Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by alt_f13

  1. I think what herme3's kindof asking, not in so many words, is "how could we see something happen a long time ago on earth, the way we can see distant past events due to the finite speed of light?" Find a wormhole. Jump through it. Look at Earth. With any luck, you'll have circumvented a large portion of "regular" space and be able to see past events on Earth. As for seeing the "back" of light.... you can see the "back" of laser pointers and bright lights because they bounce off of particles in the atmosphere... but they are focused beams, so unless you had some sort of giant lense and a situation I'm far too tired to try and comprehend right now, there's no way you could extrapolate an image of something reflecting off miniscule, over-excited particles of air. Water, steam and other somehow dense, uniform patterns of liquid matter (mirages... I've seen my own reflection in one) however, are another story. Just don't expect to see all that far into the past, unless we find some uber-cool mirror nebula in the depths of space (good luck finding a reflection of stars among stars themselves too).
  2. Why the hell would God make stars we can't even see with our own eyes, and then produce the light that we would see 10,000 years later with giant space-faring telescopes? Does that serve any purpose whatsoever? Is god trying to fool us? Hell, the link could be right, just as in the giant computer theory(?) that I find so much more plausible than a floating space deity, but it's not Cosmology. It's speculation based on baseless speculation about the origins of the universe. Religious debate or not, it's really illogical. Creationists make up so much garbage to excuse their beliefs...
  3. You do realise that the books you so whole-heartedly believe in weren't written by god, right? In fact, if I sent an Aibo dog back into the past with an audio message indicating that it was god, and the writer should eat razor blades, he likely would have. Besides, how could you ignore the most obvious of facts: the focils of our ancestors are older than ours, proven by fossil depths corrolating with major geological events (ie we were not created before apes). Of course you could answer this by reminding me that the biblical earth is only 7000 years old (or whatever random number suits you) and therefor it is impossible for anything to be older than that, and God, being the universal trouble maker that he is, threw a few bones into the gears, you know, to mix it up a bit (because that makes much more sense than scientific reason). To which my answer would be (and to perpetuate a rant which is just falling on deaf, irrational ears anyway), that you must not believe in radioacarbon dating either, because it can measure the age of carbonaceous materials which predate the biblical earth by some 50 thousand years. Should all theories brought to light through radiocarbon dating be abandoned? How about the fact that light has a finite speed, and the light reaching us from the edge of the visible universe has been traveling for 14 billion years. If creationists are right, then relativity should be thrown right out the window. Start from scratch, because Einstein was an idiot. Evolution proves our relation to apes. Creationism disagrees with this. Does it then disagree with the DNA evidence of this? Should DNA evidence then be disallowed in court, too? It's obviously wrong... If creation theory is true, than almost every field of science is completely wrong. We should go back to the stoneages when the earth was flat, the moon was cheese, and your goats were worth more than your wife. If you believe creation theory, stop believing the rest of science.
  4. Isn't saying "negative special relativity" like saying "negative Manchester" or "negative coloring book?"
  5. http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060327_neuro_chips.html A link on the page concerning communication between neurons and computer chips. I've always said I'd love to be the first to install a math co-processor in my brain. ...Well, maybe second...
  6. LOL. So they'll end up crazy and demented. Oh well, I don't hate creationists THAT much.
  7. LOL. What came first, the chicken or the iguana? Great video, except for the fact that they think that an animal somehow evolves completely on it's own in one generation. If their argument against evolution is that lizards can't mate with birds... yup, they must be right.
  8. within a nice matrix? So the first one right? Cuz the last two sucked. And to answer the actual question: There are lots of hydrogen clouds in space, but not because of planets exploding. Most of it is left over after the cooling of the universe left energy to coalesce into molecules. Pre-stars kinda.
  9. Perhaps, but it's usefullness is coming to a close with the advent of modern law and ethics (yes, those based on religious law and ethics.) My parents are both religious (and neither of them are creationists). I'm not, and guess what? Chances are I'm going to outlive them! My children will not be religious and neither will theirs be, if I can help it, spawning an exponentially growing ammount of non-believers in my geneological succession. Being religious is a choice, not a genetic trait. ('Course that means my children might become religious, but that's doubtful because of the logic and critical mindset I'm going to instill in them!!) It's very much a matter of how you were raised. Modern times began with a huge percentage of people being creationists, and those numbers have greatly dwindled in the past couple centuries, interestingly enough, as scientific knowlege and method grew and became more mainstream. The influx of logic into society will be the downfall of creationism. (Creationists seem to think they have some superior hold on logic over evolutionists, which I find funny, so I'll post a humorous little link for you. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp) Lets see creationism last one more century.
  10. Can't wait to play Doom on that thing. I'll be the best! 350TFLOPS!!! Joking aside, Holy Crap!
  11. I'm sure that's a record, CR. Any reason why you two would get differing results for google? There is more than one method of searching in that new alpha.
  12. An idiot. Hey, where'd you go?
  13. LOL Heard that more than once... I'm still trying to figure out why though.
  14. This woman epitomizes everything I hate... and strangely enough, everything I love at the same time. http://www.wimp.com/myspacegirl/ Yes, I have a myspace account. No, I don't/you can't make me use it. I just created mine so noone could take the name Myspace is teh_$@7!N....!!!112 Websites teh l337. And how come so many people have an myspace account, but don't use it?
  15. I though I might share this. It is Jimmy Sabori's rebuild of the Papp engine. It looks completely rediculous, and everything Sabori says is nonsense. http://stream.osen.org/aag/Noble-Gas-340.wmv There is an incredibly funny article by Richard Feyman on the original Papp engine demonstration, during which an unfortunate bystander is killed by the prototypes climactic destruction. You can read it here. More informatin can be found at this address: http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/486/1/Sabori%26%2339%3Bs-Papp-Engine-Video
  16. Think it is possible to test for frequencies being emitted by the brain for internal processing of sound? For example, if I was thinking a sin wave at middle C (261.63 Hz) would it be possible for someone to look for that specific frequency within the brain to find out along what path, or in which general area it is being carried? It seems to me that such a low frequency should stick out like a sore thumb amongst the brain's usual high frequency activity. I also don't see how it is possible for me not to be producing that frenquency somehow when thinking/generating middle c in my brain, so why has this not been tested (or if it has... why aren't I carrying mp3s of the symphonies I generate on a nightly basis in my ipod?) This would be a pretty sweet tool... no need for synthesizers any more.
  17. k4bb looks awesome! had I seen that a couple weeks ago I might have used it. I'm using Quicksilverforums - http://www.quicksilverforums.com/ - , based on mercury forums. It's pretty good, though not as good as vB. Mine looks way better than their actual site though. - http://www.musictutorials.net
  18. My first thought was "Dear God!" Then when I saw it was a poll I thought, "We get to vote on it? Damnit man, we're a science community, not some perverted online death jury! Why would you do such things!" I thought it was something akin to the guy who wanted $1000 or he was gonna eat his bunny... The stupid thing about that was people were still giving him money after he reached his goal... shouldn't they have been sending anthrax or ebola to him instead? Besides, I've eaten rabbit, and that stuff is the shiznit. Oh, yah. Don't kill your wife. It's not polite.
  19. I'd like Athiest to answer this for me: If a photon travels for one second towards a mirror, is reflected back, and travels for one more second, isn't its gross velocity then zero? While I can understand why in regards to the large distance travelled, how is this accounted for at the moment of impact with the mirror? In other words, how can light be reflected if it can neither change velocity nor be acted on by another force?
  20. Sounds like a helicopter to me.
  21. I'm covered completely. I don't know what the doctors were thinking but I've had a culture taken and blood tests now. What I'm really worried about at the moment is tinnitus. I cannot remember exactly when ringing in my ears started, but I'm almost certain I woke up with it and clogged eustachian tubes on the same moring. If it is permanent, I'm suing the first clinics I visited, because they misdiagnosed without even going through all the steps. I've been taking antibiotics religously for 8 days and I've only gotten worse.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.