Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by The Boy Who Cried Worf, Dec 15, 2012.
I thought it was four elephants on the back of a giant turtle.
^ That too.
The elephants survive on the universal supply of bacon.
I thought elephants were herbivores.
As long as the hogs were raised on a strict vegetarian diet,
it's okay for the elephants to eat bacon.
The same way vegan Humans can eat bacon.
The elephants are willing to make an exception just for the bacon. Who wouldn't?
On the theory of you are what you eat, why not feed the hogs vegans?
^ I am Kirkland brand raisin bran, then.
Sounds mighty tasty to me.
I wrestled with that idea for real in the mid-90s, after reading Marovec...it's probably a worthwhile endeavor to test such a hypothesis. I suppose I couldn't rule out such a possibility...but I'm not holding my breath.
In philosophy, such ideas exist from much further back in history of course, it's ironic now we can actually conceive such possibilities may be real from a scientific view.
Unable to comply.
Parmenides said roughly the same, but he used einai (sorry, no greek letters here) about ten times in one sentence so nobody is sure what he exactly meant.
We don't "know" that at all. The Big Bang is a mountain of speculation, many erroneous assumptions, and it has been falsified a dozen times over. Yet "scientists" who do not own an Occam's razor persist in the dogma that "even if" the theory is faulty, there are no alternatives to consider. So they'll stick with Big Bang since it explains observed phenomena "well enough." Among the many internal inconsistencies is the notion that physical rules have not been constant since the "Bang" (e.g. the faster-than-light "inflationary" period).
In a similar vein, NASA continues to refer to comets as "dirty snowballs" in press releases, despite the fact that one of their own missions—just one of many to visit a comet up close—has completely shattered this notion.
...besides, everyone knows the universe was created by Haruhi Suzumiya.
What mission would that be, and how exactly did it shatter that notion?
I said "shortly after," so I don't know what that little rant of yours was motivated by.
That is a sign of an open mind. The dogmas of the past are a chain on the future, a leash that keeps the mind from soaring and imprisons the imagination.
I think everyone in this forum is smart enough to know that when we talk about science, all explanations are "good enough" approximations until we have something better. But that doesn't mean our current explanations are worthless or that we should just throw them out because they are imperfect.
If the issue is with me saying we "know" something, then let me clarify that I mean it as a shorthand for "it's the best explanation currently available, until we have something better." But that should really go without saying when it comes to science.
Not dirty snowballs:
And Donald Scott's THE ELECTRIC SKY is an excellent primer on the subject.
From Scott's preface to THE ELECTRIC SKY:
If your mind is rebelling against this even now, then pretend Scott's book is merely foundational material for a sci-fi story you are writing and see where it takes you.
I had a feeling you were referring to the Deep Impact mission, in which case I am now deeply puzzled as to why you think "NASA" continues to espouse the "dirty snowball" theory. That's long since fallen out of favor for the better description "snowy dirtballs" and the astronomers who gave a presentation at my daughter's school last month alluded to the fact that many of the near Earth asteroids are thought to be extinct comets.
I presume you have read this book and provide a summary or at least inject a few points from it into this discussion. This is a discussion board, not a book club.
I like that. I really do! Was that a reference to invisible...pardon..."dark matter"? If the answer is yes, then it looks like a book I'm definitely interested in.
Just for the fun: Check out what Professor Stephen Hawking had to say about "dark matter" (well, considering how loud and clear his silence is, maybe dark matter could be invisible ).
Because I subscribe to NASA's "science news" emails, and I have received several since the Deep Impact mission stating unambiguously that comets are "dirty snowballs." Asteroids as "extinct comets" is still part of the dirty snowball model—the idea being that all the ices have since melted away. When an actively blazing comet shows a dry, rocky surface with no sign at all of water, you know something is wrong with the existing model. The coma and tail are not sublimating volatiles, they are plasma in "glow mode" or even "arc mode."
Give me a moment here to copy and paste the entire text of the book so that you won't have to buy it. I have been making comments about the content of the book.
It was, indeed. Although Scott is not the first to question the ad hoc invention of "dark matter." Among the other assumed creatures of mainstream astrophysics are neutron stars. From the book:
Of course, the usual counter-argument is always that "the laws of physics are different" long ago or far away. Scott's book describes credible alternatives to pulsars, gamma ray bursts, etc. My favorite bit is the section about the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.
Separate names with a comma.