What is Digg?28 Comments
- sdbryan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To be open-minded is not the same as being empty headed. Science in general and physics in particular is rife with areas of significant contention. Among these people who have studied and mastered vast areas of human knowledge there are theories that are in competition with each other. If you have put in your time and effort and you have demonstrated your competence then you are in a position to argue for your own favorite theory. Even if you haven't shown you play well with others you can still get a fair hearing (consider the Swiss patent clerk a little over 100 years ago). But berean and others like him (her?) aren't interested in this culture. They are like members of a mob angrily trying to destroy a concert hall where Bach is being performed. It makes no sense to them so they assume it to be noise and the activity seems fraudulent.
This is not unlike the position taken by Jonathan Swift in "Gulliver's Travels" (Part III, Chapter V) where he holds up contemporary scientific inquiry to ridicule. Of course that chapter makes Swift look like a moron today since those "wacky" scientists have proven just how real and fruitful their studies were. The unquestionable success of science today has made the task of muckrakers ever more difficult but the instinct will always be there. That doesn't mean we have to repeatedly listen to the dunces. Where is that "plonk" button? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gyrfalcon
Funny thing is, even if they can make a virus after ALL that effort (which I doubt they can), that just proves one thing: There MUST be intelligence involved in the origins of life, and neo-Darwinism cannot possibly account for the existence of life. - godkar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Big-Bang is what happens when you make Chuck Norris angry... And these particles got this shape because of Chuck Norris' roundhouse kicks.
- BladeMelbourne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I prefer the absence of pear shaped articles probing during Big-Bangings.
- randomracoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why Pear Shaped? Coz the rat and dolphin shapes were used to answer the question, "why 42?"
- opnotic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The team has now expanded to include Oxford University and the University of Kure in Japan. They are busy developing a new version of the experiment: By submerging their neutron-clock in a bath of liquid helium, half a degree above absolute zero, they will increase their sensitivity a hundredfold. "
That's pretty cool. - cyrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So I take it the banana shaped particles probe failed? What about the ginger root theory?
- chetmancini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Since when has life ever come from non-life?
- krillion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My question is... why is there anything at all?
- sardiskan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0On the "Synthetic Life" mentioned by FreakTrap. Synthetic Life is not life from non-life. Just like synthetic Oil isn't real oil. It might serve the same purpose, but it is not the same thing.
- FreakTrap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Since when has life ever come from non-life?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2499119.stm - xsecretfiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you had me at Sussex and Big Bang
:drolls: - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The question that has vexed scientists and astronomers for years is why there is more matter in the Universe than anti-matter. Both were formed at the time of the Big Bang, about 13.7 billion years ago. For every particle formed, an anti-particle should also have been formed. Almost immediately, however, the equal numbers of particles and anti-particles would have annihilated each other, leaving nothing but light. But a tiny asymmetry in the laws of nature resulted in a little matter being left over, spread thinly within the empty space of the Universe. This became the stars and planets that we see around us today."
Mind blowing! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0cool
- sardiskan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Also, the reason there is "stuff" in the universe today is because 100 zillion years ago, before the "big bang" happened, there was this tiny tiny gasous FART that released 1 atom of carbon, which then apparently had babies, which then apparently collided with each other and they got on each others nerves so then........BOOM......no more living together.
There you go, no need to spend 3mil on any other research. - Jarasmen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, that's nice.I think...
- bitswapper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The particles aren't pear-shaped - they're big boned. Try to be considerate of other particles life-style choices.
- duddman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"...why the Universe contains the matter that we're made of."
Probably because no one has ever created anything by blowing things up and having the resulting matter make anything? Blow up a rock, you get smaller rocks and dust. Blow up a car, and you get ash and parts. Blow up a house, you get pieces of wood chips and ashes. Never heard of anyone blowing up a 600 sqft house and getting a 1000 sqft house as a result. - brhad56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why does the Universe contains the matter that we're made of?
42!
Naw, that doesn't work either. - gyrfalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Since when has life ever come from non-life?" Reply...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2499119.stm
So you're just helping prove it hasn't yet? - duddman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does any of this really matter? We're here aren't we? Well, okay most of us anyway.
- basselope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Creation? - No matter what you believe the it still comes down to the same question: "Where did it come from?"
The rest of it is just something to keep us from spending all of our time at OrientalwhoredotCom. - Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"berean you're a muppet. Go away."
Spoken like a true, open-minded, digger. - thechao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Phiz--
One other thing you might mention is that the universe appears to be a 3-sphere and not a 3-ball. The difference in topology accounts for the "no center" phenomenon. The question about uniformity is why the statistical uniformity has been maintained across the universe given the speed of light. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0berean you're a muppet. Go away.
- phiz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I bet kartbart is going to tell us all the answers are in the bible and we should just keep our heads in the sand.
1) "the Red-shift quantization"
This is a favorate angle of creationists to claim that all redshift theory is wrong and somehow make the jump to saying we are the center of the universe. I don't get their bogus claims and it's not even worth getting into.
2) "The fact that no star has ever been seen forming (100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars in them formed in 10 billion years - do the math - thats many thousand starts per second. Yet the theory of stars forming from gasses has never been observed)."
There has been lots of hot gasses being observed forming into stars ( eg: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-07/eic-hss062804.php). It's hard to see a complete star formation happen since a human lifetime is just a tiny blip in time it takes a star to be born.
3) "The uniformity of background microwave radiation - per big bang, this should be non-uniform, hotter towards the inside of the big bang ring and colder in the other direction. However, the radiation is inexplainably uniform in all directions."
Looks nonuniform to me: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html
"They keep cooking theory after theory ... this experiment is some more waste of time."
Ah, kartbart did tell us we should just keep our heads in the sand. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I like how "scientists" keep pulling stuff like this out of their butts. We supposedly know how much matter is in the universe, but can only acocunt for 95% of it (somehow). We supposedly know how many dimensions there are, but have no idea what they are. Blah blah blah, stop being stupid.
You want REAL science as it refers to the Big Bang? The origin of life? Then you've first got to stop believing in all this crap you read about stuff that is, frankly, pulled out of someone's butt. You're brainwashed to eat this stuff up, and you keep doing it, never questioning it. You'll never be intelligent, and even if stuff like the Big Bang WERE true, you'd NEVER be able to provide evidence for it, because you guys just keep accepting stuff with questioning and without proper evidence. - kartbart, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0First let them explain
1) the Red-shift quantization
2) The fact that no star has ever been seen forming (100 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars in them formed in 10 billion years - do the math - thats many thousand starts per second. Yet the theory of stars forming from gasses has never been observed).
3) The uniformity of background microwave radiation - per big bang, this should be non-uniform, hotter towards the inside of the big bang ring and colder in the other direction. However, the radiation is inexplainably uniform in all directions.
They keep cooking theory after theory ... this experiment is some more waste of time.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is