General Stuff #4
Scientific Discussion
Archive: 956 posts
| Hmmm, this reminds me of the German attempts to make new super-weapons during WWII. Could it work? I'm not sure it can. I shouldn't say that because innovation seems to find a way. The range seems like it couldn't be used in an attacking fashion, only defensive. Seems a bit safer if you put it that way. How did he plan for it to be accurate? Was he thinking he could plan how it arced? If they can't control it's accuracy there's no way it would be built. Too much risk. On a foot note: What's with this "Super-weapon to end all wars" Very Juxtaposing. | 2011-05-02 03:25:00 Author: Maxi  Posts: 1176 |
| And what's with this "Super-weapon to end all wars" I've heard that a lot of inventors of weaponry always think the bigger the gun they build, the more peace it will bring. The Gatling gun was thought to bring peace...the nuclear bomb...etc. But in the end it always seems to bring more trouble.  | 2011-05-02 03:30:00 Author: warlord_evil  Posts: 4193 |
| I can sort of understand them. If your countries had these along your borders, noone could muster an invasion. The problem with that is that not every country could afford it. You would have rich, powerful nations invading weaker poorer nations. I think the question isn't can it be built. It's more like would the UN allow it. I believe not. | 2011-05-02 03:38:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| Anyways, recently read about Nikola Tesla and a particular section sounded very interesting. Read this (mind that it is from Wikipedia, so it may be unreliable.): "Tesla worked on plans for a directed-energy weapon from the early 1900s until his death. In 1937, Tesla wrote a treatise entitled "The Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-dispersive Energy through the Natural Media", which concerned charged particle beams. Tesla published the document in an attempt to expound on the technical description of a 'superweapon that would put an end to all war.' " Full section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_tesla#Directed-energy_weapon Apparently the 'weapon' he was working on could do a lot destruction: "[The nozzle would] send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks." According to the rest of the article, it simply wasn't completed due to a lack of funding, and I'm going to assume his death stopped his project too. Could such a weapon really be possible? Maybe. With a strange twist of coincidence, you posted this less than a day a friend was telling me about John Hutchison. Even more strangely, you posted this JUST before the news about Osama Bin Laden was announced to the world. So speaking of Nikola Tesla... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutchison In 1979, Hutchison claimed to have discovered a number of unusual phenomena, while trying to duplicate experiments done by Nikola Tesla. He refers to several of these phenomena jointly under the name "the Hutchison effect", including: levitation of heavy objects. fusion of dissimilar materials such as metal and wood, while lacking any displacement. the anomalous heating of metals without burning adjacent material. the spontaneous fracturing of metals. changes in the crystalline structure and physical properties of metals. disappearance of metal samples. Dr. Judy Wood is an expert in materials science and it's application to engineering. She gained notoriety for her theories on what happened to the World Trade Center (filed under 9/11 conspiracies). In short, her argument can be summarized as "a space weapon demolished the WTC buildings" and is based around the fact that large portion of the WTC tower debris was missing from the wreckage site. As ludicrous as this sounds, her lecture is an interesting watch because the collapse of the WTC towers appears to defy the laws of physics - much of the towers' mass appears to disintegrate into dust. She later discovered Hutchison's work and claimed the Hutchison effect at work on a much larger scale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzSN7dKSAaM I'm skeptical, obviously. I don't buy the 9/11 conspiracy stuff and I haven't had a chance to read up on how her theories have been debunked, but that's not to say the possibility of something like this cannot exist. Then again, if the Hutchison effect is legitimate, why is it not scientifically accepted? | 2011-05-02 09:45:00 Author: Thegide  Posts: 1465 |
| Ok! New discussion, this looks pretty interesting. Nice! Speaking of archaeology, they always dig stairs into a "house" claiming that stairs were there thousands of years ago. I think you'll find you dug them there... A new discussion sounds like a great idea...if you would like to continue the "off-topic" discussion then please take it to PM's. Anyways, recently read about Nikola Tesla and a particular section sounded very interesting. Read this (mind that it is from Wikipedia, so it may be unreliable.): "Tesla worked on plans for a directed-energy weapon from the early 1900s until his death. In 1937, Tesla wrote a treatise entitled "The Art of Projecting Concentrated Non-dispersive Energy through the Natural Media", which concerned charged particle beams. Tesla published the document in an attempt to expound on the technical description of a 'superweapon that would put an end to all war.' " Full section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_tesla#Directed-energy_weapon Apparently the 'weapon' he was working on could do a lot destruction: "[The nozzle would] send concentrated beams of particles through the free air, of such tremendous energy that they will bring down a fleet of 10,000 enemy airplanes at a distance of 200 miles from a defending nation's border and will cause armies to drop dead in their tracks." According to the rest of the article, it simply wasn't completed due to a lack of funding, and I'm going to assume his death stopped his project too. Could such a weapon really be possible? Nikola Tesla threatened to split the earth in two with his inventions, after having caused small tremors. Everyone laughed at him, but do you know what? No-one challenged him to try. Is it possible? I doubt it, but then again, Nikola sent electricity over a long distance wirelessly. Something we're only just getting our heads around today. | 2011-05-02 10:31:00 Author: Weretigr  Posts: 2105 |
| Could such a weapon really be possible? Read about that stuff years ago and believe it was called a scalar interferometer or something like that if you're interested in pursuing it further. A bunch of people connect it with haarp and tunguska and the illuminati and other stuff so get ready for the ride! | 2011-05-02 16:55:00 Author: Ayneh  Posts: 2454 |
| Read about that stuff years ago and believe it was called a scalar interferometer or something like that if you're interested in pursuing it further. A bunch of people connect it with haarp and tunguska and the illuminati and other stuff so get ready for the ride! *takes notes* *creates superweapon* *Destroys Humanity* *???* *Profit!* | 2011-05-02 16:57:00 Author: Kern  Posts: 5078 |
| Well this is before the atomic bomb and I imagine the world political climate was receptive to superweapons. If there's any reality to Tesla's crazy electromagnetic schumann vibrating resonance death machines they may have been a ploy to get him more interest and dosh. | 2011-05-02 18:07:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| Tesla's experiments have always fascinated me and I've always wondered what the world would look like today if he had all the funding he needed for the rest of his life. | 2011-05-03 02:06:00 Author: Patronus21  Posts: 266 |
| Or maybe if he at least wrote down his ideas. He had- I think it was autism, or something similar, so he mapped out all his plans and inventions in his head, and hardly wrote anything down. So when he died, so did his great ideas. | 2011-05-03 16:34:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Well, there were some but his research was deemed too potentially dangerous that J. Edger Hoover had the FBI confiscate all his remaining effects after his death and locked them away. Really makes one think of what sort of secrets we could learn from them if they were unsealed, all the possibilities... http://www.lbpcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=32266 | 2011-05-04 02:38:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka  Posts: 512 |
| Tesla was a great man, so many ideas gone to waste if it werent for that we probably wouldnt have all of this global warming crap. | 2011-05-05 01:05:00 Author: Charlemagne  Posts: 513 |
| Something a bit more related to peoples every-day life. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/April/28041104.asp In summary, US researchers have incorporated carbon nanotubes into organic light-emitting transistors (OLETs) to create devices that rival the performance of their silicon counterparts. This technology could lead to much larger flat screen televisions and displays, which are also cheaper to manufacture. | 2011-05-05 21:32:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| Something a bit more related to peoples every-day life. http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/April/28041104.asp Yay for bigger, better and cheaper screens  I'm still waiting for the bionic contact lenses though  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_contact_lens ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh and look what I found: http://www.ted.com/talks/harvey_fineberg_are_we_ready_for_neo_evolution.htm l Warning, it lasts 17 minutes, so be prepared! Do you maybe have anything to do with this Thegide?  Sooo, if you could pick only one, what gene would you like to improve? I would prefer improving my memory, because I am bad enough already on remembering faces and names, so it is time those really got improved! Plus, that would mean I would have an easier time remembering important stuff from books and such, all kinds of information I may have use for in the future! | 2011-05-07 12:17:00 Author: moonwire  Posts: 1627 |
| Yay for bigger, better and cheaper screens I'm still waiting for the bionic contact lenses though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionic_contact_lens ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh and look what I found: http://www.ted.com/talks/harvey_fineberg_are_we_ready_for_neo_evolution.htm l Warning, it lasts 17 minutes, so be prepared! Do you maybe have anything to do with this Thegide? Sooo, if you could pick only one, what gene would you like to improve? I would prefer improving my memory, because I am bad enough already on remembering faces and names, so it is time those really got improved! Plus, that would mean I would have an easier time remembering important stuff from books and such, all kinds of information I may have use for in the future! i would improve my cooling system, Or the Ability to Photosynthesize | 2011-05-07 13:27:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| i would improve my cooling system, Or the Ability to Photosynthesize But does not being able to photosynthesize require you to be all green by chloroplasts or some other sort of cell containing chlorophyl? Meh, maybe they can take it out, though I am not sure if it would work without it? Besides, people wear clothes, so unless you improve your cooling/heating system a lot or move to a hotter place on earth, going around with a bare torso is not gonna be pleasant XD | 2011-05-07 13:38:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| http://m.facebook.com/people/Joshua-McEvoy/1310387915 here he is for real | 2011-05-07 13:49:00 Author: hannahowens  Posts: 106 |
| http://m.facebook.com/people/Joshua-McEvoy/1310387915 here he is for real And what has this to do with science? And who is the person? XD | 2011-05-07 14:00:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| But does not being able to photosynthesize require you to be all green by chloroplasts or some other sort of cell containing chlorophyl? Meh, maybe they can take it out, though I am not sure if it would work without it? Besides, people wear clothes, so unless you improve your cooling/heating system a lot or move to a hotter place on earth, going around with a bare torso is not gonna be pleasant XD Well i'd grow sails out of my back, Fill them with Chloroplasts and Blood Vessels, So if i needed to heat up/photosynthesize i would just point to the sun | 2011-05-07 14:04:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Well i'd grow sails out of my back, Fill them with Chloroplasts and Blood Vessels, So if i needed to heat up/photosynthesize i would just point to the sun I get you, but would not not that be inconvenient in smaller spaces? Plus, that would only grant you energy, and I am not even sure if you can get that much energy from just photosynthesize? Enough for moving and etc. I mean. Also, you would still have to get your vitamins, minerals and such, your body can't live on with energy alone. I think. | 2011-05-07 14:16:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| I get you, but would not not that be inconvenient in smaller spaces? Plus, that would only grant you energy, and I am not even sure if you can get that much energy from just photosynthesize? Enough for moving and etc. I mean. Also, you would still have to get your vitamins, minerals and such, your body can't live on with energy alone. I think. I'd still be able to Eat, The Photosynthesis would just produce Glucose so i could nom on that also i'd have to rewire my breathing system so i take in Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen. | 2011-05-07 14:21:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| I'd still be able to Eat, The Photosynthesis would just produce Glucose so i could nom on that also i'd have to rewire my breathing system so i take in Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen. Of course Though I am uncertain of wether or not it is possible for plant people to really exist? It worries me what prejudicing people may say on the matters, though, if you ever get stranded on a sea on a lifeboat it will be useful, since you just need sunlight and water, though then you would also need some way of filtering sea water... While we are mentioning water, I would love to have some gills as well as fins! Plus eyes able to sea clearly underwater ^^ | 2011-05-07 14:31:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| Kernel wants to be like The End from Snake Eater. :o | 2011-05-07 14:36:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| Of course Though I am uncertain of wether or not it is possible for plant people to really exist? It worries me what prejudicing people may say on the matters, though, if you ever get stranded on a sea on a lifeboat it will be useful, since you just need sunlight and water, though then you would also need some way of filtering sea water... While we are mentioning water, I would love to have some gills as well as fins! Plus eyes able to sea clearly underwater ^^ all you'd need is to extend your third eyelid (which is already there) across into a waterproof layer then you would be able to sea (geddit?). The Issue with Gills is they require a constant movement of water, So you'd have to constantly swim or suck it through your gills "If you've volunteered to be injected with Praying Mantis Venom we've got some good news and some bad news, The Bad news is, We've postponed the experiment indefinitely, The Good News is we've made a new Test; Fighting off an Army of Mantis Men! Grab a rifle and follow the yellow line, You'll know when the test starts" | 2011-05-07 14:48:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| The eyelid thing ought to be easy enough to implement (I can't see why they would not try that at once, it would be quite efficient for divers and etc. And Yeah, that may be a problem, plus I would not be too sure about wether or not using my lungs for pumping water in and out would be good for lungs or not... I definitely do not want small parasite fish there D: "Alright, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your **** lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!" | 2011-05-07 14:56:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| The eyelid thing ought to be easy enough to implement (I can't see why they would not try that at once, it would be quite efficient for divers and etc. And Yeah, that may be a problem, plus I would not be too sure about wether or not using my lungs for pumping water in and out would be good for lungs or not... I definitely do not want small parasite fish there D: "Alright, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back! Get mad! I don't want your **** lemons! What am I supposed to do with these? Demand to see life's manager! Make life rue the day it thought it could give Cave Johnson lemons! Do you know who I am? I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!" it would be far too difficult to pump water in and out using your lungs :/ | 2011-05-07 15:02:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| it would be far too difficult to pump water in and out using your lungs :/ Agreed, silly me, I was just thinking of how to get the water passing through gills without having to swim forward... I guess a sucking motion made by the gillflaps or something would work too Plus, the gills would have to be sizeable, or else there would not be enough to breathe from. | 2011-05-07 15:18:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| But does not being able to photosynthesize require you to be all green by chloroplasts or some other sort of cell containing chlorophyl? Meh, maybe they can take it out, though I am not sure if it would work without it? Besides, people wear clothes, so unless you improve your cooling/heating system a lot or move to a hotter place on earth, going around with a bare torso is not gonna be pleasant XD No, it wouldn't work without it. Chlorophyll is the photosensitive building block of the photosystem's electron transport chain. It produces the ATP consumed by the Calvin Cycle, which, in turn, produces glucose. I get you, but would not not that be inconvenient in smaller spaces? Plus, that would only grant you energy, and I am not even sure if you can get that much energy from just photosynthesize? Enough for moving and etc. I mean. Also, you would still have to get your vitamins, minerals and such, your body can't live on with energy alone. I think. Photosynthesis is not an efficient process. About 1% of light is absorbed by the photosystem (most is reflected) and used to produce glucose. If you consider that mitochondria extract energy from food for our metabolic requirements, plants use chloroplasts to extract their energy from sunlight, ergo they do not need food quite in the same way as we do. Considering the insanely high metabolic requirements of vertebrate (compared to plants), there is simply no way that photosynthesis could ever produce enough energy to sustain you. | 2011-05-07 19:55:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465 |
| No, it wouldn't work without it. Chlorophyll is the photosensitive building block of the photosystem's electron transport chain. It produces the ATP consumed by the Calvin Cycle, which, in turn, produces glucose. Photosynthesis is not an efficient process. About 1% of light is absorbed by the photosystem (most is reflected) and used to produce glucose. If you consider that mitochondria extract energy from food for our metabolic requirements, plants use chloroplasts to extract their energy from sunlight, ergo they do not need food quite in the same way as we do. Considering the insanely high metabolic requirements of vertebrate (compared to plants), there is simply no way that photosynthesis could ever produce enough energy to sustain you. What about if you replaced the inefficient enzyme thats mass produced in the cells with a much more efficient one? I'm more interested in the cooling system though | 2011-05-07 20:01:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| I don't know if you could find an enzyme that would be efficient enough and be able to work with said substrate. | 2011-05-07 20:40:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| Thanks thegide! I was not entirely sure before, (mainly because I'm blaming the middle dark ages (of science) for not letting me have my memory genes right now ) so thanks again for the information... Oh, how I wish school was more effective! | 2011-05-07 20:44:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| What about if you replaced the inefficient enzyme thats mass produced in the cells with a much more efficient one? I'm more interested in the cooling system though *sprays KernelM with a fire hose* Granted. | 2011-05-08 00:53:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465 |
| Evolution at its best! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L54exo8JTUs&feature=fvwrel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EZtXNIT5QQ | 2011-05-08 16:40:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Evolution at its best! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L54exo8JTUs&feature=fvwrel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EZtXNIT5QQ That. Was. Brutal. <3. | 2011-05-08 21:43:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| Evolution at its best! On a similar note. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A042J0IDQK4 | 2011-05-08 23:32:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| Wow, fascinating. Quality over Quantity. ~Go Japanese hornets | 2011-05-08 23:39:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| Evolution at its best! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L54exo8JTUs&feature=fvwrel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EZtXNIT5QQ At 2:00, DO A BARREL ROLL! | 2011-05-09 01:43:00 Author: Patronus21 Posts: 266 |
| / agreed with RAWK, and Kernelm, in fact... didn't rocksauron make a little story concerning time travel... i think he did... can you help me remember what it was called dude? i remember it was very awesome (@rocksauron) btw, if someone says that before the universe there was chuck norris, i will bang my head against a wall... *Shakes Fist* You stole my joke :kz: But in all Srsns, Im pretty sure some form of rock or formation got a molecule attached to it which made it planet Earth. For all we know, The Earth could have just been here forever. Im pretty sure the human race was born a couple million years after the Dinosaurs went extinct, so theres a possibility  And @the Bee video: 0.0 That was better than Avatar! o.o | 2011-05-09 02:48:00 Author: grayspence  Posts: 1990 |
| Why did the science die? | 2011-05-13 06:55:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Looking over the course of the thread there wasn't much science in it to begin with. | 2011-05-13 07:08:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| Why did the science die? Isn't there supposed to be a punchline after that? ...how about; Q: Why Did The Science Die? A: Because their theory became a theorem. It's only funny if your a scientist.... .... with no sense of humour | 2011-05-13 12:48:00 Author: Macnme  Posts: 1970 |
| What is the theory that the universe creates something so it can create it and so on? Something loop? | 2011-05-17 03:03:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| What is the theory that the universe creates something so it can create it and so on? Something loop? Infinity Loop? Feedback Loop? Honey Nut Loops? | 2011-05-17 08:07:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| Infinity Loop? Feedback Loop? Honey Nut Loops? Donut loop! http://www.mobilecrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pink_sprinkled_donut.jpg I would not mind the universe originating from something so yummy XD | 2011-05-17 17:42:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| Donut loop! Not as far fetched as you might think (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080523/full/news.2008.854.html) | 2011-05-17 19:47:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| Soo.... Now the question of life is.... What is the flavor of the universe? | 2011-05-17 20:08:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| Definitely grape. | 2011-05-17 20:34:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465 |
| Definitely grape. Yay. Wait, a grape donut? >.> | 2011-05-17 20:52:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| Grape jelly... inside a powdery doughy exterior. How is that not win? | 2011-05-17 22:52:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465 |
| 0h.. I don't "love" them I suppose. Uhem! yes um, very scientific discussion here! black-neutron-physic-bio-tary-cell-mitochondria-gravity etc. ! | 2011-05-17 23:07:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| I already emptied myself of scientific discussion for the day in this thread (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=56591-Cancer-may-be-easily-curable-now!) | 2011-05-17 23:33:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465 |
| Your all out? Oh well I'll just mutter to myself about my donut universe loop.] [EDIT] This (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/come-on-in-the-waters-fresh.html) seems interesting. In summary, Newly discovered fossils left by creatures burrowing in the sediments of an ancient riverbed push back the beginning of freshwater ecosystems by at least 85 million years. The find hints that there was little if any delay between the development of freshwater and marine ecosystems, contrary to what many biologists and paleontologists have proposed. | 2011-05-17 23:38:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| Soo.... Now the question of life is.... What is the flavor of the universe? Well, Quarks (The building blocks of atoms) come in 6 flavours. Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Charm and Strange flavoured. So the universe could be "Strange Bottom" flavoured - yeuch! | 2011-05-18 07:40:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| what would happend if you go faster than light? Travel thought time and space? | 2011-05-18 13:13:00 Author: Unknown User  |
| The theory of relativity implies that time is a relative phenomenon. There is no unique standard of time - its an independent measure for each "observer" (as Hawking describes it). In that sense, the theory implies that it's possible to travel forwards in time. It also implies that if you were to travel faster than the speed of light, then you could travel backwards in time also. However, there seems to be a big problem in terms of accelerating anything beyond the speed of light. (exponential power requirements due to increasing mass... presumably the power needed to reach the speed of light = infinite) In order to still consider the possibility of time travel, you would then need to consider folding time and space (wormholes) to allow you to cover greater distances at sub-light speeds. | 2011-05-18 17:58:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465 |
| Considering that then is the classic idea of a stationary time machine impossible? How would you propel yourself past the speed of light without moving the machine itself. | 2011-05-18 19:49:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| How would you propel yourself past the speed of light without moving the machine itself. Move/warp space around it? O_o | 2011-05-18 22:01:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| Do you believe their is life on other planets? | 2011-05-18 23:17:00 Author: dbibby88  Posts: 378 |
| Do you believe their is life on other planets? In our solar system no. I don't believe there is any planet other than earth in our solar system that contains water. (Enough to sustain some species, and not just micro organisms.) The universe however is supposed to infinite. I would be shocked if no other life forms were to exist on the vast number of planets in the universe. So to answer your question, yes, to some extent. Are you going to see large headed green figures? Probably not. But i believe there is some form of microscopic organisms on many planets. Maybe even multicellular complex organisms. But we don't have the power to see that deep into space, so I can't provide a definite answer. | 2011-05-19 01:23:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| There is no unique standard of time - its an independent measure for each "observer" . Or "Time is an illusion - Lunch-time doubly so!" In our solar system no. I don't believe there is any planet other than earth in our solar system that contains water. (Enough to sustain some species, and not just micro organisms.) The universe however is supposed to infinite. I would be shocked if no other life forms were to exist on the vast number of planets in the universe. So to answer your question, yes, to some extent. Are you going to see large headed green figures? Probably not. But i believe there is some form of microscopic organisms on many planets. Maybe even multicellular complex organisms. But we don't have the power to see that deep into space, so I can't provide a definite answer. Nope... there is no reason - based on the evidence available to us right now - to suggest there is life anywhere else in the universe. We are still searching the universe for "Earth-Like" planets... but what exactly is an "Earth-Like" Planet? The Earth - as it is right now - has not existed in it's current state for very long... It has been in multiple states, from a ball of molten lava to frequently covered in ice - so the idea that we should be looking for a "temperate planet" (one that has liquid water) is wrong. Human kind has only been on the surface of the planet for roughly 200,000 years - and has only been even remotely interested in "The rest of the universe" for the last 1000 years or so. That isn't even a tiny percentage of a micro-second in the "Deep Time" of the universe. There are alot of other "unique" occurances that have aided life to evolve on this planet (& this planet only); Such as an incredibly large Gas Giant in the solar system acting as a mop for alot of large (life threatening) meteorites, that had we not had Jupiter there, would have eliminated life on earth many times over. Then there is the existance of the Moon... which has the same rock composition as the earths magma layer - suggesting the moon is actually made up of magma from earth where a large meteorite had impacted while the earth was still liquid rock. This has also provided some shelter from more potentially life-threatening meteorites. Our atmosphere, that allows life to sustain itself, was created by the organisms from earth - so even looking for a similar planet with an atmosphere could be wrong - as the kind of atmosphere we have on earth may be something specific to earth itself. Even with the mind-boggling size of the universe, the chances of life evolving - and more importantly surviving - in the universe, is so incredibly small that the chances of it happening even once are so incredibly slim it is most likely never likely to happen. And considering that we are here debating it, means that it has obviously already happened once - so the chances of it happening twice - and the chances that these two life forms (from completely different planets) would then encounter one another - given the incredible distances and time-spans involved - is so remote that it is almost certainly never likely to happen. So, there is the tiniest, outside chance that there 'may' be life elsewhere in the universe... but the chances of us ever knowing about it are so close to zero as makes no difference. In short - no - we are it. | 2011-05-19 11:34:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| In our solar system no. I don't believe there is any planet other than earth in our solar system that contains water. (Enough to sustain some species, and not just micro organisms.) The universe however is supposed to infinite. I would be shocked if no other life forms were to exist on the vast number of planets in the universe. So to answer your question, yes, to some extent. Are you going to see large headed green figures? Probably not. But i believe there is some form of microscopic organisms on many planets. Maybe even multicellular complex organisms. But we don't have the power to see that deep into space, so I can't provide a definite answer. Haa good answer, I agree with what your saying. I'd like to think their is something out there SOMEWHERE. I don't think that we're going to find any evidence of it in our life time but I'd like to know that their is. Thinking about space would eventually drive you insane, how can you imagine something so big and apparantly expanding by every second? If you guys like science and maybe some kind of spirituality, then you might like a book called 'the power of now', my friend ALWAYS goes on about and we've talekd about in over many a pint haha. According to him it changes the way you think about every day life and makes you loot at things in fresh light. I'd recommend you guys checking it out if yoru in to that sort of thing. | 2011-05-19 17:10:00 Author: dbibby88 Posts: 378 |
| I can't tell whether I like being on the only planet with life (if it is) or would prefer to have some other sort of lifeforms out there because there may be loneliness but there is also the sense that you and your planet is unique :S | 2011-05-19 17:44:00 Author: The age of LOLZ  Posts: 229 |
| I dunno if this is relavent but... My teacher's theory of the Universe is that it is an endless cycle: high-mass stars eventually collapse into black holes. As black holes increase, they slowly combine into one huge black hole through intense gravity, all matter circulating into it, until the Universe becomes an incredibly dense "egg". Then, the Big Bang occurs once more. Big Bang, Big Crunch, he says. Which leads to the question, are we even the first Universe? If this is true, it's just a never-ending cycle. Everything will end, and begin, again. Forever... | 2011-05-21 18:47:00 Author: Fang  Posts: 578 |
| So, as you may or may not have heard, scientists have found sub-atomic particles called Neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light. This supposedly disproves Einstein's theory of relativity, and that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, this is untrue. Einstein said nothing could accelerate to the speed of light because it's mass would become infinite. However, neutrinos have always traveled faster than the speed of light, and have therefore never accelerated. Just something to prepare you for the people who want to disprove science. EDIT: Also, neutrinos have no mass, they can travel at the speed of light within the limits of relativity. | 2011-09-23 17:26:00 Author: Flamento  Posts: 352 |
| So, as you may or may not have heard, scientists have found sub-atomic particles called Neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light. This supposedly disproves Einstein's theory of relativity, and that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, this is untrue. Einstein said nothing could accelerate to the speed of light because it's mass would become infinite. However, neutrinos have always traveled faster than the speed of light, and have therefore never accelerated. Just something to prepare you for the people who want to disprove science. EDIT: Also, neutrinos have no mass, they can travel at the speed of light within the limits of relativity. Neutrinos have negligible mass but they exist in such large quantities that some scientists think that they are Dark Matter due to them streaming out of suns every second, Those suns being around for Billions of years so there are so many of them, That the mass becomes huge. Also calling them Sub atomic is a bit of a misnomer, As they are Leptons and so were never really part of the atom in the first place. | 2011-09-25 00:07:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| I would join the conversation but I'm afraid I'm not geeky enough. And I'm to lazy to search wikipedia. | 2011-09-25 01:25:00 Author: Klak_334  Posts: 59 |
| Wow, I completely forgot about this thread. Oh, I see, revived. I would love to dove into that discussion but I simply have not the time nor experience on the subject. | 2011-09-25 01:36:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| Of course - they've always known that under certain conditions (like the extreme conditions in the nano-seconds after the big bang) that things *must* have travelled at faster than the speed of light - as the farthest reaches of the universe are further away than 13.75 billion light years (the age of the universe); This just confirms that the current model for the big bang is even more likely to be true. Far from disproving that science was wrong - it confirms that it was correct. Of course, they had to explain it with an unconnected "cosmic inflation" theory that they couldn't fit into the standard model. This latest discovery helps to unify it. While they know that a neutrino has a "nonzero" mass (a mass greater than zero, but still an unknown mass) - they are still trying to discover what actually gives things mass in the first place. And once this is known, it'll help explain where all of the "missing mass" (Dark Matter) is hiding. All this shows is that we've still got a lot more to learn about the nature of the universe. | 2011-09-25 02:17:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| Alright. Kernelm, moonwire and I have been discussing how water could have come to be on Earth. The current theory seems to be that asteroids and meteors brought the water here 3.5 billion years ago. Discuss. | 2011-10-18 16:30:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Alternatively, since Water is just hydrogen and oxygen... then it would have been a chemical reaction formed from hydrogen and oxygen as goin by the laws of the universe. Not sure why that would have to come from space, is it really that hard to believe that Earth had a lot of hydrogen and oxygen back when it was forming? They ARE pretty basic elements <_> | 2011-10-18 22:48:00 Author: RockSauron  Posts: 10882 |
| Alternatively, since Water is just hydrogen and oxygen... then it would have been a chemical reaction formed from hydrogen and oxygen as goin by the laws of the universe. Not sure why that would have to come from space, is it really that hard to believe that Earth had a lot of hydrogen and oxygen back when it was forming? They ARE pretty basic elements <_> You took the words out of my mouth. | 2011-10-18 23:39:00 Author: DaSpoony  Posts: 191 |
| You took the words out of my mouth. Well, I AM evil... | 2011-10-18 23:40:00 Author: RockSauron Posts: 10882 |
| No,no,no evrybody knows the the Sin of a triangle =Opp/hyp while the Cos of a triangle = adj/hyp WHILE the Tangent of and triangle = Opp/Adj. Ugh it's not Rocket Science, sheesh..... Even an 2nd grader could answer that! :/ | 2011-10-18 23:51:00 Author: zzmorg82  Posts: 948 |
| See, most of this head scratching is on how they can come up with "The Unified Theory" - and explain everything from the smallest scale (micro) to the largest scale (macro). But there is no rule anywhere that says that there *has* to be a unified theory... things on the quantum scale probably do adhere to a completely different set of rules to things on the macro scale. The longer we go without a unified theory, the more likely it is that there *is* no unified theory. | 2011-10-19 05:11:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| Alright. Kernelm, moonwire and I have been discussing how water could have come to be on Earth. The current theory seems to be that asteroids and meteors brought the water here 3.5 billion years ago. Not sure why that would have to come from space, is it really that hard to believe that Earth had a lot of hydrogen and oxygen back when it was forming? They ARE pretty basic elements <_> The current thinking is that both of these methods contributed to the Earth's water, but the evidence suggests that the majority of the water was delivered by comets and asteroids. Reminds me of one of my favourite videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOzkEwaMnaE | 2011-10-19 13:31:00 Author: Rhys125  Posts: 841 |
| No,no,no evrybody knows the the Sin of a triangle =Opp/hyp while the Cos of a triangle = adj/hyp WHILE the Tangent of and triangle = Opp/Adj. Ugh it's not Rocket Science, sheesh..... Even an 2nd grader could answer that! :/ Not sure if trolling, or answering some obscure question from about a year ago... and also, Simply putting Oxygen and Hydrogen together won't automatically make Water, So enough with your patronising tone please Rocksauron. | 2011-10-19 16:06:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Alternatively, since Water is just hydrogen and oxygen... then it would have been a chemical reaction formed from hydrogen and oxygen as goin by the laws of the universe. Not sure why that would have to come from space, is it really that hard to believe that Earth had a lot of hydrogen and oxygen back when it was forming? They ARE pretty basic elements <_> The Earth's gravity would likely have been too weak to hold onto all these elements, and don't forget the Earth would still be way too hot for water to rest. Well, I AM evil... Hmmm... Not sure how that is relevant, nor how any part of you screams out "evil", but hey.. No,no,no evrybody knows the the Sin of a triangle =Opp/hyp while the Cos of a triangle = adj/hyp WHILE the Tangent of and triangle = Opp/Adj. Ugh it's not Rocket Science, sheesh..... Even an 2nd grader could answer that! :/ Why does trigonometry have ANYTHING to do with the topic I just posted? | 2011-10-19 16:25:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| If it would have been too weak to hold in the elements I really see no other possible solution that comets. | 2011-10-19 19:12:00 Author: Boomy  Posts: 3701 |
| Fellow UKians! There's a great documentary series running on BBC2 at the moment called "Origins of Us". First episode's up on BBC iPlayer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00jjjw4/Origins_of_Us_Bones/). | 2011-10-19 19:27:00 Author: Rhys125 Posts: 841 |
| Well, asteroids, meteors, comets (or whatever spacial object there can be) do not have that much of a big gravity pull either >.> | 2011-10-19 19:36:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| Well, asteroids, meteors, comets (or whatever spacial object there can be) do not have that much of a big gravity pull either >.> It's nothing to do with gravity, The Gravity of "Old Earth" (Pre Theia) was pretty similar to what it is today. | 2011-10-19 20:16:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| If it would have been too weak to hold in the elements I really see no other possible solution that comets. True, but maybe Earth conjured up enough water in certain regions to create a "winter" sort of effect to cool itself down. Earth was farther away from the sun billions of years ago than it is today, so comets could have just added water to the cooling process. I'm only guessing, of course. We can always fall back on this guy: http://i.imgur.com/PEkPV.jpg | 2011-10-19 23:00:00 Author: CyberSora  Posts: 5551 |
| The earths water could have been "rained down" from the cosmos - it's not too strange an idea. Most, of the mass of a comet is ice, and they recently confirmed ice on the surface of an asteroid (www.space.com/8305-water-ice-discovered-asteroid-time.html). We know for certain that earth has had many asteroid/meteorite strikes in the past.... all that ice has to go somewhere *shrug* | 2011-10-20 00:00:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| not sure if trolling, or answering some obscure question from about a year ago... And also, simply putting oxygen and hydrogen together won't automatically make water, so enough with your patronising tone please rocksauron. The chemical reaction that creates water involves both hydrogen, oxygen and a flame or spark to start the reaction. 2 diatomic Hydrogen molecules and one diatomic oxygen molecule make up 2 water molecules.Both Hydrogen and Oxygen naturally exist as gasses in the earths atmosphere. This is easily done by adding electricity to the equation. Any plasma(such as lightning) could cause this explosive reaction to start, after the reaction occurs, it does not magically turn into water, it exists as water vapor and it will act like so until it reaches a certain temperature at which the atoms in the molecules will condense and turn into liquids. End of story, all of you guys, stop arguing over something so stupid, its water, nobody cares. | 2011-10-20 00:19:00 Author: Charlemagne Posts: 513 |
| The chemical reaction that creates water involves both hydrogen, oxygen and a flame or spark to start the reaction. 2 diatomic Hydrogen molecules and one diatomic oxygen molecule make up 2 water molecules.Both Hydrogen and Oxygen naturally exist as gasses in the earths atmosphere. This is easily done by adding electricity to the equation. Any plasma(such as lightning) could cause this explosive reaction to start, after the reaction occurs, it does not magically turn into water, it exists as water vapor and it will act like so until it reaches a certain temperature at which the atoms in the molecules will condense and turn into liquids. End of story, all of you guys, stop arguing over something so stupid, its water, nobody cares. Water is not stupid!!! It's essential to life on earth. -_____- Soooooooo don't call it stupid. However, it is something dumb to fight over. (I care about water ) | 2011-10-20 01:46:00 Author: Amigps  Posts: 564 |
| However, it is something dumb to fight over. (I care about water ) You won't be saying that come 2050, when we'll all be driving spiked quad bikes and sporting mohekan hair-do's - fighting each other to the death over the last bottle of evian | 2011-10-20 03:01:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| The earths water could have been "rained down" from the cosmos - it's not too strange an idea. Macnme confirmed for Jehovah Witness. | 2011-10-20 10:50:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| End of story, all of you guys, stop arguing over something so stupid, its water, nobody cares. This is a Scientific Discussion. If you don't like discussing science on the grounds that "Nobody cares", then leave. We're not forcing you to stay here... | 2011-10-20 16:50:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I think it's a mix of both. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, so it wouldn't be uncommon to find that it had combined with oxygen in some cases to form water. Also, comets are ice, and when that ice hits the earth it would probably melt. This water has to go somewhere. "Where is somewhere?", you may ask. Well, there is a theory that when the earth was still "young" it was too hot to have water on it's surface in a liquid state. And since water vapor is less dense than air, it all rose to form a 'hydrosphere'. Eventually, when the earth cooled down, it condensed to make oceans, seas, rivers and all the lovely bodies of water from the pre-historic era. | 2011-10-20 18:49:00 Author: Flamento Posts: 352 |
| The chemical reaction that creates water involves both hydrogen, oxygen and a flame or spark to start the reaction. 2 diatomic Hydrogen molecules and one diatomic oxygen molecule make up 2 water molecules.Both Hydrogen and Oxygen naturally exist as gasses in the earths atmosphere. This is easily done by adding electricity to the equation. Any plasma(such as lightning) could cause this explosive reaction to start, after the reaction occurs, it does not magically turn into water, it exists as water vapor and it will act like so until it reaches a certain temperature at which the atoms in the molecules will condense and turn into liquids. End of story, all of you guys, stop arguing over something so stupid, its water, nobody cares. Yep, I see what the problem here is. You've misread my post and automatically assumed i said "putting hydrogen and water together magically creates water" when i in fact didn't say that. **LE GASP**. What i was implying is that at this point in time there wasn't what we would call an atmosphere, Diatomic oxygen was probably in short supply (bound up in compounds like CO2) because most new life considered oxygen to be poisonous. So please can you read the post before copy pasting an answer. Thanks. | 2011-10-20 20:40:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Yep, I see what the problem here is. No you dont, there is no problem, the reason water is on earth is nothing to fuss about, as that guy^ said "Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe", which is a no brainer. Any element, ion, or isotope that consists of less subatomic particles than another is absolutely going to be more abundant. I believe that oxygen has an atomic number of 8 correct? It is obivously less abundant than hydrogen, but nonetheless more abundant than any element after it. Oxygen has an average charge of negative 2, hydrogen has an average charge of 1, put those together, add a flame, taddaa, amazing right? Like turning water into wine. You've misread my post and automatically assumed i said "putting hydrogen and water together magically creates water" when i in fact didn't say that. You mistook my quoting you for assuming you were some sort of imbosil, that was not directed towards you, it was directed toward everyone discussing the topic, because it is so blatantly obvious that water coming here on a giant meteor would not create more water. What i was implying is that at this point in time there wasn't what we would call an atmosphere, Diatomic oxygen was probably in short supply (bound up in compounds like CO2) because most new life considered oxygen to be poisonous. It is most obviously an atmosphere, no matter what it consists of, about 1% of the atmosphere consists of krypton and argon, nevertheless 1% or 99% it would still be an atmosphere. It is our atmosphere because it is the gases that have been caught by the earths gravity, causing our distinct form and structure. If new life considered it to be poisinous then why do plants inhale it? Do you assume that they would turn CO2 into oxygen and then magically breath it again? No. Life began because of water. Early life forms were able to turn the H2O Molecules into energy. They did not magically appear and start breathing CO2, they magically appeared and started breathing H2O. Thats why we still depend on it, because it is such an abundant source of energy. So please can you read the post before copy pasting an answer. I didnt copy and paste anything, believe it or not, im actually smart enough to generate actual knowledge, theres also a thing i like to use called "Common Sense", it wins a lot of arguments, you should use it sometimes . Thanks. You're Welcome | 2011-10-21 01:21:00 Author: Charlemagne Posts: 513 |
| Not sure if trolling, or answering some obscure question from about a year ago It's math dude... | 2011-10-21 01:30:00 Author: zzmorg82 Posts: 948 |
| No you dont, there is no problem, the reason water is on earth is nothing to fuss about, as that guy^ said "Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe", which is a no brainer. Any element, ion, or isotope that consists of less subatomic particles than another is absolutely going to be more abundant. I believe that oxygen has an atomic number of 8 correct? It is obivously less abundant than hydrogen, but nonetheless more abundant than any element after it. Oxygen has an average charge of negative 2, hydrogen has an average charge of 1, put those together, add a flame, taddaa, amazing right? Like turning water into wine. You mistook my quoting you for assuming you were some sort of imbosil, that was not directed towards you, it was directed toward everyone discussing the topic, because it is so blatantly obvious that water coming here on a giant meteor would not create more water. It is most obviously an atmosphere, no matter what it consists of, about 1% of the atmosphere consists of krypton and argon, nevertheless 1% or 99% it would still be an atmosphere. It is our atmosphere because it is the gases that have been caught by the earths gravity, causing our distinct form and structure. If new life considered it to be poisinous then why do plants inhale it? Do you assume that they would turn CO2 into oxygen and then magically breath it again? No. Life began because of water. Early life forms were able to turn the H2O Molecules into energy. They did not magically appear and start breathing CO2, they magically appeared and started breathing H2O. Thats why we still depend on it, because it is such an abundant source of energy. I didnt copy and paste anything, believe it or not, im actually smart enough to generate actual knowledge, theres also a thing i like to use called "Common Sense", it wins a lot of arguments, you should use it sometimes . You're Welcome I said New Life as in brand new. You probably misunderstood me, but i wasn't referring to any Eukaryotic organisms. Also. We don't get energy from water, Early Eukaryotes were able to absorb the oxygen in it: - Which we cannot do, the reason why we have to constantly drink it is because a lot of our body requires water to function - blood for example would dry up without it. It's math dude... Well done. I noticed that, I was more bewildered about why you were posting it. | 2011-10-21 22:02:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| So what about the fact that most Sea Water isn't made up of Hydrogen, and is in fact made up of Deuterium. an isotope of Hydrogen made up of 1 proton and 1 neutron Not just regular bogstandard hydrogen - Which you correctly say is the most abundant element in the universe. I also said New Life. You probably misunderstood me, but i wasn't referring to any Eukaryotic organisms. Also. We don't get energy from water, Early Eukaryotes were able to absorb the oxygen in it: - Which we cannot do, the reason why we have to constantly drink it is because a lot of our body requires water to function - blood for example would dry up without it. Well done. I noticed that, I was more bewildered about why you were posting it. ^Genius. And yes, it is maths... which is completely irrelevant to any Scientific Topics we were discussing. | 2011-10-21 22:16:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Okay then - considering LittleBigEnder seems to be hostile to any topic discussing water... how about Panspermia! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia) | 2011-10-21 22:18:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Never really been fond of the idea of panspermia, though I didn't know it was called that until now. I can't imagine a chunk of rock or ice traversing the distance between two stars and happening to impact Earth. The distances involved are too large and the chances so slim. Not to mention life would have to endure potentially hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years of travel between even relatively close stars. If they're talking local travel between planets that seems more plausible, but life would need to form relatively early in the solar system to be transported by comets or asteroids, right? Comets were presumably formed outside the hospitable zone around the Sun, so how could they harbour life? Impacts on planets that then throw up material that contains life seems the most likely scenario to me, but then where is the evidence of life existing on other planets in our solar system if that's true? I dunno though, that's only from my uneducated point of view. | 2011-10-22 00:01:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| Are you suggesting that some made-up element or compound populates the sea water more than the very elements that it consists of? Your hocus-pocus science amuses me. Im speaking of prokaryotes, not eukaryotes, what you just asserted is nonetheless turning water into energy by means of a chemical reaction. Exactly my point. We dont need water as an energy source, but since we do exist in a solid/gaseous environment, we need water in order to manage our necessary body functions. This conversation also amuses me, i actually wish to continue. Panspermia is prepostorous, of course the most basic life can survive the long run, but no more than that,if the lifeform landed on any planet, it would have to be able to cope with and survive the conditions, any other way would cause immediate death from exposure to the wrong elements. There is no adaptation without the right materials, and therefore, the wrong way to explain our existence on this planet, since we obviously are in the plane of existence and are able to live and reproduce. | 2011-10-22 00:04:00 Author: Charlemagne Posts: 513 |
| any advanced lifeform such as a human or a dog or a monkey, would immediately explode in the vaccum of space. Actually they wouldn't "explode" they would just sufficate and die because of no Oxygen. But you are right about Penspermia or any knid of Bacteria, just like the Supremacy Clasue( The Constitution) Space is the "Supreme Law of the Universe." | 2011-10-22 00:25:00 Author: zzmorg82 Posts: 948 |
| Actually they wouldn't "explode" they would just sufficate and die because of no Oxygen. But you are right about Penspermia or any knid of Bacteria, just like the Supremacy Clasue( The Constitution) Space is the "Supreme Law of the Universe." *Buzz* Wrong. Anyone who says that doesnt have a basic understanding of Physics. There are gases outside of us and inside of us, crushing us into a distinct form in order to have skeletal structure. If there are no gases outside of your body but there are gases inside, wheres all that gas going to go? Its going to push the flesh right off of your bones, you wont suffocate, youll just suffer and extremely painful death, or to put it more correctly explode. You are breathing extremely pressurized air, and all of that force will cause newtons upon newtons of pressure pushing on your skin from the inside, and considering two objects cannot occupy the same space, all of that pressure would rip you apart just as stepping from an unpressurized place to a pressurized place would, massive changes in pressure are deadly, which is why going to the bottom of the ocean is so difficult, because it is as going into space is, except vice versa. | 2011-10-22 00:38:00 Author: Charlemagne Posts: 513 |
| *Buzz* Wrong. Anyone who says that doesnt have a basic understanding of Physics. There are gases outside of us and inside of us, crushing us into a distinct form in order to have skeletal structure. If there are no gases outside of your body but there are gases inside, wheres all that gas going to go? Its going to push the flesh right off of your bones, you wont suffocate, youll just suffer and extremely painful death, or to put it more correctly explode. You are breathing extremely pressurized air, and all of that force will cause newtons upon newtons of pressure pushing on your skin from the inside, and considering two objects cannot occupy the same space, all of that pressure would rip you apart just as stepping from an unpressurized place to a pressurized place would, massive changes in pressure are deadly, which is why going to the bottom of the ocean is so difficult, because it is as going into space is, except vice versa. NERD!!! Anyway, how would you explain Spacesuits and sapceships huh? They had pressurized air and they don't explode, hmm... | 2011-10-22 01:23:00 Author: zzmorg82 Posts: 948 |
| Never really been fond of the idea of panspermia, though I didn't know it was called that until now. I can't imagine a chunk of rock or ice traversing the distance between two stars and happening to impact Earth. The distances involved are too large and the chances so slim. Not to mention life would have to endure potentially hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years of travel between even relatively close stars. If they're talking local travel between planets that seems more plausible, but life would need to form relatively early in the solar system to be transported by comets or asteroids, right? Comets were presumably formed outside the hospitable zone around the Sun, so how could they harbour life? Impacts on planets that then throw up material that contains life seems the most likely scenario to me, but then where is the evidence of life existing on other planets in our solar system if that's true? I dunno though, that's only from my uneducated point of view. Some researchers are investigating whether amino acids could form in Meteors (link (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/left_hand_aminoacids.html)) Also the Universe is very old, so life could have quite easily evolved early on and then got trapped as their planet exploded or something (I know that sounds preposterous) Are you suggesting that some made-up element or compound populates the sea water more than the very elements that it consists of? Your hocus-pocus science amuses me. Im speaking of prokaryotes, not eukaryotes, what you just asserted is nonetheless turning water into energy by means of a chemical reaction. Exactly my point. We dont need water as an energy source, but since we do exist in a solid/gaseous environment, we need water in order to manage our necessary body functions. This conversation also amuses me, i actually wish to continue. My "Made up" element. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium) If you were speaking of Prokaryotes than why did you use plants (An Eukaryote) as an example? You keep saying we turn water into energy by means of a chemical reaction, But we actually give out water as a by product of Respiration, My "Hocus Pocus" science is actually tried and tested by many other scientists. Panspermia is prepostorous, of course the most basic life can survive the long run, but no more than that,if the lifeform landed on any planet, it would have to be able to cope with and survive the conditions, any other way would cause immediate death from exposure to the wrong elements. There is no adaptation without the right materials, and therefore, the wrong way to explain our existence on this planet, since we obviously are in the plane of existence and are able to live and reproduce. You obviously don't understand the concept of Panspermia that it involves extremophile (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extremophile) microorganisms which can survive incredibly harsh conditions, Life is an incredibly complex system and you can substitute many elements in the places of others (such as arsenic (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/12/02/nasas-real-news-bacterium-on-earth-that-lives-off-arsenic/), even metallic elements. (http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/58538-team-creates-living-cells-made-of-metal)), Creatures that can't survive don't survive, It's the basic principle of evolution, But if a microbe has the ability to use whatever elements are available then it is surely going to survive the initial processes of landing. *Buzz* Wrong. Anyone who says that doesnt have a basic understanding of Physics. There are gases outside of us and inside of us, crushing us into a distinct form in order to have skeletal structure. If there are no gases outside of your body but there are gases inside, wheres all that gas going to go? Its going to push the flesh right off of your bones, you wont suffocate, youll just suffer and extremely painful death, or to put it more correctly explode. You are breathing extremely pressurized air, and all of that force will cause newtons upon newtons of pressure pushing on your skin from the inside, and considering two objects cannot occupy the same space, all of that pressure would rip you apart just as stepping from an unpressurized place to a pressurized place would, massive changes in pressure are deadly, which is why going to the bottom of the ocean is so difficult, because it is as going into space is, except vice versa. The whole "explody body" scenario would only happen if you were able to hold your breath. Otherwise zzmorg82 is correct. | 2011-10-22 11:36:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| You won't be saying that come 2050, when we'll all be driving spiked quad bikes and sporting mohekan hair-do's - fighting each other to the death over the last bottle of evian Touch? !!! Well said That sentence also brought the funniest image to mind Let's just hope by then we figured out how to harvest water from other planets or the moon (or other moons)Anyway speaking about the panspermia thing. Personally I don't believe in it because the meteor (it's not asteriod right??Because it's an asteroid only if it's in outer space right? I can't remember. Forgive my terminology) would have to be exactly the right size AND it would also have to contain some very basic life forms in order for it to work. The odds of that are astronomical. Then again we could be that 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 roll of the universal dice. So I'm not ruling it out, but like I said before. I don't believe in it. Also! Isn't it funny how people start using bigger and more complicated words in their arguments,to sound smarter, as it gets more heated? I think it's so interesting | 2011-10-22 18:35:00 Author: Amigps Posts: 564 |
| Anyway speaking about the panspermia thing. Personally I don't believe in it because the meteor (it's not asteriod right??Because it's an asteroid only if it's in outer space right? I can't remember. Forgive my terminology) would have to be exactly the right size AND it would also have to contain some very basic life forms in order for it to work. The odds of that are astronomical. Then again we could be that 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 roll of the universal dice. So I'm not ruling it out, but like I said before. I don't believe in it. Roughly it's a Meteor when it burns up in the atmosphere (Shooting stars etc), a meteoroid is a small fragment of an asteroid orbiting the sun, and a meteorite when it lands. A bit too complex if you ask me. Also! Isn't it funny how people start using bigger and more complicated words in their arguments,to sound smarter, as it gets more heated? I think it's so interesting Well yeah because "Cells with a nucleus" is a bit too much of a mouthful when compared to a "Eukaryote" | 2011-10-23 13:19:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Also! Isn't it funny how people start using bigger and more complicated words in their arguments,to sound smarter, as it gets more heated? I think it's so interesting *Looks at ZZmorg and LittleBigEnder* | 2011-10-23 13:31:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I'd call that a victory. Moving on: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-supernovae-universe-expansion-understood-dark.html | 2011-10-25 12:49:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Interesting stuff :O Someone mind explaining it to me in smaller brackets? All I think I got was that we may not need any dark matter to explain the universe | 2011-10-25 20:51:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| Interesting stuff :O Someone mind explaining it to me in smaller brackets? All I think I got was that we may not need any dark matter to explain the universe (God did it) Ahh, if only it were that simple I've saying for ages now that Dark Matter probably doesn't exist.... do I get to say "I told you so!"? | 2011-10-25 22:11:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| ... And a cookie c: | 2011-10-28 16:24:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| Matter from nothing... The holy grail of science, in my opinion. | 2011-10-28 16:35:00 Author: Flamento Posts: 352 |
| Flamento..in response to your sig. The girl's mother | 2011-10-28 19:44:00 Author: Valeview  Posts: 1581 |
| (God did it) Ahh, if only it were that simple I've saying for ages now that Dark Matter probably doesn't exist.... do I get to say "I told you so!"? Hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on.......HOLD THE PHONE! Then what makes up all of that missing matter? (In your opinion) P.S. I believe in it | 2011-10-29 05:50:00 Author: Amigps Posts: 564 |
| Quantum physics state anything could happen at any time. | 2011-10-29 06:50:00 Author: lark98-2  Posts: 116 |
| This is astrophysics, not quantum physics. | 2011-10-29 07:28:00 Author: Flamento Posts: 352 |
| Matter from nothing... The holy grail of science, in my opinion. But what would you constitute as nothing, my good sir? | 2011-10-29 11:21:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Always thought 'nothing' cannot possibly exist, because we do. | 2011-10-30 20:31:00 Author: Boomy Posts: 3701 |
| "Nothing isn't and everything is" ~ Louis C.K However, what I meant by nothing was actual nothing. A 'thing' completely devoid of matter. | 2011-10-31 13:47:00 Author: Flamento Posts: 352 |
| "Nothing isn't and everything is" ~ Louis C.K However, what I meant by nothing was actual nothing. A 'thing' completely devoid of matter. So is Energy nothing then? - because we've produced Matter from Gamma radiation (which for the people that don't know, Is essentially energy). | 2011-11-02 08:56:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on.......HOLD THE PHONE! Then what makes up all of that missing matter? (In your opinion) P.S. I believe in it There is no missing matter. 84% of the Universe is actually made up of an invisible, undetectable material that we have failed to find ever since we first thought of it? - That's a silly idea. And we only thought it up because our sums were wrong if we didn;t believe in it. "We're doing our sums wrong" - sounds much more plausible. | 2011-11-02 14:32:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| There is no missing matter. 84% of the Universe is actually made up of an invisible, undetectable material that we have failed to find ever since we first thought of it? - That's a silly idea. And we only thought it up because our sums were wrong if we didn;t believe in it. "We're doing our sums wrong" - sounds much more plausible. Could not the vacuum be made of an unknown substance? | 2011-11-02 16:58:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627 |
| Ugh, this thread is so pointless imo. Almost all of you are making claims with no "evidence" or anything supporting what you are saying. Science is all based on fact (which usually involves mathematics). I dun think I've seen ANY equations. If you gonna discuss science, please support your arguments with SOMETHING. Not just talking out your arses.... You do realise this isn't a scientific forum right? | 2011-11-03 19:13:00 Author: Boomy Posts: 3701 |
| Ugh, this thread is so pointless imo. Almost all of you are making claims with no "evidence" or anything supporting what you are saying. Science is all based on fact (which usually involves mathematics). I dun think I've seen ANY equations. If you gonna discuss science, please support your arguments with SOMETHING. Not just talking out your arses.... Ugh, this post is pointlessly trying to start a flame war imho. the "claims with no supporting evidence" actually have a lot of facts behind them, What we are doing is something called abstraction - try to learn what it means. Also there are very few equations for things like Evolution, but it doesn't mean it isn't fact. There's no equation for everything, Does that mean Everything doesn't exist? no. sci?ence/ˈsīəns/ Noun: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. | 2011-11-04 08:48:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Can YOU yourself prove evolution is a fact? Or are you just gonna bring up another website or video? That's what discussing "science" is all about. Do you think any scientist would take you seriously if you said "this is fact and I have a article I found on the internet to prove it!" Yes i can prove evolution is a fact, It's just easier to bring up a prewritten article that explains it in better semantics than myself. I'm just saying actually learn the **** before you give an opinion on it. I only post articles about stuff i already have an understanding of it. | 2011-11-04 19:19:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Can YOU yourself prove evolution is a fact? Or are you just gonna bring up another website or video? Science can be about hyposethizing, creating theories and building upon what we've learned. It's obvious we don't know everything, but this thread isn't mainly about copying down facts, people are just trying to discuss their thoughts and opinions on certain subjects in the range of science, go with things they know and build upon it. True, not everything people have said is what really happened, but since multiple people discuss things and go back to things, it can help us better udnerstand things. I'm no genius compared to some here, seeing what they've been able to come back to, but it has made me think about certain topics more. | 2011-11-04 21:30:00 Author: Dragonvarsity  Posts: 5208 |
| "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world." All I'm saying is that most of you posting in this thread I'm 95% sure don't know "why" these things you claim to be fact are fact. You just "assume" they are on the basis of credibility. Can YOU yourself prove evolution is a fact? Or are you just gonna bring up another website or video? That's what discussing "science" is all about. Do you think any scientist would take you seriously if you said "this is fact and I have a article I found on the internet to prove it!" This is a "Scientific Discussion" thread. Not a "Everyone post maths and solve scientific mysteries here without fail, or dispute, or arguing" thread. This is LittleBigPlanet central. I'm willing to bet less than 1% of us are qualified scientists. If someone runs in and goes "Hey everyone, homosapiens were in Europe 42,000 years ago!" Everyone would question their logic, source- and quite possibly their sanity. If they back it up with one or two links from credible scientists, people who have been doing this stuff for half their lives, then we can start to believe them. How is Kernel supposed to single handedly prove evolution is a fact, without showing you a SINGLE bit of scientific research? I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just saying actually learn the **** before you give an opinion on it. Sounds a bit like you are. And quite a few of us do know what we're talking about. Like Kernel, to name just one. The rest of us like to state our theories, ideas and questions- and LEARN from others. Exactly why I say this thread is kinda pointless. Why does EVERYTHING have to have a point?! "What's the point in the thread?!" "What's the point in science?!" "What's the point of life?!" WHY DOES IT MATTER? YOU'RE HERE. MAKE THE MOST OF IT. We discuss HOW the universe works and came to be, because it's interesting. Not because we want awards, or fame. | 2011-11-04 22:50:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| *ahem* I want an award... and lots of fame. Not sure what for though... maybe "worlds greatest lover"? Even if it's not technically what you might call a "fact"! That's science that is! | 2011-11-05 02:42:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| This is a "Scientific Discussion" thread. Not a "Everyone post maths and solve scientific mysteries here without fail, or dispute, or arguing" thread. This is LittleBigPlanet central. I'm willing to bet less than 1% of us are qualified scientists. If someone runs in and goes "Hey everyone, homosapiens were in Europe 42,000 years ago!" Everyone would question their logic, source- and quite possibly their sanity. If they back it up with one or two links from credible scientists, people who have been doing this stuff for half their lives, then we can start to believe them. How is Kernel supposed to single handedly prove evolution is a fact, without showing you a SINGLE bit of scientific research? Sounds a bit like you are. And quite a few of us do know what we're talking about. Like Kernel, to name just one. The rest of us like to state our theories, ideas and questions- and LEARN from others. Why does EVERYTHING have to have a point?! "What's the point in the thread?!" "What's the point in science?!" "What's the point of life?!" WHY DOES IT MATTER? YOU'RE HERE. MAKE THE MOST OF IT. We discuss HOW the universe works and came to be, because it's interesting. Not because we want awards, or fame. LOL, ok calm down dude. Fine, talk all you want about "science". But I wasn't trying to start a flame war. All I'm saying is that I "doubt" any of you have done what scientist do to discover truth. I'm sure all of you just found some book or read an article and think you somehow think you know everything about everything. (as you have said yourself) Most if not all of you aren't scientists...so how can you have a "scientific" discussion? That be like me trying to help people with logic in LBP2 without having the actual game! You should call this "what do you believe is fact" thread. If you are going to discuss things scientifically, then at least be respectful to the concept and ACTUALLY discuss things scientifically. Ya know...forming hypothesis, testing that hypothesis and coming to a sound conclusion. None of you have done anything empirical, only recite what you read in books. And things don't "have" to have a point, they just should. There would be no point in me banging my head against the wall for no apparent reason, so why should I do it? Why have a "science" thread with no REAL science? It just seems pointless to me... Again, I was little annoyed when I wrote the post so it might of come off the wrong way. But I still stand by what I said. | 2011-11-05 06:30:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| but not everyone has a telescope array or a large hadron collider in their back-garden in order to conduct their own experiments... and what's more - it'd take a lifetime of study to fully grasp exactly how much we don't know about the universe, let alone the stuff we do know (which may well turn out to be wrong). And most of the stuff on the cutting edge of science is theoretical anyway. Just look at the LHC - it was built for the specific purpose of finding a higgs-boson particle... but try as hard as they might, they can't find one. The longer they conduct the experiments for without success, the more likely it is that they have gotten their theory wrong. This means that just about everything I learned in physics about dark matter/dark energy is also wrong... and there are new theories cropping up to explain the mass/movement/appearance of the universe that doesn't require the existence of dark matter/energy. What empirical experiments is your layman supposed to conduct? Given that the equipment required to conduct any meaningful experiment costs billions of dollars? eg; How do you KNOW that the moon isn't made of cheese?! You've never been there so you can't prove it! That's also science - apparently  | 2011-11-05 07:36:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| & what if what you are observing is undetectable (dark matter) or unobservable (quantum strings etc)? Now, that's the situation we are in just now. They have been teaching dark matter doctrine for 2 decades now - all without a single shred of observable or testable evidence. They are working from a hunch they have invented to cover the holes in their theory. How does that fit with your dictionary definition of "science"? Then it actually DOES come down to what you believe, because there is no current method for determining who is actually right. My hunch, is that the edge if the universe is NOT expanding at an accelerating rate at it's outer edges (as observed); but is actually an optical illusion that we have misinterpreted by calibrating the background radiation incorrectly. All I have to back this up are a few new maverick thinkers theories.... that seem to me to make more sense than the dark matter explination. So - Question; Do you BELIEVE dark matter exists? If not, why not - if so, then why so? | 2011-11-05 08:53:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| & what if what you are observing is undetectable (dark matter) or unobservable (quantum strings etc)? Now, that's the situation we are in just now. They have been teaching dark matter doctrine for 2 decades now - all without a single shred of observable or testable evidence. They are working from a hunch they have invented to cover the holes in their theory. How does that fit with your dictionary definition of "science"? Then it actually DOES come down to what you believe, because there is no current method for determining who is actually right. My hunch, is that the edge if the universe is NOT expanding at an accelerating rate at it's outer edges (as observed); but is actually an optical illusion that we have misinterpreted by calibrating the background radiation incorrectly. All I have to back this up are a few new maverick thinkers theories.... that seem to me to make more sense than the dark matter explination. So - Question; Do you BELIEVE dark matter exists? If not, why not - if so, then why so? 1. It's not "my" definition of science. It's THE definition of science. 2. Those are "theories" not fact. But it's based on observation and experimentation and mathematics. They didn't just pull these theories out of there booties basically. 3. Well...if the universe is flat, then yes I guess I believe dark matter exist. Well...if what's written in here is true... http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html Look ma', I'm being ironic! | 2011-11-05 09:24:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| All I'm saying is that I "doubt" any of you have done what scientist does to discover truth. I'm sure all of you just found some book or read an article and think you somehow think you know everything about everything. (as you have said yourself) Most if not all of you aren't scientists...so how can you have a "scientific" discussion? I'm not a professional artist but i still draw? BUT THAT ISN'T ALLOWED! None of you have done anything empirical, only recite what you read in books. Now who is just reciting stuff they think is right? I have done experiments that prove Evolution is correct, TheGide (Who was a regular poster in this thread) works in a stem cell laboratory, But no. None of us have done anything empirical. 2. Those are "theories" not fact. You obviously don't understand what a scientific 'theory' is then. | 2011-11-05 16:18:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| That be like me trying to help people with logic in LBP2 without having the actual game! You should call this "what do you believe is fact" thread. You're right, it is. Because logic wasn't invented in LBP2. It has been around in electronics for years. 1. It's not "my" definition of science. It's THE definition of science. science |ˈsīəns| noun the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: scientific |ˌsīənˈtifik| adjectivebased on or characterized by the methods and principles of science: discussion |disˈkəSHən| noun the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas And things don't "have" to have a point, they just should. There would be no point in me banging my head against the wall for no apparent reason, so why should I do it? Please, feel free. As far as I can tell, you are here to interrupt us discussing the topic of "Science" by telling us we're not qualified to discuss science? So, we can't talk about My Little Pony, because we don't work with Hasbro or Lauren Faust? And we can't talk about music because we're not world renowned musicians? Your logic is highly flawed. | 2011-11-05 16:33:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I'm not a professional artist but i still draw? BUT THAT ISN'T ALLOWED! NO, you miss what I'm saying. Drawing doesn't take much. All you need is a pencil, some paper, and a decent imagination. Anyone can do art. But, you do need a lot more in order to do anything "scientific" You need a variety of tools to conduct experiments, you need practical knowledge of the mechanics that define nature. You need to follow the scientific method: hypothesis - conclusion. I'm not saying you have to be a "scientist" to talk about science, but you're not talking about science if none of what you discuss contains any even rudimentary elements of the concept. That would be like me trying to have musical composition discussion, but only talking about how pop music sucks today. Sure it's "related" to musical composition, but it's NOT MUSICAL COMPOSITION! The discussion is about CRAPPY POP MUSIC!!! Now who is just reciting stuff they think is right? I have done experiments that prove Evolution is correct, TheGide (Who was a regular poster in this thread) works in a stem cell laboratory, But no. None of us have done anything empirical. Obviously, I didn't mean EVERYONE. MOST of you. I don't know everyone in this thread personally, I just know I saw more videos and articles than actual ****ing science. And it's not what I'm reciting is "right", I'm just being honest about what I see. Which is a bunch of opinions based on speculation rather than experimentation. That's fine and all, but it's not "science". And have you shown any of your experiments here? That would actually contribute to a "scientific discussion". You're completely missing and mixing up what I'm saying and frankly, it's starting to **** me off. How bout this, talk about whatever the **** you want. I'll remember next time to only speak my mind to people who can actually comprehend another point of view other than their own. | 2011-11-05 17:50:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| You're right, it is. Because logic wasn't invented in LBP2. It has been around in electronics for years. science |ˈsīəns| noun the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: scientific |ˌsīənˈtifik| adjectivebased on or characterized by the methods and principles of science: discussion |disˈkəSHən| noun the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas Please, feel free. As far as I can tell, you are here to interrupt us discussing the topic of "Science" by telling us we're not qualified to discuss science? So, we can't talk about My Little Pony, because we don't work with Hasbro or Lauren Faust? And we can't talk about music because we're not world renowned musicians? Your logic is highly flawed. I'm not saying you "can't", I'm saying it's "pointless". Learn to read. And that's YOUR logic. Not mine. Your misunderstanding everything I'm saying. Read the post above me and learn to comprehend someone else perspective. And it's pathetic how you guys only take one part of my post and try to contradict me. | 2011-11-05 18:04:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| NO, you miss what I'm saying. Drawing doesn't take much. All you need is a pencil, some paper, and a decent imagination. Anyone can do art. But, you do need a lot more in order to do anything "scientific" You need a variety of tools to conduct experiments, you need practical knowledge of the mechanics that define nature. You need to follow the scientific method: hypothesis - conclusion. I'm not saying you have to be a "scientist" to talk about science, but you're not talking about science if none of what you discuss contains any even rudimentary elements of the concept. That would be like me trying to have musical composition discussion, but only talking about how pop music sucks today. Sure it's "related" to musical composition, but it's NOT MUSICAL COMPOSITION! The discussion is about CRAPPY POP MUSIC!!! Obviously, I didn't mean EVERYONE. MOST of you. I don't know everyone in this thread personally, I just know I saw more videos and articles than actual ****ing science. And it's not what I'm reciting is "right", I'm just being honest about what I see. Which is a bunch of opinions based on speculation rather than experimentation. That's fine and all, but it's not "science". And have you shown any of your experiments here? That would actually contribute to a "scientific discussion". You're completely missing and mixing up what I'm saying and frankly, it's starting to **** me off. How bout this, talk about whatever the **** you want. I'll remember next time to only speak my mind to people who can actually comprehend another point of view other than their own. I'm sorry you think we're mixing up what you are saying, But that is what you are saying. You say "None of you have ever done anything empirical" i see it as "None of you have ever done anything empirical" not "most of you haven't done anything empirical" | 2011-11-05 18:06:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| The reason I ask about your belief in the existence or non-existance of dark matter, is that it displays your own hypocricy. Despite having never observed, or done any empirical experimentation on the subject, you are willing to believe that something exists, purely because someone cleverer has told you that it does exist, or because you read it somewhere. Dark Matter is a product of mathematics...rather than a product of empirical observation.... in order for our current observations to make any sense, they needed to invent (science has never actually observed dark matter) something that would account for the discrepency between the theoretical understanding of the universe, and the actual empirical, observed universe. But it is entirely possible (and is looking more and more likely) that their theoretical understanding of the universe was wrong. And so in inventing (and science did invent dark matter, rather than "discovering" it) dark matter - they are simply reifying an incorrect idea. Science is a process - but it is not infallible. For years we worked under the assumption that all material contained Phlogiston - a substance that made things burn. That was before we discovered about oxygen - in fact when they first discovered about oxygen, they called it "de-phlogisticated air"... so certain they were that phlostigon existed.... after all, someone cleverer than them had told them it existed - and all of the experimentation and observations they had done seemed to confirm it's existance. Until they realized that they were looking at things from entirely the wrong perspective and the entire concept of phlostigon was scrapped. I reckon dark matter is the new phlostigon... but there are scientists who have built up a career on the theorised existence of dark matter - so far from being "Impartial and Empirical" - belief in dark matter has vested interests and is down to office politics.... which professers explination do you prefer? Now obviously there is only one truth - the actual physical universe will do what it does, regardless of our theories on why and how it does it. But seeing as how most of us don't own a deep space telescope - and it'd take a team of the most intelligent people on the planet to actually figure out for certain what is going on, and how they can devise an experiment that will prove that what they think is going on IS what's going on... I'll repeat. What experiments are we supposed to conduct to ascertain the truth? What empirical observations have you made that confirm the existance of dark matter - or are you just taking it on "blind faith"? | 2011-11-05 18:33:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| I'm sorry you think we're mixing up what you are saying, But that is what you are saying. You say "None of you have ever done anything empirical" i see it as "None of you have ever done anything empirical" not "most of you haven't done anything empirical" I'm not the best at typing my mind adequately, but common sense should tell you I don't know what everyone in this thread has done. Instead of trying to contradict little things I say, why not see the whole picture? | 2011-11-05 18:43:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| The reason I ask about your belief in the existence or non-existance of dark matter, is that it displays your own hypocricy. Despite having never observed, or done any empirical experimentation on the subject, you are willing to believe that something exists, purely because someone cleverer has told you that it does exist, or because you read it somewhere. Dark Matter is a product of mathematics...rather than a product of empirical observation.... in order for our current observations to make any sense, they needed to invent (science has never actually observed dark matter) something that would account for the discrepency between the theoretical understanding of the universe, and the actual empirical, observed universe. But it is entirely possible (and is looking more and more likely) that their theoretical understanding of the universe was wrong. And so in inventing (and science did invent dark matter, rather than "discovering" it) dark matter - they are simply reifying an incorrect idea. Science is a process - but it is not infallible. For years we worked under the assumption that all material contained Phlogiston - a substance that made things burn. That was before we discovered about oxygen - in fact when they first discovered about oxygen, they called it "de-phlogisticated air"... so certain they were that phlostigon existed.... after all, someone cleverer than them had told them it existed - and all of the experimentation and observations they had done seemed to confirm it's existance. Until they realized that they were looking at things from entirely the wrong perspective and the entire concept of phlostigon was scrapped. I reckon dark matter is the new phlostigon... but there are scientists who have built up a career on the theorised existence of dark matter - so far from being "Impartial and Empirical" - belief in dark matter has vested interests and is down to office politics.... which professers explination do you prefer? Now obviously there is only one truth - the actual physical universe will do what it does, regardless of our theories on why and how it does it. But seeing as how most of us don't own a deep space telescope - and it'd take a team of the most intelligent people on the planet to actually figure out for certain what is going on, and how they can devise an experiment that will prove that what they think is going on IS what's going on... I'll repeat. What experiments are we supposed to conduct to ascertain the truth? What empirical observations have you made that confirm the existance of dark matter - or are you just taking it on "blind faith"? LOL I know you were trying to make me a hypocrite. Which is why I said, "Look Ma, I'm being Ironic!" And that's why those are "theories" not scientific fact. But it at LEAST is based on mathematics...where is your mathematics for why the Universe isn't expanding? And you also proved my point as to why this thread is pointless. ACTUAL scientist with billions of dollars and years of schooling are having trouble understand the world we live in. What makes you think we, with no technology, some no experience, and no money are getting any closer than they are to finding the truth? You need to stop attacking me and actually think about what I'm saying for once. | 2011-11-05 18:45:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| -snip- And that's why those are "theories" not scientific fact. But it at LEAST is based on mathematics...where is your mathematics for why the Universe isn't expanding? You may want to read this http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html it's jokey to start with but it gets the job done. ACTUAL scientist with billions of dollars and years of schooling are having trouble understand the world we live in. What makes you think we, with no technology, some no experience, and no money are getting any closer than they are to finding the truth? -snip-. Democritus predicted the Atom before he had billions of dollars. Archimedes discovered mass without billions of dollars. | 2011-11-05 19:23:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| You may want to read this http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html it's jokey to start with but it gets the job done. Democritus predicted the Atom before he had billions of dollars. Archimedes discovered mass without billions of dollars. And what exactly have we discovered in this thread? Besides, I'm sure these guys had used some sort of scientific procedure that was based on observed and experimented fact. I'm sure they themselves went out and actually looked at matter and it's properties and came to those conclusions. They didn't just read some crap in a book and decided something is true or even a theory. Theories are just things that can't be "proven" true, but doesn't mean it's not based on the science method. Can we just drop this? You can talk about whatever you want, I don't care anymore. | 2011-11-05 19:52:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| And what exactly have we discovered in this thread? Besides, I'm sure these guys had used some sort of scientific procedure that was based on observed and experimented fact. I'm sure they themselves went out and actually looked at matter and it's properties and came to those conclusions. They didn't just read some crap in a book and decided something is true or even a theory. Theories are just things that can't be "proven" true, but doesn't mean it's not based on the science method. Can we just drop this? You can talk about whatever you want, I don't care anymore. You would be surprised by the amount of scientific discoveries that were made based on nothing more than a hunch. The thing is, we only hear about the one successful scientist, who's hunch turned out to be correct - and not the 1000's of other scientists with different hunches, that turned out to be wrong. Would you say that a hunch was "scientific method"? And now that the outer limits of human understanding is in the realm of the untestable/unobservable - it's based on hunches more than ever. We had a 'hunch' that we would find a higgs boson particle if we built the LHC. The fact that we haven't found it shows that the hunch was incorrect. But we are now learning more about what we don't know. I really don't see what your objection to this discussion is? | 2011-11-05 20:36:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| You need a variety of tools to conduct experiments, you need practical knowledge of the mechanics that define nature. You need to follow the scientific method: hypothesis - conclusion. I'm not saying you have to be a "scientist" to talk about science, but you're not talking about science if none of what you discuss contains any even rudimentary elements of the concept. That would be like me trying to have musical composition discussion, but only talking about how pop music sucks today. Sure it's "related" to musical composition, but it's NOT MUSICAL COMPOSITION! The discussion is about CRAPPY POP MUSIC!!! This isn't "How to conduct experiments" or "Scientific Discussion: EXPERTS ONLY!!"* This is Scientific Discussion. We're discussing science.* We don't HAVE to prove it ourselves, with our million pound laboratories we're all supposed to have. What part of this annoys you? You're completely missing and mixing up what I'm saying and frankly, it's starting to **** me off. How bout this, talk about whatever the **** you want. I'll remember next time to only speak my mind to people who can actually comprehend another point of view other than their own. Your controversy is starting to **** me off too. We were perfectly fine before you came and stirred things up. You say I'm mixing things up? Ugh, this thread is so pointless imo. Almost all of you are making claims with no "evidence" or anything supporting what you are saying. Science is all based on fact (which usually involves mathematics). I dun think I've seen ANY equations. If you gonna discuss science, please support your arguments with SOMETHING. Not just talking out your arses.... "This thread is pointless": This is a thread. In a forum. This is where people discuss topics posted by others, for fun. Because they want something to do. Because they want to learn, sometimes. The title encompasses all kinds of discussion from all kinds of sciences. We are discussing science.* "Almost all of you are making claims without evidence": Many of us are bringing evidence forth with websites and articles by scientists who have tried and tested these theories. But oh wait! You don't want that either! Can YOU yourself prove evolution is a fact? Or are you just gonna bring up another website or video? That's what discussing "science" is all about. Do you think any scientist would take you seriously if you said "this is fact and I have a article I found on the internet to prove it!" I'm not trying to start a flame war. I'm just saying actually learn the **** before you give an opinion on it. "Science is all based on fact." No, science is usually based on theories (i.e. they start with theories). It is then developed INTO facts through various methods. We are theorising. And when we're not theorising, we're discussing. Which again falls under the title of the thread. "Not just talking out your arses": That is exactly what you have been doing since your first post about how you find this thread to be pointless. Is that better? Not mixing up what you're saying, I clearly referenced exactly what you said in the first place. If you don't like us talking about science*, then leave. *I really can't stress this enough... ============== Anyway, back to science. I recently came across the following article which is some of the "most compelling evidence yet" that your sexuality is a genetic trait, and NOT a choice- as many people are led to believe. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-***-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html Heterosexual Male - Heterosexual Female - Homosexual Male - Homosexual Female http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14145/dn14145-1_513.jpg Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being ga y or straight is a biologically fixed trait. The scans reveal that in ga y people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex. The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. "This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says. Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between *** and straight people, but most relied on people's responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces. | 2011-11-05 21:30:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| You would be surprised by the amount of scientific discoveries that were made based on nothing more than a hunch. The thing is, we only hear about the one successful scientist, who's hunch turned out to be correct - and not the 1000's of other scientists with different hunches, that turned out to be wrong. Would you say that a hunch was "scientific method"? And now that the outer limits of human understanding is in the realm of the untestable/unobservable - it's based on hunches more than ever. We had a 'hunch' that we would find a higgs boson particle if we built the LHC. The fact that we haven't found it shows that the hunch was incorrect. But we are now learning more about what we don't know. I really don't see what your objection to this discussion is? Those hunches were based on ACTUAL science. Not just some crap they read. They did EXPERIMENTS and CALCULATIONS! Sure they were wrong, but they weren't just saying "I believe this is true because it makes sense". They actually tested what they believe. How else would they know it was wrong? Evolution is a "theory" because it can't be proven true. Does it completely define the laws of science? NO!!! It's a "scientific" theory because it has a lot of scientific evidence backing it up. Darwin didn't just say, "yeah I'm right about everything because everything I say makes sense." He backed it up. Theory - a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena I can say God is real all I want and make a lot of sense out of it. But until I have something backing it up it's moot scientifically. I say this thread is "pointless" because: 1. Most people in here are "assuming" what they read in those articles and videos are true. But don't know or can prove it for themselves. 2. Don't have the tools to test or prove their theories But whatever man, discuss whatever you like. | 2011-11-05 21:44:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Those hunches were based on ACTUAL science. Not just some crap they read. They did EXPERIMENTS and CALCULATIONS! Sure they were wrong, but they weren't just saying "I believe this is true because it makes sense". They actually tested what they believe. How else would they know it was wrong? Evolution is a "theory" because it can't be proven true. Does it completely define the laws of science? NO!!! It's a "scientific" theory because it has a lot of scientific evidence backing it up. Darwin didn't just say, "yeah I'm right about everything because everything I say makes sense." He backed it up. Theory - a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena I can say God is real all I want and make a lot of sense out of it. But until I have something backing it up it's moot scientifically. I say this thread is "pointless" because: 1. Most people in here are "assuming" what they read in those articles and videos are true. But don't know or can prove it for themselves. 2. Don't have the tools to test or prove their theories But whatever man, discuss whatever you like. Evolution can be proved as fact, In fact, It's causing quite a lot of problems in hospitals at the moment due to something called Methicilin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (or MRSA for you). Democritus' theories on 'atomos' (meaning indivisible) were created out of pure speculation no "ACTUAL science" or "EXPERIMENTS and CALCULATIONS" Darwin observed, He didn't do "EXPERIMENTS and CALCULATIONS" as you keep yelling. It seems like you are trying to draw god into this just to get us to attack you about it, but we won't because we have better things to do than go for your bait. | 2011-11-05 21:55:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| This isn't "How to conduct experiments" or "Scientific Discussion: EXPERTS ONLY!!"* This is Scientific Discussion. We're discussing science.* We don't HAVE to prove it ourselves, with our million pound laboratories we're all supposed to have. What part of this annoys you? Didn't say you "had" to. Just said it's "pointless" if you don't. Your controversy is starting to **** me off too. We were perfectly fine before you came and stirred things up. You say I'm mixing things up? I'm expressing my thought on this thread. The is a "forum" after all right? Ya know...a place where people can express themselves? "This thread is pointless": This is a thread. In a forum. This is where people discuss topics posted by others, for fun. Because they want something to do. Because they want to learn, sometimes. The title encompasses all kinds of discussion from all kinds of sciences. We are discussing science.* Yep...and I'm discussing why this thread is pointless. "Almost all of you are making claims without evidence": Many of us are bringing evidence forth with websites and articles by scientists who have tried and tested these theories. But oh wait! You don't want that either! See, THIS! is my problem with this thread. It's all based on the assumption that everything you read on the internet is true. Why? Because of credibility? Respect? How do you know if anything your reading is true is you haven't seen it for yourself? "Science is all based on fact." No, science is based on theories. It is then developed INTO facts through various methods. We are theorising. And when we're not theorising, we're discussing. Which again falls under the title of the thread. Your "theories" are based on assumptions. Real theories are based on testing experimentation, etc. "Not just talking out your arses": That is exactly what you have been doing since your first post about how you find this thread to be pointless. It's my opinion...so yes technically you're right...hehe Is that better? Not mixing up what you're saying, I clearly referenced exactly what you said in the first place. If you don't like us talking about science*, then leave. 1. I wasn't even talking to you when I was talking about mixing up what I said. 2. I don't care what you talk about. I was just giving my opinion on the matter. | 2011-11-05 22:00:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| didn't say you "had" to. Just said it's "pointless" if you don't. I'm expressing my thought on this thread. The is a "forum" after all right? Ya know...a place where people can express themselves? Yep...and i'm discussing why this thread is pointless. Agh!!! It's a Scientific Discussion thread, not a "why this thread is pointless" thread!! You discuss what is relevant, not why we're all gullible morons!!!!! Just. Gahhhhhhhhh!!!! | 2011-11-05 22:07:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Darwin observed, He didn't do "EXPERIMENTS and CALCULATIONS" as you keep yelling. It seems like you are trying to draw god into this just to get us to attack you about it, but we won't because we have better things to do than go for your bait. LOL Darwin "observed". He investigated and came his conclusions. He didn't just read something out of a book. He went out and did something "scientific" which involves observation. Once again you miss what I'm saying. And I don't think your gonna get it. It seems like you are trying to draw god into this just to get us to attack you about it, but we won't because we have better things to do than go for your bait. LOLWUT? | 2011-11-05 22:09:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Agh!!! It's a Scientific Discussion thread, not a "why this thread is pointless" thread!! You discuss what is relevant, not why we're all gullible morons!!!!! Just. Gahhhhhhhhh!!!! LOLOL you guys are just hilarious. | 2011-11-05 22:11:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| LOL Darwin "observed". He investigated and came his conclusions. He didn't just read something out of a book. He went out and did something "scientific" which involves observation. Once again you miss what I'm saying. And I don't think your gonna get it. *you're. And again, the internet is a collective resource for people to share knowledge. If we'd made this thread so that only the most accomplished scientists could post in, we'd have a grand total of **** ALL in here. Yes, the sources can be wrong- but that's because the scientists can be wrong. That's the point of science! You keep on trying 'til you run out of cake. Or until you get the right answer. LOLOL you guys are just hilarious. We know we are. And you're an imbecile. Glad we cleared that up. | 2011-11-05 22:13:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| LOL Darwin "observed". He investigated and came his conclusions. He didn't just read something out of a book. He went out and did something "scientific" which involves observation. Once again you miss what I'm saying. And I don't think your gonna get it. Okay then he "Observed" how the finches on the Galapagos islands had different shaped beaks depending on what their diets consisted of, then came to a conclusion. The point is he didn't do any equations. Of course i'm not going to get your flawed logic of "only professional scientists can have an interest in science" and quite frankly, I grow tired of you and your "I HAVE AN OPINION AND IF YOU SAY IT'S WRONG I'M GOING TO GET ****** WITH YOU". | 2011-11-05 22:14:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Newtons Laws of motion is a testable theory that provides an accurate description of observable experimentation. The fact that it is a wrong description, and we no longer hold a "newtonian" view of the universe, doesn't stop the theory from still being taught in schools, as an elementary introduction into physics. It's the same with them teaching the "solar system" model of atoms. The truth is, atoms aren't like that at all - but it's a nice simple model, that can be easily explained to school children. The fact that it's not true doesn't really matter. Even now, we have just discovered that the speed of light is not a universal constant - as Einstien's theory suggests - so even he was wrong. But they still teach his theory in schools. So I'll say again - why do you think that Dark Matter exists? Because you trust that the people telling you it does haven't made a fundamental error in their understanding. The reason Phlogiston theory survived for a few hundred years, was because it gave testable and accurate predictions to observed experimentation - despite being a fundamentally flawed theory - just as Newton's and just as Einstien's. It was only when some new experimentation methods came to light to fully test the theory, that they realized they were wrong. There is no test able or observable evidence that dark matter exists - it is simply a place-holder that they have stuck in the middle of their theory in order to explain the "missing mass" of the universe. But think about it for a minute; Are you really going to believe that the universe is actually 85% more dense than it appears to be through what has been actually observed (fact) - based on the nothing more than the "hunch" of someone more intelligent - despite negative results when the theory was actually put to test? Remember Phlogiston - new experimentation methods proving the old theory incorrect; There is a clear parallel between that and LHC/Higgs-Boson. We 'assumed' Newton was right - he wasn't. We 'assumed' Einstein was right - he wasn't. Can you see where this is going? There isn't *that* much difference between believing in God and Believing in Dark Matter - as both have precicely 0 evidence to back it up. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know. Also: Darwinian theory of evolution was also based on a hunch - and was entirely wrong about the laws of inheritence. | 2011-11-05 22:17:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| *you're. And again, the internet is a collective resource for people to share knowledge. If we'd made this thread so that only the most accomplished scientists could post in, we'd have a grand total of **** ALL in here. Yes, the sources can be wrong- but that's because the scientists can be wrong. That's the point of science! You keep on trying 'til you run out of cake. Or until you get the right answer. We know we are. And you're an imbecile. Glad we cleared that up. Discuss all you want good buddy. And I will do the same. | 2011-11-05 22:22:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Okay then he "Observed" how the finches on the Galapagos islands had different shaped beaks depending on what their diets consisted of, then came to a conclusion. The point is he didn't do any equations. Of course i'm not going to get your flawed logic of "only professional scientists can have an interest in science" and quite frankly, I grow tired of you and your "I HAVE AN OPINION AND IF YOU SAY IT'S WRONG I'M GOING TO GET ****** WITH YOU". Well an opinion isn't something that is right or wrong. Otherwise it wouldn't be an opinion. And I'm getting angry because of the way you try to contradict everything little thing I say. Rather than just see the whole picture. And calculations doesn't nessecarily mean "equations". And I'm sure he did experiments to come to his conclusion. It doesn't have to be chemical or biological. It could've been more practical. | 2011-11-05 22:27:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Newtons Laws of motion is a testable theory that provides an accurate description of observable experimentation. The fact that it is a wrong description, and we no longer hold a "newtonian" view of the universe, doesn't stop the theory from still being taught in schools, as an elementary introduction into physics. It's the same with them teaching the "solar system" model of atoms. The truth is, atoms aren't like that at all - but it's a nice simple model, that can be easily explained to school children. The fact that it's not true doesn't really matter. Even now, we have just discovered that the speed of light is not a universal constant - as Einstien's theory suggests - so even he was wrong. But they still teach his theory in schools. So I'll say again - why do you think that Dark Matter exists? Because you trust that the people telling you it does haven't made a fundamental error in their understanding. The reason Phlogiston theory survived for a few hundred years, was because it gave testable and accurate predictions to observed experimentation - despite being a fundamentally flawed theory - just as Newton's and just as Einstien's. It was only when some new experimentation methods came to light to fully test the theory, that they realized they were wrong. There is no test able or observable evidence that dark matter exists - it is simply a place-holder that they have stuck in the middle of their theory in order to explain the "missing mass" of the universe. But think about it for a minute; Are you really going to believe that the universe is actually 85% more dense than it appears to be through what has been actually observed (fact) - based on the nothing more than the "hunch" of someone more intelligent - despite negative results when the theory was actually put to test? Remember Phlogiston - new experimentation methods proving the old theory incorrect; There is a clear parallel between that and LHC/Higgs-Boson. We 'assumed' Newton was right - he wasn't. We 'assumed' Einstein was right - he wasn't. Can you see where this is going? There isn't *that* much difference between believing in God and Believing in Dark Matter - as b images/atom oth have precicely 0 evidence to back it up. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know. Also: Darwinian theory of evolution was also based on a hunch - and was entirely wrong about the laws of inheritence. Based on a hunch that was based on "observation". He didn't just read some article off the internet. He went out and did something. Is this really so hard to understand? | 2011-11-05 22:30:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Well an opinion isn't something that is right or wrong. Otherwise it wouldn't be an opinion. And I'm getting angry because of the way you try to contradict everything little thing I say. Rather than just see the whole picture. He's contradicting what you're saying because he knows what he's talking about, and you're talking moronic bull****e. Also, stop double / triple posting. There's an edit button for a reason. | 2011-11-05 22:32:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Newtons Laws of motion is a testable theory that provides an accurate description of observable experimentation. The fact that it is a wrong description, and we no longer hold a "newtonian" view of the universe, doesn't stop the theory from still being taught in schools, as an elementary introduction into physics. It's the same with them teaching the "solar system" model of atoms . upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Stylised_Lithium_Atom.svg/220px-Stylised_Lithium_Atom.svg.png The truth is, atoms aren't like that at all - but it's a nice simple model, that can be easily explained to school children. The fact that it's not true doesn't really matter. Even now, we have just discovered that the speed of light is not a universal constant - as Einstien's theory suggests - so even he was wrong. But they still teach his theory in schools. So I'll say again - why do you think that Dark Matter exists? Because you trust that the people telling you it does haven't made a fundamental error in their understanding. The reason Phlogiston theory survived for a few hundred years, was because it gave testable and accurate predictions to observed experimentation - despite being a fundamentally flawed theory - just as Newton's and just as Einstien's. It was only when some new experimentation methods came to light to fully test the theory, that they realized they were wrong. There is no test able or observable evidence that dark matter exists - it is simply a place-holder that they have stuck in the middle of their theory in order to explain the "missing mass" of the universe. But think about it for a minute; Are you really going to believe that the universe is actually 85% more dense than it appears to be through what has been actually observed (fact) - based on the nothing more than the "hunch" of someone more intelligent - despite negative results when the theory was actually put to test? Remember Phlogiston - new experimentation methods proving the old theory incorrect; There is a clear parallel between that and LHC/Higgs-Boson. We 'assumed' Newton was right - he wasn't. We 'assumed' Einstein was right - he wasn't. Can you see where this is going? There isn't *that* much difference between believing in God and Believing in Dark Matter - as both have precicely 0 evidence to back it up. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know. Personally i believe that neutrinos could quite easily make up for the missing mass due to the laws of conservation, for Comish who doesn't seem to think we know science, There is an error in the first stage of nuclear fusion, Because when a Hydrogen atom and a Hydrogen atom collide together they form an isotope of Hydrogen known as Deuterium. But to conserve the charges a positron (essentially an antiparticle of an electron) is emitted. But this causes an issue, due to the fact that the positron is a lepton and not a baryon, (Baryons being things such as Protons and Neutrons) Basically it's easier to show you in an equation. A Hydrogen Atom is made up of 1 proton, Which in turn is a baryon. A Positron is a anti electron, Which makes it an Anti Lepton. Now Hydrogen + Hydrogen = Deuterium (an isotope made of 1 proton and one neutron, Neutrons also being baryons) + Positron can be translated as this: Baryon + Baryon = 2Baryon +1 Charge + +1 Charge = +1 Charge and +1 Charge Now it gets tricky because the lepton number is not conserved. No Leptons = -1 Leptons. so to make this equation work we guessed at a particle, That must be A) Chargeless B) a Lepton So the Neutrino was hypothesised - No evidence or facts were there to back up its existence, Just a guess to make the maths work. Note that it was just a guess, and then a couple of years later guess what? They discover that Neutrinos exist and that the "guess" based on absolutely no previous evidence turned out to be correct. Huh. So i guess discussion is relevant. And calculations doesn't nessecarily mean "equations". And I'm sure he did experiments to come to his conclusion. It doesn't have to be chemical or biological. It could've been more practical. Nope, Darwin did absolutely no experiments to come to his conclusions, as he didn't have any scientific equipment with him, he made observations and took notes, Then theorised how said adaptions could have came into existance, using only his observations and a hunch. | 2011-11-05 22:40:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Based on a hunch that was based on "observation". He didn't just read some article off the internet. He went out and did something. Is this really so hard to understand? Phlogiston was based on "observation" as well. What's your point? Exactly what kind of scientific discovery or revalation do expect from a LBPC thread? What empirical experimentation have YOU done yourself in order to confirm that Darwinism is true? Please show your working for peer review. Or do you not believe in evolution? ...or did you just read it somewhere? | 2011-11-05 22:41:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| He's contradicting what you're saying because he knows what he's talking about, and you're talking moronic bull****e. Also, stop double / triple posting. There's an edit button for a reason. Maybe if you stop writing so many post trying to "prove I'm an idiot" and actually see what I'm trying to say, I wouldn't need to. This whole time, all you've been doing is showing how arrogant and petty you are. Someone says one bad thing about your thread and their morons. You call me out on my grammar, contradict things that don't even matter, and complete miss the whole point I'm trying make. | 2011-11-05 22:45:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Maybe if you stop writing so many post trying to "prove I'm an idiot" and actually see what I'm trying to say, I wouldn't need to. This whole time, all you've been doing is showing how arrogant and petty you are. Someone says one bad thing about your thread and their morons. You call me out on my grammar, contradict things that don't even matter, and complete miss the whole point I'm trying make. Your original point being that if something isn't productive it shouldn't exist? | 2011-11-05 22:47:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Phlogiston was based on "observation" as well. What's your point? Exactly what kind of scientific discovery or revalation do expect from a LBPC thread? What empirical experimentation have YOU done yourself in order to confirm that Darwinism is true? Please show your working for peer review. Or do you not believe in evolution? ...or did you just read it somewhere? I'm not trying to prove that darwin theory is true. All I'm saying is that nothing your saying is based on anything "scientific" just speculation. Geez, how many times do I have to say it? | 2011-11-05 22:48:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Phlogiston was based on "observation" as well. What's your point? Exactly what kind of scientific discovery or revalation do expect from a LBPC thread? What empirical experimentation have YOU done yourself in order to confirm that Darwinism is true? Please show your working for peer review. Or do you not believe in evolution? ...or did you just read it somewhere? You sir, are legen- wait for it... DARY. | 2011-11-05 22:49:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Your original point being that if something isn't productive it shouldn't exist? NO...my point is that if you are going to discuss things scientifically, go out and observe, experiment, and calculate. Don't just post articles and "assume" they are true. Go out and see for yourself if it's true. That's my point. Otherwise this isn't a "scientific" thread. It's just a "what do you believe is fact" thread. | 2011-11-05 22:52:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| You sir, are legen- wait for it... DARY. And comish, what's wrong with speculating? That's pretty much what we're all here to do- and we're doing it. | 2011-11-05 22:52:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I'm not trying to prove that darwin theory is true. All I'm saying is that nothing your saying is based on anything "scientific" just speculation. Geez, how many times do I have to say it? & not a trace of irony! | 2011-11-05 22:52:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| NO...my point is that if you are going to discuss things scientifically, go out and observe, experiment, and calculate. Don't just post articles and "assume" they are true. Go out and see for yourself if it's true. That's my point. Otherwise this isn't a "scientific" thread. It's just a "what do you believe is fact" thread. No it's not at all, Someone else has gone out, observed, experimented and calculated. This thread is to give ones opinion on it. If someone posted a link that told us that the moon is made of cheese, we would still have an opinion of it, Regardless if it's false, it doesn't stop us discussing it. | 2011-11-05 22:55:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Personally i believe that neutrinos could quite easily make up for the missing mass due to the laws of conservation, for Comish who doesn't seem to think we know science, There is an error in the first stage of nuclear fusion, Because when a Hydrogen atom and a Hydrogen atom collide together they form an isotope of Hydrogen known as Deuterium. But to conserve the charges a positron (essentially an antiparticle of an electron) is emitted. But this causes an issue, due to the fact that the positron is a lepton and not a baryon, (Baryons being things such as Protons and Neutrons) Basically it's easier to show you in an equation. A Hydrogen Atom is made up of 1 proton, Which in turn is a baryon. A Positron is a anti electron, Which makes it an Anti Lepton. Now Hydrogen + Hydrogen = Deuterium (an isotope made of 1 proton and one neutron, Neutrons also being baryons) + Positron can be translated as this: Baryon + Baryon = 2Baryon +1 Charge + +1 Charge = +1 Charge and +1 Charge Now it gets tricky because the lepton number is not conserved. No Leptons = -1 Leptons. so to make this equation work we guessed at a particle, That must be A) Chargeless B) a Lepton So the Neutrino was hypothesised - No evidence or facts were there to back up its existence, Just a guess to make the maths work. Note that it was just a guess, and then a couple of years later guess what? They discover that Neutrinos exist and that the "guess" based on absolutely no previous evidence turned out to be correct. Huh. So i guess discussion is relevant. I didn't say YOU didn't know anything about science. I don't even know you. But fair enough. Nope, Darwin did absolutely no experiments to come to his conclusions, as he didn't have any scientific equipment with him, he made observations and took notes, Then theorised how said adaptions could have came into existance, using only his observations and a hunch. That still science dude. Observations, taking notes, that's what science is all about. Going out and seeing it for yourself. Also: He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species), overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmutation_of_species). | 2011-11-05 22:59:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| No it's not at all, Someone else has gone out, observed, experimented and calculated. This thread is to give ones opinion on it. If someone posted a link that told us that the moon is made of cheese, we would still have an opinion of it, Regardless if it's false, it doesn't stop us discussing it. But it's not a "scientific" discussion. It's still a "what do you believe is true" thread. | 2011-11-05 23:01:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| But it's not a "scientific" discussion. It's still a "what do you believe is true" thread. sci?en?tif?ic/ˌsīənˈtifik/ Adjective: Based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science. Relating to or used in science: "scientific instruments". Relating to science, The science may be false, But it's still science. dis?cus?sion/disˈkəSHən/ Noun: The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas. A conversation or debate about a certain topic. So a conversation relating to science - even if that science is wholly wrong. Is still a scientific discussion. | 2011-11-05 23:03:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| & not a trace of irony! Ugh, that's all you guys do. Just call me out on stupid things that don't even matter. You still miss the fundamental point I'm trying to make. I honestly don't even know that much about what Darwin did. Nor does it matter. I don't think any of you are gonna get it so I give up. Have fun discussing "science". | 2011-11-05 23:09:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| sci?en?tif?ic/ˌsīənˈtifik/ Adjective: Based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science. Relating to or used in science: "scientific instruments". Relating to science, The science may be false, But it's still science. dis?cus?sion/disˈkəSHən/ Noun: The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas. A conversation or debate about a certain topic. So a conversation relating to science - even if that science is wholly wrong. Is still a scientific discussion. Exactly what I said a couple of pages back. | 2011-11-05 23:09:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| sci?en?tif?ic/ˌsīənˈtifik/ Adjective: Based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science. Relating to or used in science: "scientific instruments". Relating to science, The science may be false, But it's still science. dis?cus?sion/disˈkəSHən/ Noun: The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas. A conversation or debate about a certain topic. So a conversation relating to science - even if that science is wholly wrong. Is still a scientific discussion. And science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. So again...you are not having a discussion that pertains to science. Only to speculation. | 2011-11-05 23:11:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| And science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. So again...you are not having a discussion that pertains to science. Only to speculation. But huge amounts of science is based on speculation! So of course we are going to be having a conversation about speculation due to this being a thread to have conversations about science in! | 2011-11-05 23:18:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| But huge amounts of science is based on speculation! So of course we are going to be having a conversation about speculation due to this being a thread to have conversations about science in! No, science is based on observation and experiments. Speculation is the catalyst for science. But it's not science.. I can "speculate" that ponies rollerskate on rainbows in the sky, but it doesn't become scientific until i can observe and experiment on it. | 2011-11-05 23:23:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| So, if I am to understand the point you are making - without trying to miss-quote you or "call you out"; But you seem to be suggesting that unless we can experiment or test a theory using the scientific method for ourselves - that there should be no point in discussing it? Is that right? *lays the trap* | 2011-11-05 23:38:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| And science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. So again...you are not having a discussion that pertains to science. Only to speculation. Yes, we're talking about systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. And I'd like to point out that isn't the only definition in the world. No, science is based on observation and experiments. Speculation is the catalyst for science. But it's not science.. I can "speculate" that ponies rollerskate on rainbows in the sky, but it doesn't become scientific until i can observe and experiment on it. We're not doing science. We never said we were. We're talking about science. | 2011-11-05 23:40:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| So, if I am to understand the point you are making - without trying to miss-quote you or "call you out"; But you seem to be suggesting that unless we can experiment or test a theory using the scientific method for ourselves - that there should be no point in discussing it? Is that right? *lays the trap* I'm saying that if you don't discuss something that is based on "observation and experimentation" then it is not science. Why have a scientific discussion that's not based on "science"? Not saying you can't do it...but what's the point? I'm not saying that you ALL are doing that. But I've seen a lot of people just posting crap they found on the internet and calling it "science". Yes, we're talking about systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. And I'd like to point out that isn't the only definition in the world. We're not doing science. We never said we were. We're talking about science. No, you are talking about things you "assume" are knowledge gained from observation and knowledge. I.e: internet videos and articles. How do you know those experiments are legit? How do you know everything you reading on the web is true? I'm NOT saying that it's not possibly true, but how can you be sure? This world is corrupt and full of self-interested humans who will say anything to get fame and attention. How do you know that all those things they say are true? Even Macnme said that "fact" is always being proven wrong time and time again. So why can't these guys be wrong? | 2011-11-05 23:51:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| No, you are talking about things you "assume" are knowledge gained from observation and knowledge. I.e: internet videos and articles. How do you know those experiments are legit? How do you know everything you reading on the web is true? I'm NOT saying that it's not possibly true, but how can you be sure? This world is corrupt and full of self-interested humans who will say anything to get fame and attention. How do you know that all those things they say are true? Even Macnme said that "fact" is always being proven wrong time and time again. So why can't these guys be wrong? What Guys? Who? What? Where? Who? Eh? | 2011-11-06 00:00:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| What Guys? Who? What? Where? Who? Eh? The guys who write those articles and create those videos...-_- that people in this thread have so much faith in | 2011-11-06 00:01:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| The guys who write those articles and create those videos...-_- that people in this thread have so much faith in They may be wrong, It doesn't stop us having an opinion on the science they are putting forward. We're just repeating ourselves now, can you please leave? | 2011-11-06 00:06:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| They may be wrong, It doesn't stop us having an opinion on the science they are putting forward. We're just repeating ourselves now, can you please leave? Agreed. Just because it might not be right, doesn't mean it isn't science. No-one is agreeing with you, you're being incredibly irrational. And you're not even talking about any scientific theories ============== Anyway, back to science. I recently came across the following article which is some of the "most compelling evidence yet" that your sexuality is a genetic trait, and NOT a choice- as many people are led to believe. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-***-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html Heterosexual Male - Heterosexual Female - Homosexual Male - Homosexual Female http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14145/dn14145-1_513.jpg Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being ga y or straight is a biologically fixed trait. The scans reveal that in ga y people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex. The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. "This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says. Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between *** and straight people, but most relied on people's responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces. | 2011-11-06 00:17:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| No, you are talking about things you "assume" are knowledge gained from observation and knowledge. I.e: internet videos and articles. How do you know those experiments are legit? How do you know everything you reading on the web is true? I'm NOT saying that it's not possibly true, but how can you be sure? This world is corrupt and full of self-interested humans who will say anything to get fame and attention. How do you know that all those things they say are true? Even Macnme said that "fact" is always being proven wrong time and time again. So why can't these guys be wrong? The "facts" are fact - and remain unchanged... it's our interpretation of those facts that change. We used to think that the fact it rained was down to some God or other ... now we know it's caused by meteorology. The rain itself has not changed - just our understanding of what causes it. There does come a point where you have to accept an authorative view. I have never been to the moon, but I will accept Neil Armstrongs opinion when he says "It's not made of cheese". | 2011-11-06 00:17:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| Agreed. Just because it might not be right, doesn't mean it isn't science. No-one is agreeing with you, you're being incredibly irrational. And you're not even talking about any scientific theories ============== Anyway, back to science. I recently came across the following article which is some of the "most compelling evidence yet" that your sexuality is a genetic trait, and NOT a choice- as many people are led to believe. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-***-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html Heterosexual Male - Heterosexual Female - Homosexual Male - Homosexual Female http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14145/dn14145-1_513.jpg Not genetic, formed prebirth. | 2011-11-06 00:29:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Not genetic, formed prebirth. I stand corrected. | 2011-11-06 00:36:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| The "facts" are fact - and remain unchanged... it's our interpretation of those facts that change. We used to think that the fact it rained was down to some God or other ... now we know it's caused by meteorology. The rain itself has not changed - just our understanding of what causes it. There does come a point where you have to accept an authorative view. I have never been to the moon, but I will accept Neil Armstrongs opinion when he says "It's not made of cheese". If you want real "scientific" truth, you go look for it yourself. It would be scientific if you say, "I have observed the moon myself and I believe it is not cheese". But if I said, what you said...it would mean nothing. Agreed. Just because it might not be right, doesn't mean it isn't science. I didn't say it had to be "right" to be science. I said it had to be based on "OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION!" No-one is agreeing with you, you're being incredibly irrational. Maybe because you just don't understand, and you're frustrated I don't agree with everything you say because you of course know everything. And you guys are probably the most narrow minded bunch I've met on LBPC. Macnme especially. [/center][/QUOTE] They may be wrong, It doesn't stop us having an opinion on the science they are putting forward. We're just repeating ourselves now, can you please leave? It's nothing to with them being wrong. It's about the fact you're discussing things that have nothing to with "SCIENCE" Oh and to be ironic and contribute to the thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw5Bg0CJYs0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw5Bg0CJYs0&feature=related) Also this: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/10033.full.pdf+html | 2011-11-06 00:37:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| *Picks up book, lets it drop straight on the floor* THERE. That shows how our planet has gravity. Are we clear to discuss gravity now? Oh, wait a second! *takes pictures of kids and their parents and compares them all* They OBVIOUSLY have something in common. Genes? We got the green light to discuss genetics now? Science is everywhere, everyone can observe and deduct. Not everyone will make the right deductions, but that's the point of science - take all possibilities and see which one's right. That's what everyone was trying to do in this thread. Sure, nobody's going to find out the cure for cancer or if the egg came first, but we enjoy ourselves doing it at a layman's level, by discussing simple aspects and comparing everyone's opinions. I'm not even a frequent poster in this thread, but it feels wrong to waste it discussing the thread's purpose. | 2011-11-06 00:57:00 Author: gdn001  Posts: 5891 |
| Oh and to be ironic and contribute to the thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw5Bg0CJYs0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw5Bg0CJYs0&feature=related) Also this: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/10033.full.pdf+html (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw5Bg0CJYs0&feature=related) Please can you combine your posts? When people do this, it pushes the topic off, and newcomers don't get what we're talking about. And everything we have discussed has something to do with science. What will it take for you to drop this and let us carry on as normal? | 2011-11-06 00:57:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Please can you combine your posts? When people do this, it pushes the topic off, and newcomers don't get what we're talking about. And everything we have discussed has something to do with science. What will it take for you to drop this and let us carry on as normal? Hey man, I wanted to drop this 2-3 pages ago. You guys just kept calling me out on stupid stuff and insulting me. Which is why I kept going on. Maybe next time just say: "ok, I see your point of view, but I disagree". Not everyone is gonna see things your way. *Picks up book, lets it drop straight on the floor* THERE. That shows how our planet has gravity. Are we clear to discuss gravity now? Oh, wait a second! *takes pictures of kids and their parents and compares them all* They OBVIOUSLY have something in common. Genes? We got the green light to discuss genetics now? Science is everywhere, everyone can observe and deduct. Not everyone will make the right deductions, but that's the point of science - take all possibilities and see which one's right. That's what everyone was trying to do in this thread. Sure, nobody's going to find out the cure for cancer or if the egg came first, but we enjoy ourselves doing it at a layman's level, by discussing simple aspects and comparing everyone's opinions. I'm not even a frequent poster in this thread, but it feels wrong to waste it discussing the thread's purpose. Hey discuss, whatever you want man. If it's based on something that you have tested and experimented on, then it's science. If not, then it's what you ever you believe is true. | 2011-11-06 01:02:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| ============== Anyway, back to science. I recently came across the following article which is some of the "most compelling evidence yet" that your sexuality is formed prebirth, and NOT a choice- as many people are led to believe. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-***-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html Heterosexual Male - Heterosexual Female - Homosexual Male - Homosexual Female http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn14145/dn14145-1_513.jpg Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being ga y or straight is a biologically fixed trait. The scans reveal that in ga y people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex. The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. "This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says. Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between ga y and straight people, but most relied on people's responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces. Click the link, there's quite a bit more... So back on this. How much longer will it be before this is 100% certain, and people can't deny sexuality is not a choice? And by people, I mean somewhat reasonable people. There is no way we can convince the religious extremists... | 2011-11-06 10:45:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| So back on this. How much longer will it be before this is 100% certain, and people can't deny sexuality is not a choice? And by people, I mean somewhat reasonable people. There is no way we can convince the religious extremists... Well they only used 90 volunteers so 90 out of 7 billion isn't very many at all. For it to be representative they'd have to use a larger number of volunteers coupled with a double blind test, so the scientists don't expect anything from the Homosexual Brains. | 2011-11-06 12:53:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Hey guys, just dropping in for a quick note. It seems like we're back on track, but the last several pages could very well have a lot of you with unwanted infractions. I see most of you here contributing already know the rules, but let's get a couple crystal clear before we continue: 1) No insulting or name-calling. It's entirely unnecessary, especially in an intellectual discussion like this. It is much more effective to refute them with logic and sound argument. It is also against the community guidelines and an infractable offense. 2) Watch the double posting. While not a huge deal, it's not necessary. If you need to quote more than one post, use the edit feature or multi-quote feature. This one should be the easiest thing to do. Ok, I'm ducking out for now. We're still discussion the last several posts, but from here on out I expect us all to behave, yes? | 2011-11-06 20:52:00 Author: schm0  Posts: 1239 |
| Well YOU might think name calling is unnecessary, Schm0 - but I think you're a big ploppy poo-poo head. .... and I can prove that scientifically! First we need a control study where a series of people both with big ploppy poo-poo heads, and normal heads, are paraded in front of me - and a brain scanner can record my brain activity. Then I need to look at Schm0 - and if my response is similar to that of the control group with big ploppy poo-poo heads - then that will have proven that I do indeed think Schm0 is a big ploppy poo-poo head. Now THAT'S Science! Edit: I don't "really" think that about Schm0 - but until we have conducted that experiment there is no way to know for certain! Ad Edit: Of course, that would only clarify it for myself and anyone else conducting the experiment - so you will all need to test me again & again in order to be certain for yourself..... or you could just take my word for it | 2011-11-06 22:54:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| Well YOU might think name calling is unnecessary, Schm0 - but I think you're a big ploppy poo-poo head. .... and I can prove that scientifically! First we need a control study where a series of people both with big ploppy poo-poo heads, and normal heads, are paraded in front of me - and a brain scanner can record my brain activity. Then I need to look at Schm0 - and if my response is similar to that of the control group with big ploppy poo-poo heads - then that will have proven that I do indeed think Schm0 is a big ploppy poo-poo head. Now THAT'S Science! Edit: I don't "really" think that about Schm0 - but until we have conducted that experiment there is no way to know for certain! Ad Edit: Of course, that would only clarify it for myself and anyone else conducting the experiment - so you will all need to test me again & again in order to be certain for yourself..... or you could just take my word for it As two wise mice once said... TAKE HIS BRAIN! http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/111/238249-mice___men_super.jpg | 2011-11-06 23:45:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| He he.. Those mice are in for a surprise when they scan my brain - expecting the answer to life, the universe and everything?; And all they find is "Schm0 is a big ploppy poo-poo head!" | 2011-11-07 01:08:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| Edit: I don't "really" think that about Schm0 - but until we have conducted that experiment there is no way to know for certain! He he.. Those mice are in for a surprise when they scan my brain - expecting the answer to life, the universe and everything?; And all they find is "Schm0 is a big ploppy poo-poo head!" The google cache of this thread is the only evidence I can find of it, so you must be right. | 2011-11-07 02:41:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239 |
| http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/06/stem-cells-brain-parkinsons-disease?newsfeed=true Brain cells that die off in Parkinson's disease have been grown from stem cells and grafted into monkeys' brains in a major step towards new treatments for the condition. US researchers say they have overcome previous difficulties in coaxing human embryonic stem cells to become the neurons killed by the disease. Tests showed the cells survive and function normally in animals and reverse movement problems caused by Parkinson's in monkeys. | 2011-11-08 13:34:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| If there are such things as "Parallel Universes with infinite possibilities", wouldn't there be one with some sort of deity? I'm an Atheist, but this might be true, if parallel universes exist, that is. | 2011-11-11 05:09:00 Author: alaskadawn  Posts: 101 |
| If there are such things as "Parallel Universes with infinite possibilities", wouldn't there be one with some sort of deity? I'm an Atheist, but this might be true, if parallel universes exist, that is. But assuming he is trapped in said Parallel Universe why should we base our decisions on what people claim to have heard from him? Obviously we're not going to go into the argument of whether a Deity exists or not, and considering we know nothing of whether there are parallel universes or whether they follow the same laws of physics as our universe does, We can speculate but that's what it will always remain. Speculation. | 2011-11-11 16:24:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| If there are such things as "Parallel Universes with infinite possibilities", wouldn't there be one with some sort of deity? I'm an Atheist, but this might be true, if parallel universes exist, that is. Various scientists have speculated this, actually, but as Kernel says, the deity would be trapped in that universe. More, though; what would you class as a "deity" ? There will almost certainly be a universe with "God-like" creatures, similar to those we imagine. Though I HIGHLY doubt there will be a God that created the entire universe. IF the multiverse theory is correct, that is. | 2011-11-11 16:35:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I've yet to see a convincing argument, or any cooberrating evidence that would suggest that there are "infinite alternate universes"; I think most people confuse this theory with the "parralel dimension" theory; which suggests that there are alternate spacial dimensions that exist within the the 3 spacial dimensions that we are familiar with. The way I had it explained to me - is that if you see a chain link fence from a distance, you will perceive it as "2-D" - all you see are lines zig-zagging, but as you get closer to the fence, you realize that the zigzag lines are actually wires and are actually cylindrical. From a distance we would not perceive the "cylindrical" nature of the chain-link fence. In much the same way, we are viewing the quantum world from an extreme distance (effectively only a 2-D view). But if we were small enough to perceive it, we would see that there are many more dimensions coiled up tightly within the 3 spatial dimensions we encounter from our scale. I believe they've confirmed 11 dimensions so far - but there could well be more. None of those dimensions will contain a whole universe in which a deity exists | 2011-11-15 04:46:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| Kernelm and I have been debating whether or not there's a possibility Neutrinos can travel faster than light. Allegedly, an experiment clocked them going 60nanoseconds faster than light, and they're trying to recreate this now. http://www.google.co.uk/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=can+neutrons+travel+faster+than+light#q=can+neut rinos+travel+faster+than+light&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa=X&ei=ExvETqn_M9K3hAe4orX6DQ&ved=0CAwQpwUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d13ee51129412ca8&biw=1280&bih=705 http://io9.com/5859576/whats-the-strangest-thing-about-neutrinos | 2011-11-16 20:32:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| CERN just discovered it again. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/scitech/main20110236.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody ...neutrinos - one of the strangest well-known particles in physics - have now been observed smashing past this cosmic speed barrier of 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers). CERN says a neutrino beam fired from a particle accelerator near Geneva to a lab 454 miles (730 kilometers) away in Italy traveled 60 nanoseconds faster than the speed of light. Scientists calculated the margin of error at just 10 nanoseconds, making the difference statistically significant. But given the enormity of the find, they still spent months checking and rechecking their results to make sure there was no flaws in the experiment. The CERN researchers are now looking to the United States and Japan to confirm the results. | 2011-11-19 00:46:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| /revive He has probably been brought up before but I recently learned who Michio Kaku is and have been falling in love with everything he says: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXj4Po86gT0&feature=related  tl;didnt watch? There are 3 types of advanced civilizations, we dont even rate on the scale, and the next 100 or so years will determine if we gain the power to control everything about our planet thus becoming a type 1 civilization OR we destroy ourselves and fade into history. The video cuts off(I couldnt find the version I watched before which was longer..) but in part 2 he goes on to talk about how life spans are going to be increased by medicine and immortality could arive within 100-200 years. (He points out how we would have to make ourselves immortal without kickstarting cancer because cancer is immortal..) Last generation to actually die? (Of old age and such.. you'd still be able to die from getting shot and whatnot) Also, any thoughts on this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Zgmdo4C1VQ | 2012-01-14 01:41:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| /revive He has probably been brought up before but I recently learned who Michio Kaku is and have been falling in love with everything he says:  The exact same thing happened to me about a month ago. I was up 'til 4am watching all the "BigThink" videos of his. If you do find the longer video be sure to post it up, this is the one I watched on the same thing, I assume anyway, I didn't actually watch your videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPC47qMJVg&feature=relmfu&fb_source=message The second video's just going over my head at the moment, haven't had a lot of sleep lately, but the prospect of cold fusion is something I'm pretty excited about. From my understanding fusion is expected to be commercially viable in the quite near future, so it's safe to assume that cold fusion will come some time after? However, as great as it will be that we will be much less reliant on fossil fuels for our energy, I can see it being anything but a swift change over. Almost the entirety of the world's transportation and industry will have to be switched over from the combustion engines we currently have, not to mention there are many other uses for fossil fuels, plastics is the biggest and most obvious. IMO, we need cut all ties with fossil fuels if we want to live a truly sustainable way of life. | 2012-01-14 11:09:00 Author: SR20DETDOG  Posts: 2431 |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gRnezJNFro&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL0A7E12AE638BDBCA I dont know how far away cold fusion is or if we even have it now but arent using it.. but I agree, we need to free ourselves of fossil fuels soon. I think its kinda funny how on his website he has a post about contacting him if you come up with a unified theory, the way he words it's like "If you solve one of the greatest scientific mysteries of all time...I might be interested..no promises. Make sure its a paragraph or less though, or no dice." xD http://mkaku.org/home/?page_id=254 | 2012-01-15 08:11:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Don't quote me on this but if I remember correctly we already have fusion power, in the sense that scientists have been able to consistently repeat the process in labs on a small scale. Whereas with cold fusion a few people have claimed to have accomplished it on small scales but the results aren't repeatable. That's my understanding of where we're at anyway. Haha, that's awesome XD Thanks for the link to his website btw, never even thought to look for it. | 2012-01-15 12:03:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431 |
| Don't quote me on this but if I remember correctly we already have fusion power, in the sense that scientists have been able to consistently repeat the process in labs on a small scale. Whereas with cold fusion a few people have claimed to have accomplished it on small scales but the results aren't repeatable. That's my understanding of where we're at anyway. This is true, Iter (http://www.iter.org/) is being built in France | 2012-01-16 18:41:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| This is true, Iter (http://www.iter.org/) is being built in France Thanks for the link, will definitely have to read up on that sometime, been way too busy lately. I did get a chance to read CERN's Press Release (13/12/2011) (http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR25.11E.html) regarding the search for the Higgs Boson though. In the press release Fabiola Gianotti - ATLAS experiment spokesperson states, We cannot conclude anything at this stage. We need more study and more data. However, Given the outstanding performance of the LHC this year, we will not need to wait long for enough data and can look forward to resolving this puzzle in 2012. I won't be holding my breath for an answer in 2012, In saying that though, I'm pretty interested to see if they do find the Higgs Boson and whether or not it's a standard model Higgs Boson and if conclusive results can be had by this year then that'll be fantastic. | 2012-01-19 12:33:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431 |
LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139
Threads: 69970
Members: 9661
Archive-Date: 2019-01-19
Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.