Jump to content

Hypercube

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About Hypercube

  • Rank
    Meson
  • Birthday 05/04/1989

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ontario, Canada
  • College Major/Degree
    Seneca College's Biotechnology Technologist program
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biology and Theoretical Physics
  • Occupation
    Student
  1. I've heard this argument before, and I am very divided on my opinion of it. The conspiracy theorists will say that it was all a ploy by the Bush administration to be able to justify hugely increasing the budget of the military, but while I certainly wouldn't put it past Bush, there's one huge hole in the premise. We're supposed to believe that Al Qaeda, who hates the US, agreed to work WITH the US to bomb buildings in US territory so as to rally support from United States citizens to allow the US to go to war against Al Qaeda? That seems pretty absurd in my opinion; it would be the very defini
  2. No argument from me there; Scientology is an insult to the human race, nevermind an alien race. lol.
  3. Obviously we can't know for sure unless someone actually investigates this, which to the best of my knowledge has never been done, but I'm curious of what everyone's opinion about this is. I'm sure many of you have heard of Stanley Milgram's famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) shock experiment, so I won't bother explaining it, but suffice to say I was absolutely horrified by the results and am quite confident that I would never take it the whole way like the majority of participants did. But after watching a documentary about a reenactment (I can't remember the proper word for
  4. Not quite, although I did ask a related question about dog breeding and speciation a few weeks ago, I decided to ask this nonsequiter question as a new post rather than just adding onto the previous one. At any rate, I also posted this question to another website and got some interesting responses. What does the term 'species' actually mean to biologists nowadays? Because the inability to produce fertile offspring can't be the only criteria, because dogs and coyotes are different species and yet are capable to interbreeding, as are wolves and coyotes. Is that simply because they have the s
  5. Can someone tell me whether my reasoning on this matter is sound. As I understand it, all the various breeds of dog, from Chihuahua to Great Danes, are currently by convention considered to be the same species. Even though it is virtually impossible for certain breeds such as Chihuahuas and Great Danes to interbreed with each other (if the Chihuahua was female it would die, and if it were male it couldn't impregnate the female Great Dane), because both breeds can interbreed with various medium-sized breeds, their genes can still flow back and forth (put very crudely, of course). However, w
  6. Okay, could someone please settle this debate. An internet buddy and I were arguing about whether kangaroos are considered to be bipeds. My opinion is that by definition they are, since they move around on two legs. He says that they aren't technically bipeds because they don't move in the same way that humans do. Am I right or is he? Or are we both wrong?
  7. I was debating with my uncle a little while ago, and it eventually culminated in him claiming that science is in many way like a religion (I blatantly disagree with that comparison, by the way), because when a scientific theory becomes widely accepted among the scientific community, it almost becomes scientific dogma, and anyone who proposes a radical new idea is rarely taken seriously because so many scientists will have staked their entire careers on the existing theory. I confess I found this claim to be quite disturbing, because it goes completely counter to everything I believe in about w
  8. I'm am skeptical by nature, as are all true scientists. And if that was all you were trying to imply than you shouldn't have used the 'indoctrination squad' card. What else was I supposed to take that to mean?
  9. I don't think they're necessarily wrong, but they certainly aren't anywhere close to being on par with something like evolution.
  10. Okay, I highly resent your veiled insinuation that I am some kind of science denier. How dare you imply that I'm some right-wing freak trying to spread decent! If that is indeed what you were implying then you are an utter moron. If anyone else here has that same impression, then allow me to dispel it here and now, because it is about as untrue as you could possibly get, and I challenge anyone to try and argue the fact!
  11. I've been reading a lot of articles about the whole evolution vs creationism debate (evolution all the way, by the by), and I am continually being forced to grit my teeth in frustration whenever these idiots pull the utterly vapid 'it's just a theory' argument, even though it has been explained more times than I can count that the word 'theory' in a scientific sense refers to a framework of knowledge, observations and experimental evidence that explain various aspects of reality. In other words, if the evolution scientists (I denounce any scientist that outright claims that evolution is a lie)
  12. Ever since I heard that our solar system is hypothesized to be surrounded by a massive spherical cloud of trillions of comets extending a good way to our nearest star (if that was exaggerated, let me know), I've been wondering whether or not this Oort Cloud may provide us 'some' protection from gamma ray bursts? My reasoning is simply that the beams of gamma ray bursts are typically, if I'm not mistaken, relatively 'narrow' (using the term 'narrow' loosely, of course), and thus might have 'some' difficulty making it through such a cloud without losing some of its energy striking the comets of
  13. That's exactly what they used. They essentially piled together buckets/tubs of glass items and shattered/grinded them into dust. This process would by definition make them sharp and jagged, albeit extremely small. If I'm not mistaken, silica and glass are not the same thing. Silica is essentially sand, if I'm not mistaken, and while sand is involved in the production of glass, sand itself is not the same as glass.
  14. I agree. Notwithstanding the massive plot hole of why Richard didn't just use the Power of Orden to end the war with the Imperial Order before it even begun in earnest, considering that the three Boxes of Orden were right there in 'his' palace in D'hara for most of the series, the series is one of the best I've ever read. But at any rate, it still seems to me that the glass dust idea could theoretically work if the dust was deployed correctly, although I agree that the sheer number of casualties in the book for such a small amount of glass powder was almost ludicrous.
×
×
  • 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.