What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
73 Comments
- thebeginning, on 06/29/2009, -0/+22The 'Deep Campus'? That's freaking badass.
This could turn out very, very interesting. - Spoonicus, on 06/29/2009, -1/+22Quick, someone call Gordon Freeman!
- jrm125, on 06/29/2009, -7/+20… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ______
… … … … … … … … … … … … ..,,,--~~": : : : : :"'~~--,,
… … … … … … … … … … … ,,~": : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :"~,
… … … … … … … … …__,,~": : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : (¯¯): "-,
… … … … … … … ..,,~": : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ¯¯: : : :'
… … … … … … .._,/,,,_: : : : : : : : : : : :,,--,,_: : : : : : : : : : :O: : :'
… … … … … ..,,-" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : "-: : : : : : : : : : : : : |
… … … … ...,," : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :--~~~--,, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : |
… … … …,~": : : : : : : : : : : : : :___ : : : : : : ": : : : : : : : : : : : : : : |
… … …,,-"~~--,,,,_: : : : : :,,--~". . . "'~,,_: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : /
… …,,-". . . . . . . . "-,"~,,,-". . . . . . . . . . ',"~-,,: : : : : : : : : : : : : /
… .,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . .,/. . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . |: : : : : : : : : : : : /
… .|. . . . . . . . . . ._,,"~",. . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . |~--,,,_: : : : : : : /
… ..,. . . . . ,,,-~"': : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . .,/. ./: : : : : :"'~~--,,,/_
… …"~,,_,-": : : : : : : : : :"-,,_. . . . . . . ,,-". .,/: : : : : : : :,,-~"`"~,"'~-,,
… … … ,/ : : : : : : : : : :"~,: : "~~----~"-----~": : : : : : : : : :,,-~: ,/… ..."
… … …/: : : : : : : : :__,,,-": : : : : : : :"'~~---: : : : : : : : : :/': ): :/
… … ..(_: : : _,,--~": : : : : : : : : : : : |: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,": /
… … … ,"-"" : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ,: : : : : : : : : : : : : : |: /
..__,,-~"' : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : "~,,: : : : : : : : : :"~": | Good news, everyone!
.",,_ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ',: : : : : : : "-,_,,"
… ..¯¯"'~~~-----,,,_______,,,-~~-,,_: : : : : : ': : : : : : : :
… … … … … …,: : : : : : : : : : : : "-: :: : : : : : : : : : : :'¯¯"'~-,,
… … … … … … ."~--,,: : : : : : : : : :,,,-": : : :": : : : : : : : ',_. . . ."-,,
… … … … … … … … ,: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ',: :,. . . . .,,_
… … … … … … … … .."-,,_ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ',: : : |: :::::::::::. . . . . ,."~,,_
… … … … … … … … … ...,"-, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :,: : "-,/:::::::::::. . . . . .. . . ."~,,
… … … … … … … …......_/. . ,: : : : : : : :-,: : : : : : :':,,-":::::::::::::. . . . . . .. . . . . ."'~,,
… … … … … … … … ,,-"./. . .|:"-,: : : : : : ::: : : : : :,,-"':::::::. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "'~,,
… … … … … … … .,-". . .|. . . .,::"~,,_: : : ,_,,,-~"::::::::::::,-". . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ."~-,,
… … … … … … …,/. . . . |. . . . .,::::::::"`"`"`":::::::::::::::::,,-"::l:. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
… … … … … … .,/. . . . . |. . . . . . ",-,,::::::::::::::::::::_,,~":::::::. . . . . . . . . |. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '
… … … … … ...,/. . . . . . |. . . . . .,/:::::"'~~-------~~"::::::::::::::. . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
… … … … … ../. . . . |. . . . . . . . .|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
… … … … … ,/. . . . . . . .|. . . . . .|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. . . . . . . . . ,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
… … … … … |. . . . . . . . .. . . . |::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - inactive, on 06/29/2009, -0/+12 So the Hadron Collider and the Dark Matter Lab are apparently in a race to destroy the planet first.
- ivanmarsh, on 06/29/2009, -3/+13Welcome to Raccoon City.
- TheObviousChild, on 06/29/2009, -0/+10Welcome to The Hive.
- larsonc, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7I'm suddenly reminded of the Umbrella Corporation.
- TobiasParker, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7holoscience.com might as well be called Hollowscience.com, that guy just likes seeing anything he writes in print.
- Scruffo, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7More like Black Mesa.
- BrianD2, on 06/29/2009, -0/+7Nope.
- Nydendarin, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4You're right, because people deny the possibility of a theory stating that they have 'tru facts', we should abandon the cause. Need I remind you, the fact that the earth was round was refuted, belittled, and flat out denied by many scientists of the time. No one has all the right answers, it's ***** science, keep your mind open.
- Sornos, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5"little white lie"
Do you even know what science is?
No really, that's a serious question.
One of the fundaments of the scientific method is repeatability by an outside source. If this lab went online and they said "Thar be dark matter in dem dere dese hills!" with fabricated data, the next team that went in repeats the experiment and finds nothing. What do you think they're going to do? Shut up and think "Those last guys totally falsified data, but we'll play along because we're nice guy". ***** no. They're going to use it as their chance to fame. Something as big as dark matter would even garner attention from regular "geniuses" such as yourself. It'll be even more scandalous when it turns out to be "fake".
So please, shut the ***** up. There is no such thing as "Big Science". There is no conglomerate of organized scientists agreeing to make up false data so that they can get more funding. Every hotshot with a new degree and a name to make would LOVE to find out that big theories like dark matter are all faked. - FearlessFreep, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4"This $550 million project should be up and running by 2016. And soon after, it'll probably make it's SyFy channel debut as the site of a big-budget underground disaster movie!"
Trust me, it'll make the SyFy debut well before that
"Thousands of feet of earth should do the job just fine."
For that much money and effort I would hope that it would read "wiil do" not "should do" - LucidHawk, on 06/29/2009, -0/+4The equations could be what's wrong.
In fact there are a few gravity/mass physics equations that have been published that accurately predict the mass of galaxies without the need for dark matter or dark energy.
Why they are mostly ignored.. I have no idea. - VitriolAndAngst, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3Well, to be fair, they are trying to GET proof.
But how do they measure the gravity waves down their?
Perhaps the depth of the hole is the clue.
If a gravity wave moves through the earth, they can take measurements of the distortion -- probably vertically and compare that to horizontally -- that will allow them to compute the direction of the arc. So, long tunnels and deep tunnels with a laser measuring device and a very, very accurate clock. Check.
But again, how do they actually measure the dark matter/regular matter if it cannot interact?
>> My vote is actually that there is no such thing as Dark Matter -- and physicists have been making things more complex as they try to NOT use a concept such as the "aether." Which was an abandoned concept.
I do think all these forces transmit through an intermediary; SPACE is not empty, it's just not dimensionally physical to our matter.
And the heavier gravity might be a bleed-through from other dimensions --- that if objects exist in the same place, they might increase gravity in a general area, but not attract objects specifically. Kind of like increasing the pressure of the atmosphere means that inflating a tire takes more force. - Theuderic, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3Don't they usually have problems with trying to pump out water while mining lesser depths? That's amazing.
- pln2bz, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3Re: "There are many many instances where large structures such as galaxies are far more massive than what they should be. That is so called "dark matter", matter that we can't detect from emitted or absorbed radiation, but can be seen through the effects of its gravitational pull. For *****'s sake man, a god damn wikipedia search will give you sources."
Okay, for starters, wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It should *never* be consulted on controversial issues which are subject to debate, or unfinished theoretical work. Encyclopedia's are a review of conventional wisdom. Countless articles have been written on this subject by now. There's not even a debate to be had, as wikipedia's policy settles the debate. End of story.
The problem of dark matter is not a matter of detection, but rather a refusal by scientists to move on to other theories. From http://www.physorg.com/print160726282.html, "Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis" ...
[begin quote]
As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists. Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions based on theoretical models. Hence the number of physicists questioning the existence of dark matter has been increasing for some time now.
Competing theories of gravitation have already been developed which are independent of this construction. Their only problem is that they conflict with Newton’s theory of gravitation.
“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong,” declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University's Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity.”
[end quote]
Astrophysicists *assume* that bodies in space do not acquire and trade electrical charge. Why? Because they are taught it is so in school. They accept the Big Bang's *premise* that space is "charge-neutral". And yet, this doesn't help us at all if the Big Bang isn't true to begin with.
The Sun's solar wind fails to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the orbit of the Earth. What could possibly cause this behavior? This is really old technology, guys. It's how your old cathode ray television set displays its image: charged particles are accelerated with an electric field. Within the discipline of plasma physics, charge accumulation will naturally lead to a "protective bubble" (the charge sheath) surrounding the buildup of charge. And an electric field will form as the plasma attempts to reduce the charge buildup (because like charges repel ...). The thing is, within plasma physics, this acceleration will be almost constant all the way to the edge of the charge sheath (which, for the Sun, we call the heliopause). Thus, in the process of accepting an assumption about charge in space in order to accommodate the Big Bang model, astrophysicists are ignoring the simplest explanation available for one of the solar system's most persistent enigma's. They act as though it's a problem which will eventually be resolved. But the truth is that it's a vital clue which indicates that the Sun is charge-positive with respect to its surroundings. The reason why it matters is that gravity is a function of this charge accumulation.
Astrophysicists can't even tell you the exact value of G, so why should we accept that it's a constant to begin with?! Many people don't realize that to get solar models to work, the value for G used to model the Sun is different from the more conventional value. The Sun apparently has a different amount of charge compared to the rest of the planets. - pln2bz, on 06/30/2009, -0/+3You are right. Common sense dictates that transverse waves have to be moving through something. Einstein accepted this as fact early on, and became sidetracked later when he convinced himself that the mathematics were physical objects. How do you bend space if space isn't a thing, but rather a mental concept? To his own credit, he doubted his own theories all the way to his last days, and even encouraged physicists to try to replicate Dayton Miller's *successful* aether drag experiment. But, Einstein's followers have always been rather dogmatic in comparison to Einstein himself.
Do not get carried away with thinking about alternative dimensions. That's a foil that astrophysicists use as a means of retaining the current models in spite of contradictory observations. We can explain everything that's happening within this reality without having to invoke invisible entities. That has always been the underlying premise of science. Astrophysicists aren't permitted to abandon the scientific method any more than other scientists, unless we can be permitted to call it a religion (cult?). - Sornos, on 06/29/2009, -3/+6"There's absolutely no proof that it exists or that it even has to"
Way to talk out of your ass.
There are many many instances where large structures such as galaxies are far more massive than what they should be. That is so called "dark matter", matter that we can't detect from emitted or absorbed radiation, but can be seen through the effects of its gravitational pull.
For *****'s sake man, a god damn wikipedia search will give you sources. - snasu, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3Umbrella had a deep underground lab, as well...
- jikmo, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3I've discovered a way to turn the earth's core into dark matter!
- ichbinladen, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4Dark matter research? That's badass!
- eretica13, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2How very clever of you. It made me giggle. And I agree
- matude, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Wait, shouldn't top scientific underground labs be done in secret?
- SchrodingersCar, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2All seemingly valid points, but the arguments presented fly way off track as soon as one considers EMOND theory from the perspective of Keitz-Pohl linear shift dynamics (not just re: CIV in Birkland lines, but taking into account potential losses associated in YB ionization potentials) - The crux of a theory based in charge accumulation (and not just talking macro-scale) that doen't play on paper when reflect-polar D velocities don't add up... They should be calling the ExB force the Ex2B force, if you catch my drift!
- Escamotage, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2So that's where Zion's located.
- Inn0c3nCe, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2I always wondered from where the zombie apocalypse will begin
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2yep pretty dark down there..
- BaphClass, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2Define "heavy price." If you're talking about monetary expense, the total estimated cost of construction doesn't even amount to one B-2 Spirit Bomber. Will this facility be used to manufacture an army of killer robots that use the power of astrophysics to fill our heads with so much knowledge that they explode? Or will digging this deep reawaken some ancient horror, meant only to be roused from its slumber to destroy the works of man, and bring about the apocalypse?
I kid, and I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but you really shouldn't use such dramatic words when you're describing the works of folks who are largely ignored by the greater populace. - FearlessFreep, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2"We're number one!!! ...oops"
- homebrews311, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/06/1 ...
The draining has been an issue for a while. - danesis, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1A lab this deep can only guarantee the continuation of the human species if there's an extinction-level event on Earth. Some can remain deep underground (like Zion) and maintain an artificial lifestyle using atomic energy or the warmth of the earth to sustain life. Then just emerge once it's safe to go above ground.
- Chris_F, on 06/29/2009, -1/+2We all know they are really manufacturing a weaponized virus that turns people into zombies.
- AkyrXX, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Does this remind anyone of the underground Umbrella labs from the Resident Evil games/movies?
- diggduggDOOM, on 06/29/2009, -0/+15000 feet underground in a Black Mesa?
- dashdingo, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Surely the depth would protect us from a Resonance Cascade, right guys? Right?
- FearlessFreep, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lord_Nibbler.png
- inactive, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1...I don't
- harrisbradley, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Funded by Osborne Industries.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1That is NOT how I'm using extra dimensions.
The Aether is what I call "Space/time" and I'm seeing it as an actual THING that causes gravity itself.
I am not adding invisible dimensions to cover the science, I'm saying that the extra 8 dimensions are physically influencing this one -- just through forces and not directly.
Since the "big bang" --- which is a big misnomer, "space" has been growing between objects.
So gravity is the byproduct of SPACE entering our dimension, and it is finite, actually. So the idea of a closed or open universe is moot. The Universe eventually inverts.
>> It would take me a while to explain this, but it ties everything together neatly. I was predicting that they'd find the Hubble Constant would be increasing over time about 20 years ago. And I would love to have some physicists do some experiments to either prove or disprove my theories.
I don't however, believe in dark matter, and I think string theory is half right and half very wrong. They keep adding particles to explain the mechanistic -- non-aether universe. My believe is what we call particles, are holes in space-time, and that they are infinitely divisible given enough energy. When quarks are found in particle accelerators, it's smaller stable divisions of the same thing -- just more aspects that resolve into one.
"The Quantum" phenomenon, is due to these fundamental particles only exchanging energy on the peaks of their waves (they are vortices to the higher dimension -- not really particles). The two "branes" keep resonating back and forth, but particles are not in sync with respect to their time potential (remember, gravity is falling through these rifts, and it can be described like water pressure, but also has a kinetic potential, without true friction, however, a ball rolling down a hill will go back up the other hill, and do so forever -- thus this meshes with the resonant string theory, but the formation is actually two 4 dimensional branes. In the higher 4 dimensions, space is getting smaller.
Electrons themselves, are more "balanced" because by pairing up, they can resonate inversely to one another. Electron pairing took me a while to explain, until I looked at both aspects of the binary branes. The higher universe sees the opposite of ours, and it is commingled at each particle vortex. Since the big bang, the "distance" between the resonant spikes in the middle 4 dimensions is reducing -- but trading the energy not in friction but in entropy -- more complex energy patterns are reducing energy in this closed Universe.
Electrons have a slight time potential in the future -- more "gravity" has played out, and thus its position is uncertain and it is moving rapidly. It is also smaller yet has the same electrical charge as the Proton. When particles are accelerated, they gain mass -- they also gain more time potential, which is released when they are no longer accelerating.
However, the complexity of "light speed" and acceleration, forced me to consider, that we need to test for differences in acceleration vectors. When trying to nail down the actual "universal speed" of a object, when the planet and star and galaxy are all in motion, physicists finally determined they would use the Cosmic Background Radiation as a reference.
"Relativity" however, is truly relative. If our galaxy has something like 600 thousand and more MPH in speed, even though adding or subtracting to that velocity is the same Newtonian force -- as far as some fraction of hitting light speed -- it DOES matter if you are accelerating in the direction of greatest motion or not. If it does not -- then we need to revisit relativity.
Anyway, I'm the only one I know with this particular theory, but I try to predict and disprove certain aspects. I originally had a Multi-verse model like is the fad in Physics these days, but I've abandoned that, as I suspect all possible universe states are NOT stable. So probability might create a POTENTIAL universe, but only the one we are in survives. I do however, think there may be "soap bubble" other Universes, and our edge is rushing to meet them -- or, our Universe is infinitely large, and what we see as the "wall" or edge in the background radiation is merely the time to that state (meaning, it's always going to look like a sphere or a wall, because you are "looking" back in time to the earlier state).
However, I don't believe time travel is possible. Time is more of a potential energy of vibration peaks in the aether (or middle 4 dimensions). The only moment that exists -- EVER, is right now. There is nothing to "keep" the pattern that just existed.
The Universe is comprised of 3 branes of 4 dimensions each. And over time it inverts. Physics properties change as the universe ages all at once, as they are "geometric" aspects of space/time itself. It might be fractal and infinitely huge and divisible. The ultimate form of our Universe's inversions seems very much like brane/vortex oscillations of the smallest particles. We don't have numbers however, for how vast a time scale separates the two.
Anyway, if that "crazy sounding rant" didn't bore you or confuse the heck out of you, congratulations.
I think evidence of a higher dimension, is seen with what we call anti-matter. It's properties are reversed and I predict it will be found to produce anti-gravity, because its flow of space-time is reversed.
Now we even have experiments showing that radio waves can move faster than light. That is consistent however, if you look at wave motions on another medium. A soliton wave can move faster than a river and up stream. It shows there is a medium being disturbed and it can propagate a "wave form" faster than an energy or particle. If there were not a medium already there for electromagnetic fields like radio waves to move through, it would be subject to light speed limits. - areyouserious, on 10/05/2009, -0/+1Dark matter is the most important thing we can be studying at this time.
- jikmo, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1So you're saying that we're using up our precious resources?
:( - jikmo, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1I'm waiting for the giant mechs powered by dark matter
- pln2bz, on 06/30/2009, -1/+2Re: "Every hotshot with a new degree and a name to make would LOVE to find out that big theories like dark matter are all faked."
You need to learn who Halton Arp is, what he discovered, and what subsequently happened to him. - AtanasNenov, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1you forgot the bible.
- IsraGeek, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1Cool. Along the lines of what others said, looking forward to the disaster movies this inspires.
- pln2bz, on 06/30/2009, -0/+1As an addendum, I'd like to add the following.
What do you get when you put math and PHYSICS PhD's in charge of one of the country's largest financial institutions? A $613 billion collapse and the nation's largest bankruptcy in history, of course -- demonstrating the real-world seriousness of the assumptions which physicists are all too happy to accept as fact ...
From http://plus.maths.org/issue51/features/boedihardjo ...
On a sunny morning in 2001, a piece of investment plan landed on the desk of Dick Fuld, the then Chief Executive of Lehman Brothers. The document, compiled by a team of maths and physics PhDs, included a calculation to show how the bank will always end up with a profit if they invest on the real estate markets. Fuld was impressed. The next five years saw the bank borrowing billions of dollars to invest in the housing market. It worked. The housing market boom had turned Lehman Brothers from a modest firm into the world's fourth largest investment bank.
But as the housing market started to shrink, the assumptions that the PhDs made began to break down one by one. The investment now became a mistake, resulting in a stunning loss of $613 billion. On September 15 2008 Lehman Brothers collapsed — "The largest bankruptcy in the US history," as described by Wikipedia.
[...] - blindhammer, on 06/30/2009, -1/+2It is important to recognize that our entire view of the universe, including string theory and M-theory, is largely based upon the single assumption of Hubble that the red-shift measured in stars is due to the Doppler Effect. All modern theories stem from this. This includes the Big Bang theory, Black Holes, Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
If you do some research on Halton Arp, you'll note that Arp has fairly objective evidence that stellar objects such as quasars have an intrinsic red-shift value. There is empirical evidence, for instance, of two stellar objects that are connected to each other having different red-shift values. This is unexplainable to modern cosmologists. Start here if you want to breakdown modern theory.
By most classical definitions, cosmology is not even a science. It predicts nothing and routinely fails the scientific method. A more cynical person might comment that modern cosmology is an extension of Christianity: some of the biggest proponents of the Big Bang theory or finding the "God Particle" are merely transitioning between the scientific failings of western religion and the emergence of modern knowledge.
The fact is, dark matter has never been detected. Neither has dark energy. Even Black Holes have never been observed. All these theories are are simply variables to solve equations. In other words, they are fudges. That doesn't mean they might not exist but scientists should be honest about this.
Occam's Razor:
"When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question" (Wiki)
In other words, what is more likely: that three absolutely critical pieces to modern cosmology exist but have never be detected or mainstream science went down a wrong path somewhere. Shouldn't mainstream cosmologists be a little alarmed that 99% of matter in the universe is invisible and defies conventional laws of physics? - Chicken001, on 07/01/2009, -0/+1That's what she said.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 