The online racing simulator
Quote from Albieg : a person who doesn't want to look silly would ask himself first if the remaining two pairs are really matched or not.

Well, they're both dark....

But, as i'm using 40W energy saving light bulbs in the house, it's really hard to tell if they're exactly the same colour

Me, look silly, never....


@Wsinda, if i keep on wearing them, after a few weeks they'll be walking all by themselves, which should come in handy
Quote from Becky Rose :Don't get me wrong I believe in a lot of scientific theories, but I am also open to change.

I can't explain my view using long words because I don't like using them, i am not an academic and don't revel in the act of understanding complex things. Instead I like to simplify things down to my level. Sorry if this clouds the debate. I'm not an academic.

Being open to having your mind changed by evidence is basically the scientific process in a nutshell and you don't have to be an academic for that (I'm certainly not) :up: Any scientist worth his salt is happy to have his mind changed, even if the evidence disproves his own theories. We learn nothing if we learn nothing new. That's the core of science: discovery and knowledge through observation, prediction & experimentation. There's absolutely no faith involved either: faith is redundant when you obtain evidence.
Quote from Becky Rose :Don't get me wrong I believe in a lot of scientific theories, but I am also open to change.

I think we can agree on that this forum has a unusually large population of physicists, engineers and people with an otherwise scientifical educational background. I am fairly sure that because of this a large number he will agree because after all changing and questioning scientific canon is the method that made science successful.

Quote :We now have 'proven' dark matter in an effort to explain the big bang

From what little I understand about dark matter i think you´re confused on how it came to be; it doesnt really have much to do with the big bang in terms of the observations that first led to it´s discovery.

Quote from Victor :Yes "the Universe" is a fun series

It´s pretty astounding if you consider that until the 1920s the universe was merely our galaxy existing in a steady state forever.

Quote :edit - btw actually galaxies aren't moving away from a singularity. Hard to explain, but they're not.

Yup actually we still sort of are right at the centre of that singularity and everything around is is just getting bigger ... well that´s the theory anyway.

Quote from Mazz4200 :So, can anyone explain the mystery of where all my socks have gone ? I bought six new pairs last month, and now i can only find two

They obviously hide in the same place as all my teaspoons, but, i'm at a loss as to where that might be.

its the eater of socks
http://i.virginradio.co.uk/images/pages/5056.1/content2.jpg
lol even my best mate agrees to this battle
Wow - blink for a day & the thread changes completely

OK - Universe, dark matter......

There's rather a lot of confusion around at the moment in scientific circles regarding the universe, sun etc as the scientific community try to shoehorn observable facts into the current theory of how the universe works. The problem seems to be that the current theory ( note THEORY ) that the sun is a nuclear ball, ( simplified ALOT ) so are all stars etc and magnetism just happens.

A bit like the global warming THEORY ( prepaires for flaming ) if anyone disagrees then their a heretic and a complete idiot with no knowledge. ( http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1787, http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=aapprbh6 )

An alternate theory on how the universe works has been around for over a hundred years, fits not only what was known then but also what is being discovered today, ( where are those damn nutrinos* ??? ) and manages to be completely ignored by almost everyone.

The theory of the Electric Universe is well worth looking at if you are at all interested in astrophysics or even in an alternative to the current camp fire theory.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

The point I'm trying to make is that in science, a theory is just that, A THEORY. It's there till something ( another theory ) comes along.

The interesting thing with this THEORY is that it gives a rational explaination for magnetism, global warming, and those damn nutrinos*. Well worth a look if you want a head expansion.

*Nutrinos - University of Delaware - PHYS 146

http://www.udel.edu/mvb/PS146htm/146nosn.html

The problem is not that a normal sun produces very few neutrinos. At the position of the earth, approximately 6 x 1010 neutrinos should pass through every square-cm of surface every second. I am about 45 cm wide and 180 cm tall, not too untypical. When I am lying down my area is therefore about 8000 square cm. So roughly 5 x 1014 = 500,000,000,000,000 neutrinos pass through my body every second. Neutrinos do not react very readily, however, and all but a tiny, tiny fraction of the nutrinos pass right through me (or Davis's cleaning fluid) without having any effect at all. Absorbing much less than one neutrino a day doesn't do me much harm.
So we need to know how many neutrinos per day would be expected in Davis's detector given the amount of energy coming from the sun. Because only the neutrinos from B8 decay can be seen, the exact number is a bit uncertain. However, the detector should be seeing about 1.8 neutrinos per day and certainly more than 1.2 per day. The experiment sees 32-40% of the expected number of neutrinos. So where are the rest of the neutrinos? Is the sun currently producing enough energy to keep it shining at its current rate? )
Quote from Racer X NZ :A bit like the global warming THEORY ( prepaires for flaming ) if anyone disagrees then their a heretic and a complete idiot with no knowledge.

I see you have the same misconception of what "theory" means as creationists.

When someone has just thought of a nice idea, it's called a hypothesis or a conjecture. Then, if there is experimental data that supports it (and a fair amount of it), and none that contradicts it, it can be called a theory. The theory may be uprooted later, when new data becomes available, or when another theory appears that explains the facts better.

So, when you say that global warming is a theory, there is no need to duck the flames: there is indeed a lot of evidence that supports it. There are scientists who have a different explanation for the facts, and they may be proved right.

(And on both sides of the debate you will also find complete idiots with no knowledge. Like Alex Jones.)
Quote from Racer X NZ :The problem seems to be that the current theory ( note THEORY )

i suggest you look up what theory means in a scientific context before you make yourself look like a blithering idiot again
Quote from wsinda :(And on both sides of the debate you will also find complete idiots with no knowledge. Like Alex Jones.)

The worst, and most deleterious, aspect about people like him is not a complete lack of knowledge - it's a half-knowledge of things while considering themselves in the know and masters of "all things done under the table which we know for a fact because they're all idiots and we're smarter and can see right through the said table with our X-ray specs - $5.99 btw". Then they proceed to mangle it all up in some weird recipe of terror-o-logy, conspiracy, popular rights activism and outright drama while flip-flopping and contradicting themselves along the way and making a buck out of it too - in the end they're as much a trustworthy source of information as FOX news is (it, ofcourse, is their archnemesis).
Quote from xaotik :"all things done under the table which we know for a fact because they're all idiots and we're smarter and can see right through the said table with our X-ray specs - $5.99 btw".

That sort of attitude is immediately visible in the truthnews commentary given all the irritating name calling which qualifies the piece as a total piece of garbage.

I would have preferred a refutation of the ideas or an underlining of the incoherences, leaving personal conclusions to others.
So we seem to be in agreement then?

All religion and cults etc (if there is there a difference), are no more than plain and simple brainwashing.

And with this test - Scientologists weed out the people who are mentally strong enough to see through them,.... correct?
Quote from xaotik :The worst, and most deleterious, aspect about people like him is not a complete lack of knowledge - it's a half-knowledge of things while considering themselves in the know and masters of "all things done under the table which we know for a fact because they're all idiots and we're smarter and can see right through the said table with our X-ray specs - $5.99 btw". Then they proceed to mangle it all up in some weird recipe of terror-o-logy, conspiracy, popular rights activism and outright drama while flip-flopping and contradicting themselves along the way and making a buck out of it too - in the end they're as much a trustworthy source of information as FOX news is (it, ofcourse, is their archnemesis).

Yes indeed.
Quote from Polyracer :
And with this test - Scientologists weed out the people who are mentally strong enough to see through them,.... correct?

If you're referring to the MMPI rip-off (no rights paid) test, it is correct.

How do I know? Because I took the test when I was 18 in Padua, during a school trip. Why? Let's just say that someone told us "Do you want to take a test that tells you something about you?" and we said yes, stupidly.

We compiled the test, then we told them we were not from Padua, and the bastards told us we should refer to Scientology in our hometown... Needless to say, we didn't. And if I knew what Scientology was and that they were gathering a psychological profile I would have strongly reacted, but I was pretty naive at the time.

I recognised the questionnaire as a shortened version of MMPI because I took the test 5 times (3 different versions) in my life in different occasions. For instance the army used it (when the service was compulsory) during the preliminary visits to identify problematic persons, specifically individuals showing suicidal tendencies, but the MMPI is a diagnostic instrument that tells a lot more.

I knew about the specific meaning of the test only when I was 25 and became interested in it. I knew about it talking to a psychiatrist - a colonel - who now should work in Rome, redacting psychological profiles of high rank officers. I haven't heard him for years.

That Scientology site was replete with Hubbard's rubbish (read books) and lots of diplomas saying "SUCCESS" as the outcome of the test, but the real meaning of MMPI is not to tell if you're likely to be succesful or not. The real intent and the only usage of the MMPI is as a clinical aid to gather information about your psychological profile. The article on Wikipedia, although very short (not all scales and interpretations are reported) helps a bit to understand.

Edit: interesting link about Scientology and MMPI in another forum.
Quote from wsinda :Yes, from a scientific viewpoint, it is the case.

Evolutionary theory says that any stable characteristic that is found in a species must be beneficial to its survival, or has been in the past. Religion has been around for a long time, so it must have given an advantage.

I don't think natural selection still applies to human kind. If you look at the amount of weak and unable people still alive, and kept in life by medical treatment, you can only conclude that the human race is getting weaker and weaker because of scientifical advances and medical stuff. If we just let everyone die and stopped using hospitals and medication and such things, and only let the strongest and smartest breed, then natural selection would apply. And I would be dead.
Quote from Gil07 :I don't think natural selection still applies to human kind.

Natural selection still applies, but the criteria determining who gets selected are wildly different now. Basic survival is no longer an issue for most of us, it's more down to who reproduce the most. (Idiocracy comes to mind.)
Quote from wien :Basic survival is no longer an issue for most of us, it's more down to who reproduce the most.

If you reproduce but your offspring is too dumb to get laid or to get a job(*), you family tree will soon wither.

*: Economic status is still a good indicator of life expectancy.
Quote from wsinda :If you reproduce but your offspring is too dumb to get laid or to get a job(*), you family tree will soon wither.

Sure, but that is always the case with natural selection. You can be the cream of the crop in your generation, but if you end up with inferior offspring that basically means you yourself is inferior and others will take you and your offspring's place.

Anyway, the fruit of my loins will inherit the traits that made me such a fertile stud in the first place, so I'm sure they'll get along.
Quote from wsinda :If you reproduce but your offspring is too dumb to get laid or to get a job(*), you family tree will soon wither.

*: Economic status is still a good indicator of life expectancy.

aswell as physical appearance..
Quote from Osco :aswell as physical appearance..

My family tree is withering away quite quickly, but that's down to other factors e.g: Two families under our name have parted. Family members have changed names. Family members all owned pubs & smoked... of which they all died of heart attacks/lung cancer/ etc...

So now my family tree has shrivelled to.... well I can coun't it on two hands... and there's only two guys to carry the family on (if you look at it in a traditional sense).
if you're one of them, get busy already
Well - looks like this thread is done now, but what a ride for me.

Have to say i found it a very interesting read and also chasing up most of the links posted here.

One in particular introduced me to Pat Condell, - a guy that speaks my mind for me in a way that I can totally relate to.

I like Richard Dorkins and have much respect for him, but Pat is more my kind of guy
Pat has about 34 short vids on youtube - look him up, good for a laugh no matter what your beliefs.

FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG