NZGames.com Forums
Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Go Back   NZGames.com Forums > General > Open Discussion > VUALT
User Name
Password

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 18th July 2000, 09:14     #161
Endymion
 
Post

To take a certain person's stance - suppose that each one of these tiny particles is another collection of galaxies, solar systems, planets, and lives, and that the universe is just a big repeating (on the biggest exponential scale possible) loop like that.

Please don't consider what I said previously as crap just because I put this crazy-ass theory to you.
__________________
"Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal." - Felipe Coronel
 
Old 18th July 2000, 10:56     #162
Necro
 
Post

PK, You keep saying that space is infinite... that much I agree with. Space is infinite, space being that which holds nothing. Matter on the other hand is NOT infinite. That is the difference. It is matter that was contained within the singularity or whatever that the universe expanded from.
There are scientific methods which partially validate the fact that the universe is expanding. When an object that emmits light is moving away from a POV, the light will have a red shift, ie the wavelength of the light shifts towards the red scale because the object moving away causes the wavelength of the light emmited to be longer. When we look at other galaxies we often get a red shift, this indicates the star is moving away from us. The universe (or rather the matter within it) is expanding. Measurements indicate that the rate of expansion is decreasing, perhaps in a few billion years it will slow so much that it will begin contracting. After another bout of many billions of years its possible that all the matter in the universe will contract to one point. When this matter all collects into that one point, it might just explode and start everything all over again... whats that theory called? oh yeah, the big bang....

If your god really is as petty as your religion makes him out to be, then I pity you for following such a creature. Or maybe there really is a god and it's just that mans interpretation of it fails because he cant comprehend such a vast creature. I'll tell you this though, I'll never follow the god of the book. He is a vindictive and petty god, I wouldnt follow a man like that, and certainly never a god. A true god would not require anything from what he created.
So, ther you have it. The christian god is a fake. Even if he did exist.

You also trout on about man being incapable of creation. What about sperm? Procreation? What about seeds/plants that we put in the ground? What about the enzimes we manufacture? What about genetic engineering? What about all the other life we create? HUH!? Dont tell us we cant create life until you have a better understanding of the world you live in. Open your mind. You keep accusing us of being the close minded scientist types. Wake up man, science is based on open mindedness. It is God worship that requires a closed mind. Dont cast your failings on us.
And if there really was a god, I'd bet she'd have great breasts.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 10:59     #163
Fred
 
Post

Boofhead and Purple Kush:

With respect to KAr dating I should mention that I have actually worked on a mass spectrometer doing this kind of dating. The work required that I understand the theory and practice behind this dating method - so I feel I can speak from a position of knowledge about the subject.

Lets explain a little about the process. As has been mentioned by Yautja KAr relies on the assumption that natural potassium is trapped at the point of cooling of the rock and decays into Ar following a well observed half life decay series. Remelting of the rock destroys this relationship so care must be taken that the rock has been formed once and then only weathered.

The rock sample is first powdered to aid gas release when heated and then placed into a metal cruicible in a vacuum sample holder ready for introduction into the instrument. The sample holder is pumped down, usually for around 10-12 hours, to get as hard a vacuum as possible. Because this pump down is so long multiple samples are held in the one container to speed the measurement process up.

The sample is then heated by radio induction (it heats the cruicible and by extension then the sample.) to release the gas. Care must be taken to adequitely pump down between samples to avoid cross-contamination. This is then vented into an inlet stage for the removal of non-inert gasses - usually by a titanium sublimation filter. Failiure to correctly clean the sample up introduces non-inert gasses into the mass spectrometer which react with the electrometer producing spurious readings.

Further complicating matters the metal walls of the spectrometer itself leech impurities into the system which must be compensated for. The electrometer plate itself can have impurities and defects that alter it's measuring properties. To compensate for this two initial runs, a background and a standard, are done. The background runs the mass spectrometer on emtpy and measures the 'ambient noise' the instrument has by default. Often good labs will do daily mass scans across the entire magnet/high voltage ioniser range looking for leaks as a part of their routine. The standard introduces a sample of fresh air, cleaned and purified to inert gasses as the default reference for the ratios expected to be observed. (Actually I'll have to do some checking, I might be confusing this with the ArAr method which definitely uses an air spike. There is definitely a default standard introduced in KAr dating though.) This is required because the detector plate frequently has dead spots on it which lower the measured amount of a particular isotope. (This is usually more of a problem for magnet deflection mass specs than the fixed field machines but both suffer from it.) Based on the standard, which has a known ratio, a correction factor is applied after the background has been removed to give scaling factors to be applied for each isotope peak measured.

Furthermore peak centering must be done frequently to ensure that the dead centre peak is being measured when doing the run. The Earth's magnetic field fluctuates enough to require often daily rechecks of the centering and the temperature of the instrument alters the strength of the deflection magnetic (be it fixed field or variable field). These too must be compensated for - even slightly off peak will produce wildly skewed results.

Finally once these have been done you can begin the measurement itself. Timing is important because the mass spectrometer itself acts as a filter drawing the sample away so delays in the measurement between sample inlet and actual measurement of the run must be compensated for. Even more fun is if an air spike is being used then because the standard sample is a fixed volume of gass every tapping of it reduces the pressure and introduces a correspondingly weaker standard sample when inlet into the mass spectrometer. This must be compensated for.

Phew. My point in detailing the above procedure? To show that there are quite a few steps where measurement error, instrument error and handler can creep in. Frequently this level of error means that the instrument is deliberately trusted to only a fraction of it's total sensitivity to compensate.

To make matters worse the size of the sample gasses and the voltages they produce on the electrometer are quite small. We are talking on the order of pico-amperes _after_ signal amplification. And amplification introduces noise as well which must be compensated for.

This is a very delicate process and one that has pretty well known limits. Expecting it to date rocks 20-25 years old is asking the machine, based on a standard sample size, to almost quite literaly count individual atoms. Which is well beyond the useful resolving power of the most sensitive mass spectrometers. And is likely to remain so simply because the effects of even slight containmination is so great at that level that the repeatability of the experiment is virtually nill - as observed by the 'test' conducted.

Of course if the people conducting the test had understood the limitations of the method then their amazement at the results would not nearly be as great. Also if they had told the lab that the samples were less than 500,000 odd years old then any lab worth it's salt would be warning that the results would be pretty meaningless for the reasons I have outlined and most likely recommending a better dating series to be used.

|THAT|-fred
'fred is not dead, fred is resurrected!'
__________________
|O-bot|-fred
'fred is not dead, fred is resurrected!'
"It is only in the tales humans tell, that the hunters win in the end."
 
Old 18th July 2000, 11:07     #164
Baal
 
Post

My take on this is you all will become one with the discussion. After many millenia all un-needed protuberances and orifices will wither and die away.

You will all evolve into the perfect discussion posting machines.
__________________
Your a homo.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 11:15     #165
Death Define
 
Post

Holy hell this has been some marvlous reading material here. I love it, just like my breasts.

Endy you genius, I've had the same mind boggling theories you have had, pop in my head as well. (and shitloads more, (Ive come up with the meaning of life once))

Necro... hahaha. Nice how you included the breast in at the end, very nice indeed.

(I would share some of my feelings and theories too. But I am not to good at explaining and ordering my minds thoughts into speech or literature. Pitty coz I've got some goodies)
Thanks to all views shared and keep em commin'
 
Old 18th July 2000, 11:31     #166
Mabd
 
Post

Wow Fred. When I was doing my archaeology papers my attitude to datings were "whack it in the machine and flick a switch and blammo! a date". I guess us on this end of the science, ie. dirt-grubbers, don't really realise how much work goes into a SINGLE reading.

Your work is now appreciated by me now, and when I read dates in my texts I will spare a thought for your ilk .

P.S I'd still rather be a dirt-mover.

------------------
Hail to the King

__________________
Boop Boop
 
Old 18th July 2000, 11:54     #167
Hooker
 
Question

Who created God(if it exists)?
__________________
Who's yer Daddy!?!!
 
Old 18th July 2000, 11:58     #168
Whiplash
Bobo Fettish
 
Post

That would be Mod, Gods mum...
 
Old 18th July 2000, 12:10     #169
Fred
 
Post

Chiq, to explain the expansion of the universe in a way you can visualise it is fairly easy. But lets look a little at the method by which was discovered first and the key is spectroscopy.

All mater when heated sufficiently emits light on characteristic quanta and, importantly, absorbs certain frequencies of light well. When light is taken from an object and split into a spectrum then these absorbtion lines can be noted. Now Hydrogen, and Heleium are sufficiently common elements that their absorption lines make handy reference sticks - especially given that the stars tend to made up largely of these two elements and are nicely radiant.

By looking at the light from various stars and galaxies you can get the absorption lines for them and when you compare the spectra with a similarly lumninous object that isn't moving relative to us you can see that the motion of the object has shifted the spectrum. (This process is a well known consequence of relativity and I won't go into it's hows and whys now.)

Edwin Hubble used this technique to study the night sky and noticed an interesting trend. Now distances in space are usually worked out, for any object above about 50 ly away from earth, by using reference objects of a known magnitude (brightness) and comparing their known magnitude with their absolute magnitdue (or observed brightness here on earth.). Certain objects are well known to have quite fixed magntiude relationships and (going from memory) these include Woolfe stars, Cephid variables, certain F0 primary stars, Quasars and one or two others that I forget.

Hubble noticed that when using these reference objects to get the distance to a galaxy that the further the object was away from the earth the more pronounced the red shift was in the spectra from that object. Red shifting only occurs when an object is speeding away from you - effectively elongating the wavelengths of light emitted. And the general relationship was that the further the object was away, the stronger the red shift and, here is the key bit, this occured in any direction you cared to look.

Now this has some interesting implications. If the universe was a nice more static place then you would expect that the 'soup' of galaxies out there would produce a heterogenous mix of shifts as some galaxies move towards us and some away. In essence we should see a pretty even mix of red, blue and marginal shifts irrespective of the distance.

Instead the further the distance then universally you get a more extreme red shift. There is some slight variation as some galaxies are 'fighting the flow' so to speak and trying to travel towards us but their motion is always less than the motion carrying them away.

One of the primary tennets of relativity is that our segment of the universe is not different from any other segment. This has lead to the assumption/expectation that even if we moved to another galaxy we would still see this motion carrying every other galaxy away from us. (There is a little more to the argument involving vector analysis of the motion to further reinforce this but it is more involved than I care to go into.)

That has lead to the inflationary model of thinking. The way to imagine it is picture a balloon half inflated. Draw on the surface of the balloon a set of concentric circles of dots with a dot at the centre of them all. The central dot is the earth. Keep inflating the balloon and you will see that as the inflation continues the further dots being to receed away from the center faster and faster.

This is effectively what is happening to us. The surface of the balloon is three dimensional space and we are on a hyper-sphere expanding at a fairly impressive clip.

|THAT|-fred
'fred is not dead, fred is resurrected!'
__________________
|O-bot|-fred
'fred is not dead, fred is resurrected!'
"It is only in the tales humans tell, that the hunters win in the end."
 
Old 18th July 2000, 12:20     #170
BaM
Freeloader
 
Post

If you follow the expansion without contraction theory, eventually objects further away from us will recede at a rate approaching light speed, and once they reach that speed we will be unable to observe them. As far as we're concerned they may as well not exist any more, unless someone cracks the faster than light speed problem.

[This message has been edited by BaM (edited 18 July 2000).]
 
Old 18th July 2000, 12:30     #171
Fred
 
Post

Mabd, yep there is an awful lot of work that goes into getting accurate dates out of various radio-isotope dating methods. Mostly you will have been involved with Carbon dating if you are doing Archeaology and that has a different whole fun kettle of worms you have to worry about.

I deal with people who work on that on a daily basis and get to hear their moaning about various clients who just don't quite grasp the limits of the techniques.

|THAT|-fred
'fred is not dead, fred is resurrected!'
__________________
|O-bot|-fred
'fred is not dead, fred is resurrected!'
"It is only in the tales humans tell, that the hunters win in the end."
 
Old 18th July 2000, 12:47     #172
purple+kush
 
Post

Bah forget it.

Space/Universe goes for ever.
God exists.

Deal with it.

Cyas.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 12:58     #173
Whiplash
Bobo Fettish
 
Post

What about extra-terrestrial life?

Do you belive that our little sphere in the arse end of the universe is the only rock that contains life? What about the possibility of water found on Mars? At one point Mars could have sustained life... Do you believe that throughout the entire universe, the millions apon billions of stars and solar systems and galaxies out there, that we're the only place that life could have started?

As pessimistic as this sounds, I believe life and our life is a game of chance. By pure luck this rock was the right distance from the sun, by luck certain chemicals/gasses condenced under its gravity to form water and life began...

One way to think about the chance of it all is within reproduction. I'll take this from a male point of view, as it could easily be taken from a womans as well....
Your father met your mother - one out of 3 billion women on this planet. They fell in love (chemically no different from consuming vast quantities of chocolate ) and copulated. Within that exchange, a few million mighty swimmers dove into the darkness to find the one egg that happened to be waiting that month. Only one of those million possibilities made it. What if your sperm didn't, you wouldn't exist. In your place might be a girl, a retard, a scholar... Kind of spooky isn't it... I'd stop wasting time being so close minded and enjoy life in every aspect and learn as much as you can before our incredibly short (in universal terms) lifetime ends....
 
Old 18th July 2000, 13:14     #174
Sgt Seb
Up Unt At Dem!
 
Post

good argument there pk, im sure you're going to convince a lot of unbelievers like that.

i dont know whats more pathetic, pk constantly restating his beliefs like a drone or everyone else standing around him trying to convince him hes wrong.

 
Old 18th July 2000, 13:21     #175
ChaosWulf
Don't worry, be harpy
 
Laugh

Baal: Not all of us, you bastard

 
Old 18th July 2000, 13:23     #176
Fred
 
Post

Speaking for myself Sgt Seb, and no doubt others, I couldn't care less what purple kush believes. If they want to have faith in their God then that is cool by me. But I do dislike the mis-understanding and mis-application of science featured here. If I can correct a little of that then I think this discussion will have been worthwhile.

And to be honest we have had some quite interesting posts in this thread.

|THAT|-fred
'fred is not dead, fred is resurrected!'
__________________
|O-bot|-fred
'fred is not dead, fred is resurrected!'
"It is only in the tales humans tell, that the hunters win in the end."
 
Old 18th July 2000, 13:30     #177
Adunaphel
 
Post

God doesnt exist... cuz I said so.

Now.. whos right PK?

To be fair, neither of us have proof the other is wrong
Altho I have evidence (not proof) that I am correct.

Deal with it.

 
Old 18th July 2000, 13:41     #178
smudge
Ich Bin Ein Grey Lynner
 
Post

Don't quite agree with you Whiplash... I don't think life happens by chance, life (organisms, us) is tenacious, and causes it's own survival.

What I means is : Initial chance happenings cause amino acids/proteins/etc to form, but once they form eventually an equilibrium state is reached, at which point they are stable. Then chance happenings/environmental changes cause the jump to the next level in development, cells. After millions or billions of years, that sexual reproduction developed, and evolution began happening. This isn't *purely* chance, the make up of the universe, chemistry, etc causes this to be possible. Perhaps there is a 'God' that caused this, science doesn't attempt to say yes or no, what it does say is that taken literally the Bible doesn't match up with the observable evidence.

We don't know how cells originally formed, we don't know how multicellular organisms appeared. There are at least four 'steps' in the development of humans that current science can't explain. Going from a protein to a cell is a massive step, which will take science decades or centuries to understand.

I find Buddhism is by far the most interesting religion, as it least directly contradicts what I can observe in the world, and what I have learnt about how the world works. Just can't believe that reincarnation shite :\

 
Old 18th July 2000, 13:57     #179
Loonatic
 
Post

for Unclown and your comments on Instincts...

/mindless dribble on
All other mamals have rom built in so they know what to do straight away. Humans have an empty HD and it takes time to load up the os to an accepectable level
/mindless dribble off
 
Old 18th July 2000, 14:02     #180
MadLep
 
Post

Necro: "Or maybe there really is a god and it's just that mans interpretation of it fails because he cant comprehend such a vast creature"

Bingo. That's pretty much what I think.

I believe (note - I said "I believe", not "I know") that there exists some higher intelligence inside or outside of this universe. It is conceited and arrogant to believe that we are at the pinacle of the tree of intelligence in the universe just because we can't see anything higher than us. Especially when that tree shows such complexity and infinite scalability at the levels existing below us that we can see.

Although we probably won't be able to comprehend those higher levels. In the same way that a single bacteria (probably) can't comprehend what a human is, we cannot comprehend what superior intelligence exists above us is, or what form it takes.

Religion is just a human system of trying to comprehend the incomprehensible. It gets a little bit right, but leaves a *lot* of gaps through human misinterpretation, and misunderstanding.

IMHO everything can be explained by science. Not present day science, but by science that we do not have.

Eventually science and religion converge at a point where we can understand everything - including god (however you define it), the origin of the universe, where we came from and where we are going.

I doubt that we'll ever be able to comprehend all those things in our human state though. We'll have to "evolve more" first.

------------------
clan |o-bot| - Powering the propaganda machines of several small dictatorships.

__________________
@madlep
I'm not Australian, I just live there
ubercharged.net - Tales of Team Fortress 2 pwnage and other hilarity
 
Old 18th July 2000, 14:17     #181
MadLep
 
Post

Unclown - What? Humans don't have any natural instincts? What the hell is that about?

Ever seen a newborn baby? The minute they pop out the all scream their heads off. Why is that? They're distressed by this whole birth thing. Why do they scream when they are distressed? Instinct.

What about an adult? If we are distressed we've got a much larger range of actions to follow. Screaming is a long way down the list.

The difference between us and most animals is that our brains are much more complex and are not fully formed when we are born. Most animals are almost fully functional, miniature version of their parents when they are born - hence being able to walk etc pretty soon.

Human babies still have a hell of a lot of developing to, and don't reach any real independent state till about 4 or 5.

Why is it statistically a lot of relationships break up 4 or 5 years after having a kid? That is about the age that only one parent is needed to look after a kid if you are living as a primitive human in the jungle/grasslands. That too is instinctive.

As we develop more advanced behaviour patterns, our learned patterns overwhelm our instincts, and can even negate them, but they are still there.

Someone throws something at your head. You automatically put your hands up to protect your head without thinking about it. Is that learned or instinct?

You hear a loud unexpected noise close by you. You brace yourself and you turn to face it without thinking. Learned or instinct?

Instinct to both.

------------------
clan |o-bot| - Powering the propaganda machines of several small dictatorships.

__________________
@madlep
I'm not Australian, I just live there
ubercharged.net - Tales of Team Fortress 2 pwnage and other hilarity
 
Old 18th July 2000, 14:50     #182
Jingo
 
Post

re: Post a couple up.

Agreed. It's all very well us saying, "Why does God not save all the dolphins from the evil Japanese?" (insert grin), but we're looking at it with our (humans') narrow-minded sphere of knowledge.



[This message has been edited by Jingo (edited 18 July 2000).]
 
Old 18th July 2000, 14:52     #183
chiQ
Frag-muff
 
Post

Thanks Fred

------------------
[email protected]


__________________
Gaming/phone/computing platforms are not indicative of groinal/physical/cognitive impressiveness.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 14:53     #184
Soleil-Raid
 
Thumbs up

Hey Fred, what your saying is good stuff, even if chewing gum (p-k) doesn't appreicate it, some of us DO.

BaM: If you follow the expansion without contraction theory, eventually objects further away from us will recede at a rate approaching light speed, and once they reach that speed we will be unable to observe them. As far as we're concerned they may as well not exist any more, unless someone cracks the faster than light speed problem.

Untrue... according to Einstiens theory of relitivity, the light will move away at the speed of light C (with any limitations exerted by the marterial it's traveling through), so any light will reach us (albiet with some mega-amounts of red-shift) Although the explanation behind Einstiens theory is somewhat difficult, the effects can be generally easily understood. (although I still have trouble explaining quite how you manage to fit a 10 meter pole traveling at 99% C into 4 meter shed).

To the Chewing gum: ..... (I'm just ignoring the retarded monkey, since he's not worth speaking to)

------------------
SRWOFB; where nothing is anything.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 14:55     #185
Mabd
 
Post

Yeh Fred, us mud-fish can be wanks sometimes.

Dealt with Carbon dating quite a bit but I did a big thing one year that was based exclusively on KAr dating so I was sorta aware what it was but not what it involved. So you filled in some largish gaps.

------------------
Hail to the King

__________________
Boop Boop
 
Old 18th July 2000, 15:01     #186
Whiplash
Bobo Fettish
 
Post

smudge: Thanks for disagreeing and using a brain to write why, instead of flat out saying crap like PK

Fred: Keep writing mate, its damn interesting.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 15:13     #187
BaM
Freeloader
 
Post

Soleil-Raid: As I'm sure you're aware, the speed objects are travelling is only relative to the point you're observing from. If our galaxy is on one side of the (lets say) 'centre' of the universe and another galaxy is on the other, and both end up receding from the 'centre' at light speed, how fast does light have to travel to reach our galaxy from the other one? Think of it as an event horizon. The light won't be able to make the trip, effectively putting the other galaxy outside what Stephen Hawking described as a "past light-cone".

Of course, as I said, you'd have to subscribe to the no contraction theory of the universe, and this is looking fairly unlikely with the discovery of all the 'missing' dark matter recently...
 
Old 18th July 2000, 15:31     #188
Necro
 
Post

Bam, can you expand a bit on this dark matter theory? I've only heard it mentioned but not explained.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 15:35     #189
Yautja
 
Post

"Life" didn't start with cells materialising from nothing, and evolution didn't start after the development of sexual reproduction (take a look at drug resistant bacteria/virus's) - it started from the very beguining with self replicating proteins.

The most revised theory is that protein's came about after being formed with the help of a catalyst (sedement cut away to expose something resembling a microscopic layer cake - which attracts amino acid's into ordered patterns to form protein's).

These protein were around for a while replicating (there was alot amino acids around - seeming there was nothing to use them up).

(insert lotsa time here)

Next came protein inside globule's of oil (you all know how oil clumps into globules in water - except these are microscopic), then they specialised into energy buring (carbohydrate's etc) and energy producing (photosynthesis). There was also a third type that i can't remember (think it was just a plain old dividing protein/RNA)

(insert lotsa time here)

Anyway eventually they found out it was better to these seperate globules to join to geather cooperatively forming the first cell's (bacteria-with mitoclorians(sp)[energy burning] and algae- with chloroplasts[photosynthesis]). Other "organelle's" eventually evolved in cell's but that was the basic forms.

Anyway after billion's of years of evolution these organelles are still present in all cell's. This is because they are passed from one generation to the next (people tend to think the only thing that is passed on is DNA - but the human ova is just a cutdown version of a cell with all these organelles - some of which even still have their own DNA, which is in a ring - like most bacteria/algae still posess.


As for instinct's - throw a baby under water (even if they've never touched or seen it before) and they automatically hold their breath


And for science eventually knowing everthing - if this ever happen's we'll be the exact definition of god. Who's to say this hasn't happened before - in another universe (there could be infinite universe's for all we know) or in a previous(or current) bang of this one. See even god can be explained

As for the speed of light - observation's suggest taveling at a higher velocity than light is impossible. But that not to say you can't cover distances faster than light (hyperspace, interdemensional - Im not too up to speed in this field of physics).

And black holes - there is a theory by Steven hawkin's that matter can (sort of) escape from them. Its to do with a prediction of quantum theory, that matter can appear out of nothing as a particle and antiparticle. These usually instantaneously annihilate each other after forming, but on the event horizon of a black hole, one get's sucked in and the other escapes (the that get's sucked annihilates with one in the black hole, lowering the mass of it).

So eventually they should explode, but this process is really slow (takes longer than the age of the universe) and if they're constantly sucking in matter it's won't really make a difference (until the universe run's out of it).

Once again these are just theory's, and are not the word of god

(many scientist's devote their entire lives to creating these theory's, im just interested science - so sorry for the holes and lack of attention to detail. Biology isn't my thing too , but seeming its science you just can't ignore parts you find inconvienient - happy smudge )

[This message has been edited by Yautja (edited 19 July 2000).]
 
Old 18th July 2000, 15:45     #190
duckstab
 
Post

I'm supprised that PK hasn't inserted the infamous God-Conciousness idea.

God put these ideas in to our heads, as a test of faith. While it seems to be a logical argument for the non-existance of a God, it is nothing more than another test of faith, isn't that right chewing gum?

I was in town one day and I was having this very same argument (lasted about 1 hour or so). ANYTHING I could say that could possibly discredit his belief system he would retort with the claim that "God put the idea in your head, he is testing your faith child!"

What a crock of shit.

----
"Well, of course, this is just the sort blinkered philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage.... "
__________________
So nasal handicapable.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 15:57     #191
BaM
Freeloader
 
Post

Necro: Dark matter was theorised to exist based on observations of gravitational anomalies and the general behaviour and structure of objects in the known universe. In order for galaxies to move the way they do, there would have to be a hell of a lot more matter out there to exert the observed gravitational effects - in the order of 90% more than has been observed. Following this theory, if there is enough dark matter, the gravitational effect it exerts could be enough to stop, or even reverse the expansion of the universe (Big Crunch and possibly another Big Bang).

It turns out that most of it is present in the form of intestellar gases.

As I suggested to PK earlier, get hold of a copy of 'A Brief History of Time'. Stephen Hawking is excellent at explaining this sort of thing.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 16:29     #192
smudge
Ich Bin Ein Grey Lynner
 
Post

Yautja : yeah yeah... should have added "insert lotsa time, and processes I'm completely ignorant about here" in a few places...

On the Dark matter front, I'm skeptical... it seems like inventing something we can't observe, because the observations we are making dont fit our theories... smells fishy to me.


[This message has been edited by smudge (edited 18 July 2000).]
 
Old 18th July 2000, 16:35     #193
BaM
Freeloader
 
Post

er.. the point is, it's been proved to exist now - It was a news item a few weeks back...
 
Old 18th July 2000, 16:44     #194
smudge
Ich Bin Ein Grey Lynner
 
Post

BaM : heard it before thou.... lots of times since the late eighties... have you got a URL? could be worth some investigation.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 16:51     #195
Cinclant
 
Post

Yeah get Magnum PI on the case!
 
Old 18th July 2000, 17:21     #196
Pitt-Riff
 
Post

I like the theory that we have 5 life times and when that is up we either choose to be someone's guardian angel or a part of God. I also like the theory of God being beyond comprehension, that one's good. Oh and reincarnation would be great, I wander what you'd have to do to become the lowest possible life form?

I don't think Stuie thinks too highly of man-breasts.
__________________
if it has bugs or pyramids in it I'll fuckin watch it
 
Old 18th July 2000, 17:29     #197
BaM
Freeloader
 
Post

There's a report on detecting dark matter <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/00/pr0029.htm" target="lank">here</a>.
 
Old 18th July 2000, 17:51     #198
smudge
Ich Bin Ein Grey Lynner
 
Post

Ta mate... so, basically they're detecting the existence of Dark Matter by observing gravitational lensing which isn't caused by observable masses, cool.

Smart cookies out there eh?
 
Old 18th July 2000, 18:10     #199
Hooker
 
Post

I think people are missing the key issue.

The question that should be asked is how did the very first 'anything' get created?

Who cares about evolution/religion, religion is completely different from the universe being created, although some religions seem to think their God created everything.

Obviously God's don't exist, look at the many different religions and Higher Beings that they all Worship.

Although I'd like to be proven wrong, I think religion is a joke.


Can someone please point out any holes/disagrements in evolution, then ones in religion.

Ta.
__________________
Who's yer Daddy!?!!
 
Old 18th July 2000, 18:12     #200
Juju
get to da choppa
 
Post

Who will be no. 200?
 
 


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2023
Site paid for by members (love you guys)