Both parties are indentured to transnational corporations. Nearly the exact same corporations. Both have had a tendency to invade other countries and to support US global hegemony. I do not think capitalism is the best political-economic system. But you want me to severely compromise my values just because one of the entrenched parties preaches the values more fully embraced in other third parties? A de-facto two party state is a pitiful excuse for a democracy.
One of the most significant pieces of evidence for dark matter is the rotation curve of galaxies. If the Universe functioned like we thought it did, the rotation curve of a galaxy should be a downward sloping curve - the further out a star is from the galactic center (where the mass of the galaxy is concentrated), the slower its orbit should be. This is what Kepler's Law tells us - that the orbital speed of an object decreases inversely with the square root of the orbital radius.
What we find, however, is that the rotation curves of galaxies are nearly flat, meaning that the mass distribution of galaxies must be nearly equal all the way through. This means there must be a large amount of matter that we don't see. There aren't enough dwarf stars, planets and other things like that to make up this mass. Of course we haven't counted or seen all of these, but if you do the math, there would have to be a ridiculous amount of these - more than is likely. Hence, we have dark matter.
This new theory says that the force of gravity should be stronger near the galactic core, where the stars are packed most densely. So the core is even more massive than we thought, meaning that the rotation curve of the galaxy should be even more skewed - far from flat. So either New Scientist seriously misrepresnted his theory, or it doesn't even deserve a cursory thought. MOND at least seems plausible.
Yes and No. Part of it, perhaps. But all large scale structures have masses far greater than that of their visible matter content. Spiral galaxies typically have a dark matter to light matter ratio of 10:1, ellipsoidal galaxies 7:1, superclusters 100:1, and so on.
I'll take a look at your stuff as well in the morning. To clarify my position on God, I believe a God or many Gods could exist, but I see a complete lack of evidence for them. Combined with generally working naturalistic theories, I lean towards atheism. The problem with atheism, though, is the same as religion: it makes claims that cannot be tested.
The Radioisotope dating method also has its problems and has widely varying results.
Not when it's used correctly. You establish certain timeframes for a given isotope, and within those it's highly accurate. You cannot used C14 dating for things beyond some 50 thousand years because of its relatively short half life, but you can use potassium/argon dating, and others.
The problem with inserting God into the theories is not that God can't exist. He certainly can, but it's dead weight. It's not a necessary component for the model to exist. Furthermore, if you assume that God has always existed and wasn't himself created, I can equally assume that something, but not a being of any kind, always existed which caused the universe as we know it to come into being.
Also there are some interesting theories from PhD Scientists that show how our galaxy or even our planet could be at the center of the universe.
I'm an astronomy minor and I've never heard of anything like this. What I have heard, however, is that the Universe does not appear to have any center. All galaxies (outside of their respective local groups) are moving away from each other. If you look at our place in the universe and see that everything seems to be receding from us, as Hubble did when he discovered cosmic expansion, he was thrown for a loop. The idea that we were the center of the universe fell out of favor as heliocentrism rose. The solution to this problem is pretty easy though. Imagine yourself in a galaxy a hundred thousand light years from here. Well, the Milky Way is moving away from you, and so is every other galaxy. Is this galaxy also at the center of the universe? No. The universe has no center because everything is moving away from everything else.
As for the Earth, we absolutely know that we are not in the center of our galaxy. We can look through our galaxy and plainly see this. We can also look at the structure of other galaxies and see that the types of stars around us, the orientation of the stars towards each other, are like those in the discs of other galaxies. We can "see" the supermassive black hole in our own galaxy, and at the center of nearly every galaxy. We are nowhere near this.
As I said in an earlier post, there are no absolute certainties in science. It always allows for something to be overturned, but evolution and some of these basic observations about the structure of the universe and our place in it, are about as certain as can come. The precise details of their workings are especially likely to be overturned or in some cases just plain dsicovered in time, but as a general idea, we think we know with a great deal of certainty that evolution and certain features of astronomy are correct.
You are no less ignorant, friend. Your characterization of science as merely blind guessing reveals a deep misunderstanding. Science is not a religion because it's innacurate and old theories are superseded by new ones. This is is built in to science. It is intended to be this way. That's key to the scientific method. Science does not work in absolutisms as does religion. However, it is a pretty safe bet to say that a few things are unlikely to be disproven, and evolution is one of those. We understand its workings fairly well, though this is not to say that we completely do. We're almost certainly wrong on some of the specifics, perhaps even some of the basics. But in general, everything points in that direction. How often will you find someone willing to say that about their religion?
The Kuiper Belt starts within the orbit of Neptune, and only goes out to 49 AU. This is well within the solar system. The Oort cloud may be as large as 3 light years across.
1) The impactor, known alternately as Orpheus or Theia, has been modeled to have been about the size of Mars, and to have hit Earth at a very oblique angle.
2) The absolute best evidence we have for the theory is that the moon has essentially no iron core. All the other terrestrial planets do. As it turns out, the comosition of the moon is remarkably similar to that of Earth's mantle (oxygen/silicon). It is theorized that most of Theia's core merged with our own. Earth's mean density is, if I recall, something on the order of 5500 kg/m^3. The moon has a mean density of something like 3300 kg/m^3. If you were to take out the Earth's iron/nickle core and replace it with mantle material, it would have a mean density similar to that of the moon.
3) As an astronomy minor and having taken planetary formation courses, I've never heard anything about carbonaceous chondrite cores forming the basic building blocks of planets. Carbon, counterintuitively, isn't even too abundant on Earth. Or anywhere else for that matter. Or rather, there certainly is a lot of it, but not compared to oxygen, silicon, iron, aluminum, etc.
4) You can't compare the models of planetary formation in the inner solar system to the outer. Not on a 1:1 basis. The outer planets are significantly larger than the inner because they formed past the frost line (about halfway through the asteroid belt). After this line, ice stays in crystalline form, allowing the rocky starts of the other planets to aggregate much more mass, both planetary and gaseous (the rocky core of Jupiter, at least, is probably about 20 times the size of Earth). With this much more mass, they can more easily capture smaller planetismals, which become moons. It would be far, far easier for a Jupiter to capture Luna than for Earth.
5) As alluded to in the beignning of this post, computer simulations have been done on both the capture and impact theories (including many variations of). The impact theory works. The capture does not.
6) That we have plate tectonics, significant ocean basins, etc, could also be construed as evidence for the giant impact theory. Venus has no moons, and there is little evidence that it ever underwent plate tectonics. The same goes for Mars, and I assume Mercury, though I am not sure on the latter.
But the most important thing here is #2. That's the smoking gun.
this isn't a first by any means. Here at the University of Arizona, this is pretty common. I have a friend helping to build one of the next Mars orbiters, and students were also involved in builidng Spirit and Opportunity.
Don't feed people that bullshit about Chavez. Even if you disagree with his politics, he has massive popular support. If you will remember, he was put back in power two days after his 2002 coup. It is the rich media and corporate interests of Venezuela which hate him (who are obviously a minority), though understandably so - he is bad for their business interests. This is the same reason why the US dislikes him (and because he is a price hawk in OPEC), and why the CIA likely had some hand in the 2002 coup. The CIA has long had a very active presence in Latin America, and I doubt much has changed.
yeah, and sadaam was just an innocent person minding his own business before the U.S. came in and ovethrew his country. I think the thousands of people that were tortured and killed would beg to differ.
There was no implication of that in the OP; rather, he began his post with
China is everything Saddam was
Combined with the rest of the post, this insinuates that while Saddam was bad, China is worse. You jumped the gun.
Number four, Language, got a careful look from Carl Zimmer a while back. It's Pinker vs. Chomsky, winner take all, pass the popcorn!
In case you missed this reference, it's about one of the central debates in linguistics: how language originated. Pinker favors an explanation based on simple adaptation, wherein greater and greater communication skills were selected for.
Chomsky favors a process called exaptation, wherein most of the fundamentals of language evolved for another reason, then were later adapted to be used as language. For instance, insect wings first evolved as radiators. We "know" this because they still serve that function, but also because most insects need close to 100% of their wing to achieve flying functionality. They couldn't have evolved gradually/stepwise for transportation purposes because wings would be useless for flying if not all there. Chomsky supports this explanation for language because he says an adaptationist model cannot be used to explain any of the universal properties of language, such as syntax, because a sentence lacking sentax can just as effectively convey something as one with (supposedly).
I tend to side with Pinker, however, because I believe syntax could have evolved due to pressure for more precise communication. Syntax most definitely allows for more effective communication, becasue it is the only way that conveying more than a simple idea or two is possible.
"Grog tree run behind attack mammoth me here attack now"
versus
"Grog, go over to the tree so that you can attack the mammoth after I attack it from here"
I happen to be taking an Astronomy class right now, and it takes something on the order of eighty times the mass of Jupiter to achieve the critical density for fusion. A brown dwarf is something with greater than thirteen times the mass of Jupiter, though this number is pretty arbitrary. The stellar mass minimum is less so, because gravity has to be able to overcome the outward pressure generated by the heat of the collapsing cloud.
with mention of the RIAA.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men lie like dogs."
- Hunter S. Thompson
Slashdot Mirror
Both parties are indentured to transnational corporations. Nearly the exact same corporations. Both have had a tendency to invade other countries and to support US global hegemony. I do not think capitalism is the best political-economic system. But you want me to severely compromise my values just because one of the entrenched parties preaches the values more fully embraced in other third parties? A de-facto two party state is a pitiful excuse for a democracy.
One of the most significant pieces of evidence for dark matter is the rotation curve of galaxies. If the Universe functioned like we thought it did, the rotation curve of a galaxy should be a downward sloping curve - the further out a star is from the galactic center (where the mass of the galaxy is concentrated), the slower its orbit should be. This is what Kepler's Law tells us - that the orbital speed of an object decreases inversely with the square root of the orbital radius.
What we find, however, is that the rotation curves of galaxies are nearly flat, meaning that the mass distribution of galaxies must be nearly equal all the way through. This means there must be a large amount of matter that we don't see. There aren't enough dwarf stars, planets and other things like that to make up this mass. Of course we haven't counted or seen all of these, but if you do the math, there would have to be a ridiculous amount of these - more than is likely. Hence, we have dark matter.
This new theory says that the force of gravity should be stronger near the galactic core, where the stars are packed most densely. So the core is even more massive than we thought, meaning that the rotation curve of the galaxy should be even more skewed - far from flat. So either New Scientist seriously misrepresnted his theory, or it doesn't even deserve a cursory thought. MOND at least seems plausible.
Followed by
People who truly appreciate fine wines thus only appreciate it's age and prestige? Bingo.
Yes and No. Part of it, perhaps. But all large scale structures have masses far greater than that of their visible matter content. Spiral galaxies typically have a dark matter to light matter ratio of 10:1, ellipsoidal galaxies 7:1, superclusters 100:1, and so on.
I'll take a look at your stuff as well in the morning. To clarify my position on God, I believe a God or many Gods could exist, but I see a complete lack of evidence for them. Combined with generally working naturalistic theories, I lean towards atheism. The problem with atheism, though, is the same as religion: it makes claims that cannot be tested.
Sadly a lack of transitional forms in this area leads me to doubt the fossil record. What lack? Check here:h tml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.
The Radioisotope dating method also has its problems and has widely varying results.
Not when it's used correctly. You establish certain timeframes for a given isotope, and within those it's highly accurate. You cannot used C14 dating for things beyond some 50 thousand years because of its relatively short half life, but you can use potassium/argon dating, and others.
The problem with inserting God into the theories is not that God can't exist. He certainly can, but it's dead weight. It's not a necessary component for the model to exist. Furthermore, if you assume that God has always existed and wasn't himself created, I can equally assume that something, but not a being of any kind, always existed which caused the universe as we know it to come into being.
Also there are some interesting theories from PhD Scientists that show how our galaxy or even our planet could be at the center of the universe.
I'm an astronomy minor and I've never heard of anything like this. What I have heard, however, is that the Universe does not appear to have any center. All galaxies (outside of their respective local groups) are moving away from each other. If you look at our place in the universe and see that everything seems to be receding from us, as Hubble did when he discovered cosmic expansion, he was thrown for a loop. The idea that we were the center of the universe fell out of favor as heliocentrism rose. The solution to this problem is pretty easy though. Imagine yourself in a galaxy a hundred thousand light years from here. Well, the Milky Way is moving away from you, and so is every other galaxy. Is this galaxy also at the center of the universe? No. The universe has no center because everything is moving away from everything else.
As for the Earth, we absolutely know that we are not in the center of our galaxy. We can look through our galaxy and plainly see this. We can also look at the structure of other galaxies and see that the types of stars around us, the orientation of the stars towards each other, are like those in the discs of other galaxies. We can "see" the supermassive black hole in our own galaxy, and at the center of nearly every galaxy. We are nowhere near this.
As I said in an earlier post, there are no absolute certainties in science. It always allows for something to be overturned, but evolution and some of these basic observations about the structure of the universe and our place in it, are about as certain as can come. The precise details of their workings are especially likely to be overturned or in some cases just plain dsicovered in time, but as a general idea, we think we know with a great deal of certainty that evolution and certain features of astronomy are correct.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
h tml
I would recommend looking there if you want to see evidence of evolution, and here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.
for a general explanation of the workings and philosophy of science.
You are no less ignorant, friend. Your characterization of science as merely blind guessing reveals a deep misunderstanding. Science is not a religion because it's innacurate and old theories are superseded by new ones. This is is built in to science. It is intended to be this way. That's key to the scientific method. Science does not work in absolutisms as does religion. However, it is a pretty safe bet to say that a few things are unlikely to be disproven, and evolution is one of those. We understand its workings fairly well, though this is not to say that we completely do. We're almost certainly wrong on some of the specifics, perhaps even some of the basics. But in general, everything points in that direction. How often will you find someone willing to say that about their religion?
Cyclones? Moving light? A spherical Earth? All of these things are plainly obvious, and did not emerge with the Jews.
You're the only one who is making medication and education seem mutally exclusive. Why not do BOTH?
but I had to go check my MySpace.
Phobos and Deimos are thought to be captured asteroids. They are nowhere near the size of Luna, and Mars does exist next to the asteroid belt.
The Kuiper Belt starts within the orbit of Neptune, and only goes out to 49 AU. This is well within the solar system. The Oort cloud may be as large as 3 light years across.
Sorry, forgot to format it. Hope you guys can follow.
1) The impactor, known alternately as Orpheus or Theia, has been modeled to have been about the size of Mars, and to have hit Earth at a very oblique angle. 2) The absolute best evidence we have for the theory is that the moon has essentially no iron core. All the other terrestrial planets do. As it turns out, the comosition of the moon is remarkably similar to that of Earth's mantle (oxygen/silicon). It is theorized that most of Theia's core merged with our own. Earth's mean density is, if I recall, something on the order of 5500 kg/m^3. The moon has a mean density of something like 3300 kg/m^3. If you were to take out the Earth's iron/nickle core and replace it with mantle material, it would have a mean density similar to that of the moon. 3) As an astronomy minor and having taken planetary formation courses, I've never heard anything about carbonaceous chondrite cores forming the basic building blocks of planets. Carbon, counterintuitively, isn't even too abundant on Earth. Or anywhere else for that matter. Or rather, there certainly is a lot of it, but not compared to oxygen, silicon, iron, aluminum, etc. 4) You can't compare the models of planetary formation in the inner solar system to the outer. Not on a 1:1 basis. The outer planets are significantly larger than the inner because they formed past the frost line (about halfway through the asteroid belt). After this line, ice stays in crystalline form, allowing the rocky starts of the other planets to aggregate much more mass, both planetary and gaseous (the rocky core of Jupiter, at least, is probably about 20 times the size of Earth). With this much more mass, they can more easily capture smaller planetismals, which become moons. It would be far, far easier for a Jupiter to capture Luna than for Earth. 5) As alluded to in the beignning of this post, computer simulations have been done on both the capture and impact theories (including many variations of). The impact theory works. The capture does not. 6) That we have plate tectonics, significant ocean basins, etc, could also be construed as evidence for the giant impact theory. Venus has no moons, and there is little evidence that it ever underwent plate tectonics. The same goes for Mars, and I assume Mercury, though I am not sure on the latter. But the most important thing here is #2. That's the smoking gun.
this isn't a first by any means. Here at the University of Arizona, this is pretty common. I have a friend helping to build one of the next Mars orbiters, and students were also involved in builidng Spirit and Opportunity.
Is this kind of like going super saiyan?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars, http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AlbertEydelman .shtml and http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/ mars_data-information/temperature_overview.html (the latter are the first 2 results on Google for "mars temperature"), Mars can already reach about 20C/70F near the equator. With that in mind, 50C doesn't seem too high, especially for an equatorial plane. Still, it's strange to think that Mars could be as hot as the heat record in Phoenix (though 45C is pretty common).
Don't feed people that bullshit about Chavez. Even if you disagree with his politics, he has massive popular support. If you will remember, he was put back in power two days after his 2002 coup. It is the rich media and corporate interests of Venezuela which hate him (who are obviously a minority), though understandably so - he is bad for their business interests. This is the same reason why the US dislikes him (and because he is a price hawk in OPEC), and why the CIA likely had some hand in the 2002 coup. The CIA has long had a very active presence in Latin America, and I doubt much has changed.
Check out Stephen Baxter's Coalescent as well.
I happen to be taking an Astronomy class right now, and it takes something on the order of eighty times the mass of Jupiter to achieve the critical density for fusion. A brown dwarf is something with greater than thirteen times the mass of Jupiter, though this number is pretty arbitrary. The stellar mass minimum is less so, because gravity has to be able to overcome the outward pressure generated by the heat of the collapsing cloud.
The best controller ever, by far, was for Nintendo 64.
with mention of the RIAA. "The music business is a cruel and shallow trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men lie like dogs." - Hunter S. Thompson