What is Digg?38 Comments
- irieKEN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The answer is 42.
- rkolter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow, you're almost completely wrong. Let's pick you apart, shall we?
1) You cannot logically call the search for knowledge worthless when you cannot define how that knowledge might be used.
2) Big Bang theory is not widely rejected in the scientific community. In fact, it is more than widely accepted; it is all but universally accepted. As a theory, it is verifiable - many observations have been made on the basis of this theory and have been found to match with the expectations of the theory. It is falsifiable - it is possible still yet to find evidence that would make the big bang theory obsolete. And it matches current observations.
3) As mentioned in #2, far from being rarely touched, the Big Bang has been heavily researched, and has matched every single observation to date.
4) There are many things that have not been observed, and yet are accepted to exist. Ever seen a neutron?
5) Of course it will never be observed again. That is irrelevant to the value of the knowledge gained by observing the results of the initial event.
6) Observing the aftermath of the Big Bang is most assuredly within the realm of science.
Where is your sense of wonder? Why are you even commenting on scientific diggs? - yonah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I´m not an expect either, but I think you´re probably right
- ggudggid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's really more information than I experted.
- Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11He thinks its worthless because he probably thinks the earth is 6000 years old.
- MelvinSchlubman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6It's not just the atheists -- we agnostics jump on the fundies too. (Somebody's got to do it.)
- zonemen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you see a building, it means that there must be a builder.
The fact that the building exists requires that there was a builder.
No building exists that didn't have a builder.
I don't have to see the builder to know that there was one because the building gives absolute scientific evidence there was a builder.
If you see creation, it means that there must be a creator.
The fact that the creation exists requires that there was a creator.
I don't have to see the creator to know that there was one because the creation gives absolute scientific evidence there was a creator. - Clevinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, that's common in signal decoders. I'm not an expect by any means, but I presume that signal decoders have shorter logic paths than a typical PC microprocessor, hence are able to cycle through their routines relatively quickly.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, the earth isnt 6000 years old, the word "Day" in the bible describing the time that it took to create the earth, came from the Hebrew word "yom" which doesnt mean "Day" like we know the word, it means "period of time" ...its just that there are some religions out there that dont know what they are talking about.
more info- http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm
And i dont want to start a religion war, but seriously, what would be more plausible anyway, a superior creator of all things... or a sudden "big bang" which just happens to create the perfect environment for not only humans, but for animals, food, water. the sun isnt too far away or too close...
I realise there are people out there that will digg me down, but seriously, think about it. - rkolter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They aren't looking for parameters that led to the big bang, nor what the laws of physics might have been, if they existed at all, prior to the big bang. Nor are they trying to define a program that would find the parameters required to produce an event like the big bang.
The rest of your rant is off topic.
Did you read the article?
They're using a wide array of antennas to search for the weakest possible radio signals. All photons from the big bang or near that time are so elongated that they will be deep into the radio portion of the spectrum.
They're looking for clues about the general makeup of the universe - a reasonable thing to do if you're looking to explain dark matter. They're not trying to explain the entire universe, just understand it's earliest stages better.
The article does say this though:
"Some of the signals collected could be 13 billion years old and may provide clues to the source of dark matter and the origin of the universe."
This is pretty obviously the journalist paraphrasing a scientist. No scientist would say this. This project won't explain the origin of the universe; but I doubt seriously that any scientist told this journalist that it would. - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Big Blue...Big Bang.....Ahhh a match made in Labs ;P
- alantocheri, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Did anyone else catch that the chips will run at 200GHz? Is that right?
- irieKEN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@Pwelborn1
Why is it a worthless pursuit?
--I should give some reasons for it being a worthwhile investment, but I don't know enough about the subject. - quarsaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is just another example of the Patriot act being used to invade privacy. In this case, the universes privacy.
- stevesbones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Matteos
A bit of a reference to the Jewish faith me-thinks? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I forgot to add, im not saying that the big bang didnt happen, i believe it is entirely possible that that is how god created this universe, through an explosion of energy. But i just dont believe it could happen all by chance.
- tommajor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They should apply that computing power to whether that event ever happened in the first place.
- thall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And I hear it's going to offer a new instruction too:
DBB - Decode Big Bang - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree with Wuthad
- sammysnake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Can't happen the chance?
Whats the difference between an explosion and an explosion created by a God? Also if he's going to mess with the outcome of the explosion why have an explosion in the first place.
Saying that a God had to do it does not make any more sense .. - zippy757, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IBM, nor any large corporation, actually spends $s on development for things like this. This is no business case.
I suspect that IBM is really using this as an enabler of core technology. Specially, designing DSP chips that have low noise characteristics....which will ne used in many other core technologies.
Big companies will try to pilot their new technologies in some tangential application that stress tests it first, prior to deployment in some other mission critical application. - WUThad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A lot (almost all) of the things you said were completely false and make me think that you are completely ignorant of the theory you are trying to defend.
1.) This knowledge is useless because I don't seriously expect results either way to accomplish anything. If it does not agree with what they think the measurements "should" be, then they will likely dismiss it. The theory is more widely acceptable than the results.
2.) "many observations have been made on the basis of this theory and have been found to match with the expectations of the theory."
You are completely wrong here. Big Bang theorists used to believe that a uniform backround radiation was great evidence of the Big Bang. They found uniform backround radiation. The Big Bang was confirmed. Then they decided that radiation shouldn't be uniform, and that would be evidence of the Big Bang. They look again, and the measurements weren't uniform anymore. Good news, the Big Bang was confirmed again. Equations have been formed to find the mass of the universe as predicted by the Big Bang. Well, it turns out that the results were incorrect because it doens't agree with the Big Bang theory. It shows that there is "missing matter" in the universe. So instead of declaring the theory wrong, they invent dark matter which apparently makes up 90% - 99% of the universe.
It seems that Big Bang theorists can twist any evidence to fit their theory, contradictory or not.
3.) I don't need to answer your third claim, because I believe that I did that above. You're completely wrong in what you said.
4.) It has never been observed and only existence itself can be evidence of it happening. That is very weak evidence. And my main point is that it can not be recreated in a lab. Plus, Louis Pasteur's experiment should cancel out the theory.
5.) Since it is never observed again, we have no basis on how we analyze it. Our calculations of it rely on assumptions.
6.) No, it is not in the realm of science. It is not guided by any known natural law, in fact, it contradicts them. - ear1grey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2More types of antenna means more data - yottabytes of the stuff - raw data, annotated data, interpolated data.
This requires more hardware to store it, more machines to crunch it, and more people to maintain those machines.
If you geek-out on hardware, astronomy is a good place to work, and it keeps getting better. - Pwelborn1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12Worthless Pursuit!
- Zepalesque, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Already been decoded. It reads:
"DONTFORGETTODRINKYOUROVALTEAN" - lamestory, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Wow, MyBabyMan has the last 4 front page stories, all in a row. Glad nobody can game Digg!
- pegothejerk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Sir! It's finished decoding! .. "Drink more ovaltine."
- ggudggid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Now this fits perfectly with the season!
Give that man a prize. - ggudggid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Uh...yes officer...there was like this really loud bang and then...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Radio signals are a lost cause, gravity echoes are the new hotness for big bang theories.
- Jexie, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Wonder when the fundies will catch wind and make IBM their latest target of whining.
- WUThad, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2This is such a waste of time and money. Even if they are "successful" in their attempts and calculations, it will be worthless.
They are observing a theory, widely rejected in the scientific community and rarely touched as well, that has never been observed and may never be observed again.
This is so far and beyond the realm of science, it's ridiculous. - falloutsyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Big deal? Cha way.
- ggudggid, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Wonder when the blind-faith atheist will come out and jump on the fundies?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is