Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Science is good but i don't believe in it.

Unlike religion, science does not require belief. It simply is.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm sorry, but what? How do you not "believe" in science? Science studies reality. Unless something is proven to be wrong (which it often is, through science), then it's most likely true.

Actually, you got it the wrong way around; unless something is proven to be true it's most likely false. It's the affirmative statement that requires proofing, much like in a criminal case where, if the prosecution can't prove the defendant's guilt, they are assumed innocent rather than of the defendant can't prove their innocence, they are assumed to be guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, you got it the wrong way around; unless something is proven to be true it's most likely false. It's the affirmative statement that requires proofing, much like in a criminal case where, if the prosecution can't prove the defendant's guilt, they are assumed innocent rather than of the defendant can't prove their innocence, they are assumed to be guilty.

Not precisely. A theory that is proposed due to observations but cannot be 100% proved will be assumed to be the truth until contradicted.

 

It entirely depends on what branch of science and the proposition in question. Sometimes it is innocent until guilty, sometimes it is guilty until innocent.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually, you got it the wrong way around; unless something is proven to be true it's most likely false. It's the affirmative statement that requires proofing, much like in a criminal case where, if the prosecution can't prove the defendant's guilt, they are assumed innocent rather than of the defendant can't prove their innocence, they are assumed to be guilty.

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say, though I see where the mistake was made. I meant that once science has proven something to be true, it remains true until proven false by a later theory.

Share this post


Link to post

That is pure rotfl. Reading this thread, I can't help noticing that vast majority of DC Forums community consists of two parts. One part is classic nerds (in a good sense), fond of codes, programming, Linux and Mathematics, and another is inside-oriented humanitirians fond of writing-painting-fantasy classic set, but very bad in dealing with science. Funnily enough, I can predict that some of you, guyz, might grow up into an awesome scientist or explorer, that's normal situation for scool years. Even Albert Einstein had very poor marks in Physics, so... who may know? wink.gifcool.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, sorry but if we're all into science why did you guys fall for a troll?

 

 

 

 

*sciences away on a rainbow*

Share this post


Link to post
That is pure rotfl. Reading this thread, I can't help noticing that vast majority of DC Forums community consists of two parts. One part is classic nerds (in a good sense), fond of codes, programming, Linux and Mathematics, and another is inside-oriented humanitirians fond of writing-painting-fantasy classic set, but very bad in dealing with science. Funnily enough, I can predict that some of you, guyz, might grow up into an awesome scientist or explorer, that's normal situation for scool years. Even Albert Einstein had very poor marks in Physics, so... who may know? wink.gifcool.gif

Which am I?

Share this post


Link to post

Even Albert Einstein had very poor marks in Physics, so... who may know?

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/200.../23/1115185.htm

 

Derp.

 

Next step: making it out of candy.

 

;~; That sounds utterly delicious.

 

~

 

Fanged Therapsid Discovery

 

My teacher had a discussion with us about that, along with finding this picture:

 

user posted image

 

Which we all agreed looked like a fanged turtle. owo

Share this post


Link to post

Navy FIRES THEIR LAZORS.

 

Butseriously, did anyone else notice that the thing is called HEL, and it makes fire? HELfire? Oh, scientists and their punny acronyms.

Share this post


Link to post
Navy FIRES THEIR LAZORS.

 

Butseriously, did anyone else notice that the thing is called HEL, and it makes fire? HELfire? Oh, scientists and their punny acronyms.

Just wait until they make real phasers. Oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if anyone's posted this yet but

 

 

Symphony of Science

 

May or may not cause an existential crisis. But it's still so--fascinating, on a scientific and on a "Holy censorkip.gif" level.

 

To articulate it slightly better: We are made of stars, people. Made. Of. Stars. And that is--that is--that is cool. That is amazingly, fantastically, mindbogglingly cool--made of stars.

 

And--and--there's this little speck that wouldn't even show up on a map of the universe, like taking a satellite view of the Earth and asking someone to pinpoint a specific house or tree or blade of grass or grain of sand--but it's got all the life that we know exists on it. All of it. Just this little--microscopic ball of dirt and water but it has so much life on it and so much that is brilliant and beautiful and wonderful and that is amazing, amazing, amazing.

Edited by Kazeko

Share this post


Link to post
I don't know if anyone's posted this yet but

 

 

Symphony of Science

 

May or may not cause an existential crisis. But it's still so--fascinating, on a scientific and on a "Holy censorkip.gif" level.

 

To articulate it slightly better: We are made of stars, people. Made. Of. Stars. And that is--that is--that is cool. That is amazingly, fantastically, mindbogglingly cool--made of stars.

 

And--and--there's this little speck that wouldn't even show up on a map of the universe, like taking a satellite view of the Earth and asking someone to pinpoint a specific house or tree or blade of grass or grain of sand--but it's got all the life that we know exists on it. All of it. Just this little--microscopic ball of dirt and water but it has so much life on it and so much that is brilliant and beautiful and wonderful and that is amazing, amazing, amazing.

And to think, that idea was turning up on Babylon 5 in 1994.

.

Share this post


Link to post
And to think, that idea was turning up on Babylon 5 in 1994.
.

The Theory was widely accepted in the scientific circles way before 1994... Cosmos aired in the 80's here and presented that message, however, it's still being used to teach some of the fundamental messages (like how we're star children), and its presentation practices have been adopted by numerous science programs (The most prolific of which is The Universe from the History Channel).

 

It's funny that after 30 years, people are still amazed by the stuff we knew back then. tongue.gif

 

-K-

Share this post


Link to post
Very cool news - I've always enjoyed the idea of rogue planets as a sci-fi plot as well as wondered about it IRL.

Sadly when I first heard this news I thought "Deathstar anyone?" blink.gif What I think is exciting is that these planets probably have moons and the moons could harbour life! Imagine a solar system with the planet being at the centre instead of a star (from the prespective of possible life on the moon) so many awesome sci-fi stories / ideas up for grabs. It'll also impact the Drake equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Sadly when I first heard this news I thought "Deathstar anyone?" blink.gif What I think is exciting is that these planets probably have moons and the moons could harbour life! Imagine a solar system with the planet being at the centre instead of a star (from the prespective of possible life on the moon) so many awesome sci-fi stories / ideas up for grabs. It'll also impact the Drake equation.

It wouldn't be a solar system if the star wasn't the center of the system. It would just be a planetary system.

 

Plus, planets without stars would likely be very cold with little light for life. Also, from what the article states, these planets are likely gas giants, which makes them the "dust bunnies" of planets... just eating up the scraps (usually Hydrogen/Helium) and not becoming star or a solid planet.

 

The only chances to get a solid planet like ours would be in the wake of star death (where all of the Carbon, Oxygen, and other heavier elements would be released/synthesized from the explosion, so unless a planet is tossed outside of an existing solar system, it's unlikely to find rocky planets floating out there without a star.

 

Otherwise, they're just going to be gas giants with little to no heavy elements... which would limit life... (I mean, if an entire world is made of Hydrogen... can you make a living creature out of one element?)

 

Also, most moons in this case are likely to just be smaller gas planets... So you wouldn't even see moons like Io, Europa, or Titan.

 

/pedant dream crusher

 

-K-

Share this post


Link to post
It wouldn't be a solar system if the star wasn't the center of the system. It would just be a planetary system.

 

Plus, planets without stars would likely be very cold with little light for life. Also, from what the article states, these planets are likely gas giants, which makes them the "dust bunnies" of planets... just eating up the scraps (usually Hydrogen/Helium) and not becoming star or a solid planet.

 

The only chances to get a solid planet like ours would be in the wake of star death (where all of the Carbon, Oxygen, and other heavier elements would be released/synthesized from the explosion, so unless a planet is tossed outside of an existing solar system, it's unlikely to find rocky planets floating out there without a star.

 

Otherwise, they're just going to be gas giants with little to no heavy elements... which would limit life... (I mean, if an entire world is made of Hydrogen... can you make a living creature out of one element?)

 

Also, most moons in this case are likely to just be smaller gas planets... So you wouldn't even see moons like Io, Europa, or Titan.

 

/pedant dream crusher

 

-K-

Considering these were only discovered a few days ago and barely anything is known about them and I'm assuming you're not an astrophysicist or an astronomer involved in studying exo-planets or astrobiology I wouldn't give your assumptions on what these planets are made of where they’ve come any consideration. As far as I’m concerned there is too much we don’t know to start making any bold assumptions especially considering none of us are experts and besides when has sci-fi ever been about reality xd.png

Share this post


Link to post
Considering these were only discovered a few days ago and barely anything is known about them and I'm assuming you're not an astrophysicist or an astronomer involved in studying exo-planets or astrobiology I wouldn't give your assumptions on what these planets are made of where they’ve come any consideration. As far as I’m concerned there is too much we don’t know to start making any bold assumptions especially considering none of us are experts and besides when has sci-fi ever been about reality xd.png

If they are exosolar and weren't cast out of their solar systems, there would be nothing but Hydrogen and Helium to build the planets. This is like trying to build a sandcastle in the middle of the ocean. This isn't a matter of not having information, and making assumptions, it's a matter of the facts we know about planets and where elements heavier than Helium come from (star death).

 

It doesn't take being an expert to know what to expect based on what we know so far. It doesn't mean there isn't a possibility of exceptions and things we haven't seen before, but before we start thinking there's millions of little Earths wandering on their own with some form of life on them, having never been in a Solar System, we need to consider the precedent that brought us to this understanding.

 

-K-

Share this post


Link to post

I'm afraid Kamak is correct on this one - a rogue planet (or it's satellites) would be hard-pressed to support any life at all. Too cold, exposed to too much radiation - and then there's the mathematics of a moon orbiting a rogue star. Such a body would most likely have a highly-elliptical orbit due to the fact that the planet itself has a higher momentum when compared to, say, our own solar system's travels, and that orbit would most likely elongate over time, thus orbiting further from the parent planet. As the orbit elongates there is a higher chance of the satelitte being 'left behind,' breaking free from the weak gravitational forces, or even being snared by a passing solar system when at a further point.

 

But from a sci-fi point of view, it would be a truly awesome Star Trek/Dr Who episode.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.