What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don’t need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
74 Comments
- mtjohnson, on 01/07/2009, -3/+25Why did Jesus ride around on a raptor when he could have flown in style on one of these?
- richgustavson, on 01/07/2009, -1/+17Maybe they did a triple jump like in Mario 64
- igm07, on 01/07/2009, -1/+10You pinhead.
Changes in the force gravity at the earth's surface over time may have happened but over geologic time scales due to shifts in land massing and never sufficiently to allow flightless animals to suddenly take flight.
The article you cite discusses the peculiarities of gravity in a supermassive object, like a star. It does not apply to a stable mass like the earth.
We do not need to question gravity. You need to read more carefully and not take flights of magical thinking loosely inspired by speculative science. - brutalentropy, on 01/07/2009, -0/+8"Don't worry, scrote, there are plenty of 'tards out there living really kickass lives. My first wife was 'tarded, she's a pilot now."
- ezran, on 01/07/2009, -2/+10jet propulsion
- serif69, on 01/07/2009, -1/+9He was too humble for private aircraft.
- Prodd00, on 01/07/2009, -1/+8wow that was harsh. Anywho i think public trasportation on turtles was way more efficient!
- Hetman, on 01/07/2009, -2/+9First off evolution does not explain how life began it explains the diversity of life on this planet. And your argument about it being so complicated it had to have a designer is a false. 1st it brings the next logical question God is more complex than his creation therefor God would need a creator. But even if you ignore that just google anything about the argument of complexity and you will see that just because it is unlikely does not mean it did not happen.
- ricker2005, on 01/07/2009, -2/+8You would pull those marbles out in order given enough trials. That's simple statistics. Furthermore, your understanding of the perfection of DNA and amino acids is massively incorrect. The system doesn't need to be error-free. In fact, all of the people reading this thread have a plenty of errors in their genetic code. And I don't even have to have the full sequence of DNA. If I have the first half, I might still produce a protein that does some of its normal job but not all. It's been done in the lab millions of times. Hell, I did the experiment myself less than a year ago.
DNA doesn't need to be perfect to do a job and suggesting as much is essentially admitting your ignorance by using the false "mouse trap" analogy. As a geneticist, let me suggest that you don't know ***** about the evolution you find so humorous. - MokaPot, on 01/07/2009, -2/+8Can I suggest you to try stetching your penis constantly.... maybe with the help of evolution...
- durgahutt, on 01/07/2009, -1/+7I really don't care how they got into the air. All I know is that if I saw one that big coming at me I'd probably ***** down both legs.
- serif69, on 01/07/2009, -0/+5No, you did.
- devilstower, on 01/07/2009, -1/+6Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs. Neither are they closely related to birds.
Flying reptiles is perfectly correct. - inajeep, on 01/07/2009, -0/+4Think bats.
And the ones that they found miles from cliffs. Yes, they died not being able to escape predators because they were on the ground and couldn't get airborne. - Specializedone, on 01/08/2009, -1/+5I think he's trying to point out your lack of knowledge on how evolution by natural selection works ...
- Dipsomaniac, on 01/07/2009, -1/+5Your 'finding' that the earth's gravity would be less if the earth was smaller is wrong. Completely wrong. In fact, if the earth's mass was compressed into a lesser diameter that the earth has now, gravity at the surface would be STRONGER.
As for water providing enough mass to give earth twice the gravity it would have without; also completely wrong. The total mass of water on the earth is 0.023% of the earth's mass. That is also how much water mass contributes to the earth's entire gravitational field.
Please don't write that book - I'm afraid it might be published and make people stupid. - SisyphusFragmnt, on 01/07/2009, -2/+6You are either the best troll ever or a real live retard.
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -0/+4http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h252/unpleasantr ...
Found on the Calvin & Hobbes article, credit to Scootra. - NuclearBunny, on 01/07/2009, -0/+3When I tried to visualize it, I thought of how a giraffe runs, ie. stiff legged, Notice similarity of the difference of length of the limbs and position of the joints Once they reach a certain speed (not too fast) they leap into the air.
- tekproxy, on 01/08/2009, -1/+4Let's say you have 100 worms, some are green, some are red and some are blue and they live in the grass. They live happy lives until one day a flock of birds decides to live near them. The birds get hungry and start eating worms. Which worms do you think they'd eat the most? The worms with natural protection, the green worms, will be eaten the least. Every generation when the worms get together to have hot, nasty worm sex, there will be more and more of a green worm majority, thus the genes for creating green worms will be passed down to the next generation with increasing frequency.
Now imagine repeating this hundreds of times. Visualize it. Do you see all the green worms? Please, try and understand it. Really. I want everyone to enjoy it. - inactive, on 01/07/2009, -3/+6Speaking from experience?
- nydwarf, on 01/08/2009, -0/+3I wonder how those wings would taste with hot sauce?
- Dipsomaniac, on 01/07/2009, -1/+4Of course, since the environment in which those chemical reactions happened was basically vast seas where billions of chemical reactions occurred every second, the odds against fortuitously sequenced reactions occurring after a relatively short time were actually not very high at all.
You fail at statistics. - 1mmcg3, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3"An analogy may be in order. If you inject air into a dough ball its size may double but its density remained a constant."
I'm afraid this just isn't true. The injection of air in to the dough ball would cause the volume of the dough ball to double, but the increase in mass would be essentially zero. That means the resulting density of the dough ball would be half of what it was before the injection of air.
"If you inject water of the same quantity as the dough ball into that dough ball both its size AND density will double"
Not necessarily. This would only be true if the dough and water had the same density separately and if the dough didn't dissolve in the water. If you mix up a cup of flour and a cup of water, the volume of the resulting mixture is far less than 2 cups. - Wakkyweed, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2I have $20 on "real live retard".
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -3/+5Flapping their arms constantly...and with the help of evolution, developed wings...
- drgmdp, on 01/09/2009, -0/+2dugg for worm sex
- Dipsomaniac, on 01/08/2009, -1/+3No, gravity is not a product of density. Period. Even if the earth became a black hole of infinite density, the orbit of anything around it would not be affected, because the gravitational field at, say, the moon's orbit would not change. The only way to change a gravitational potential is to change the mass creating it.
Plus, your equivalency between size and mass is completely out of left field. It's nonsense.
If you inject air into a dough ball and increase its size but not its mass, then its density decreases. It does not remain the same.
This is really elementary physics. Density is calculated as mass/volume. Increase the volume but not the mass, density decreases. There is no other way.
When rock absorbs water, its volume either does not change or changes only infinitesimally. It could not grow by the amount you posit and maintain the geological integrity required. Again, elementary physics.
Finally, gravity is not related to density. That's been proven by Newton and has held constant since. - mandarin, on 01/07/2009, -0/+2I thought that came from pterodactyls...
- SisyphusFragmnt, on 01/07/2009, -1/+3My axe is my buddy, I bring him when I walk..
- Dipsomaniac, on 01/08/2009, -1/+2Gravity is a product of MASS, not density (F = GMm/R²), and there is no way that .023% water sparked a growth of 200%, or that .023% difference in mass made the kind of difference you are talking about.
In fact, even if the earth were the same mass as it is now, but twice the diameter, from outside the surface, such as in orbit, the earth's gravitational potential would be identical. The gravitational influence of any mass may be calculated as if that mass is a point, or if any mass closer to the centre than you is a point, and all other mass cancels out to zero in the case that you are below the surface.
You are not comprehending how gravity is calculated, and if you're going to insult everyone's intelligence with your half-baked guesses, I'll insult yours. I am not incorrect about these gravitational statements. - Danby123, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1Write the book, but just call it a science fiction novel.
- Killphibian, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1The whole "It's statistically too unlikely" argument is flawed because it doesn't take into account the natural attractions between atoms and molecules. This is well-explained in one of the "why people laugh at creationists" videos on youtube. I forgot which one.
- Specializedone, on 01/08/2009, -1/+2Fried or baked?
- plecostomus, on 01/07/2009, -2/+3"flying dinosaurs"
FAIL. - seobro, on 01/07/2009, -0/+1Dinotopia had them used to deliver mail. I wonder how much they could carry?
- redwolfwalker, on 01/07/2009, -0/+1lol, gotta love it
- Dimensio, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1"If we take your assumption that God is more complex than His creation, then we must assume that if there is no God then whatever CAUSED the universe is more complex than the universe and you are still left with the same question "what caused the cause?"---eventually you are going to have to come up with something or some being that transcends our universe and has always existed."
A more rational response to an inability to explain the fundamental origin of the universe based upon existing knowledge of causility is to acknowledge that there exists insufficient data from which a conclusion may be drawn. It is irrational to invoke an entity that is exempt from the fundamental properties of the universe merely because, thus far, no explanation consistent with the properties of the universe is available. - willclark1, on 01/08/2009, -1/+2Are you guys making bread or science? I hope the book you are writing is not a cookbook. Your recipe is underseasoned. Also, Kelly seems to have limited understanding of density.
- 1mmcg3, on 01/08/2009, -1/+2"In fact, even if the earth were the same mass as it is now, but twice the diameter, from outside the surface, such as in orbit, the earth's gravitational potential would be identical."
True
"The density didn't change in that scenario either. Again, mass AND density."
False. If the Earth's volume grew, but it's mass didn't, it would have a lower density than it previously did. That's what density is, mass/volume. The scenario above is true because the mass didn't change. - drgmdp, on 01/07/2009, -1/+2you forget that evolution was a millions-of-years process...
- alex7575, on 01/07/2009, -1/+2Did you just make a fart joke?
- SQLserver, on 01/07/2009, -2/+3Who let the nuts on the internet?
- inactive, on 01/07/2009, -3/+4Whooooosh.
- PutSCIENCEfirst, on 01/07/2009, -0/+1Although they appear to have come up with an ingenious method for taking flight; my money is on the actual weight was a lot less.
There is a lot of debate over the max. weight this animal achieved. Five hundred pounds is a truly incredible mass for a needed quick egress (if there was one).
The comparitive picture next to the giraffe is just ridiculous. I can't help but wonder if it'd really get high enough to smell a giraffe fart?
Ok. That might have been equally ridiculous. - str1fe, on 01/09/2009, -0/+1http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/joke#Noun
- Hetman, on 01/08/2009, -2/+3Thats a fallacy. It could be an infinite loop for all we know. And certain laws like strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity are just byproducts of the universe. At our state of being right now we cannot really tell either way.
- tandy400, on 01/07/2009, -1/+2Hmm... yeah i'll buy that.
- flip2trip, on 01/07/2009, -1/+1"1st it brings the next logical question God is more complex than his creation therefore God would need a creator"
If we take your assumption that God is more complex than His creation, then we must assume that if there is no God then whatever CAUSED the universe is more complex than the universe and you are still left with the same question "what caused the cause?"---eventually you are going to have to come up with something or some being that transcends our universe and has always existed. -
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 