of a black hole?

 

[Mirannan]

Whats at the exact center of a black hole?

The real answer, by current physics? Unknown and unknowable. Theoretical predictions can't be tested, because observing it is impossible. IIRC, one can't even observe the central region from inside the hole, because the light that would carry the information can't get to you; space is one-way.

However, what (again, according to theory) can be said is that physics breaks down sufficiently near the centre; meaning something close to a Planck length from the absolute centre, because (among other phenomena) space breaks down into a random foam because of Heisenberg uncertainty.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Yes. It breaks down at singularity: speed-of-light = infinite mass/time? Speed of MIND is instant. Imo. But that's just me. Better not start

 

[J Riff]

Next up: White holes..*

 

[BAYLOR]

Next up: White holes..*

But do they actually exist?