What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Beats By Dr. Dre view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers make some noise about Dr. Dre's Beats noise-canceling headphones.
101 Comments
- Onechrisn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+50...Hence why God isn't a good explanation for anything.
You can always say "Because God wills it," and never learn anything. - Tr1pleM, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27"Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!"
- rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29http://www.nickdavis.com/Meta-Digg-Rules-of-People-Power
See #1 and #2... thanks. - grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26"It's kinda funny, when you ignore the Bible, a lot of things don't make sense."..
Yes but we forge ahead to find answers to those questions
"Hmmmm...maybe the universe ISN'T 14 billion years old...maybe it's only 6000! Maybe those thousands of manuscripts we found were right! Now it all makes sense."
Umm.. okay... I guess I'll stop searching for the unknown... laid down and go to sleep. - goat77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22I don't quite get your comment.
- degree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22argon-argon dating proves you wrong gert.
- skubiszm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Isn't that how religion was started? People didn't understand the world around them so they just made up some fairy tails.
Feel free to digg me down. - Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -4/+222 The horizon problem
Solution: Time is not a constant across the entire universe. - Onechrisn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23No, 6000 years makes it worse.
The universe is 28 billion light years across; we measure that with telescopes, geometry, and red-shift.
The problem is the universe is too young... and you just made it younger.
If the universe was 30 billion years old everything would make sense. The two opposite sides would have had the needed time to even out; they could send light, radiation, heat, or something to the other side and equaled out the background. - sohisolo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18these are some real quandries in physics. Although the wow signal seems the least likely to ever be resolved.
- TheKillDoctor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15""But I'm just being unscientific, aren't I?""
Yes, and you are just flame baiting people in to another religion vs. science comment war. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13More accurately: 13 things scientists have yet to make sense of.
- superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12soo many usefull and time saving wikilinks appear in the comments that i hope digg 4.0 looks at all the words in the topics and descriptions and searches wiki for the terms and makes the first comment a list of links of pertinant wiki articles..... the algorithm should excluding articles and adverbs and other useless pieces of the language ofcourse. Off topic i know, but a good thought.
- Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14>>Hmmmm...maybe the universe ISN'T 14 billion years old...maybe it's only 6000! Maybe those thousands of manuscripts we found were right! Now it all makes sense.
Seriously, wtf? Men writing ***** down a long time ago and repeating it a multitude of times through the years makes it the truth? Honestly, what are you on?
Evidence, please? Can you please falsify our dating techniques and present some of your own? - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -8/+204 Belfast homeopathy results
Homeopathy is *****.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy - dunezone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Since I have always been a Simpsons fan, lets see how their writing would of solved these problems. From Tree House of Horror X
Frink: Yes, over here, n'hey, n'hey. In episode BF12, you
were battling barbarians while riding a winged
Appaloosa, yet in the very next scene, my dear,
you're clearly atop a winged Arabian. Please do
explain it.
Lawless: Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like
that, a wizard did it.
So obvioulsy, the correct solution to all these problems is a "Wizard did it". Thankyou. - mikeybikey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Physics 101, information can not travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. That has never been violated.
- Remadot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10One "The placebo effect". Can be easily explained based on endorphins.
- stou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11More generally accepted solution:
Cosmic Inflation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Clearly it is your argument that is 'pointless'. Obviously 100 years ago, or two hundred years ago, or 500 years ago we knew a lot less than we do now. There were a lot of things proposed then that seemed highly speculative, nonetheless very little of the modern world you see around you today would not exist if it had not been for that speculation, as thankfully a great deal of our speculation then proved to be accurate. (Although a great deal of it proved to be plumb wrong too).
The odd thing about people like you and with religious people also is that they expect scientists to know everything now, to have perfect knowledge and insight into everything, and to be pretty much be born into world with their entire knowledge of the Universe both whole and complete.
But that is not how science works. Science requires us to speculate, science requires us to guess and to form (often conflicting ) hypotheses, it requires constant imagination and constant questioning, so that perhaps out of the darkness of our inner conscience someone somewhere might be fortunate enough to see a small chink of light that will help us all illuminate our understanding of the Universe just that little bit more than we currently do.
Scientists speculate because we hope that future generations may be in a better position than we currently are to test our speculations - and if necessary discount and/or disprove them and replace them with much better much more fully founded theories and explanations.
But you should always bare in mind that if it had not been for scientific speculation in the past, you would not be able to turn on a light bulb, drive a car, tun on your TV set, go to hospital for life saving treatment and/or medication, travel in an airplane, heat your house, or eat much of the food that you currently eat, nor walk the streets, nor live in a house, nor use a computer - or indeed to do any of the things that you currently take for granted.
So scientific speculation is not pointless at all, not unless you prefer the prospect of living in a cave, eating raw berries and worshiping a nameless faceless god as your only form of entertainment.
Science is responsible for much of everything you see around you now - it would be very difficult to take a look around at most people''s immediate environment and simply say 'God did it!' - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11What part of:
"The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed."
don't you understand? - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8This is of course also potentially nonsense. What quantized redshifts refers to is an observation, like many others, that we do not yet understand. It does not be definition 'place the Earth at the center of the Universe at all.' It simply says that there is an observation that is both heavily disputed and which may at some point in the foreseeable future provide a part of the answer to a larger puzzle.
As the following article here http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?p=195&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 states:
The bottom line is that the existence of the quantization is intriguing but uncertain and still encounters considerable skepticism among astronomers. But as researchers note, even if they do exist, they don't invalidate Big Bang cosmology. They suggest that something really fascinating related to quantum physics impressed itself on the form of the universe in those very early moments. That is in fact the explanation favored by Tifft himself, who proposed the quantized redshift theory, who noted that he thinks a subtle quantization of time might be responsible. That quantization of time is itself merely a hypothesis, however."
I have particular sympathy with the idea that time itself may yet prove to be a significant part of the answer to this question, that perhaps not all of our clocks ran evenly at different parts in the very early Universe's evolution - but that will probably be a question that it better answered by future generations.
But the worst thing of all to do is to allow the creationists to think that this lends them additional ammunition to their cause. We do not need the return of a geocentric Universe - when in reality there are likely to be many other and better perfectly acceptable solutions. - namtellum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Awesome read. Anyone have a subscription to this magazine? if so, how is it?
- saska, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I absolutely love New Scientist. And getting the online extras/full access is worth the subscription price, easily. They walk a good middle ground between research paper and too-simple, although I think they can tend to be a bit sensationalist.
- dorkafork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ennis's homeopathy results could not be replicated independently. One aberrant experiment does not a "mystery" make.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml - MoreBonez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"I'm confused. I was expecting it to say that the saline placebo effect still occured even when using naloxone, but instead it says the pain-relieving power disappeared."
If the effects of the placebo can be blocked by the same thing that blocks the morphine, the implication is that the placebo is acting in the same physiological way as the morphine. Yet the placebo is supposedly an inactive substance, and thus shouldn't "act" at all. This result makes the placebo effect much more difficult to write off as a mental trick than if the naloxone had no effect at all. - deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I've read elsewhere that some astrophysics types believe that the speed of light has slowed over time and used to be much higher. This might help to explain a 28 billion light year wide universe 'forming' in 'only' 14 billion years.
- neilpan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5stfu please.
- shunter99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"It's all God."
i assumed this was sarcastic - superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7you show me a person who ignores the bible more than a christian and I will show you a corpse.
- kaidadragonfly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3On an infinite plane all points are the center.
Think about a pacman game, since the space is infinite (if you go off the edge you double back) then all points could be considered the center.
Our universe could be a three dimmensional version of that. - pkulak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Holy ***** people. You all burried me because you thought I was serious? Next time I'll make my sarcasm a bit more obvious.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9The fact they mention Cold Fusion as one of the "13 things that do not make sense" calls into question the other 12.
- xander, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually, as the 'quantized' red shifts show, Earth does seem to be in the center of the universe... Interesting, eh?
- jggr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The wisest man is he who can admit he knows nothing.
(Plato??) - jggr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But he makes a point. And a good one.
Remember people the stuff cosmologists tell you now is guess work at best. it's a fun academic study, but nothing to be taken seriously. Theories are all well and good, but empirical evidence MUST be present to have the theory become fact.
Faith in dark matter (or any other commonly held scientific theory that hasn't been proven with empirical evidence) is no better or worse than religious faith in God. I, for one, hold both at the same value. Just another ignorant human grasping at straws trying to understand the (currently) un-understandable.
(Un-understandable... It is so a word!)
((Also, ignorant is not an insult here... Just fact))
(((Parenthesis... the new slashie!!!))) - Run4yourlives, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Assuming we are at the centre, which causes a whole heap of new (old) issues!
- KenG6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The drug also blocks the action of pain-lowering endorphins which the body produces naturally."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxone - Badger80, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I with you there Chicken101, notice what they said in the article, if there results are true we will “have to rewrite physics and chemistry”. While I would never suggest that you should just ignore result because they are inconvenient but if they are correct they have profound implications and would contradict centuries of research and experimentation which directly contradict these results. Now which is more likely? there is are flaws in the methodology of the Belfast experiments or hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge about physics, chemistry and mathematics, are incorrect. I for one don’t expect to have to relearn my basic physics and chemistry any time soon.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow, finally a good scientific read. (although it strayed a little with the UFO talk)
- Metasquares, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Endorphins are chemically very similar to morphine. I wouldn't be surprised if they reacted with a drug that suppressed the effects of morphine.
In fact, from Wikipedia:
"The placebo effect has been linked to endorphins. In one study, a volunteer received pain by a compression cuff on his arm. In the first trial, no drug was administered and the patient showed signs of pain including facial grimace, increased blood pressure, and sweating. During the next trial, the physican informed the volunteer that he would be injected with morphine and that he would feel no pain. The morphine was injected, the pain compression repeated, and this time the volunteer showed and reported no pain. The morphine and compression was repeated several times. Then, the volunteer was unknowingly injected with a saline placebo, but still reported no sign of pain, though the last time he was unmedicated the signs of pain were obvious. In a last test, the patients’ ‘morphine’ was actually an injection of naloxone, an opioid antagonist. Even though the volunteer believed the shot was morphine and expected relief, the endorphins’ effect was blocked by the naloxone injection and the volunteer displayed the same signs of pain as the first unmedicated trial. (Groopman 169)" - t3rmin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1...and the quick burial of this comment proves his point.
- jggr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And why aren't UFO's scientific?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so endorphines realize that there is a second drug, counter acting the drug, the placebo replaces?
That would only make sense, if endorphines "react" with this 2nd drug as well. - antihero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For all the great midget porn?
- DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Real Fusion has been demonstrated in sort of cold environments (I guess, I'm not sure if I'm up on the terminology), look for super-cavitation fusion experiments.
- raid517, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Did you know that that is a popular fallacy?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is