What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
61 Comments
- geekchic, on 02/15/2008, -2/+9A minor bugbear, but one I am willing to tollerate is when TV shows (etc) show images of what the Big Bang looked like, they show a classic bright explosion. The thing is, there was no light for several thousand years - so the explosion was completly black.
A minor issue, but I like fussing about minor issues ;) - sockpuppets, on 02/15/2008, -0/+6Where do babies come from?
- yohnstoppable, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5"A philosopher once asked, 'Are we human because we gaze at the stars, or do we gaze at them because we are human?' Pointless, really...'Do the stars gaze back?' Now *that's* a question."
- geekchic, on 02/15/2008, -2/+6No one has "verified" that there are other stars or galaxies - but we tend to accept that the evidence strongly hints that they do exist. Very strongly hints that in fact. The same with the Big Bang - until more compelling evidence comes along. So far, no sign of any alternative scientifically viable theory exists.
Technically, you cannot verify anything - simply supply a list of theoretical proofs which suggest that the object exists. Where is the dividing line between proof of existance and very high levels of evidence of existance?
Considering that the chair you sit on contains about as much physical matter as would fill a grain of salt if the voids between molecules and the internal void inside the atoms was removed - can you really say that the chair exists? - basselope, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Why everything got'ta be Dark Matter wit chu, Dog?
j/k.... interesting article. - robodrew, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4Incorrect, there was plenty of light (ie radiation), the photons simply couldn't yet escape the intense energy within the plasma of the universe. Things were way too charged because everything was an ion, nothing had yet settled into atoms. So the universe wasn't black, it was actually glowing extremely bright, so bright that it was completely opaque, nothing would be able to be made out, because you could not see past any of the brightness.
- Manuelmty, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.
- redxxx, on 02/15/2008, -0/+4umm... there is some observable evidence of matter that only detectably interacts with other mater via gravity. It is detected via gravitational lensing. It surrounds galaxies, and also causes the expected orbital velocity of stars within galaxies to be faster than we expect.
It's not gas, because when galaxies collide, gasses heat up and radiate. This does not happen to the dark mater.
The stuff in the link boarders on psudo-science, but there is some evidence that dark mater exists other than extra constants required for math governing the big bang to work.
Scientists are trying to verify their ideas, and there is nothing wrong with discussing ideas before that happens. There is a fair amount wrong with the vast majority of reporting on hypothetical science, and with it's interpretation by large swaths of the population. - HPMNick, on 02/15/2008, -1/+5Its a sad day for humanity when someone is bashed for saying they should be presented with proof or evidence of a spectacular claim.
- Thuktun, on 02/15/2008, -0/+3"The thing is, there was no light for several thousand years - so the explosion was completly black."
Entirely black bodies emit EM radiation when heated above absolute zero. The emitted radiation covers a spectrum that, since the Big Bang is theorized to have been Really Hot, would have included wavelengths visible to the human eye. - HPMNick, on 02/15/2008, -1/+4I specifically liked the part where it says "dark matter is its own anti. When they meet, one-third of the energy goes into neutrinos, which escape, one-third goes into photons and the last third goes into electrons and positrons".
How in the world can they scientifically come to that conclusion? Really. Think about it. So far dark matter hasn't been found, yet they are affirming complex particle interactions and generating normal matter from its own interactions. This is not only provably false, but its still based on pure imagination.
WTF is going on within the scientific community? Have all the smart people gone into other fields (maybe pay as a scientist doesn't cut it?)? - Sikarian, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2SCIENCE
- Shogi, on 02/16/2008, -0/+2What's the meaning of life?
- HPMNick, on 02/15/2008, -0/+2I personally think MoND is a more "scientific" attempt to explain the problem. All we see is that observations don't match up with calculations from the big bang and our estimate of galactic rotational speeds. The problem, as you stated, is that it would appear that the galaxies should not remain intact (or would have formed after the big bang) without more mass to keep them in one piece.
Still, how do we go from gravitational discrepancies to there being an invisible form of matter? It could be a number of things that we simply could not have foresaw... Maybe errors in gravitational theory, errors in general relativity (and/or special relativity as well), errors in observations/assumptions about the galaxies, properties of empty space we are yet aware of, non-homogeneous properties of the universe, etc etc.
We have no data... and its for good reason - we are in a different part of the universe, and we can only look on with a telescope. Still, even if I were to have to "just pick something" to be the cause of the error, invisible particles that would have to take up most of the mass in the universe (and dark energy), is not going to be my first answer.
As for gravitational lensing, I'd say its a serious logic error to use this as proof of dark matter. Gravitational aberrations is what you are trying to explain. Showing a different type of gravitational aberration should, logically, just make the problem more complicated.. not prove the existence of an unseen particle. You are just detecting more of the problem, not the solution. You haven't detected anything that explains the extra gravity.. you just found extra gravity. You still need to detect the explanation. - monospaced, on 02/15/2008, -2/+4Nobody has to die for someone else to live. If that was true, the world population wouldn't change. You have proven your ignorance and idiocy. Move on.
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -3/+5It shows human does not have a complete understanding of Big Bang. In fact, Big Bang theory *now* is a postulate. Nobody has yet verified its existence. Expanding universe does not necessarily mean there had been a bang.
- anteyekon4myst, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1and this whole time I thought either would be making a comeback.
- djbon2112, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1You make a very good point there. Next time, just don't start it with "my little minded friend", and it'll be perfect. I dugg that one up.
- eliteblast, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1yes
- mace2, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1^ I'm pretty sure his previous answer still applies.
- Filter, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Yup, at least until Evolution developed a better technology.
- HPMNick, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3My little minded friend,
Quarks ARE observed (I'll explain in a minute).. Firstly, I'd like to explain my comments as you haven't quite figured it out yet. The ad hominem attacks wouldn't be necessary if you were more civil and acted like a normal intelligent person. You have no idea about me, but you made the insults similar to the ones I attacked you with. Logic would dictate that this makes you a hypocrite by criticizing me (as I expected you to). I was simply playing you at your own game, and you weren't smart enough to realize it (see what I'm doing there?). I have no desire to squabble, but you really left me with no choice but to manipulate you. Maybe we can just drop it? If my points are weak, your arguments should win on their own.
I'm an active hobbyist too, with some formal schooling in physics, math and logic. With all that said, it doesn't actually matter how much information you or I have acquired. All that matters is our ability to process information, which is of course the topic of this debate. This isn't a quiz on cosmology, or particle physics... but rather a question in procedure. The topic is, in itself, philosophical (the philosophy of the scientific method/science).
As far as quarks go, I think at that small a level you are splitting hairs. You don't know what is ACTUALLY there, or the ACTUAL mechanics behind it. You are sure, however, of the effects that present themselves from the tests you run. You know what goes in, and what comes out of the system (so to speak). We are describing the process more than the actual physical manifestation. The physical manifestation is basically unobservable as far as we're concerned (save some huge advancement in physics).
Sure, maybe the atomic theory is wrong.. Its very possible... but we reached the theories we've got by probing an atom, and studying various results. What we call a quark is at the least a representation of the PROCESSES we DIRECTLY OBSERVED when probing the atom. Its merely an approximation that works, and has been tested.
Do you not see how this is different than something like dark matter? We have VERY LIMITED visual evidence to ascertain our values (indirectly) and NO FIRST HAND DIRECT EVIDENCE (which we will not have until we can move off this ball of mud).
You seem to be expressing possible uncertainty in the quark theory, so then you should understand that after our extensive DIRECT tests on the atom, the truth is still cloudy. The amount of data and observation we have on dark matter is several orders of magnitudes lower than what we have on the quark... Yet, we readily assume the existence of dark matter.
You don't find that the slightest bit unusual? Things like MoND aren't even given a strong look. We've automatically jumped to the conclusion there is something invisible there. To me it seems rather obvious that this is not the course that the scientific method would take us.
Even if you don't agree with that statement, you should still recognize the point I'm making as carrying SOME weight. We have to draw the line somewhere with a standard of evidence and factual data. I would put it well passed the point we reached with dark matter... - HPMNick, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Deal.
and a digg up for you as well - inactive, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1anything makes more sense.
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1myspace? Really?
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2We can see the other stars and galaxies.
- inactive, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2One question - Who let you out of the nut house?
- HPMNick, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1No, thats not what I meant... Originally we had to accept strange conclusions due to the evidence we were presented.. This was necessary, and rational. Yet, as time went on, it appears that we seemed to strive to reach strange conclusions.
Really, are you going to sit there and tell me wormholes, time travel, black holes leading to other parts of the universe, multiverses, etc are logical and well founded ideas. Get real. These are based on mathematical models that make quite a few extraordinary assumptions - many of them unproven or unsubstantiated. This is crackpot science at its definition.
I've heard a lot of people tell me to STFU when I say this, but I've yet to have one person come to me with a solid logical argument. Its not science unless its based on evidence or data. Its philosophy then. Philosophy is very useful, and a very interesting subject... but it has its place. Subjective ideas, and meticulously gathered facts are separate subjects. The former can never be regarded as science.
Now, I'm not saying ALL of what we've done in the passed 100 years is not science... just that our standards have dipped quite dramatically after Einstein came along. People started treating the lack of true constants a little too liberally.
If you don't agree, then I welcome a thought out rebuttal.. I've yet to receive one. - inactive, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3Interesting insight and valid point. Of course, you will be dugg down by the masses because you don't blindly accept everything proposed by *scientist*. I suppose that's just part of the price you pay for having an intellect and using it.
- monospaced, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2Either you typed each return, or you copied and pasted someone else's work. It's so obvious it makes you look like a complete moron. Why the hell would you do that? So freakin' annoying when you post a comment that long also.
- moletimer, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1Interesting article. Dugg.
- Onikitsune, on 02/15/2008, -2/+3You got dug down for asking a question like this? boo! Anti-matter, yes. Dark matter? hawking says Maybe. +1
- df12, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1There is no *hard* evidence for Dark Matter, but to say that there is no scientific evidence is a misstatement.
Dark Matter (DM) was proposed to explain the problem of galactic rotations not matching up with what is calculated using Newtonian physics and GTR. Over time the Dark Matter theory gain wide acceptance. I an effort to understand DM or discover what it actually is scientists went back and tried to determine what effects DM would have had o nthe formation of the universe, hoping to find something that they could look at and say definitively Yes or No DM does or doesn't exist.
As for scientific proof of DM being something physical and not just mathematical slight-of-hand, there are several studies that show Gravitational Lensing caused by some unseen (Dark) matter. There is also some evidence against other Theories such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND). Such as galaxies that do seem to fit the Galactic Rotation Curve ( i.e. no dark matter), such galaxies should not exist if MoND is correct, lest it be modified even more.
Personally, I don't really care for the Dark Matter hypothesis either, and don't get me started on "Dark Energy"... - HPMNick, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1well, I'd argue that this is again, not in line with classic scientific theory. Even the hypothesis is supposed to be based on actual data... To me, this is two steps ahead. They are talking about interactions between "dark matter" particles, when we know nothing about dark matter (if it even exists).
Unless the scientist was horribly misquoted, this just doesn't fly. Common sense dictates that you need to find dark matter, and have some information about it before you can come up with a RATIONAL, WELL THOUGHT, explanation. Otherwise, my guess is as good as theirs.. - djbon2112, on 02/15/2008, -1/+2We detected and gathered evidence for these particles after adding them to our theories. Quarks WERE invented out of nowhere in order to further Quantum Theory. They have not once been observed. We only hypothesize that they exist because they make the current theory complete. See a correlation with this article.
And, thank you for your ad hominem. Since you don't know me, you have no idea how much I do or don't know on the subject. For your information, I consider particle physics and quantum theory a hobby of mine, and I regularially read books and articles on the subject. If you could please tell me where YOU get your knowledge? - ennTOXX, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1so let me get this straight, there's gang banging out in space??? wait.... :||
- moocow1452, on 02/15/2008, -0/+1VAR!
- HPMNick, on 02/15/2008, -4/+4I'd call him dumb.. if it wasn't for being 100% correct. We've invented a make believe particle to salvage our ideas, void of any real proof or anything else..
- djbon2112, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2I suppose then that we just invented quarks, and for that matter, protons and neutrons, to salvage our ideas then? After all, we can't see any of them.
You're the same type of idiots who got all up in arms over the Pluto things. If you don't know what you're talking about, SHUT THE ***** UP. - djbon2112, on 02/15/2008, -5/+5Does dumb troll ever stop trolling?
- Slimer, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2the spock quote is pretty sweet
- eliteblast, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1it's my work ***** here is my blog, http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog. ...
I did copy paste it because I had just got done writing it earlier, and then I came to digg and saw this and was really surprised. - bluecave, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0Submit your COMMENT as a story, we shall digg it down when we get the time
- Slimer, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1right, we haven't been doing science for the last 100 years
go back to studying econ ..? - monospaced, on 02/15/2008, -1/+1Well, is there room for a little scientific belief in religious study? I was trying to point out that a "big bang" leading to the very existence of light is kinda cool, maybe that's how the ancients viewed the creation of everything and they ended up turning the whole thing into a huge mythological story. Just a thought, bro. And I agree, I have no real "beliefs" and they have no real place in science.
- HPMNick, on 02/15/2008, -2/+2Well, if thats the best you can come up with, you shouldn't be calling anyone an idiot. By the way you talk, I'd guess you are probably a teenage boy with a very scant knowledge of science.
Quarks, protons, neutrons and electrons are understood to the point where we know what happens when these particles interact with other particles. This is, of course, how we've discovered their existence. We studied what was happening and we detected them. There was SOMETHING there. We still don't really know what exactly they are, but we've named them, and we know what properties they exhibit.
This is the important point: we DETECTED them. We GATHERED EVIDENCE. People like you are failures at basic logic, and therefore at true science. The fact that observations DO NOT match our previous theories does not mean we need to invent something to keep our theories correct. It means that our theories should be treated as potentially disproven until we find evidence of something that may salvage them.
People who ignore logical constraints are, by definition, crackpots. That being, said, crackpots like yourself need to stop going around telling people to STFU. You aren't even close to being intelligent enough to take that tone, especially with someone much smarter than you. - eliteblast, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1thanks I liked it too :D
- moocow1452, on 02/15/2008, -2/+1Because each pound of Dark Matter weighs more than 10,000 pounds!
-
Show 51 - 63 of 63 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is