General Stuff #3
Scientific Discussion
Archive: 956 posts
| But then how would you know you havent just seriously changed things? Say you went to Califonia in 1974, & Randomly shot up a building? Alls fair right? Now lets say one person you just happened to shoot was a Mr Jobs? You've just randomly stopped your Future (Present) self from getting an iPod?! Ok, not a big deal...But! Think of how many things you've change just because of that? A Very popular Portable MP3 Player suddenly doesn't exist, meaning barely anyone now walks around with earphones in - meaning, you've probably just saved alot of people from being Killed in Road Accidents! But what if one of those was to go on to commit a more devious crime? O.o Crap. Now I'm scared to even kill a fly. | 2010-08-03 01:21:00 Author: CyberSora  Posts: 5551 |
| Just wanted to drop this off on the porch: Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25492/) The article broadly details a new cosmology that describes our universe in different terms - No beginning and no end, but an infinite pattern of expansion and contraction. The speed of light is not a constant. It does away with the need for dark energy and dark matter. It explains all of our measurements of the universe's expansion. The big issue with it however, is the main body of evidence that there WAS a big bang - the cosmic microwave background. We're able to measure radiation that resulted from the big bang - radiation that's the chief exhibit of the big bang's very existence. This new cosmology doesn't (yet) explain where all that radiation came from. But people who have trouble imagining a singularity - that is, the infinitesimal point of matter in which all of the universe is condensed before the big bang occurred - might prefer Wun-Yi Shu's new cosmology. I don't think his writings have been through the peer-review process yet, so right now it's all talk without much ability to reference and cross-check what other experts have to say. Take it with a grain of salt, but it is interesting and thank god people are still describing new universes using new evidence in order to keep debate alive. | 2010-08-03 06:50:00 Author: Teebonesy  Posts: 1937 |
| ??? If you were to go back in time and do anything then the reason to go back in time never happened so you don't go back in time in the first place so theres no point in going back in time unless you can just go there and look around without touching anything :/ What if you just went back to mess with everything you saw, you didn't go with a specific purpose just general mayhem, therefore the motive wouldn't change? But then how would you know you havent just seriously changed things? Say you went to Califonia in 1974, & Randomly shot up a building? Alls fair right? Now lets say one person you just happened to shoot was a Mr Jobs? You've just randomly stopped your Future (Present) self from getting an iPod?! Ok, not a big deal...But! Think of how many things you've change just because of that? A Very popular Portable MP3 Player suddenly doesn't exist, meaning barely anyone now walks around with earphones in - meaning, you've probably just saved alot of people from being Killed in Road Accidents! But what if one of those was to go on to commit a more devious crime? Say you go back in time and do accidently step on a fly, when time progresses forward and you go back in time again, that fly will still be there. Why? When you step on the fly and time progresses then you go back again, there is no fly for you to step on, ie: you don't step on it. So none of the changes from killing the fly the first time happened. Which means when you go back in time, the fly will be there again since you never changed anything in the first place. /spawn_Mind_Grenade /detonate  | 2010-08-03 07:15:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Say you go back in time and do accidently step on a fly, when time progresses forward and you go back in time again, that fly will still be there. Why? When you step on the fly and time progresses then you go back again, there is no fly for you to step on, ie: you don't step on it. So none of the changes from killing the fly the first time happened. Which means when you go back in time, the fly will be there again since you never changed anything in the first place. /spawn_Mind_Grenade /detonate Uuuh, yeh I get you, wait.. Are you saying... I'm sure the fly would be dead still if you went back? My sig is a pretty good description of this thread at the moment. "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant. " | 2010-08-03 08:44:00 Author: Boomy  Posts: 3701 |
| What would happen if I went back in time when Osama was born and "Accidently" dropped him off a building? Im not exactly sure, but, I would assume 9/11 would never happen so the airport security would not be as good and eventually we have a huge terrorist thing even worse then 9/11... Hmmmmmmmmmm toughhhhh | 2010-08-03 08:55:00 Author: Shhabbazz  Posts: 746 |
| No, its a paradox. The second time you back cancels out the first, so nothing happens. | 2010-08-03 09:00:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Paradox Shmaradox, Quantum states mean particals can be in multiple places at the same time, both inside and outside a box, dead and alive etc etc there is another particular example of resonating quantom particles pairs where they are both resonating together and are both A state and B state at the same time. But as soon as one is mesured as B state then the other corresponding particle automaticly becomes A no mater what. hehe headache inducing time | 2010-08-03 09:20:00 Author: Strangepom  Posts: 445 |
| Did you just say what I said, with particles?? Confused :/ | 2010-08-03 09:28:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
I once tried to make a paradox in LBP and... it didnt work  | 2010-08-03 09:28:00 Author: Shhabbazz Posts: 746 |
| Paradox Shmaradox, Quantum states mean particals can be in multiple places at the same time, both inside and outside a box, dead and alive etc etc there is another particular example of resonating quantom particles pairs where they are both resonating together and are both A state and B state at the same time. But as soon as one is mesured as B state then the other corresponding particle automaticly becomes A no mater what. hehe headache inducing time Yep, they're called entangled particles. And along with Shrodinger's Cat and the Double Slit Experiment, it's yet another example of one aspect of quantum mechanics that has always boggled my mind: That it appears that at the quantum level, physics and consciousness intersect. Now, how can that be? Seriously, how in the holy hell can that be? The mere presence of observing consciousness completely changes the outcome of the experiment. There are several books on this topic - Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness / The Physics of Consciousness: The Quantum Mind and the Meaning of Life / Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe, and others. But it really does strike me as extraordinary that the two intersect in such fundamental ways at the quantum scale, and it really boggles my brain. I'm going to have to read at least one of these books. I think I'm going to go with Biocentrism because it appears to be the least cheesy of the ones I've seen listed. But you've got to be a bit skeptical about the quality of some of this stuff when Amazon's "related" list includes a bunch of hokey crap on remote viewing and science "proving" psychic phenomena, etc. Can anyone who's done a decent amount of research into this topic pitch it to me? Consciousness + Quantum Physics. What the holy scrooge is going on. | 2010-08-03 09:43:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| I've heard about that, i've been wondering how they know that its in multiple places at once and not just moving too fast for their machine to catch :/ | 2010-08-03 09:51:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| anyone ever invents a time machine, can we all agree that if it's one of us we will time machine next to ourselves in the next 5 seconds? | 2010-08-03 10:49:00 Author: flamingemu  Posts: 1872 |
| ...Well how'd that go then?! lol. Yup I agree, if I ever get a time machine I'll teleport myself to Flamingemu's house 8 minutes ago from when I started writing this post, k? lol | 2010-08-03 10:57:00 Author: Keanster96  Posts: 1436 |
| Whoah! Whoah! Whoah! People still believe in the Big Bang!? That's hilarious! I already went into an elaborate post on existence, but I'll give you the answer... Things NEVER CAME INTO BEING. They always were. The easiest way to comprehend this is, time does not exist. There was no begging there just is. if you want it explained a little more here is my original post... ... It's really hard to explain...but I think the brain has an outer source that controls it, processes all it's functions and when you die you are disconnected from that receptor (the soul) and are enlightened in a way. What the outer source couldn't process due to miniscule underlining thoughts before is now cleared of the clutter and can use it's full potential. I also believe there is only one outer source ( people call it God ) and everyone is connected to that source ( this is why you have deja vu, elaborate dreams, and some people claim to be psychics ). The way I interpret God creating everything is that the entity itself, existence, is just one big object not moving forward or backward not progressing or regressing. But instead resides around the outer source God. Here is a funny way of thinking about it... Imagine a doughnut ( yes a doughnut ) The doughnut itself is existence, time, reality and everything else in between. Than the center of the doughnut is what is sending us the messages to process the doughnut itself. That's the just of it...I can't believe I explained it using a doughnut... I think people are very bound by the idea of being human. None of us can even comprehend what the afterlife will be like... This post was about the afterlife, but the explanation of existence is in there. | 2010-08-03 11:43:00 Author: Unknown User  |
| Whoah! Whoah! Whoah! People still believe in the Big Bang!? That's hilarious! I already went into an elaborate post on existence, but I'll give you the answer... Things NEVER CAME INTO BEING. They always were. The easiest way to comprehend this is, time does not exist. There was no begging there just is. Half right, Potential Reality always was, the physical reality we experience came from the big bang. You are right though, time does not exist. | 2010-08-03 11:52:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| I to believe in a big bang of sorts, certainly not the one described. But that's exactly right. I guess you could argue that their was a beginning to the physical reality since it would just be like placing a dot on a circle. Here is a good way of putting it, the beginning is the end ( things come around full circle ). | 2010-08-03 12:08:00 Author: Unknown User |
| @ LBP333 I think the conversation moved on from Big Bang to Quantum Mechanics to be honest. @ Bremnen No I was not exactly saying the same thing as you with particles. @ Teeby Yes! TY entangled particles thats what I was tring to remember. And the mere observation of something changes its state. I'm still waiting for the grand "THEORY of EVERYTHING" to appear, still working on that one. Latest thing I was looking at was the Z Machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_machine) And N Fusion here is a pic http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2006/images/z-machine.jpg Made by imploding 60 strands of copper thread each thinner than a human hair | 2010-08-03 12:26:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| time DOES exist. its half three, and in half an hour it will be 4. Time in action. | 2010-08-03 15:36:00 Author: flamingemu Posts: 1872 |
| time DOES exist. its half three, and in half an hour it will be 4. Time in action. Worst joke ever! While time is recorded by mere instruments like the clock and other timers, it doesn't necessarily mean it exist. There are other places in the universe where time goes faster and/or slower. With all the changes and shifts of time in space, there is no actual time. Time is just an illusion we built on to help us progress in life easier. | 2010-08-03 19:11:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| We thought up 'time' to record the speed of grow of everything around us. Time doesn't really do anything except measure distance, and so does a ruler. Whats so special about that?  | 2010-08-03 22:36:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Time doesn't really do anything except measure distance, and so does a ruler. Whats so special about that? I thought time recorded what changes in distance occurred rather than the distances themselves. | 2010-08-03 22:49:00 Author: Shermzor  Posts: 1330 |
| I thought time... wait, I'm seeing a pattern here. O.o | 2010-08-03 22:54:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| your right, i mistyped that its the changes that occurred, but still relevant. | 2010-08-04 00:06:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
History is an illusion cused by the passage of time. Time is an illusion caused by the passage of history | 2010-08-04 08:59:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| History is an illusion cused by the passage of time. Time is an illusion caused by the passage of history A paradox, this one speaks of. ( Guess who's accent that is. Maybe we'll talk about the science behind his world. ) | 2010-08-05 03:44:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| when first life existed nobody new time they all just went with sunrise sunset moonrise moon-set and so a scientist made time. sence time does not actually exist and since time is measured on the earths axis spin. you cannot travel in time or speed up time. although you can slow down time. lest say if you were in a rocket ship and you somehow managed to spin around a black hole for infinite amount of time you can slow down time to approximately 0.5 because of the mass of the the black hole.(don't ask me how ). and when you come out of the never ending spiral you will have traveled x2. the best way to slow time down is large amounts of speed and mass. | 2010-08-05 09:33:00 Author: ktmbillyjr  Posts: 177 |
| Time does exist; it's the way we see it that is relative, just in our minds. But time does flow, one way or another. I was watching an episode of "Into the Wormhole with That Guy Who Played God in the 'X Almighty' Movies" where they discussed various forms of slowing and accelerating time, including that black hole thing. It's late, though, and my mind is slowed.. I just wanted to put that out there. | 2010-08-05 09:54:00 Author: Astrosimi  Posts: 2046 |
| Astrosimi is correct, time does not exist. Life is a set of pre determined events, and our brain uses time as a sort of explanation to help process it. But time doesn't move forward or backward, that's just a trick of the conscious brain. | 2010-08-07 06:36:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Whatever happened to entropy? | 2010-08-07 06:51:00 Author: microchirp  Posts: 412 |
| Say you go back in time and do accidently step on a fly, when time progresses forward and you go back in time again, that fly will still be there. Why? When you step on the fly and time progresses then you go back again, there is no fly for you to step on, ie: you don't step on it. So none of the changes from killing the fly the first time happened. Which means when you go back in time, the fly will be there again since you never changed anything in the first place. /spawn_Mind_Grenade /detonate But when you go back again, think what you'll encounter? Not the Fly, but yourself - then what happens!?!?! | 2010-08-07 18:48:00 Author: Nurolight  Posts: 918 |
| @Tommy can we stop repeating ourselves please time loops give me a headache. Lets just say that every time you travel to a new past/present continum you are traveling accross the probability axis. Therefore nothing you observe in your current continum nesseserily has anything to do with what you have observed in the reality you came from. Get it yet? | 2010-08-08 03:11:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| Astrosimi is correct, time does not exist. Life is a set of pre determined events, and our brain uses time as a sort of explanation to help process it. But time doesn't move forward or backward, that's just a trick of the conscious brain. Hmm. That's not what I meant at all. Things do happen in a certain order, but the frequency at which things happen, rather, how we humans see time, is what is the illusion. But there is a stream of time, all things do not happen at once. And no, I do not believe events are set in stone; this universe is one where the events that happen determine what happens next, and so on, and so forth. Yes, the way our minds interpret the passage of time is an illusion. Time itself, although we may never comprehend it, is there, and it flows forward. At least, that's the theory I stick to. If time were free-flowing, well, things would be very different. | 2010-08-08 03:41:00 Author: Astrosimi Posts: 2046 |
| I know I apologies I read that very wrong when I looked back at it, sorry that's my fault. It is just my belief ( a very strong one ) that time doesn't exist. How I think about it is, what is the present? is it relative to the perception of my conscious mind or is it a physical thing it processes? well in 5 seconds it will be the present as well as the future and 5 seconds after that will place that event in the past. in the whole of existence no matter the placement or variables of dynamic events it will always be set in stone. Imagine a reel of film, it exists as one object, but can be given the illusion of moving forward by the projector. Like the projector, our conscious mind processes events due to their order even though the outcome can not be affected. So it's my belief that no, time does not exist but strings of events do. Here is a fun fact that kind of goes with what I said. Did you know it is impossible to have an original thought, and ( these studies still haven't been proven ) You do not actually have free will? Edit: when you say the passing of time is an illusion but time itself exists, do you mean the time line exists? | 2010-08-08 04:46:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Just to lighten the mood a little. "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so. Now drink up you've got 3 pints to get through" Quote: Ford Prefect | 2010-08-08 10:51:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| Just to lighten the mood a little. "Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so. Now drink up you've got 3 pints to get through" Quote: Ford Prefect Shouldn't we put paper bags over our head, or something? But, in all seriousness... Since when was science about "beliefs" -.-... | 2010-08-08 11:07:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| Shouldn't we put paper bags over our head, or something? But, in all seriousness... Since when was science about "beliefs" -.-... I think people came up with beliefs to have a reason in life. Without beliefs, they'll just wonder about why they're born, male/female, their destiny, etc.. | 2010-08-08 13:22:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| Theories are also beliefs ^.^ Just a scientificly-based beliefs. | 2010-08-08 13:29:00 Author: piggabling  Posts: 2979 |
| Science is basicly just a lot of educated guesswork (theories), waiting for the enlightening moment of proof to be transfigured from belief to fact. | 2010-08-09 00:57:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| Theories are also beliefs ^.^ Just a scientificly-based beliefs. A theory isn't really a belief. It's a hypothesis. | 2010-08-09 01:41:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| Getting back to partical physics and hypothesis... What do you think will happen if the LHC is a success and we create a Higgs Boson partical? | 2010-08-09 11:23:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| The standard model survives another round. | 2010-08-09 11:58:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| That LHC was a waste of money, if you ask me. I did quite enjoy the hype that surrounded the possibility of a black hole being produced though, that was funny. As for time, we only perceive it as variations in light that hit our eyes. If it was 12 o'clock, and you were to fly backwards from Big Ben at the speed of light, forever, all you would see on the clockface is 12 o'clock. Light from stars takes thousands of years to reach us, so technically when we look at the sky we look back in time. But I think the perception of time and the reality of time are different. So Superman couldn't travel back in time by flying round the earth at greater than the speed of light, because all the light that he overtook would simply catch up when he stopped moving. I'm starting to confuse myself, /sermon. | 2010-08-10 01:17:00 Author: Holguin86  Posts: 875 |
| Ok. No! Superman can not accelerate to a speed beyond that of light. | 2010-08-10 01:28:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| For those of you that don't know THIS is the standard model: http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af119/Strangepom/Standardmodel.gif It works so long as gravity is not involved. Micro what do you know of string or m-theory? | 2010-08-10 08:15:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| I know the basic ideas behind them, however I haven't really delved into them in much depth (ie. I don't believe I know any of the equations behind it)... I should do that. Weee, here I go! Oh! I have a wonderful limerick! A Brief History of Gravity It filled Gallileo with mirth To watch his two stones fall to Earth "Their rates are the same," He gladly proclaimed, "And quite independent of girth!" Then Newton declared in due course His own law of Gravity's force, "It goes, I declare, As the inverted square Of the distance from object to source." Next Einstein revealed his equation Which succeeds to describe gravitation As spacetime that's curved And it's this that will serve As the planets' unique motivation. But the end of the story's not written, By a new way of thinking we're smitten. We twist and we turn Attempting to learn The Superstring Theory of Witten.I have no clue who wrote this originally, but it's brilliant. Witten is the guy behind M-Theory, for those of you who aren't aware. | 2010-08-10 10:22:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| I gotta save that one! I think once we find out more about gravity, what it is and what creates it, we will know a lot more about the Universe. Micro feel free to correct me... Basically for everyone out there. The standard model is what we know about gluon, photon, and the other 14 sub atomic particles. that make up all creation. It works perfectly until you add gravity. This is because they are seen as points that can get infinitely close to each other. This means that the gravitational calculations become infinite.. oops. So string theory states that rater than points they are strings that radiate in multiple dimensions on a sub atomic level (incalculable numbers of multiple dimensions all around us). This has been used to explain why the force of gravity is a weak force. Me... I'm unconvinced.. lets see what happens when we make this super-massive Higgs Boson. The LHC is designed to create matter from energy. You all know E=MC2 so the basic principle is that matter and energy are relative. So if you collide small matter with enough energy you create more matter than you started with. | 2010-08-10 11:58:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| Incalculable number of dimensions? String theory originally used 10 dimensions if I recall correctly... But, this lead to 5 potential variations of the theory being possible. An 11th dimension was added in order to unify the 5 interpretations from before. The strings fluctuations result in the various properties of everything around us. This actually makes a lot of sense, I think, if you consider how dimensions interact. Either way, this is all currently impossible to test so there isn't any observable evidence to support string theory, M-theory, or what have you. In fact, it may stay impossible to test for a long time, if not forever due to physical constraints. But, my idea is that if the math fits and we can do things based off of that alone... Who cares what the universe really consists of? It doesn't matter (hehe), you can't see it anyways. Ultimately this post probably makes no sense (I will probably also regret it later, so don't hold me to my word on anything here) and has no bearing on anything whatsoever since it is in fact 7:16am. I have not just woken up, but rather have not gone to sleep. Maybe I'll remember more string theory / M-theory bities when I eventually go to sleep and wake up. I have seen a bit of stuff on them, but I am by no means an expert. That being said, thinking about more than 3 spacial dimensions is pretty sweet. | 2010-08-10 14:22:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| I thought that the LHC was designed to find the Higgs Boson (the particle that gives everything mass)? | 2010-08-10 19:54:00 Author: Scifiguy Posts: 95 |
| For those of you that don't know THIS is the standard model: http://i999.photobucket.com/albums/af119/Strangepom/Standardmodel.gif It works so long as gravity is not involved. I understood until you brought out the equations As for gravity, it doesn't make sense to me. | 2010-08-10 22:19:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| I retract my previous statement about incalculable dimensions for a revised explanation. What I wanted to say is each sub particle rather than being a point is a string that is branching out into multiple dimensions. So in essence we are surrounded by billions upon billions upon billions of strings of dimensions from each sub particle... at least that was my understanding. But don't take my word for it, my source is armchair physics It is not the Higgs Boson that gives matter mass. I think it is the Higgs field that gives some of the standard model sub particles mass, some not others for example photons do not have mass. The Higgs Boson "God Particle" is supposed to have a LOT of mass, but we know anything that has a lot of mass tends to be very unstable. It is believed Higgs Boson particles have not existed since the time of the Big Bang | 2010-08-11 09:34:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| If Star wars is futuristic... Then how is it a long long time ago??? D: | 2010-08-11 22:11:00 Author: Kern  Posts: 5078 |
| If Star wars is futuristic... Then how is it a long long time ago??? D: In the movies they're a more advanced civilization than we are, its their past, not our future. Better questions: How do they explain how the characters' civilization learned how to master the force and create so much advanced technology in less than 20,000 years? How there are so many blue lightsabers if in the item bio it says the blue lightsabers take 1000 years to make? Or, how their entire universe of different creatures all came from one humanoid race which also happens to be the one who discovered the force, without having more than about 250 force users at any given time, in any given media. | 2010-08-11 23:13:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| I think the Big Bang is like WOAH EXPLOSION but then the universe will expand or something to the point where it'll be pretty much nothing everywhere and then there will be a BIG BANG again and we'll all be like woah cool | 2010-08-12 10:35:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| I think the Big Bang is like WOAH EXPLOSION but then the universe will expand or something to the point where it'll be pretty much nothing everywhere and then there will be a BIG BANG again and we'll all be like woah cool I think you need to lay off the Futurama for a bit. | 2010-08-12 10:49:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| I like sci-fi science. It provides great inspiration for real creations. | 2010-08-14 13:30:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| Indeed. lol,Actually starwars was based completely on science. | 2010-08-14 19:55:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Ok, If the 6 episodes are in order. THEN WHY does R2D2 lose all it's destroys arms and flying abilities!? Hmmmmmm?? | 2010-08-15 00:17:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Grammar? Dont understand you.. | 2010-08-15 00:39:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Why does R2 D2 lose all forms of dexterity in it's grabber and it loses it's ability to fly. | 2010-08-15 00:46:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Production costs. | 2010-08-15 00:56:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| is it possible to cgange genes at a human when its 21 years old (Fully Human) | 2010-08-15 00:58:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Yes, theres 3(?) ways, physically altering the gene, transplants can sometimes alter genes, and something else.. | 2010-08-15 01:06:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Biology not my strong point but wouldn't hormone therapy also have an effect? | 2010-08-15 02:18:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| Thats the third one! I think discovery did an article on stem cells that included a few paragraphs on changing genes where they listed the different ways. | 2010-08-15 02:29:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Im going to get much anger for this but.... Science is stupid in every way possible according to my view. | 2010-08-15 02:31:00 Author: Snrm  Posts: 6419 |
| That is a view held by those that refuse to try and understand it. Science is theories and speculation about the unknown based around proven (and repeated) facts of the known | 2010-08-15 03:37:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| Well considering since A lot of science contradicts god being well... there, thats why i dont like it, anyway i think i am past my limit for serious talk on LBPC for today | 2010-08-15 03:58:00 Author: Snrm Posts: 6419 |
| Im going to get much anger for this but.... Science is stupid in every way possible according to my view. *Facepalm* Well considering since A lot of science contradicts god being well... there, thats why i dont like it, anyway i think i am past my limit for serious talk on LBPC for today Hmmm...*Insert sciency comment that would bring endless flaming to me here* | 2010-08-15 05:27:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Im so confused now D: idk why there are these types of threads at LBPC :o | 2010-08-15 05:45:00 Author: Snrm Posts: 6419 |
| What do you mean? | 2010-08-15 06:04:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Confused of what you could say to make me start flamming or anyone start flamming and if you mean what i mean by why these threads are on LBPC, well thats because whenever im on here the reason im on here is for someone by the looks of him/her V http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HkOo-Ybu4Vw/SK3e217-TAI/AAAAAAAAAG4/7BlI13gADdA/s400/sackboy.jpg I dont think of LBPC as a place for sadness and religion, i think of it as a happy place | 2010-08-15 06:16:00 Author: Snrm Posts: 6419 |
| Well....this is general chat, what can I tell you? lol | 2010-08-15 06:25:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| So it's not a place for "this kinda chat" but you can go whining on about how you stuck a virus on your parent's computer??? Look LBPC is a community, we all have a common interest in LBP but we also have other interests too (we are not all cloned sackbots), this is a place to share our interest and ideas even if it is not LBP related! I personally like to know more about people than their highest score on "crazy death shark survival 4". Science only opposes religion when it finds solid contradictory proof. However I don't think that stops you being able to have belief (the main component of religion) in something in spite of strong opposing evidence http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ | 2010-08-15 08:12:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| Look LBPC is a community, we all have a common interest in LBP but we also have other interests too (we are not all cloned sackbots), this is a place to share our interest and ideas even if it is not LBP related! I this! this is exactly what "General Stuff" is for, to talk about something else other than LBP. I got bored of it for a while but because of this section I'm still posting here. | 2010-08-15 09:40:00 Author: oldage  Posts: 2824 |
| So it's not a place for "this kinda chat" but you can go whining on about how you stuck a virus on your parent's computer??? Look LBPC is a community, we all have a common interest in LBP but we also have other interests too (we are not all cloned sackbots), this is a place to share our interest and ideas even if it is not LBP related! I personally like to know more about people than their highest score on "crazy death shark survival 4". Science only opposes religion when it finds solid contradictory proof. However I don't think that stops you being able to have belief (the main component of religion) in something in spite of strong opposing evidence http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ Completely owned. lol ok back on topic...umm.. so.. how about technology? Heard ibm made a new processor.. any comments? | 2010-08-15 09:47:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Indeed. lol,Actually starwars was based completely on science. I'm going to assume that you're being sarcastic here. If you had said, I don't know... Star Trek: The Next Generation, I might agree. A lot of the stuff from Star Trek: The Next Generation has roots in some scientific fact (though, it may be blown out of proportion). However, Star Wars is completely ridiculous when you really look at it in any scientific depth. Epic ridiculousness, but ridiculous nonetheless .Im going to get much anger for this but.... Science is stupid in every way possible according to my view. That comment is exactly what is wrong with this world. Scientific progression is what makes your way off life possible. It is entirely hypocritical to say that science is stupid. You would not have a PS3 without science. You would not have LBP without science. There would be no internet without science. You would not have electricity. On top of all of that you probably wouldn't exist because of various diseases and illnesses which would have likely killed off somebody in your direct family line... In other words, you have science to thank for many of the luxaries in your life, and possibly for your life as well. Heck, scientific progression is what makes this world worth living in, in my opinion. Perhaps you disagree, but there is still no denying the fact that science has done a lot to improve our way of life, and our understanding of the universe. You owe science more thanks than you could possibly imagine. Well considering since A lot of science contradicts god being well... there, thats why i dont like it, anyway i think i am past my limit for serious talk on LBPC for today That should not be a reason to just blatantly write science off like that. Quite frankly, if you don't refine your religious beliefs to reflect that which has been proven scientifically, then your beliefs seem a little bit ignorant. Honestly, I don't care what magical fairy creature / being / thing you believe in, that is absolutely not my business... However, mocking science simply because it does not support your religious beliefs, especially when you greatly benefit from science every single day, seems pretty ridiculous. Science has physical evidence, and can often be supported via simple experimentation and mathematics. No religion can say the same. Scientific facts are also malleable, and change when new evidence is brought to light. The same can not be said of all religions. This gives me the impression that scientific thought is pretty reliable. I'm not saying that your religious beliefs are wrong, but they don't really have the same amount of credibility simply because it's a word of mouth thing. Somebody told you all of what you believe I'm sure (in some way or another), but you can't actually test any of it. I'm curious, and don't take offense please, if you think that science contradicts the existence of a deity... Why do you believe in one so strongly? Why do you ignore that which can be proven in order to believe something that is just written in a book? Harry Potter is written in a book too, isn't it? What exactly is the difference to you? How can you judge the authenticity of the book? Sure, the bible is old... But, aren't there other pieces of old literature that contradict the bible too? Doesn't the bible also contradict itself in a variety of places? Either way, I'm not saying you should ditch your religious beliefs. I'm not saying that they're wrong either. I'm just wondering why you seem give religion more credit than scientifically proven facts. Besides, I see no reason why you can't respect scientific thought and follow your religion at the same time. If something doesn't match up? There's nothing to say you can't adapt your religious views, or your interpretation of them. But, basically what you're saying to me is that if somebody told you the sky was pink you would believe them, despite the fact that it can clearly be proven that the sky is in fact blue. Is that really what you mean to say? Does that really make sense to you? Go ahead, have whatever religious beliefs you want. But, they really should not give you a negative opinion on science. If they do, maybe you should think a little more carefully about your beliefs. After all, why would your religion not want you to look at the world in more depth? What does it have to hide? Ultimately, science and religion should at the very least be able to coexist. I would not disregard a scientific fact simply because my religion says otherwise, that seems backwards to me. That would make me thoroughly question why I believed whatever I did. There's no reason you can't mix and match beliefs from various religions and whatnot either, believe what you want to. Believe what makes sense to you, don't let some hive mind tell you what you should believe. Think for your self. After all, if some "god" supposedly gave you free will... You might as well use it. To be clear, I don't mean any offense to you or your religious beliefs. While I don't share your beliefs, I also don't really have the right to tell you what to believe. However, with comments like this I couldn't help but be a little curious as to why you would say such a thing. Sorry to put you on the spot. Completely owned. lol ok back on topic...umm.. so.. how about technology? Heard ibm made a new processor.. any comments? Hmmm, I don't think this really belongs in this thread. It's quite a large abstraction from "actual sciences", I think. Perhaps we should have a computer discussion thread. I mean, it's related to science... But it's more a very specific application of the sciences, rather than the actual physics behind it. Meh, I dunno. It's 5:00am and I have gotten 4 hours of sleep. None of this post is going to be very coherent I would wager. But, at any rate. I'm making a request for the thread. Do not get angry at any religious debate. If you do not want to see it, do not mention it and do not partake in it. There is, however, no real reason why it can not be discussed in a civilized manner. Though, it might need its own thread. That might be best. No matter what your beliefs are there is no reason why you should be completely offended by the thought that somebody thinks otherwise. The spice of life and all. Disagreement is fine, just don't get all cross over it. edit: NO SKIMMING, please. | 2010-08-15 12:18:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| Hmmm, I don't think this really belongs in this thread. It's quite a large abstraction from "actual sciences", I think. Perhaps we should have a computer discussion thread. I mean, it's related to science... But it's more a very specific application of the sciences, rather than the actual physics behind it. Meh, I dunno. It's 5:00am and I have gotten 4 hours of sleep. None of this post is going to be very coherent I would wager. True... who's up for a 'Latest Tech Discussion' or 'Gadgets thread'? Maybe just 'Computer tech'? | 2010-08-15 12:28:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| True... who's up for a 'Latest Tech Discussion' or 'Gadgets thread'? Maybe just 'Computer tech'? I think a "Computer Tech" thread is nice and broad. Could get some lovely conversations, if willing participants find their way to it. Feel free to make one. If there isn't already one somewhere on the forum. | 2010-08-15 12:41:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| Humans are the dominant species much like the dinosaurs although I daresay better. Do you think we are just lucky or do you think that all cradles of life are destined to have an "Uber" Species? | 2010-08-15 12:51:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Humans are the dominant species much like the dinosaurs although I daresay better. Do you think we are just lucky or do you think that all cradles of life are destined to have an "Uber" Species? Ummm, by definition if there is any life there will always be a dominant species of life. Also, unrelated... Does anybody know how to stop multi-quotes from taking over? | 2010-08-15 12:54:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| So it's not a place for "this kinda chat" but you can go whining on about how you stuck a virus on your parent's computer??? ] Actually i later found out my brother did it and he is too stupid to fix it himeself even with directions, i didn't whine either unless whining is asking people for a program to use to help you and then saying thank you =/ | 2010-08-15 14:32:00 Author: Snrm Posts: 6419 |
| Actually i later found out my brother did it and he is too stupid to fix it himeself His point still stands, though. Also, I would like answers to some of my questions, if it's not too much trouble. I'm mainly curious as to why you think certain religions are more credible than science, but I would like answers to most of the other stuff in yonder post... https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=30422-Scientific-Discussion&p=575917&viewfull=1#post575917 (http://www.lbpcentral.com/showthread.php?30422-Scientific-Discussion&p=575917&viewfull=1#post575917) Colour me intrigued. If you would rather continue the conversation via private messages I am open to that as well. | 2010-08-15 14:38:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| Ummm, by definition if there is any life there will always be a dominant species of life. Also, unrelated... Does anybody know how to stop multi-quotes from taking over? A Lion may be dominant over a savannah but by Uber Species I mean too Good at surviving that we control the planet. Also Please don't argue in this thread take it to PMs if you really must | 2010-08-15 16:31:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| His point still stands, though. Also, I would like answers to some of my questions, if it's not too much trouble. I'm mainly curious as to why you think certain religions are more credible than science, but I would like answers to most of the other stuff in yonder post... https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=30422-Scientific-Discussion&p=575917&viewfull=1#post575917 (http://www.lbpcentral.com/showthread.php?30422-Scientific-Discussion&p=575917&viewfull=1#post575917) Colour me intrigued. If you would rather continue the conversation via private messages I am open to that as well. Religion is all about Psychology so had nothing to do with science the cristians beleave that The Bible is The true Life manual but its writen in Poetry (so its all about the messages in the story and not the story self) Its mutch likly that the story didnt happen but they have a message and that is the most inportant thing in the bible | 2010-08-15 16:35:00 Author: Unknown User |
| A Lion may be dominant over a savannah but by Uber Species I mean too Good at surviving that we control the planet. Also Please don't argue in this thread take it to PMs if you really must I think there's probably a pretty good chance that eventually something will adapt to a particular niche enabling it to dominate a specific area. Life will only pop up where something can actually live, and it makes sense that eventually something will adapt in such a way that it survives extremely well under certain conditions. Humans seem to be a relatively special case thus far, however. Since we adapt the environment to suit our needs. Who is arguing? If you mean that two people have differing opinions, then what's the point of having a thread discussing something. If everybody agrees there is no point in even having a discussion thread. | 2010-08-15 16:45:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| '-_- You know I meant the whole SCIENCE VS SNRM | 2010-08-15 17:40:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Well considering since A lot of science contradicts god being well... there, thats why i dont like it, anyway i think i am past my limit for serious talk on LBPC for today Woah, same here. It's kind of like how I don't like astronomy because it proves that the stars aren't the twinkling eyes of angels, or how I don't like geography because it proves that the world isn't flat. That contradicts my beliefs, because beliefs should be based on superstition and fairy tales rather than evidence. | 2010-08-15 17:41:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| '-_- You know I meant the whole SCIENCE VS SNRM It's meant to be a discussion, not an argument. | 2010-08-15 17:42:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| Also snrm's point of view was religious, which has no place in a science based thread. Therefore discussion of that nature is not really meant for here. | 2010-08-15 17:42:00 Author: Boomy Posts: 3701 |
| Also snrm's point of view was religious, which has no place in a science based thread. true it belongs in a Psychology based thread what we dont have anymore | 2010-08-15 17:44:00 Author: Unknown User |
| true it belongs in a Psychology based thread what we dont have anymore Psychology is science...  | 2010-08-15 17:46:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| Most likely because religion is a touchy subject and people cannot help themselves. | 2010-08-15 17:46:00 Author: Boomy Posts: 3701 |
| Also snrm's point of view was religious, which has no place in a science based thread. Therefore discussion of that nature is not really meant for here. While this is true, it brought up an interesting point I thought. Why would people believe something from their religious texts that have been proven incorrect through the use of scientific experimentation? I figure that's something worth delving a little deeper into. Plus, when somebody comes into a science thread to call it "stupid" I aim to give them at least some appreciation of the subject. I don't care what your religious beliefs are, microwaves are awesome. | 2010-08-15 17:50:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| While this is true, it brought up an interesting point I thought. Why would people believe something from their religious texts that have been proven incorrect through the use of scientific experimentation? I figure that's something worth delving a little deeper into. Plus, when somebody comes into a science thread to call it "stupid" I aim to give them at least some appreciation of the subject. I don't care what your religious beliefs are, microwaves are awesome. Especially for popcorn. On the subject of why would someone believe etc, that's really more of a psychology issue, although it is science, not really the type of science that is discussed in here, but that's just semantics. | 2010-08-15 17:56:00 Author: Boomy Posts: 3701 |
| Especially for popcorn. On the subject of why would someone believe etc, that's really more of a psychology issue, although it is science, not really the type of science that is discussed in here, but that's just semantics. Fair enough .But, on the topic of microwaves! Here is a link so that you people don't have to do anything stupid with the microwave on your own! http://www.amasci.com/weird/microexp.html The beer bottle is very cool .Also, if anybody is interested in calculating the speed of light... http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/2008/05/13/measure-the-speed-of-light-using-your-microwave/ I would be interested in whatever results you get . I think it's pretty cool that we can do all sorts of experiments like that at home very easily now a days. I think that being able to figure out the speed of light with reasonable accuracy using household items shows quite clearly that with a little bit of physics and mathematics knowledge you can go quite a long ways. | 2010-08-15 18:08:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/2008/05/13/measure-the-speed-of-light-using-your-microwave/ Well I'm off to buy some marshmallows. | 2010-08-15 18:14:00 Author: Boomy Posts: 3701 |
| Well I'm off to buy some marshmallows. Haha, if you actually do it make a post about it. I'm interested to see how close you could get with it. | 2010-08-15 18:20:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| It's meant to be a discussion, not an argument. And another reason for my anger in this is not all of your fault, we have had so much science and religion threads and they all turn to argument and they all end up getting locked, yes like ALL of them get locked Edit: And also if we are allowed to have our own opinions and discuss why is my opinion just being casted down | 2010-08-16 03:44:00 Author: Snrm Posts: 6419 |
| And another reason for my anger in this is not all of your fault, we have had so much science and religion threads and they all turn to argument and they all end up getting locked, yes like ALL of them get locked Edit: And also if we are allowed to have our own opinions and discuss why is my opinion just being casted down What, was it your intention to get the thread locked then? XD Either way, your opinion that "science is stupid" is the only thing I'm "casting down". Because you decided to post that in a "Scientific Discussion" thread without giving a reason, especially when you obviously benefit from it so greatly every single day. Then later you stated that it was because of your religious beliefs. I'm not "casting that down", I'm merely curious as to why you would instantly write science off as "stupid" because of that. There's no reason religious beliefs can't coexist with scientific thought, so I was curious why science seemed so repulsive to you. I thought I made it very clear that I in no way mean to "cast down" your religious beliefs. Apparently, I thought wrong. Anyways, this should probably be carried out via PM now. I would like to avoid getting this thread locked, as it is a really good thread. I'm sending you a copy of the post now. | 2010-08-16 05:54:00 Author: microchirp Posts: 412 |
| Every time I try to spark a discussion Microchirp obliterated it | 2010-08-16 08:03:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| I think the topic of conversation was manipulation of human genes, either that or the science of Star Wars before someone interrupted with this... Im going to get much anger for this but.... Science is stupid in every way possible according to my view. So I would like to continue the discussion with something other than hate posts please. Who here has seen The Philadelphia Experiment (http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/inside-the-philadelphia-experiment.html)? | 2010-08-16 09:16:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| I dare not question things like this. I dwell only in the present. How the universe came to be is none of my business. | 2010-08-16 09:25:00 Author: Sackwise  Posts: 305 |
| I have not seen anything of the Philadelphia project, but was it not some experiment to make ships invisible and etc. by bending light around them or something in that manner? | 2010-08-16 09:57:00 Author: moonwire  Posts: 1627 |
| something like that, anyway the 80's movie is really awesome, has a WWII ship transported through time. Gave me nightmares for months. | 2010-08-16 10:17:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| Can I just interject for a moment and strongly suggest, as Strangepom just has, that you keep this discussion ON TOPIC, and those who have no time for or interest in science, should just steer clear please. This is a discussion thread NOT a debate. Please, everyone, be respectful of others opinions and their desires to participate in the discussion at hand. If you have nothing worthwhile or valid to contribute here, please don't post. Thanks. | 2010-08-16 13:04:00 Author: BabyDoll1970  Posts: 1567 |
| Who here has seen The Philadelphia Experiment (http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/inside-the-philadelphia-experiment.html)? I heard about that, did you see the expirimental invisibility cloak from Japan? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKPVQal851U I don't remember how it works, NatGeo explained it a while back. I think it combines little beads that project the image onto the other side with a camera to see the image. In the show I think they said it was expirimental because they are still trying to get it without the camera.. can't be sure without looking it up again :/ Either way its still interesting that we're not THAT far off from having invisibility. | 2010-08-16 22:11:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| I heard about that, did you see the expirimental invisibility cloak from Japan? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKPVQal851U I don't remember how it works, NatGeo explained it a while back. I think it combines little beads that project the image onto the other side with a camera to see the image. In the show I think they said it was expirimental because they are still trying to get it without the camera.. can't be sure without looking it up again :/ Either way its still interesting that we're not THAT far off from having invisibility. I think it's just a projector projecting what's behind him onto him. Just a clever trick really, it wouldn't work outside. | 2010-08-16 22:31:00 Author: resistance1  Posts: 812 |
| I think it's just a projector projecting what's behind him onto him. Just a clever trick really, it wouldn't work outside. Orly? The creator begs to differ. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWkRi8dPBr8 A 'Clever trick'? That cloak is made of extremly complex beads,yes the image is being pojected onto it, but when they are done the beads will do that 100% themselves. | 2010-08-16 22:43:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| It is not invisible/transparent to the naked eye, but only via the polarized lens see 1:30. I also believe it requires a static projection device. Not bad but a long way off Klingon cloaking device I do believe some other people are trying to do the same but are taking a different approach http://www.ecouterre.com/21503/scientists-create-harry-potter-like-invisibility-cloak-from-gold-coated-silk/ And the nano tech stuff... http://www.physorg.com/news155295096.html | 2010-08-17 00:25:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| to make somthing invisible then light most go tought it | 2010-08-17 00:51:00 Author: Unknown User |
| to make somthing invisible then light most go tought it lol it just means you can't see it | 2010-08-17 00:55:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| to make somthing invisible then light most go tought it Yes... and No to make something invisible you must make sure that the light that is received into your eyes/camera comes from behind or in front of the object that you are tring to hide but not from the object itself. As you know we perceive (non-luminescent) objects by the light that is reflected off them from another source. So if you could bend the reflected light from objects behind around an object, so long as they are brighter than the reflected light from the hidden object, you would not be able to see it. I think. Bending light is not something that is easy to do. It has been done on a nano scale with gold. But it also happens on a massive scale with gravitational lensing. (hidden stars) | 2010-08-17 01:41:00 Author: Strangepom Posts: 445 |
| I think thats what the second half of that video was talking about, bending the light around an object. | 2010-08-22 19:25:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| I think thats what the second half of that video was talking about, bending the light around an object. then your a predator kind of invicible like in the predator movies | 2010-08-22 19:48:00 Author: Unknown User |
| This cartoon has made a very valid point about time travel..! It starts to get just downright bizarre after the time travel point... but still! http://static.nuklearpower.com/comics/atomic-robo/090724.jpg | 2010-10-15 18:53:00 Author: Weretigr  Posts: 2105 |
| Great comic, good thing the TARDIS travels through time and space. Strangely I find time travel and the potential paradoxes understandable. Most of my friends get confused when I try to explain that going back in time to give a former self the time machine is a very bad idea. (You wouldn't need to make it in the first place, preventing you from going back and giving it to yourself, forcing you to make it and go back to give it to a former self - simple really) | 2010-10-15 20:21:00 Author: Jedi_1993  Posts: 1518 |
| Great comic, good thing the TARDIS travels through time and space. Strangely I find time travel and the potential paradoxes understandable. Most of my friends get confused when I try to explain that going back in time to give a former self the time machine is a very bad idea. (You wouldn't need to make it in the first place, preventing you from going back and giving it to yourself, forcing you to make it and go back to give it to a former self - simple really) Yeah, same here. "Other" people just aren't willing to be open minded! And going back in time at all could be very bad no matter what you did! For example, what if you went back several billion years and stepped on a bug that would later in life start an evolutionary change that led to humans? Voila! Instant temporal paradox! | 2010-10-15 20:28:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Bothersome butterfly effect. I'd go forward in time though, probably to LBP2's release | 2010-10-15 23:15:00 Author: Jedi_1993 Posts: 1518 |
| But, but, but, we already talked about time travel D: Going back in time is impossible, going forward in time not so much. Although we agreed that time is a lie | 2010-10-16 05:22:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Although we agreed that time is a lie We didn't all agree it was a lie I'm only going back to that because it adds an interesting twist to our time travel discussion! | 2010-10-16 15:05:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| what happens if you split a atom? | 2010-10-16 16:16:00 Author: Unknown User |
| what happens if you split a atom? http://www.gasstationnearme.com/images/Effects-Of-Nuclear-Explosion.jpg | 2010-10-16 19:48:00 Author: monstahr  Posts: 1361 |
| http://www.gasstationnearme.com/images/Effects-Of-Nuclear-Explosion.jpg Ah, but that only happens if you split a nuclear atom! And if it has further nuclear atoms as fuel If you split any other atom - I think you just get a lot of energy Here's basically how an atomic bomb works: "Nuclear bombs involve the forces, strong and weak, that hold the nucleus of an atom together, especially atoms with unstable nuclei. There are two basic ways that nuclear energy can be released from an atom: - Nuclear fission - You can split the nucleus of an atom into two smaller fragments with a neutron. This method usually involves isotopes of uranium (uranium-235, uranium-233) or plutonium-239. - Nuclear fusion -You can bring two smaller atoms, usually hydrogen or hydrogen isotopes (deuterium, tritium), together to form a larger one (helium or helium isotopes); this is how the sun produces energy In either process, fission or fusion, large amounts of heat energy and radiation are given off. To build an atomic bomb, you need: - A source of fissionable or fusionable fuel - A triggering device - A way to allow the majority of fuel to fission or fuse before the explosion occurs (otherwise the bomb will fizzle out)" Don't go getting any ideas for bonfire night, kids | 2010-10-16 20:50:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| The expression "come to be" my be inaccurate. If the universe is all of existence, there was literally nothing before it. Therefore, there was no "be." Some people think of the universe starting randomly or the start of the universe as an event in time. Before the Universe, there was no "time." | 2010-10-16 21:02:00 Author: the_adhocracy Posts: 31 |
| The expression "come to be" my be inaccurate. If the universe is all of existence, there was literally nothing before it. Therefore, there was no "be." Some people think of the universe starting randomly or the start of the universe as an event in time. Before the Universe, there was no "time." Looks like you're late to the party We established this 37 pages back on page 5, and subsequently changed the topic of discussion several times >.<In the current one, I relighted the discussion to time travel with a comic on the previous page. You can either add to this topic, though there isn't much to add - or start a new interesting topic that LBPC's great minds can indulge in Hope you enjoy the discussion! | 2010-10-16 21:22:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Ah, but that only happens if you split a nuclear atom! And if it has further nuclear atoms as fuel If you split any other atom - I think you just get a lot of energy Here's basically how an atomic bomb works: "Nuclear bombs involve the forces, strong and weak, that hold the nucleus of an atom together, especially atoms with unstable nuclei. There are two basic ways that nuclear energy can be released from an atom: - Nuclear fission - You can split the nucleus of an atom into two smaller fragments with a neutron. This method usually involves isotopes of uranium (uranium-235, uranium-233) or plutonium-239. - Nuclear fusion -You can bring two smaller atoms, usually hydrogen or hydrogen isotopes (deuterium, tritium), together to form a larger one (helium or helium isotopes); this is how the sun produces energy In either process, fission or fusion, large amounts of heat energy and radiation are given off. To build an atomic bomb, you need: - A source of fissionable or fusionable fuel - A triggering device - A way to allow the majority of fuel to fission or fuse before the explosion occurs (otherwise the bomb will fizzle out)" Don't go getting any ideas for bonfire night, kids i think my answer is more concise | 2010-10-16 22:17:00 Author: monstahr Posts: 1361 |
| i think my answer is more concise i don't think that splitting any random atom produces a nuclear explosion and this can be easily defined, nuclear explosions are done in chain, which means that the first event leads to another and so on, this is only possible by using isotopes (atoms with an unstable nucleus that are decaying), this atoms can easily be split by neutron bombardment (nuclear fission), the atom will then go to split into simpler elements, (in the case of Uranium 235, it will divide into Barium 140 and Krypton 93), that division will release more neutrons, that will also produce the division of the other isotopes, thus creating a chain reaction. (comes straight from my chemistry book on the nuclear chemistry chapter) Why is this not possible with normal elements? well, simply because they are better constituted, and are not unstable (which means that is very unlikely that they will divide), also isotopes are quite rare in nature. So if in theory, if any atom could be divided as easily as isotopes do, when the first atomic detonation occurred that would have lead to the division of all the oxygen atoms and all other elements in nature.... (no need to explain what will further occur) | 2010-10-16 22:31:00 Author: Ragnarok  Posts: 898 |
| this...this died? come on guys!don't let this happen! | 2011-01-17 21:29:00 Author: theswweet  Posts: 2468 |
| Everyone got a little busy, and we discussed most of the interesting stuff =L You could always talk about the discovery that could bring back the wooly mammoth in 4 years (if they can find a frozen soft sample about 3cm^2 that is...) Basically cloning them | 2011-01-17 22:34:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Photosynthetic Animal (http://m.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/) | 2011-01-18 19:39:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Now im into this topic,i think cloning a mammoth would be awesome, this method of cloning animals could also save animals from becoming extinct... I just love the idea seeing thelook on an elephants face/trunk when a huge, wooly elephant with 5 meter tusks comes waddling down the road... The concept is just intriging to me | 2011-01-18 19:48:00 Author: Hellobob5  Posts: 382 |
| Well, pretty much everything was just by luck the earth created by meteors by luck crashing into each other, How the earth go into rotation a meteor just happening to hit the earth hard enough to move it around the sun , how we got on earth by luck we just happened to be little cells on this earth adapting over millions of years now adapting is not by luck it's more kinda by force. Well yep bye-bye hehehe | 2011-01-19 01:21:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Ah, but that only happens if you split a nuclear atom! And if it has further nuclear atoms as fuel If you split any other atom - I think you just get a lot of energy Here's basically how an atomic bomb works: "Nuclear bombs involve the forces, strong and weak, that hold the nucleus of an atom together, especially atoms with unstable nuclei. There are two basic ways that nuclear energy can be released from an atom: - Nuclear fission - You can split the nucleus of an atom into two smaller fragments with a neutron. This method usually involves isotopes of uranium (uranium-235, uranium-233) or plutonium-239. - Nuclear fusion -You can bring two smaller atoms, usually hydrogen or hydrogen isotopes (deuterium, tritium), together to form a larger one (helium or helium isotopes); this is how the sun produces energy In either process, fission or fusion, large amounts of heat energy and radiation are given off. To build an atomic bomb, you need: - A source of fissionable or fusionable fuel - A triggering device - A way to allow the majority of fuel to fission or fuse before the explosion occurs (otherwise the bomb will fizzle out)" Don't go getting any ideas for bonfire night, kids Aren't all atoms explosive ?? | 2011-01-19 01:25:00 Author: Unknown User |
| It really depends on the type of atom, if you look at the periodic table, all the elements that are explosive have explosive atoms. But yeah every atom is explosive if you split it... | 2011-01-19 15:31:00 Author: Hellobob5 Posts: 382 |
| Now im into this topic,i think cloning a mammoth would be awesome, this method of cloning animals could also save animals from becoming extinct... I just love the idea seeing thelook on an elephants face/trunk when a huge, wooly elephant with 5 meter tusks comes waddling down the road... The concept is just intriging to me It will be a long time before they're released into the wild as they need to become accustomed to the climates, illnesses etc. Remember, they were originally from the ice age and natural selection probably killed them off for a reason It really depends on the type of atom, if you look at the periodic table, all the elements that are explosive have explosive atoms. But yeah every atom is explosive if you split it... Not explosive, they just release a lot of energy. Like I said, you need a chain reaction to make an explosion. | 2011-01-19 16:26:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Well, pretty much everything was just by luck the earth created by meteors by luck crashing into each other, How the earth go into rotation a meteor just happening to hit the earth hard enough to move it around the sun , how we got on earth by luck we just happened to be little cells on this earth adapting over millions of years now adapting is not by luck it's more kinda by force. Well yep bye-bye hehehe I think I'll put this more accurately. The earth was formed in a protoplanetary disc (a rotating disc of gas and dust) since the disc rotated, the earth was always going to rotate around the sun. As the dust and gas coalesced into planets, they gradually collected more and more mass (via gravity) until the point at which they could be considered to be planets. The gases tended to end up in the very centre of edges of the solar system, and the rocky solids amassed in a band inbetween. The sun contained enough mass for nuclear fusion to take place, and a star was born. Interestingly, the asteroid belt is considered to be a 'failed' planet, as Jupiters gravitational pull rendered it too unstable for a single planet to form. Life, on the other hand, well who knows! Organic proteins form fairly readily in hospitible environments. How that formed into basic life could well be attributed to luck. Once basic life formed, however, it is thought that at some point a symbiotic relationship between certain microorganisms occured, in which one microorganism was engulfed by another, and the inner helped the larger survive in some way, later to evolve into mitochondria and chloroplasts in plants. Many millions of years and beneficial mutations later, here we are! And err... mammoths are cool. I can't see it happening, even if we did gain the technology. I'd prefer to bring back some species humans are inevitably responsible for the extinction of. | 2011-01-19 20:12:00 Author: chimpskylark  Posts: 335 |
| I find it funny that you have some really interesting scientific arguments, make some intelligent and valid points, and then put organic life down to "luck" xD I like what you sell, though | 2011-01-19 20:47:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I believe that God is someone like we and we're on a computer, so even a computer. Just like The Sims where you is God, i believe we are in The Sims. And that in future we may also be God of many people (us). I believe that God created everything to all begin with time. Well, everything is here, the proof is that Mars has not evolved yet and they are micro-organisms. | 2011-01-20 03:45:00 Author: Cauan-XV  Posts: 491 |
| I believe, if there is a god, he was some sort of energy or force that caused the big bang. That is all. I refuse to follow any religion, as they force you to believe things, and threaten you with hell and eternal punishment. One of the main reasons I don't do religion, besides that, is because I'm not like a lot of people- I don't NEED to believe we have a purpose, I don't NEED to know there's an afterlife and I don't NEED to know there is someone out there watching us. I've found this video to be one of the most inspiring videos I've watched in a long time! I hope you think so too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6w2M50_Xdk | 2011-01-20 17:09:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Organic proteins form fairly readily in hospitible environments. How that formed into basic life could well be attributed to luck. Once basic life formed, however, it is thought that at some point a symbiotic relationship between certain microorganisms occured, in which one microorganism was engulfed by another, and the inner helped the larger survive in some way, Not necessarily as I'm sure you're aware that they found Amino Acids in [On] Meteorites which is the most inhospitable place in the known solar system. Which is pretty amazing that we may have originated, As for us being here by luck, It is true that we are simply here by a series of coincidences; There being an imbalance of Matter to Antimatter, (Skipping a few billion years) an imbalance in gravity which caused protostars to come into being, (more skipping) then there's the fact we are in the 'goldilocks' zone, then there's the fact that all water originated from meteorites, Then life became and that is where the luck ends, because after that it was a sheer battle for survival. What I find fascinating is what life would have looked like depending on what state the primordial substance was, We came from a primordial sea where eyes would be helpful imagine if we had originated from primordial fog, where eyes would be useless... Imagine... later to evolve into mitochondria and chloroplasts in plants. Many millions of years and beneficial mutations later, here we are! And err... mammoths are cool. I can't see it happening, even if we did gain the technology. I'd prefer to bring back some species humans are inevitably responsible for the extinction of. It has been theorised that Mitochondrian and Other Eukaryotic cell organelles evolved independently then became symbiotic with each other... Viva La Resurrection! | 2011-01-20 19:40:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| But it may not have coincidentally tipped to matter over antimatter etc. All of those events could have occured in many combinations, but were unable to sustain themselves and so through a form of natural selection, we got this universe which is perfectly sustained as far as we know. But what if, the black holes are in fact wormholes linking bout our universe with a universe of antimatter? That could be an interesting idea... | 2011-01-20 23:15:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Ite true that we live in a universe suitable for sentient life by looking at everything. A Universe where hydrogen wouldn't fuse so no stars, Which then means no heavy elements which then means no planets which then means no suitable life. Imagine if Jupiter was the same density of earth, it's more than likely it would become a star which would prevent life as we know it from evolving... | 2011-01-20 23:21:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Now if only someone could prove that 1+1=2. I'm just not seeing it. | 2011-01-21 01:04:00 Author: dragonember  Posts: 607 |
| But surely we can visually? | 2011-01-21 06:11:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
Awesome, the thread's back!  Now if only someone could prove that 1+1=2. I'm just not seeing it. It's just a mere illusion we created so we can better understand values/quantities of things. That's basically what humanity is all about: trying to make everything make sense, even though majority of these things are illusions we created to satisfy ourselves with. | 2011-01-22 02:27:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| I see. But is it something we have grown so used to that we just accept it, or is there more than just that behind it? | 2011-01-22 03:22:00 Author: dragonember Posts: 607 |
| Time is an illusion, CyberSora. Quite literally But you say these things are illusions- it depends to what you compare it to. We made all this stuff up to make sense of things, but that means we made the word illusion up in turn. Therefore they are not illusions as these things exist as we know it. | 2011-01-22 14:22:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Time is an illusion, CyberSora. Quite literally But you say these things are illusions- it depends to what you compare it to. We made all this stuff up to make sense of things, but that means we made the word illusion up in turn. Therefore they are not illusions as these things exist as we know it. /mind blown | 2011-01-22 19:28:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| Now if only someone could prove that 1+1=2. I'm just not seeing it. Let me ask this: Does it really matter? There's better things to waste time (which I would say is the inevitable "all existance was like this at this point and will never be *exactly* the same again") on. | 2011-01-22 20:19:00 Author: Fishrock123  Posts: 1578 |
| Better things... Like LBP 2 !! | 2011-01-22 21:04:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| No, it doesn't , but It certainly is something to think about. | 2011-01-22 21:53:00 Author: dragonember Posts: 607 |
| No, it doesn't , but It certainly is something to think about. When you add one I to another I you get Two I's: I+I=II There, if it wasn't already defined, now it is. | 2011-01-22 23:10:00 Author: Fishrock123 Posts: 1578 |
| ...brilliant. My life is now complete! | 2011-01-23 00:46:00 Author: dragonember Posts: 607 |
| Actually, you're all mistaken http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wHDn8LDks8 | 2011-01-23 09:28:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Heres a science fact, Helium +dog= LOLZ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzUqGX6p98o | 2011-01-23 12:29:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Actually, in science it's something + something -> something else Note the arrow rather than an equals sign. | 2011-01-23 18:06:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Actually, in science it's something + something -> something else Note the arrow rather than an equals sign. Yes but something else minus something -> something, and the the loop goes on, therefore they have equivalence and equilibrium. | 2011-01-23 18:28:00 Author: Fishrock123 Posts: 1578 |
| My point was he used an = sign instead of --> =L | 2011-01-23 18:36:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Smoke Ring Collision http://slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/curiosities/2010/images/smoke_ring.gif | 2011-01-25 07:24:00 Author: Macnme  Posts: 1970 |
| New topic: UFO's; are they here already? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lEqR1Oy3I&feature=player_embedded Now before you brand it as fake without a second thought, read into it. http://io9.com/5747082/a-ufo-in-jerusalem-zips-over-mount-zion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwp_WHFhA4A&feature=player_embedded Discuss. | 2011-01-30 23:46:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I understand why you are stressing the arrow, after all, two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom does not equal water always. It can lead to the creation of water, but not imediatelly to water. | 2011-01-31 06:47:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468 |
| Yeah yeah, we've passed the arrow, but does anyone have any theories about the UFOs (bottom of page 44) ? | 2011-01-31 19:42:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I propose something!! I believe that our species' evolution has either stopped or slowed down....A LOT...so what do you think? :3 | 2011-01-31 19:49:00 Author: Amigps  Posts: 564 |
| I think that a) it takes millions of years for anything to evolve, and that we will constantly be evolving. and b) you just passed up an possibly interesting topic! I want to know what you guys all think of this Jerusalem UFO... | 2011-02-01 00:27:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Discuss. If UFOs contain typical Greys like some report then the atrophied limbs, large craniums and lack of sexual organs indicate to me that they're the future evolved versions of ourselves visiting us in their time machines. | 2011-02-01 08:00:00 Author: Ayneh  Posts: 2454 |
| I had a thought about that too But then again, we established time travel would be freakishly risky, if at all possible. | 2011-02-01 17:32:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| This thread get's bumped left and right. | 2011-02-01 17:40:00 Author: Unknown User |
tl/will never read.All I read was the OP's post, so here is mah theory to make you go  . The universe is forever expanding, that much we know. So for something to have that momentum means it was at one point smaller than it currently is. The universe was a giant ball of energy that eventually became unstable and exploded into what is now known as the universe. I also believe the universe is infinite, but in the same way a sphere is infinite. | 2011-02-01 18:11:00 Author: KILLA_TODDZILLA  Posts: 653 |
| may i ask what makes a sphere infinate? | 2011-02-01 22:26:00 Author: unXpectiD Posts: 1132 |
| may i ask what makes a sphere infinate? Walk across one till it ends. | 2011-02-01 23:11:00 Author: KILLA_TODDZILLA Posts: 653 |
| 1 destroy the sphere 2 add a finish line 3 you cann systematicaly walk on it so it is all covered 4 'it' may refer to rain so walk over the sphere in a place forecast for 5 mins of light rain. 5 i am god so... | 2011-02-01 23:31:00 Author: unXpectiD Posts: 1132 |
| If you destroy the sphere, it's no longer a sphere. Therefore you have NOT proven TODZILLA wrong xD We changed topic about 10 times now, but I still appreciate your theory | 2011-02-02 05:47:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| if it is no longer a sphere then it has ended its time as a sphere | 2011-02-02 07:28:00 Author: unXpectiD Posts: 1132 |
| if it is no longer a sphere then it has ended its time as a sphere Probably the most redundant statement I've heard this year So no takers on the Jerusalem UFO? | 2011-02-02 16:07:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Probably the most redundant statement I've heard this year FIXED Color me paranoid, but I could swear this guy is HYBRID. If not then he's a spot on impersonator. So no takers on the Jerusalem UFO? Do you have a link? I could easily look it up, but I ask only for the sake of conversation and staying on topic. | 2011-02-02 16:20:00 Author: KILLA_TODDZILLA Posts: 653 |
| I tried to bump about alien life really near the begining but all i got was agreeing statements. I can see Why if Aliens do exist why they'd observe anonymously in the same way that Nature Presenters watch a dangerous tiger or even a tiny sparrow, Secretively... then they create a documentary and send it home so it can go on prime time television under the name "Earthwatch" with Zell Oddie | 2011-02-02 17:16:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| I believe that our species' evolution has either stopped or slowed down....A LOT... The Hardy-Weinburg principle states the requirements for evolution to stop. Organisms reproduce sexually. Mating is random. Population size is very large. There is no migration or emigration. There is no mutation. There is no natural selection. We do have a huge population... which does slow down evolution. | 2011-02-02 17:23:00 Author: Incinerator22  Posts: 3251 |
| The Hardy-Weinburg principle states the requirements for evolution to stop. Organisms reproduce sexually. Mating is random. Population size is very large. There is no migration or emigration. There is no mutation. There is no natural selection. We do have a huge population... which does slow down evolution. Which is why i think we should release a Jaguar. But there is Migration and Emigration, The Real problem occurs when there is a genetic bottleneck after a mass killing of a species so the entrie species originates from a group of 20 individuals, such as the Elephant Seals... or the Amish... | 2011-02-02 17:28:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
A jaguar is a mutated black leopard, right? And is a panther the same as a cougar/puma/mountain lion?  | 2011-02-02 20:33:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251 |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar It would certaintly add a "survival of the fittest" element | 2011-02-02 20:38:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| The universe is forever expanding, that much we know. So for something to have that momentum means it was at one point smaller than it currently is. Is it expanding or is the space between objects being stretched? It is both? The universe was a giant ball of energy that eventually became unstable and exploded into what is now known as the universe. I also believe the universe is infinite, but in the same way a sphere is infinite. I'm not sure it's possible for the universe to have any shape because it's only within space that geometric concepts like a sphere exist and the universe is the entirety of space. The Hardy-Weinburg principle states the requirements for evolution to stop. Organisms reproduce sexually. Mating is random. Population size is very large. There is no migration or emigration. There is no mutation. There is no natural selection. We do have a huge population... which does slow down evolution. Apparently there has been sexual selection observed in humans: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6727710.ece A male peacock's tail feathers don't help it survive, in fact it hinders them, but female peacocks just can't get enough of those feathers - so it's survival of the fittest... and most sexy. <3 | 2011-02-03 07:28:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| so it's survival of the fittest... and most sexy. <3 Shhh!! You'll make us geeks feel bad!! | 2011-02-03 18:36:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Hell yeah theyre here! Millions of people see them everyday, they dont necesairly have to all be extraterrestrials but there are enough means to prove that they might be visiting us by the alien abduction cases all around the world theres even one on camera http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSpu_z8WG8 | 2011-02-03 19:18:00 Author: Charlemagne  Posts: 513 |
| Hell yeah theyre here! Millions of people see them everyday, they dont necesairly have to all be extraterrestrials but there are enough means to prove that they might be visiting us by the alien abduction cases all around the world theres even one on camera http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSpu_z8WG8 But no Intelligent people get abducted; Just Hicks and Dumb people | 2011-02-03 19:22:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| That is true but if theyre stupid they probably wouldnt be able to explain the environment and experience so well especially during hypnosis. | 2011-02-03 19:26:00 Author: Charlemagne Posts: 513 |
| Woah, this is brilliant! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HBkZPyfpdE&feature=player_embedded | 2011-02-08 23:42:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| / x1000 | 2011-02-10 04:54:00 Author: theswweet Posts: 2468 |
| The very latest in scientific thinking (has yet to be accepted by the wider scientific community) - is that there is actually no such thing as Dark Matter, or Dark Energy - which is what most "expanding universe" calculations are based on... and it is actually all a miscalculation caused by a miscalibration of the equipment used to study it. Basically when they started looking around the universe and tried to explain what they saw... their sums didn't add up - so they invented "Dark Matter" & "Dark Energy" as a way to make their calculations make sense. There was never any proof of the existance of Dark Matter or Dark Energy - and it requires it's own unique set of physical laws (of which there is also no proof) in order for it to work. There is also currently no way to test or detect "Dark Matter" However, it's looking more and more likely that they got their sums wrong from the start - and galaxies can be explained with existing ideas without the need to invoke mystical "Dark Matter". | 2011-02-10 13:28:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
I still have to do an Exam on it  | 2011-02-10 16:13:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| The very latest in scientific thinking (has yet to be accepted by the wider scientific community) - is that there is actually no such thing as Dark Matter, or Dark Energy - which is what most "expanding universe" calculations are based on... and it is actually all a miscalculation caused by a miscalibration of the equipment used to study it. Basically when they started looking around the universe and tried to explain what they saw... their sums didn't add up - so they invented "Dark Matter" & "Dark Energy" as a way to make their calculations make sense. There was never any proof of the existance of Dark Matter or Dark Energy - and it requires it's own unique set of physical laws (of which there is also no proof) in order for it to work. There is also currently no way to test or detect "Dark Matter" However, it's looking more and more likely that they got their sums wrong from the start - and galaxies can be explained with existing ideas without the need to invoke mystical "Dark Matter". Any links for that? Would be interested in seeing that. | 2011-02-10 16:30:00 Author: Patronus21  Posts: 266 |
| Any links for that? Would be interested in seeing that. Sure do (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/08/-do-jupiters-radio-emissions-hint-that-dark-energy-may-not-exist-todays-most-popular.html) Unrelated: (http://www.humanism.org.uk/meet-up/events/view/132) http://www.humanism.org.uk/_uploads/imgpool/darwindaylecture2011.jpg | 2011-02-13 13:18:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| Mutations are fascinating. | 2011-02-13 15:12:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979 |
| Only when they have giant metal claws, or control the weather | 2011-02-13 18:51:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Science Goes To War! (http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1032320) Bring it on! | 2011-02-16 09:05:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| I see all serious scientiffic discussion ended on page 42. Interesting. | 2011-02-16 09:45:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| I see all serious scientiffic discussion ended on page 42. Interesting. I tried to rekindle it several times, but almost everyone with a credible attention span has got bored and left. As you can see by one or two commenters trying to use complicated language to sound like they knew what they were talking about. | 2011-02-16 22:08:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Yeah, I mean Richard Dawkins, Armand Leroi and The Head of Physics at Durham University.... what do *they* know about science - right?! | 2011-02-17 12:45:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| I'm going to try again, just for the sake of keeping an actual discussion going, instead of redundant sentences and such. I think this is a really interesting one, and possibly very important too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lEqR1Oy3I&feature=player_embedded Now before you brand it as fake without a second thought, read into it. http://io9.com/5747082/a-ufo-in-jerusalem-zips-over-mount-zion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwp_WHFhA4A&feature=player_embedded So do you have any theories on aliens, based on these two videos? | 2011-02-17 15:42:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I find the topic of aliens to be a bit....meh. There is life in the universe besides us, no doubt about that, theres probably corners of the universe filled with beings so advanced that we can't even begin to comprehend. So in the vastness of the universe, why would advanced beings care about some primitive apes who haven't even made it anywhere near the edge of their own solar system? The only reason they would have of bothering with us is as test subjects. Or intergalactic reality tv And they wouldn't make contact with us. After 5 minutes of observing our planet they would realise humans are too stupid to be able to handle that kind of shock. | 2011-02-17 17:03:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Or like us, they're trying to understand the laws of science (elements, forces and such) of our planet? Or they could be wanting to destroy our planet to make way for a hyperspace express route... Never know! | 2011-02-17 17:12:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Nah, we aren't surrounded by anything galactically interesting. Maybe we are their test subjects, since we would be so primitive compared to them, who else in the universe would care? | 2011-02-17 17:15:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800 |
| Perhaps they're interested in the way we do things. In a similar way that we go to art galleries or look at architecture to see how humans used to do things etc. Maybe we're like one giant museum to them... I think they are observing the way we work too (though surely they could just go onto wikipedia without testing any of us ) | 2011-02-18 00:20:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| So do you have any theories on aliens, based on these two videos? Oh God, please no alien discussions! We had enough of those! EDIT: Lawl, I think we got a new topic. https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=49670-IMB-Computer-Vs.-Jeopardy So, what's your thoughts on machinery and us (humans)? | 2011-02-18 03:29:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| Oh God, please no alien discussions! We had enough of those! EDIT: Lawl, I think we got a new topic. https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=49670-IMB-Computer-Vs.-Jeopardy So, what's your thoughts on machinery and us (humans)? The same as Jon Rettinger's... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WK4HHJq7uM&feature=feedu You know, this is one of the reasons the discussions aren't going very far anymore... We're changing the topic too much before we've come to any decent conclusions... | 2011-02-18 16:37:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| I tried to rekindle it several times, but everyone with a credible attention span has got bored and left. As you can see by one or two commenters trying to use complicated language to sound like they knew what they were talking about. I have a credible attention span AND know what i'm talking about *cries in corner* | 2011-02-18 22:14:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| You know, this is one of the reasons the discussions aren't going very far anymore... We're changing the topic too much before we've come to any decent conclusions... The problem is that we can't come to the same conclusion. Sure, majority of our "participants" have a good attention span and a some ideal thoughts to go with it (most of the time), but with different minds we get different thoughts on a certain topic. We just don't come up with a conclusion, we come up with many conclusions, thus making us end up rage quitting and changing topics. Great minds may think alike, but then that wouldn't do for a good discussion now would it? | 2011-02-18 22:32:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| There's irony there. It was originally "Scientific Debate" but there was debate over the name, so I had to change it to discussion xD | 2011-02-19 03:21:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Science Goes To War! (http://www.researchresearch.com/index.php?option=com_news&template=rr_2col&view=article&articleId=1032320) Bring it on! Finally!!! Yay! *grabs flag* | 2011-02-19 11:05:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| And of course, the science side will have killbots, lasers and nukes!!! We can't fail! | 2011-02-19 11:27:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| All quiet on the western front? Did science win then? ... I guess not. In other science: New 5th force of nature = Technicolour? (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20357-mystery-signal-at-fermilab-hints-at-technicolour-force.html) The future isn't dark(matter)... it's technicolour! | 2011-04-26 18:01:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970 |
| In other science: New 5th force of nature = Technicolour? (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20357-mystery-signal-at-fermilab-hints-at-technicolour-force.html) The future isn't dark(matter)... it's technicolour! http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh9o8plThD1qbfnloo1_400.gif Wait what? | 2011-04-26 19:07:00 Author: Patronus21 Posts: 266 |
| Thank you, Groundskeeper Macnme. That's actually very interesting! Here's a brief summary for those of you wondering what this "technicolor" will be. Lane and Eichten were working on a theory known as technicolour, which proposes the existence of a fifth fundamental force in addition to the four already known: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Technicolour is very similar to the strong force, which binds quarks together in the nuclei of atoms, only it operates at much higher energies. It is also able to give particles their mass ? rendering the Higgs boson unnecessary. | 2011-04-26 20:39:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Aaaaaah! It hurts my brain!!!!! | 2011-04-29 12:01:00 Author: Squidge99 Posts: 203 |
| Thank you, Groundskeeper Macnme. That's actually very interesting! Here's a brief summary for those of you wondering what this "technicolor" will be. Cool. It was a few years ago but I remember reading about a neat angle to this question WTF IS MASS somewhere which also acted as a unified field theory-joining electromagnetism and gravity together-it went along the lines of mass being strings or vortexes of charge which act like little flywheels that stored inertia, and that stored inertia being mass. I remember this fella saying because it doesn't introduce any new mystery particles like higss boson or something like dark energy or whatever it was more elegant. I dunno, though. | 2011-04-29 20:36:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| Me and some friends were kinda talking about the big bang, and I thought... Well, everything has to start somewhere, somehow and some time... Soooo... How did the universe come to be? And what was there before the universe? SOOO CONFUSING!! I just thought I'd leave you with that to ponder on.... Any theories other than "nothingness" ? Because obviously nothing can come from nothing! EDIT: This seems to be turning into a science-ey discussion... I love science-ey discussions! ^_^ Let's talk science, theories and other related stuff more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhTSfOZUNLo The big bang huh ? Well in the biggining there was nothing, but despite the fact that there was nothing, it still exploded. Note: Sorry if this joke is already made, I didnt read all the posts. | 2011-04-29 20:38:00 Author: nysudyrgh  Posts: 5482 |
| (Same as the post above, I didn't read all the comments.) God created everything because God is all knowing and can make anything out of nothing. What scientists now of days can come up with is so stupid.... Global Warming????? Really? The earth is deteriorating, but scientists call this: Global Warming and they blame it on the pollution in the air. The air is factually cleaner than it was in the 1940's. I just can't understand how these scientists get paid everyday.... Nothing cannot form nothing, therefore the scientists are incorrect. I think that scientists should give more proof than what they put in student textbooks. | 2011-04-30 02:49:00 Author: theonlybub  Posts: 690 |
| (Same as the post above, I didn't read all the comments.) God created everything because God is all knowing and can make anything out of nothing. What scientists now of days can come up with is so stupid.... Global Warming????? Really? The earth is deteriorating, but scientists call this: Global Warming and they blame it on the pollution in the air. The air is factually cleaner than it was in the 1940's. I just can't understand how these scientists get paid everyday.... Nothing cannot form nothing, therefore the scientists are incorrect. I think that scientists should give more proof than what they put in student textbooks. actually, global warming is just the earth coming out of the last ice age... yep... also, there was stuff before the big bang, just stuff, gasses and things.. | 2011-04-30 11:33:00 Author: YEAH_NAH  Posts: 775 |
| God created everything because God is all knowing and can make anything out of nothing. Including parasites that feed on live organisms? It's a bit twisted really. What's everyone's opinion on Homeopathy? I've used homeopathic remedies in the past and they never really had any effect. Now I know how homeopathic remedies are made, it explains why they weren't effective. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZhmG97lYog | 2011-04-30 17:26:00 Author: Rhys125  Posts: 841 |
| (Same as the post above, I didn't read all the comments.) God created everything because God is all knowing and can make anything out of nothing. What scientists now of days can come up with is so stupid.... Global Warming????? Really? The earth is deteriorating, but scientists call this: Global Warming and they blame it on the pollution in the air. The air is factually cleaner than it was in the 1940's. I just can't understand how these scientists get paid everyday.... Nothing cannot form nothing, therefore the scientists are incorrect. I think that scientists should give more proof than what they put in student textbooks. If he exists, is he infinite? I'm not sure if you are being serious, but this is a discussion about SCIENCE. You Monster. Go and make a Religious Discussion if you want to talk about God. and anyway Global Warming is nothing to do with "Cleanliness" of the air its to do with the composition. | 2011-04-30 19:06:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| (Same as the post above, I didn't read all the comments.) God created everything because God is all knowing and can make anything out of nothing. -- Nothing cannot form nothing You kind of contradicted yourself here. And we run the world on what makes sense, not on what we think is real. It's been going pretty well for us so far. And scientists have proof the earth is deteriorating. I am exercising A LOT of free will right now to not begin ranting about this, so I'll say this; Leave. Now. You are bound to anger many people if you keep posting such claims, so to keep us all abiding by LBPC's rules and keep us on the moderators' good sides, we'll leave it here. Good day. | 2011-04-30 19:21:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| What's everyone's opinion on Homeopathy? I've used homeopathic remedies in the past and they never really had any effect. Now I know how homeopathic remedies are made, it explains why they weren't effective. Homeopathy: Essentially taking the 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' a little too literally. Dilute a toxin. Dilute again. Dilute again. Dilute again. Dilute again. Dilute again. Drink. Personally, any effects are placebo. Anyone support homeopathy? I want to hear your opinion too. Persuade me it works... | 2011-04-30 19:27:00 Author: Jedi_1993 Posts: 1518 |
| well i think the toxin thing might work but overall i'm not sure Homeopathy works. | 2011-04-30 19:31:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Persuade me it works... No, but I know placeboes work. If homeopathy is essentially a placebo, then fair enough. | 2011-04-30 19:49:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| If you keep diluting a poison you will develop a resistance to it.. | 2011-04-30 19:51:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Well, if you keep FIGHTING a poison, you'll develop a resistance. You won't resist anything if you're just diluting it and leaving it there to simmer. | 2011-04-30 19:59:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Okay, a little thing I've thought up about theists vs atheists battle. A theists opinion could never be proved wrong, due to the fact that there is no way of proving whether something doesn't exist, but there is a way to prove something DOES exist. Therefore, the existence of God is a bit like Schrodinger's cat, in technicalities it doesn't have a state until it is revealed. For example, I like to think there are 3 rules of existence, imagine someone told you that someone told them there was a mobile phone in the room. The first rule is that that person is lying or mistook another object for that said phone; a.k.a that object does not exist. The second rule is that, aesthetically it could look completely different, that person could have said that it was blocky and grey with an antenna at the top, while really it was small, black, and glossy. The third rule is that it could function in a completely different way, that person could have said it could play games and had a 3D display, when really all it could do is text and call. Therefore when someone pictures God, it could be something completely different. Hope I added something to the discussion. Btw, I'm an atheist. | 2011-04-30 21:51:00 Author: abyssalassassin  Posts: 717 |
| This isn't a debate about religion although you make some good points. | 2011-04-30 22:17:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| Well, if you keep FIGHTING a poison, you'll develop a resistance. You won't resist anything if you're just diluting it and leaving it there to simmer. Like a vaccine? I suppose so, but the amount they dilute it seems too much, even for that. It's about 1/1,000,000,000,000 (Toxin/Water). Though that's one example from wiki. | 2011-04-30 22:29:00 Author: Jedi_1993 Posts: 1518 |
| Like a vaccine? I suppose so, but the amount they dilute it seems too much, even for that. It's about 1/1,000,000,000,000 (Toxin/Water). Though that's one example from wiki. Its only Antigens and Anti Venom is just Antibodies from another Animal. | 2011-04-30 22:38:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| In theory Homeopathy seems like it would work. But it seems when put into action, it's not up to par. Ahhh placebo affect, how I love you so. | 2011-04-30 23:00:00 Author: Maxi  Posts: 1176 |
| Sorry, the last time I looked at the thread, that's what you were all discussing, eeep. And the homeopathy I wouldn't think would be that effective, seeing the fraction someone would dilute it to, there would be virtually nothing left for your body to fight. :/ But then again, if you believe it will work, that's essentially a placebo and placebos have been proven to work, but there's more chance of a placebo working if no-one says to you it's a placebo, and you view it as a real pill/medicine. But that could be acheived with a Skittle, might also work as a placebo for people recovering from a drug addiction if you say it's a real drug. | 2011-04-30 23:11:00 Author: abyssalassassin Posts: 717 |
| actually, global warming is just the earth coming out of the last ice age... yep... Well good sir...how do you explain this: Scientists blame the greenhouse gasses for Global Warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#) also, there was stuff before the big bang, just stuff, gasses and things.. I'm sorry, but I really want to ask you this: How did those gasses and things get there exactly? I'm not sure if you are being serious, but this is a discussion about SCIENCE. You Monster. Go and make a Religious Discussion if you want to talk about God. and anyway Global Warming is nothing to do with "Cleanliness" of the air its to do with the composition. Yes good sir, I am being completely serious. The topic was to talk "how the earth came to be". That was what was supposed to be discussed originally, so I just stated my opinion. If you have such a big problem with opinions, please go elsewhere and antagonize somebody else, because I really don't like getting into fights. And about the Global Warming, if you read the bit above and go to the link, you will be proven wrong because the article clearly states that the "Scientists" blamed Global Warming on the excess greenhouse gasses. You kind of contradicted yourself here. And we run the world on what makes sense, not on what we think is real. It's been going pretty well for us so far. And scientists have proof the earth is deteriorating. I am exercising A LOT of free will right now to not begin ranting about this, so I'll say this; Leave. Now. You are bound to anger many people if you keep posting such claims, so to keep us all abiding by LBPC's rules and keep us on the moderators' good sides, we'll leave it here. Good day. I was not meaning to upset anyone when I posted, so I will state: I am sorry to anyone of whom I have offended. I am not that kind of person. All I want to do is act as God would want me to act because I follow and obey his rules. I did not intend on causing anyone any harm or hurt. And I don't understand why you have to be so negative towards me. If you cause me any more harm, I will have to contact a moderator. You cannot just tell me to leave a thread that I enjoy commenting on good sir. God bless. | 2011-05-01 06:59:00 Author: theonlybub Posts: 690 |
| What scientists now of days can come up with is so stupid.... Global Warming????? Really? The earth is deteriorating, but scientists call this: Global Warming and they blame it on the pollution in the air. The air is factually cleaner than it was in the 1940's. I just can't understand how these scientists get paid everyday.... Nothing cannot form nothing, therefore the scientists are incorrect. I think that scientists should give more proof than what they put in student textbooks. *Climate Change, and I just can't understand why you think it's false, given the widespread scientific consensus that it is indeed happening at a rate which is caused by humans. I happen to know a couple scientists who have done research in climate change, and while I cannot speak to all of the science itself, I can assure you that these conclusions were not haphazardly thrown together inside a couple of weeks, then thrown out into the world so said scientists could get paid. These theories have gone through decades of peer review at this point, and the scientific community is rather confident that something needs to be done. My experience when reading articles written by people who say climate change is a hoax has been that they either take evidence out of context, don't understand what they're talking about, or are otherwise conspiracy nuts. It's like saying the theory of evolution is completely and utterly false because we haven't found the "missing link". Well it's not like it's some big secret that we haven't found it, and the evidence which supports the theory is on a large enough scale that we can say with high confidence that it has an extremely high probability of being true. I'm sorry, but I really want to ask you this: How did those gasses and things get there exactly? Going off the assumption that there was stuff before the Big Bang (I myself have no knowledge on the matter), what's wrong with saying "I don't know how it got there"? That's half the fun of science: figuring it out. I'm trying very hard to go around the religion debate that this comment brings up, but I will say this: Science and religion do not have to conflict. If you believe in God, fine, believe that God created the universe. Just don't say that God created the Earth in six days about 6,000 years ago, lol. God could've just as easily set everything in motion that would eventually create the Earth. With that I'm done on that. | 2011-05-01 07:57:00 Author: Patronus21 Posts: 266 |
| Yes good sir, I am being completely serious. The topic was to talk "how the earth came to be". That was what was supposed to be discussed originally, so I just stated my opinion. The problem is, it's not Science. These are approximations of the Scientific Method and the Faith-based Method: http://sciencefun.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png?w=670&h=527 | 2011-05-01 09:31:00 Author: Rhys125 Posts: 841 |
| Oh I have another fact here: Did you know that when astronauts went to the moon, the "scientists" thought that they would land in millions of years of dust on the moon, but it turns out that they only landed in about 10 thousand years of dust.... Go figure.... | 2011-05-01 14:40:00 Author: theonlybub Posts: 690 |
| And they deserve scorn because they were expected to be totally right about a place they hadn't visited and could only study from a distance up until that point? Or would you have preferred if people kept believing stuff like the moon being made of cheese and having a man in it and just leave it at that without bothering to prove it? | 2011-05-01 16:45:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka  Posts: 512 |
| What scientists now of days can come up with is so stupid.... Global Warming????? Really? The earth is deteriorating, but scientists call this: Global Warming and they blame it on the pollution in the air. The air is factually cleaner than it was in the 1940's. I just can't understand how these scientists get paid everyday.... Ok, Gide's turn. First of all, I'll start off by stating I am not religious and I am scientist with a PhD in genetics and molecular biology, so you can understand my point of view. Next, I will state that your comment is insulting. I've worked my butt off for 12 years in school and have lived near the poverty line to contribute to the betterment of human health and welfare. So your lack of appreciation for what scientists are trying to do to help legitimately upsets me. Nevertheless, I will not let my feelings get in the way of rational argument. Nothing cannot form nothing, therefore the scientists are incorrect. The Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy are scientific principles. No scientist will refute this. We learn this in high school. This accusation is based on something you've taken completely out of context. I think that scientists should give more proof than what they put in student textbooks. They do, however the public remains generally ignorant. The results of scientific inquiry are published in peer-reviewed journals. You can find these publications in massive online libraries, such as those belonging to the National Institute of Health (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/). What you see published in textbooks is considered ancient in the eyes of scientists - we're talking information that is at least ten years old and often obsolete to some extent. Anything you read in the newspaper or see on the news that claims it as "cutting edge research" is usually oversimplified for public consumption and put into very poor context, if not spun to be wildly inaccurate - usually because the media itself does not understand the information it is trying to convey. If you want to see the real proof and understand what conclusions can actually be drawn from the data, I suggest you search out original publications. In order to be published, scientific publications are subjected to inquiry by other experts who review and have to accept the findings. Poor and inconclusive data is almost impossible to publish. I'm sorry, but I really want to ask you this: How did those gases and things get there exactly? I suggest you read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Brief_History_of_Time). It explains how the universe could have been created from "nothing" and why that's acceptable given the laws of physics. Well good sir...how do you explain this: Scientists blame the greenhouse gases for Global Warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#) The scientific consensus (which means "most", not "all") agrees that green house gas concentrations in the atmosphere are rising due to human activities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming We can record the concentrations of gases and particulate matter in the air. We can CORRELATE rising temperatures with increased gas concentrations. Global warming caused by greenhouse gases is a theory, not fact. Theories are ideas that are supported by data (observations). The greenhouse gas theory suggests that gases in the atmosphere are trapping thermal radiation (heat energy) from escaping the earth's atmosphere, much like how clothing keeps you warm. Experimentally, we can show that gases can act as insulators, lending evidence to this claim. And about the Global Warming, if you read the bit above and go to the link, you will be proven wrong because the article clearly states that the "Scientists" blamed Global Warming on the excess greenhouse gasses. There are two sides to the story. Science doesn't always agree because data can be contradictory: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-440049/Greenhouse-effect-myth-say-scientists.html Yes, in the 1940s, there was a surge of CO2 emissions and yet global temperatures fell for the next 40 years. 800 years ago, global temperatures were even higher, long before we had our industrial revolution. This data argues that climate change can be caused by factors other than greenhouse gas emissions. That doesn't mean that scientists are wrong or stupid, as you've insinuated. In all likelihood, it simply means that climate change is multifactorial and we are not certain to what extent the current trend of global warming is attributable to each cause. I was not meaning to upset anyone when I posted, so I will state: I am sorry to anyone of whom I have offended. I am not that kind of person. All I want to do is act as God would want me to act because I follow and obey his rules. I did not intend on causing anyone any harm or hurt. Apology accepted. Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. | 2011-05-01 17:12:00 Author: Thegide  Posts: 1465 |
| “Creationist critics often charge that evolution cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense.” I like your chart Alec, btw. | 2011-05-01 17:29:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| Except it CAN be tested. If you argue that evolution is natural selection on a much larger scale (i.e. longer periods of time where sufficient changes result in speciation), then one needs to look no further than a petri dish of bacteria. Bacteria have an incredibly short life cycle. If you put them under selective pressure (i.e. weak antibiotics), you can observe incidents of spontaneous resistance, whereby a colony's genetics have changed to adapt to the new environment. By definition, this is observable natural selection. Furthermore, we have fossil records and DNA samples that allow us to trace human migration and accurately date them. We can follow our own history backwards through time and observe where selective pressures favored changes in population genetics. Similarly, we can trace or genetic history backwards and identify where we shared common ancestry with other species. | 2011-05-01 17:39:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465 |
| I hope you don't mean meh. I don't get how people can't wrap their head around evolution. An argument people like to throw out is that there's gaps in the fossil record. Apparently they don't believe that an organisms remains might be destroyed over millions of years. | 2011-05-01 17:52:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| I was just adding to the bit you quoted. And I agree with you. As we like to say... "Lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary" | 2011-05-01 17:55:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465 |
| Oh I have another fact here: Did you know that when astronauts went to the moon, the "scientists" thought that they would land in millions of years of dust on the moon, but it turns out that they only landed in about 10 thousand years of dust.... Go figure.... Well considering we now know that a lot of dust is made up of either dirt or dead bits of organisms proves your point wrong. and i don't see this fictional character telling us about whats on the moon. | 2011-05-01 19:16:00 Author: Kern Posts: 5078 |
| And they went to the moon when? How many decades ago? I'm not exactly sure the universe was a well known about back then. | 2011-05-01 19:36:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| (Same as the post above, I didn't read all the comments.) God created everything because God is all knowing and can make anything out of nothing. What scientists now of days can come up with is so stupid.... Global Warming????? Really? The earth is deteriorating, but scientists call this: Global Warming and they blame it on the pollution in the air. The air is factually cleaner than it was in the 1940's. I just can't understand how these scientists get paid everyday.... Nothing cannot form nothing, therefore the scientists are incorrect. I think that scientists should give more proof than what they put in student textbooks. http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l37/Corporeal/6d02c51e.png | 2011-05-01 19:56:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| inb4lockand/orwarning Seriously though, Scientific thread = Science discussion. | 2011-05-01 21:02:00 Author: Whalio Cappuccino  Posts: 5250 |
| Well good sir...how do you explain this: Scientists blame the greenhouse gasses for Global Warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html#) I thought you said scientists were all wrong? Now you're quoting them as a reliable source? I'm sorry, but I really want to ask you this: How did those gasses and things get there exactly? We have been through this already. Most of us concluded that the universe had no beginning, but that it always was. And I don't understand why you have to be so negative towards me. If you cause me any more harm, I will have to contact a moderator. You cannot just tell me to leave a thread that I enjoy commenting on good sir. God bless. I think you'll find you are posting heavily opinionated religious, or anti science content in a thread entitled "Scientific Discussion" is bound to have a negative effect, don't you? Despite moderators warning the comminty repeatedly NOT to go into religious discussion if it's only going to lead to arguments. Oh, and I haven't caused you any harm at all. "harm |h?rm| noun physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted." Oh I have another fact here: Did you know that when astronauts went to the moon, the "scientists" thought that they would land in millions of years of dust on the moon, but it turns out that they only landed in about 10 thousand years of dust.... Go figure.... What were we supposed to think? There was nothing on the anatomy of the moon in any religious books beforehand. @TheGide: I think I love you. @Everyone else, if we're going to continue this discussion, please post in moderation; no more hate or attempts to start a flame war. If we get a warning from a moderator, then we'll cease THIS discussion and move on to another, more civilised one. | 2011-05-02 01:16:00 Author: Weretigr Posts: 2105 |
| Ok! New discussion, this looks pretty interesting. South African researchers announced in talks at the Paleoanthropology Society and American Association of Physical Anthropologists meetings that they had found bones and teeth from at least four individuals of a new species of early human, Australopithecus sediba. The discoverers say this species shows some surprisingly modern traits and may even be an ancestor of our own genus. But other paleoanthropologists are waiting for more detailed analyses of the unpublished fossils before they agree on its identity or place in the human family tree. | 2011-05-02 02:18:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| That's pretty cool. Always interesting to hear about a new link in our evolutionary chain. | 2011-05-02 02:59:00 Author: Patronus21 Posts: 266 |
| I wonder how good of condition they were in. + I wonder what type of bones they found. Would be interesting if they found a skull(s). | 2011-05-02 03:14:00 Author: Maxi Posts: 1176 |
| 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? | 2011-05-02 03:17:00 Author: warlord_evil  Posts: 4193 |
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.