General > Biology
Crows are pretty damn smart
gymsum:
If all ovjects share a graviatational atraction, why dont atoms share this? Are you saying that even thought we are made of mass and we dont collapse that its not because of a repelent force which exsists in all matter?
Numsgil:
--- Quote from: gymsum ---If all ovjects share a graviatational atraction, why dont atoms share this? Are you saying that even thought we are made of mass and we dont collapse that its not because of a repelent force which exsists in all matter?
--- End quote ---
Atoms do attract, but it is such a tiny force, that it is negligable until you get to the size of things like moons. We don't collapse into a singularity because the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces are way more powerful than gravity. Check out wiki again. Scroll down to the table that shows the four fundamental forces. Gravity is 10^28 times weaker than the so called "weak" nuclear force. And 10^36 times weaker than magnetism. And 10^38 times weaker (thats 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 times weaker) than the strong nuclear force (which is what holds the nucleus of an atom together). The only places where gravity can overcome these forces enough to collapse matter are in blackholes. And those things represent an amount of mass that would boggle the mind (several orders of magnitude larger than our sun).
Peter:
--- Quote from: Numsgil ---Also, Skateboarding dog. An its XTREME competitor.
--- End quote ---
The most usefull piece I found in the topic. . Dog Pete is the best.
--- Quote from: gymsum ---If you want to deny any of the facts I presented, you're denying thousands of years of human knowledge and hundreds of years of physics.
--- End quote ---
Uhuh..., facts? What facts, can you please tell me where your facts are?
--- Quote ---To answer your math questions, I took 4 tons, as standard weights (US), converted it into metric tons, and then checked my result with my physics notes (it sayed 4 mil metric tons as of 2006). SO I went with that. 4 tons is a horable inacurate count, considering 4 x 10^33 ergs/sec is the amount of energy produced by the sun, and energy = mc^2. Its simple algebra if you cant figure it out from there.. ergs is a unit of metric ton equivelance, the amount of energy to move one metric unit . So you divide the amount of energy produced by the sun (available from NASA) by its mass (again NASA) times the speed of light (take a guess). I have a graphing calc, so the numbers should be dead on. The 1% is realy easy dude, you take the total known mass of the sun, and divide it by the amount lost. I got 16 billionths of a percent a year, or 1% every 160 billion years. That fact alone has alot to say about how our solar system formed.
--- End quote ---
I find it a pity that the USA still doesn't use standards then. An for your information, haven't you ever heard from Le Système International d'Unités?
And just show the info you got from NASA, it would make it much easier. What you're doing now is something like ?+?=3 and I just feel like the '?' is a '1' . No really just give the numbers. I am even doubting your calculating skills.
--- Quote from: EricL ---I must say I find this thread mildly embarrassing. It makes me less likely to point friends and aquaintences to DB.
People are welcome to disagree with prevailing scientific viewpoints and site whatever reasons they wish for doing so, however irrational or nosensical. But I find the lack of rational thinking and blatent, delibert spouting of pusedo-science mumbo jumbo displayed here to be sad and disappointing, especially in that it is outside the off-topic forum. I for one, would have hoped that people who are attracted to DB would be by and large more scientifically minded and/or less prone to be duped than this thread would indicate.
--- End quote ---
Indeed some admin has to put the 'lack of rational thinking and blatent, delibert spouting of pusedo-science mumbo jumbo' part of this topic the the offtopic section. Well said anyway, you wheren't talking about me, where you.
Testlund:
Just think about this for a minute: The reason why some scientists claim the universe is 15 billion years old is because that's the longest distance they've been able to see out in the universe, meaning then that our planet is in the center of the universe. How likely is that? It's as silly as when they believed the earth was the center of our solar system!
In the video I posted the link to the guy says that the longer the telescope stare out the older the universe seems. It could as well be that the universe has no beginning or end, it just goes on forever. I don't like it when things are taken for granted at the limits of our understanding.
Peter:
--- Quote from: Testlund ---Just think about this for a minute: The reason why some scientists claim the universe is 15 billion years old is because that's the longest distance they've been able to see out in the universe, meaning then that our planet is in the center of the universe. How likely is that? It's as silly as when they believed the earth was the center of our solar system!
In the video I posted the link to the guy says that the longer the telescope stare out the older the universe seems. It could as well be that the universe has no beginning or end, it just goes on forever. I don't like it when things are taken for granted at the limits of our understanding.
--- End quote ---
Well in fact they claim the universe is 14 billion years old(not 15). Nasa project WMAP found that conclusion. With a complicated way they find the oldest light that came from the beginning of the universe filtering other light out. Hard to imagine how they exactly came to that number, becouse in the beginning there was no light. Conbined with big-bang theory with a lot of phycics there is the age calculated.
Point is that the big-bang is 'probably' the best fitting theory, others like steady-state have been (almost) dismised becouse they can't be right. Becouse big-bang has no real counter arguments left, it is chosen as main theory.
You could say that big-bang has gotten more attention then others, and therefore there are extra theorys created for big-bang theory(like cosmic inflation) that explain some parts that don't fit exactly. And that the others with less support didn't had the capacity to create strong counter arguments.
But time will tell, they'll find out sometime, how it really works. Maybe they are really right.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version