What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.108 Comments
- gypsumfantastic, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44The great thing about this article: it's wrong about 5 of the 6 things it claims people are wrong about. I think we call this 'irony':
1. There is such a thing as centrifugal force. It is a *non-inertial* force, and can be measured in non-inertial, accelerating frames such as a rotating body. From the frame of reference of the rotating bucket, the force acting is clearly /outwards/ and everybody knows this to be true. The centrifugal force is what pushes the water towards the edge.
Just because a frame of reference is non-inertial, doesn't make the forces any less real. All frames of reference are relative. Ask Galileo, who invented relativity. (NOT Einstein).
2. The sky is blue because of the ocean or space.
I'm not sure if anyone believes that. But at least he's right.
3. He's wrong about dimensions too. Time is not a spatial direction, and is not treated as such. It is treated as a dimension of 3+1 spacetime, but it's an imaginary axis and therefore is not a spatial dimension in any strict sense.
Also, there's no requirement that extra dimensins *have* to be curled up. If anything, the notion is little more than a hack to explain why string theories postulate 11+1-dimensional universe when we live in a 3+1.
4. "Nuclear power plants can explode like a bomb": I know some extremely intelligent people who believe this, and it’s rubbish.
Balls. There's more than enough fissile material in a nuclear reactor to cause a thermonuclear explosion. In general use, the boron control rods absorb the excess neutrons, but if they were maliciously locked out of place...
5. "Microwave ovens (or other electronics) can cause cancer" No, they can’t, at least without some serious malfunction.:
Well, his intent is correct, but he overstates his case. Okay, the electromagnetic quanta that constitute microwaves are photons of a high wavelength and hence very low momentum. They cannot damage DNA directly, like gamma rays and x-rays can at the other end of the EM spectrum.
However, Microwaves can and do excite magentic dipoles in your body and cause a significant heating effect. We all know this from using a cellphone for an extended period. The long term effects of this rapid heating have not been studied significantly, so there's no basis on which to definitively state that they "do not cause cancer".
6. "Medieval people thought the world was flat." No, they didn’t.
Again, wrong. It rather depends who you asked. Okay, so the rare, educated elites in Europe believed in the Aristotelian geocentric model. But they were the elites. The significant majority of uneducated peasants believed in a flat Earth, because they had no reason otherwise.
Also implicit in this stated wrongness is that "all people = Europe". There were people outside Europe during the medieval period, many of whom had a variety of different solar system models. The most dominant of which was a flat-Earth hypothesis.
There. 5/6 wrong in an article about how people are wrong about science. Everyone point and laugh. - lamerx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35I have NEVER heard that the sky was blue due to the oceans. Still, nice article
Dugg! - markr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth - I trust wikipedia over the blogger...
- Battlecry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26I always heard it the other way around... The ocean is blue because of the sky.
- daveddd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24What, the world is NOT flat?
When did this happen? - KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25I have.
- seanalltogether, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Yeah that threw me off too, I've never heard the ocean theory.
And it would be nice if he provided some references for all his facts. Especially #6 - r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23#7 Blogs are a reliable source of information.
How in the bloody hell can he definitively state that microwaves can't cause cancer? I don't think anyone is completely sure what can and can not cause cancer, and we're supposed to believe some stupid blog can settle something that has been debated by scientists worldwide for years? What a moron! - rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@markr: Did you read the article?
"The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century."
Medieval people did not think the earth was flat.. it was before then. - Forma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html#c2
Please get your science teacher fired mkay?
It's a silly belief anyway. Ask him, how come the sky over the Gobi desert is also blue? - covertbadger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@philz
The geocentrism/heliocentrism debate had nothing to do with the Earth being flat, it was an argument about whether the Earth orbited the sun or vice versa. - johnthedebs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Where is your proof that God doesn't exist, you exacting philosopher you?
- Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10#7 The direction water goes down a plug hole depends on which side of the Equator you are on.
No it doesn't, it depends on the shape of the basin.
#8 A ducks quack doesn't echo.
Yes it does.
#9 Lemmings jump off cliffs.
Nope.
#10 Ostriches bury their heads in the sand.
No they don't. - borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"6. Medieval people thought the world was flat
No, they didn’t. This was made up more or less out of thin air by Washington Irving in his horrid biography of Christopher Columbus. I haven’t the faintest idea why this has become so widespread, since there is ample evidence going against it, but unfortunately it’s still taught."
lol. I'm still being taught this im my 11th grade AP US history class. - *blu*, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13The ocean isn't blue because of the sky - it's blue because water is blue. Very, very light blue. When you put a bunch of it together, it becomes the dark blue that we see in the ocean. Source: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/5.html
- chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9#11 Power and energy are the same.
No, power is the rate at which you use energy.
#12 Locking up your brakes brings you to a stop faster.
No, the static coefficient of friction is always higher than the dynamic coefficient. Push your knuckles together and try to slide them apart. Now pull them apart so they don't mesh as deeply, and now try to slide them apart.
#13 Fluoridated water is bad for you.
Fluoridated water kills bacteria in the pipes, and is good for your teeth.
#14 High voltages kill you
It is current that kills, voltage that hurts.
#15 Waves on water move forwards
No, they only move up and down. Currents move water.
#16 Light is naturally white.
White light is a combination of all the colours.
#17 We breathe oxygen
No, we breathe air, which is predominantly nitrogen.
#18 Glass is solid
No, it is actually a supercooled liquid. - MarkHarrison, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"7. Employees thought that that HP's organisational structure was flat"
No, they didn't. This was made up more or less out of thin air by Mark Harrison in his horrible swipes at Patricia Dunn on inappropriate places on Dugg. I haven't the faintest idea why people used to believe this about HP, since there is ample evidence that it was a viciously hierarchical company, in which the Directors would spy on the managers, and the CEO on the Directors. - bigfkncee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14@johnthedebs
and you have proof that god does exist? - mt066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't like how the blog just says "nope they didn't" and leaves it at that. The Wikipedia article cited above is much more detailed and has sources.
- hplasm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Balls. There's more than enough fissile material in a nuclear reactor to cause a thermonuclear explosion. In general use, the boron control rods absorb the excess neutrons, but if they were maliciously locked out of place..."
Wrong. The amount of material is one factor, but the term critical mass is misunderstood. All reactors run critical- what is required for an explosion is a supercritical mass, which usually involves implosion.
What you are thinking about is the "China Syndrome" where the core does a meltdown. - FrivolousSam, on 10/12/2007, -12/+17I half expected "The existence of a supernatural being" to be on the list!
- guice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Where is your proof that God doesn't exist, you exacting philosopher you?"
I prefer the method; it doesn't exist until proven other wise. That's how we've always lived life; why does "God" have to be different? There are theories and guesses, but until it's proven that he does exist; he doesn't.
Just like Ghosts, Psychics, Black holes, anti-matter, life on other planets, etc... Everything was a theory or guess, never fact, until physically backed by facts. Why do people insist on taking the theory of God with a different approach? There's not one shred of physical evidence that can prove an existence of a supreme being. - kicken18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I have, and it was by a girl I know who did physics and biolog a-level and is now starting bioinfomatics (something like that, genetics with computers or something) and she thought it was a reflection from the sea..thats worrying
- rjespo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5oh wait .. i guess he was referring to a greater quantity of short wavelengths, and not shorter wavelengths. he coulda worded that better.
- togra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5vibez,
Like I said, it's complicated. I did fluid mechanics for my physics degree - it was one of a very heavily mathematical course and I only just understood it all at the time and have now completely forgotten. It involves complex numbers though. Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_%28force%29
see 'common misconceptions'. A wing doesnt have to be assymetric to generate lift - rather it has to do with angle of attack. - jasgeo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10johnthedebs:
So by your logic:
I can tell you there is an invisible magic blue ball floating just above your head.... and then someone else can say that there isn't there. This ball can not be seen, felt, measured or otherwise detected in any way shape or form, and the very idea it is silly. Yet the person who said it wasn't there would be wrong simply because they couldn't prove - in your eyes - that it wasn't there.
Your god is the blue ball, wake up.
BTW, I've got some beach front property in Arizona and I'm looking for a buyer, you interested? - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The sky is blue, water is wet, women have secrets.
- Forma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"air is a powdery blue material"
Is he mad?
BtW
"The French chemist Antoine Laurent Lavoisier mistakenly named nitrogen azote, meaning without life. However, nitrogen compounds are found in foods, organic materials, fertilizers, poisons, and explosives. Nitrogen, as a gas is colorless, odorless, and generally considered an inert element. As a liquid (boiling point = minus 195.8oC), it is also colorless and odorless, and is similar in appearance to water. Nitrogen gas can be prepared by heating a water solution of ammonium nitrite (NH4NO3)."
http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/7.html - afex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@nepa
i'm pretty sure the number of deaths per person is and always will be 1... - tribecom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8occam's razor
- togra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I have another one to add to the list: People believe that aeroplanes fly because the top of the wing is curved therefore the air flowing over it has to move further and hence faster, so the pressure is reduced relative to the underside. The correct explanation or aerodynamic lift is a bit complicated though.
- vibez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4explain more. I always though what you said was the reason for lift
- Forma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Again, wrong. It rather depends who you asked. Okay, so the rare, educated elites in Europe believed in the Aristotelian geocentric model. But they were the elites. The significant majority of uneducated peasants believed in a flat Earth, because they had no reason otherwise.
Also implicit in this stated wrongness is that "all people = Europe". There were people outside Europe during the medieval period, many of whom had a variety of different solar system models. The most dominant of which was a flat-Earth hypothesis."
Neither you, he nor I have any idea what the avarage peasant thought. He could not write anything down, and in any case was most likely too busy looking for a tasty turnip to bother with silly questions about the shape of the earth. But if you had a bit of education (or were a sailor) you most likely knew the earth was round.
A fact also well known outside Europe the Arabs and Indians (the asian ones that is) were certainly aware of it. (the latter had also caught on to heliocentrism well before Europe did). - dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9@*blu*:
Water is colourless and odourless. You could have an infinite amount of water, and there would be no colour to it, short diffraction based effects, such as the Raleigh scattering that makes the sky appear blue. SEA WATER on the other hand is a mix of water, and lots of other things. It's these other things that give the seas and oceans a dark greeny blue colour.
To the best of my knowledge there isn't a body of water larger than say a large swimming pool that is pure enough not so show some colour when looking through its longest axis. - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Number of deaths per person hasn't changed. And history doesn't really address what constitutes "dark and dreary".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@seanalltogether: Check out Lies My Teacher Told Me by Dr. James W. Loewen
I find it funny that I didn't realize people these days still believed these. They seem like throwbacks from an earlier time. I just assumed we had all been enlightened by now.
My bad. - JackyTreehorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What color is the sky in Kansas? Green?
Supposing the sky is blue because the ocean is blue. What happens when you take away the ocean? What color does the sky become then?
Kansas is surrounded by green and brownish-yellow land for 1000 miles in all directions. Hence the question, what color is the sky in Kansas? - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Read the modern times section of the wikipedia article.
- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ datastorageguy
Anything beyond our "intelectual and preceptive gasp" (as you try to describe it) , anything beyond measurement, is irrelevant towads the scientific method ands irrelevant for truth.
When did sou stop asking yourself "Why do I know this"?
Matrix example:
Every single experience of you, and every memory since now, could be artifical, a simulation, Platons Allegory of the cave, an above reality that designes and controlls our world. But as long as you can not reach such a hypotetical reality there is no way to falsify its existance and its existance is just NOT RELEVANT.
We measured a lot and found many constants and simple reasonable rules, math never prooved itself wrong in its own rules that 1+1=2... , that alone should let you sleep well and prof that supernatural stuff, anything above nature, just does not exist.
Speed of light Example:
Many different tests show (failed to disprove) that the speed of light (in vacuum) is the fastest possible speed of information.
There has to be a speed limit for information or causality does not exist and anything could happen anytime but guess what, this universe did pretty "normal" according to physical laws!
We can look pretty far through space, and the light we see is was emited from stars billions of years ago, and as many light years away. (speed limit makes age = distance)
The funny thing is that we can not look to infinity because we see back in time (because of the light speed limit), and time itself (age of our universe) does not go back to infinity, but only ~13 billion years. (also tested many times and failed to be proven wrong)
The further away we see something, the younger it shows than it actually is by the time we see its light. The furthest away we see the begining of the universe itself (when it became visible).
We call it "our universe" because we can not see all of it because it is "larger than it is old", so not every star's light has passed every place (like this place here) of it.
There are obviously stars who's light just did not reach earth yet because the universe is not old enough to let the light reach us. Those stars are not relevant to us, we can not know anything about them.
Every year we can see +1 light year more (further into) our universe than before, but that new discovery does not matter at all as long as it is out of reach.
Those "out of reach" stars just no not matter.
If you can not falsify it, it may sound promising, but it just does not matter!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability - hags2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The parent's comments on nuclear reactors seem to be mistaken in a few cases. First of all, though there is enough material for a chain-reaction to occur (otherwise there'd be no power), there's no way to get a run-away reaction fast enough to produce a multi-kiloton explosion. As another commenter pointed out, critical mass (or, more precisely, critical density) isn't achieved for a nuclear-bomb-like explosion.
Also, no commercial nuclear power plant in existance can produce a THERMOnuclear explosion. That implies there's a thermonuclear reaction (nuclear fusion) taking place somewhere, and as I understand it there are no commercial fusion plants up and running. - JackyTreehorn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How did you drop out of highschool and college? I was under the impression that all colleges required a HS diploma.
- chrislewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most glasses (sillicon based ones) go through an extremely unusual cooling system. This results in them forming amorphous solids.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html
http://www.benbest.com/cryonics/lessons.html
Your article does not provide any quantifiable distinction between solids, and liquids. There are some glasses (sulfur or benzene based ones I think) which are solids.
As such, It would be fair to treat glass as a solid, since its flows extremely slowly. It is neither a liquid or solid. So I'll give you half a mark for that.
Ok, then, a replacement.
#18 Mass and weight are the same thing.
Mass tells you how much stuff is in something, weight tells you how much force the mass produces. - basselope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ollj
quote:
Speed of light Example:
Many different tests show (failed to disprove) that the speed of light (in vacuum) is the fastest possible speed of information.
unquote
Entangled particles react nearly instantly (what Einstein refereed to as "Spooky action at a distance") regardless of distance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
and while the direct transfer of information in-and-of-itself seems to be left out of the loop, using the relative states of a particles to represent bits of information would nonetheless allow the transfer of information at greater than light speeds.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/23jan_entangled.htm
http://p2pnet.net/story/2927 - *blu*, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@dacheetah
You're wrong, and you would have realized that if you had taken a look at the source I posted. Here's some more evidence that clearly refutes your idea: http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/5B.html - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Whether or not there is enough material at a high enough grade at a standard reactor to cause a nuclear explosion is actually irrelevant. It would be a very bad thing for any radioactive material to escape full stop. Of course more radioactive waste is produced (and pumped into our atmosphere) by a coal burning plant than by a nuclear plant.
But I think we would all agree that it would be a bad thing if a terrorist got their hands on even low grade radioactive material through either waste or somewhere else within the cycle. They would not need to detonate a thermonuclear explosion to achieve their goals.
In fact, waste is one place where nuclear wins hands down to pretty much everything other than renewable (solar / wind / hydro / tidal). Although it produces highly toxic waste, it is a closed system, meaning (in theory) all waste is captured and can be stored securely.
The environmental benefits of nuclear should not be overstated though. Extracting uranium is hardly the cleanest process and in most cases uses a disturbing amount of fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants are also much more expensive to build and decomission than other plants (you can't just press the red off button). Superheated water ends up back in the water source, considerably rising the temperature of the surrounding waterways which has a negative effect on nearby plant and animal life. Storage of waste in deep underground bunkers can be done (as in Sweeden), but most governments don't spend the sorts of money they should on disposal nor on securing waste sites (I dread to imagine waste management through some former USSR states). - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Balls. There's more than enough fissile material in a nuclear reactor to cause a thermonuclear explosion. In general use, the boron control rods absorb the excess neutrons, but if they were maliciously locked out of place..."
Your comment was somewhat good until that point. The original blogger was correct in saying that nuclear power plants can't result in a thermonuclear explosion. Ignoring the fact that the nuclear materials involved in nuclear power plants aren't nearly pure enough to start an ultra-complicated chain reaction within itself, there aren't any possible situations within a power plant that could start that reaction. Atom bombs are a scientific work of art. Heat + nuclear material does not equal thermonuclear explosion. - irregardless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Euclid, using geometry (Euclidian geometry, that is) mathmatically proved that the Earth was round sometime around 300 BC.
- jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Science offers many answers but most people are quite comfortable in their misconceptions.
- bl8tn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@chrislewis
"#13 Fluoridated water is bad for you.
Fluoridated water kills bacteria in the pipes, and is good for your teeth."
Not quite true. Flouride is pretty nasty and only safe in very tiny amounts. Like Lead in paint, it'll eventually be removed from the places that put it in water.
http://www.wholywater.com/fluoride.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/ - nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@chrislewis
"#18 Glass is solid
No, it is actually a supercooled liquid."
You fell for that one?
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.ualberta.ca/~bderksen/florin.html#say -
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is