big bang bamm! - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 02-21-2004, 01:39 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
I'm sick of reading about how scientists know the origin of our universe and the way the Big Bang Theory has become a standard explanation rather than a "theory".



All I read anymore is a diversion from theories to facts that everyone should just assume as true. I mean, how can scientists or whoever be so sure about cosmos and galaxies that have never even been explored, but they are still yet to find a cure to the common cold, cancer, aids, or many other common scientific problems in society. I think scientists just want to claim some fame and be known for "this and that" and really don't know the ultimate answers that we all seek..



But what I want to know is how the moon and earth and all the other planets are such perfect sphere's.. I mean if you look at the moon, it is a PERFECT sphere.. how could this have happened "naturally" ??
GhostUser is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 02-21-2004, 04:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Peebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by magyka View Post

But what I want to know is how the moon and earth and all the other planets are such perfect sphere's.. I mean if you look at the moon, it is a PERFECT sphere.. how could this have happened "naturally" ??



The Earth is not a perfect sphere, it is closer to a biaxial ellipsoid. It is an irregular shape though. Would guess the moon is the same, though I do not have specific dimensions handy.



(3rd year Geomatics Engineering here, one of the things I study is geodesy: the science of determining and representing the size and shape of Earth and its gravity field.)
Peebs is offline  
#3 Old 02-21-2004, 08:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Astarte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,780
I think you may have confused exactly what a scientific theory is.



A theory is a set of statements that are made to explain certain phenomena. It's not provable, because science doesn't really "prove" anything. It only tries to explain things, and as we're always finding out new things, we're always ammending our various theories. Sometimes theories consist so well with observable phenomena that they become scientific law, but as we've seen in the past, even this can sometimes be disproven. The Theory of Newtonian Mechanics was accepted as fact for a long time, but was abandoned later of the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics because it just explained things better.



The big bang is the most accepted theory because it coincides the best with what we know about the universe. Experimentation and observation, up until now, has very strongly supported it. So well that we accept that that's what happened. I'm sure that if we find out something or another that doesn't go along with it, and it's observed and verified well, scientists will rethink the big bang and come up with something else.



If you and your dad were the only ones home, you heard the toilet flushing, and a minute later went into the bathroom, saw that the toilet seat was up (say you'd left it down earlier) and saw the soap was dry... you'd assume that he used the toilet and didn't wash his hands, right? But you didn't actually *see* it, so how could you know? Because that's the best explanation for the set of things you were observing! If later you found out that the toilet was malfunctioning, then maybe you'd ammend your earlier conclusions.



Science doesn't figure everything out.. I'm pretty sure that it can't. It can only observe the natural world and try to give us plausible explanations for why things are the way that they are. Hopefully along the way they'll find some practical applications for these theories.
Astarte is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 02-21-2004, 10:49 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
I know where Magyka is coming from re scientists. The way they talk about it it is as if, they think that. they are right and so that is what is true. Of course. from past experience we know they are not always right.
Tofu is offline  
#5 Old 02-21-2004, 02:29 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Mskedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,339
Great post, Astarte.



Quite a few of my closest friends are scientists, and one of the things I like most about them is their curious nature. There are some scientists I know who think they know everything, like you described, but they're the type of people who would think they knew everything no matter what line of work they were in, so I don't thik that's necessarily the science...



The more I learn about science, the more questions I have. I think that's part of the appeal. I remember when I decided I needed to know more about string theory and I read The Elegant Universe; I expected it to give me answers, and it gave me quite a few, but I got millions more questions. I started reading my ex's physics, biology, and chemistry books -- stuff I've always been fascinated in, but didn't make much time for.



I'm getting off track here. The Big Bang theory has a lot of evidence to support it. No one can ever know if it's right, it's just a viable theory. Some of my scientist friends are understandably convinced it's fact because of the evidence, some accept it as the strongest theory, and a few are fundamentalist christians and creationists.



As far as being known for this or that, as you put it, again I would say there are fame-hungry people in just about any profession. My best scientist friend does research to create vaccines for diseases that don't have vaccines, another is working towards finding new ways to stop the growth of cancer cells -- neither have ever mentioned the fame that would come if they were successful. I'm not saying it hasn't crossed their minds, but their motivation is to better the human condition. Period. I totally respect that.



As far as everything being perfect spheres, I second Peebs. But as far as them being spheres at all, what makes you think it is unnatural?



So can you tell us where you're coming from, Magyka? Just curious.
Mskedi is offline  
#6 Old 02-21-2004, 03:42 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Peebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astarte View Post

The Theory of Newtonian Mechanics was accepted as fact for a long time, but was abandoned later of the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics because it just explained things better.



Newton's theories faced criticism long before Einstein. His formula for gravitation between two bodies implies that that gravitation acts instantly (which is impossible). However, Newton himself did not claim his formula explained gravitation, but rather that it was an effective model of the behaviour of gravitation, which it is. This and many more of Newton's mathematical models are still widely used today.
Peebs is offline  
#7 Old 02-21-2004, 11:28 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Mskedi,



In response to, "So can you tell us where you're coming from, Magyka? Just curious."



When I look at the moon at night, I see a perfect sphere. When I took geology courses in college, my professor told me the earth is a near perfect sphere. It seems most planets are spherical shaped. It just seems to me that if a planet was created from particles and naturally, it would not be spherical, but rather mutilated in some sort of odd-formed shape, like a crater or star.



I have a question for all of you:



Should the universe and life have been created "naturally" from science, how do human beings and other forms of life have such things as "feelings", "love", "dreams", and have such complicated things such as hearts, brains, immune systems, digestive systems, etc... Of course there is the theory of evolution, which makes sense, from the evolution of an ape to the human. Perhaps that is accurate and true, but that brings up my next point: If humans evolved from apes, then "we" are the same as other animals like deer, cats, and bears, just with different features and abilities.



I like to talk about this stuff, and I respect everybody's opinion, but I will state what I feel is not possible:



Universe is created from the collapsing of dark matter, etc..



Universe expands and eventually craters and other forms of matter come into existence.



Planets develop, having specific features based on location in the atmosphere. The sun happens to be a big ball of flame that never stops burning, the earth allows life because of its "perfect" location, and the other planets just fall into place without much ado..



As earth is created, a very complicated process allows layers, mountains, water, lakes, and other features to develop thru time.



(I haven't studied this much) Basic life begins, such as bacteria.



Bacteria mutates and expands into more complicated forms of life such as animals and trees.



Eventually the human being takes over the planet.. and most humans/animals have things such as hearts, brains, can talk, make friends, learn, etc... Fine, the brain and heart were created naturally, but to talk and think and feel, are non-physical features of life. How could that have happened naturally?



I do believe life has evolved, but not from nothing.



Other things I ponder:



The sun is in the perfect spot, not to burn us, not to keep us cold, but just right to allow life to exist.



The earth has remained in the perfect distance from the sun, never moving away or closer, at least enough to end life.



Even if the universe was created naturally, and everything happened from the big bang, one ultimate question remains: What about before that? One could say there was nothing. You can't have space without time and time without space. But there had to be something before that which has allowed the "big bang" to occur.



I know I probably made some innaccurate statements, but I'm not a scientist. I just want to talk about things, not make any serious arguments.



And another question, on Unsolved Mysteries from a long time ago, I remember seeing an episode that showed aliens being found on earth and the CIA/FBI/Government covered up the findings. I really don't believe the story, but I'm curious if this really happened and what the real story on this is. I mean, isn't that funny that the aliens landed in USA and not somewhere else on this enormous planet. But I find the story possibly believable, at least from the way Robert Stack made it seem.



And one last teaser: Obviously man doesn't know everything there is to know. Perhaps there some things in life we will never know until we die. No matter how intelligent life becomes, there will always be the unthinkable, the unknowable, and the impossible. For example, there still remains a lot of mystery to dreams, spirituality, and non-physical being. What do you think?



REMEMBER, this is SCIENCE as someone explained above. Please respect everybody's opinions!
GhostUser is offline  
#8 Old 02-22-2004, 12:11 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Syntax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astarte View Post

The Theory of Newtonian Mechanics was accepted as fact for a long time, but was abandoned later of the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics because it just explained things better.



Actually, Newton was, and contiunes to be exactly correct about the behaviour of macroscopic bodies. In his introduction to Principia Mathematica, he wrote (and I translate), "The work contained here is only valid if time is the same for all men". In other words, he made an assumtption, and stated what it was. Worth noting just how outlandish a suggestion it would have been back then to claim that time was not universal. All Einstein did with his theories of relativity was to show that time was not the same for all men, and then went on to quantify this.



Newton didn't, however, get it right for small things (quantum mechanics), although his work was instumental in getting QM sorted out.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofu View Post

I know where Magyka is coming from re scientists. The way they talk about it it is as if, they think that. they are right and so that is what is true. Of course. from past experience we know they are not always right.



Ok, that's a load of bull crap. Cite me a scientific paper or two to back that up please.



If you want to talk about how scientists are quoted in the media, that's as much the fault of the media as it is of the reader. If you want to talk about scientists themselves, you have to get it from the horses mouth - their writings, and what they say. Even then, making a crass generalisation about all scientists is a very dangerous thing - it assumes a homogenity that is not present. One might make generalisations about vegetarians - yet from this board it's pretty clear that the only generalisation you can make about all vegetarians is that they don't eat meat. Even then, in some circles, that might not be the case of all who call themselves vegetarians.



Most of the papers I read consist of a long list of assumptions that are being made (although sometimes shorthand is used - for example the Hartree-Fock procedure only works if a number of other assumptions are also made. Therefore, just stating that the Hartree-Fock procedure is used is the same as listing all those sub-assumptions) and then some result on top of those.
Syntax is offline  
#9 Old 02-22-2004, 05:11 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Peebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax View Post

Actually, Newton was, and contiunes to be exactly correct about the behaviour of macroscopic bodies. In his introduction to Principia Mathematica, he wrote (and I translate), "The work contained here is only valid if time is the same for all men". In other words, he made an assumtption, and stated what it was. Worth noting just how outlandish a suggestion it would have been back then to claim that time was not universal. All Einstein did with his theories of relativity was to show that time was not the same for all men, and then went on to quantify this.



Newton didn't, however, get it right for small things (quantum mechanics), although his work was instumental in getting QM sorted out.



Thank you! That is what I was getting at.

Peebs is offline  
#10 Old 02-22-2004, 08:26 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax View Post

.







Ok, that's a load of bull crap. Cite me a scientific paper or two to back that up please.



If you want to talk about how scientists are quoted in the media, that's as much the fault of the media as it is of the reader. If you want to talk about scientists themselves, you have to get it from the horses mouth - their writings, and what they say. Even then, making a crass generalisation about all scientists is a very dangerous thing - it assumes a homogenity that is not present. One might make generalisations about vegetarians - yet from this board it's pretty clear that the only generalisation you can make about all vegetarians is that they don't eat meat. Even then, in some circles, that might not be the case of all who call themselves vegetarians.



Most of the papers I read consist of a long list of assumptions that are being made (although sometimes shorthand is used - for example the Hartree-Fock procedure only works if a number of other assumptions are also made. Therefore, just stating that the Hartree-Fock procedure is used is the same as listing all those sub-assumptions) and then some result on top of those.



Was that a reply to me?!!?
Tofu is offline  
#11 Old 02-22-2004, 08:31 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
I state again, I know where Magyka is coming from. Scientists (and I do not mean every single scientist!!!) When they talk they often speak as if that is that, period! Of course that is not the case
Tofu is offline  
#12 Old 02-22-2004, 09:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Syntax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofu View Post

Scientists (and I do not mean every single scientist!!!) When they talk they often speak as if that is that, period!



Point me to an example. If it happens 'often' , this aught to be easy for you.



I do not belive that you can. If you cannot cite an example, I ask you to stop make that claim.
Syntax is offline  
#13 Old 02-22-2004, 11:53 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
This is all stated as FACTS when it is not FACTS, just theories and assumptions:



Stars can survive being stretched a small amount," said study leader Stefanie Komossa, a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany. "But this star was stretched beyond its breaking point."



The supermassive black hole anchors a galaxy called RX J1242-11. It is about 700 million light-years away. The star was about the size of our Sun. It was ripped to shreds over hours or days.



After it was pulled apart some of the star's gas was lured into the black hole. It was heated to millions of degrees just before being swallowed, releasing energy equal to when a star explodes in a supernova event. The astronomers detected the brilliant flare of X-ray activity.





__________





Black holes are known to be sloppy eaters. They digest only a small amount of what's on their dinner plates, spitting the rest back into space. In this case, only about 1 percent of the star was ultimately swallowed, the research team concluded. The rest of the star's gas was flung into the galaxy by the momentum and energy of the whole interaction, including by the radiation kicked up by the portion of gas that did disappear.







___________





Our own Milky Way Galaxy harbors a black hole that packs between 3.2 million and 4 million solar masses. It is a relatively quiet black hole compared to many, reflecting in part the maturity of the galaxy and, theorists say, a lack of nearby material on which to dine.



Komossa's team said black holes in other galaxies should rip stars apart in the fashion they've witnessed, a so-called stellar tidal disruption. It ought to occur about once every 10,000 years in a typical large galaxy harboring a black hole. Given that there are thought to be billions of these supermassive black holes in the universe, future observatories should be able to detect the events regularly.



If a star were similarly destroyed at the center of the Milky Way, it would generate an X-ray burst some 50,000 times brighter than any other X-ray source in the galaxy.



Our solar system is about 25,000 light-years from the galactic center. So a stellar tidal disruption there would not pose any danger to Earth, the scientists said.
GhostUser is offline  
#14 Old 02-23-2004, 12:01 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Syntax, proove it:



If a star were similarly destroyed at the center of the Milky Way, it would generate an X-ray burst some 50,000 times brighter than any other X-ray source in the galaxy.



Source: CNN.com quoting a scientist.



"Ok, that's a load of bull crap...



If you want to talk about how scientists are quoted in the media, that's as much the fault of the media as it is of the reader."



This is a direct quote from the media. Perhaps they twist their stories, but I don't see CNN.com changing someone's direct quote. This is the types of scientific stories I regularly see: assuming these theories and assumptions as FACT. It should read:



I BELIEVE, If a star were similarly destroyed at the center of the Milky Way, it COULD generate an X-ray burst some 50,000 times brighter than any other X-ray source in the galaxy, but I am not able to proove this extreme statement because I've never explored the Milky Way.
GhostUser is offline  
#15 Old 02-23-2004, 03:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
Meat is bad for you. Potatoes are very bad for you! umm.Vegetarians cannot get b12 without supplements. MMR vaccine is safe. HRT is safe.Thalidamide. Scientists circa "no evidence that smoking does any harm" The list goes on and on.....
Tofu is offline  
#16 Old 02-23-2004, 03:35 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
It was a good point Magyka!
Tofu is offline  
#17 Old 02-23-2004, 10:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Mskedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,339
Tofu --



Are you talking about the scientists themselves or the people who report the studies? I hear those things on the news, sure, but when I read science mags for scientists, it doesn't sound like what they're saying is the end-all. Most of the articles I read in Science News, for example, just state findings and what they might suggest -- there's no scare tactics for you to throw all your potatoes away or anything.



Thalidomide was bad, definitely. But there have also been a ton of advances by scientists that have made our health much better (vaccines, etc..).



I just don't like seeing scientists being bashed and generalized like this.
Mskedi is offline  
#18 Old 02-23-2004, 10:29 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Syntax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 416
Ok, for the hard of reading (Tofu, this means you) ...



Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax View Post

Cite me a scientific paper or two to back that up please.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax View Post

Point me to an example. If it happens 'often' , this aught to be easy for you..



My argument is that if you believe your original assertion you are crap at reading (and/or thinking). This appears to be being substantiated, because I've been pretty clear about wanting a pointer to the specific articles that you claim support your point of view.



I can give a bland list of subject headings and claim it supports any point of view. Moreover, it is impossible for me to argue with what you wrote, because it contains no content (all it's content is present only by implication, not explicitly).



For the third time, give me a list of references that support your point of view, because I do not believe that any exist.
Syntax is offline  
#19 Old 02-24-2004, 12:33 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Syntax, why the harsh attitude about everything?? Stop calling other members names and speaking that way, because as far as I can see, you are making an extreme attempt to present yourself as an intelligent person, but when you use terms such as bull crap, you take away from that. You may have a point in what you say, but please make a sensible argument, and stop trying to attempt to ridicule other members. Lighten up!
GhostUser is offline  
#20 Old 02-24-2004, 12:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
SystmDwnGrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,992
He is making a sensible argument. These claims that scientists can say whatever they want, should be substantiated, if they aren't then they are just some person's perception of something. Where are these many examples of scientists doing such things... are they credible sceintists/doctors ..does the information come from some news organization trying to push an agenda? Did the reporter take a scientific study and draw his own conclusions... those types of things happen. But, it didn't come from the scientist's mouth.



He is simply asking her to prove her statement, by giving evidence. She won't find it in scientific papers. Why? Because they are held up to very high standards of evidence, they run many tests and are subject to peer review. They can't say anything they want unless they can give a substantiated reason for saying it.



Please stop with the generalizations. They are ridiculous.



Btw... just a side note ...you know some veg*ns, do need B12 supplements. I am one of them. I am glad that someone made me aware that I might, in fact, need it.
SystmDwnGrl is offline  
#21 Old 02-24-2004, 01:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
JLRodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,819
As far as the planet thing...

Actually... the planets are more oval shaped... gravity pulls the mass inward, rotation causes the center to bulge out, the harmony between them causes a "sphere". The moon itself isn't seen from earth... in reality the moon's leaving the earth's orbit at about 4-6" every year (give or take) which means that in theory... we see a little bit different view of the moon at all times... The moon's leaving also alters the pivioting angle of the earth (the earth's axis rotates in a "circle", the "circle" gets more irrational as the moon moves out). Of course the only time the moon's seen is by the reflection of light from the sun... (although it almost never looks like a sphere even then... it's just an optical illusion -> when does the moon look bigger? on the horizon by trees, or when it's straight up, in reality it's the same size).



The area for life to exist while small.... is still a farily large area. Of course what you consider life can be debatable.... some living creatures on this planet (on the ocean's floor) survive in environments that are toxic to every other creature on the planet (sulfur and other volcanic type of gasses). so similar things could exist on other planets, outside the "earth" range.



You could re-create the effect by filling a ballon with water (or something more solid) and spinning it around... it'd look more spherical as it spun than beforehand. (assuming you could spin the top/bottom at the same time by like pinching it or something)
JLRodgers is offline  
#22 Old 02-24-2004, 05:45 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by magyka View Post

Syntax, why the harsh attitude about everything?? Stop calling other members names and speaking that way, because as far as I can see, you are making an extreme attempt to present yourself as an intelligent person, but when you use terms such as bull crap, you take away from that. You may have a point in what you say, but please make a sensible argument, and stop trying to attempt to ridicule other members. Lighten up!





Thanks Magyka.
Tofu is offline  
#23 Old 02-24-2004, 05:46 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by SystmDwnGrl View Post

He is making a sensible argument. These claims that scientists can say whatever they want, should be substantiated, if they aren't then they are just some person's perception of something. Where are these many examples of scientists doing such things... are they credible sceintists/doctors ..does the information come from some news organization trying to push an agenda? Did the reporter take a scientific study and draw his own conclusions... those types of things happen. But, it didn't come from the scientist's mouth.



He is simply asking her to prove her statement, by giving evidence. She won't find it in scientific papers. Why? Because they are held up to very high standards of evidence, they run many tests and are subject to peer review. They can't say anything they want unless they can give a substantiated reason for saying it.



Please stop with the generalizations. They are ridiculous.



Btw... just a side note ...you know some veg*ns, do need B12 supplements. I am one of them. I am glad that someone made me aware that I might, in fact, need it.



Actually, you don't. PM if you need more information.You can get them from natural products.
Tofu is offline  
#24 Old 02-24-2004, 05:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syntax View Post

Ok, for the hard of reading (Tofu, this means you) ...











My argument is that if you believe your original assertion you are crap at reading (and/or thinking). This appears to be being substantiated, because I've been pretty clear about wanting a pointer to the specific articles that you claim support your point of view.



I can give a bland list of subject headings and claim it supports any point of view. Moreover, it is impossible for me to argue with what you wrote, because it contains no content (all it's content is present only by implication, not explicitly).



For the third time, give me a list of references that support your point of view, because I do not believe that any exist.



I do not have to back it up. It is there in black and white for all to see and hear. If you do not know what I am talking about then I am sorry.Please do not be so rude.
Tofu is offline  
#25 Old 02-24-2004, 05:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofu View Post

Actually, you don't. PM if you need more information.You can get them from natural products.



Yes, I would like to see your references for this. I'll send you a PM.
kpickell is offline  
#26 Old 02-24-2004, 07:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
Ok cool
Tofu is offline  
#27 Old 02-24-2004, 09:41 AM
Veggie Regular
 
SystmDwnGrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,992
No thanks, I actually have to take the supplements for various reasons.



But still no examples of what you claim.?.?. If you can't back it up then it is just your perception of things... you know what you hear?? that is the worst evidence ever!
SystmDwnGrl is offline  
#28 Old 02-24-2004, 09:54 AM
Newbie
 
ShinguVegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by magyka View Post




But what I want to know is how the moon and earth and all the other planets are such perfect sphere's.. I mean if you look at the moon, it is a PERFECT sphere.. how could this have happened "naturally" ??



I've often found that when getting down to the nitty gritty of why the earth and other planets, stars, what have you are shaped in such a way, the average non-physics geek turns off the minute one mentions Newtonian mechanics and the like. I can understand that, so here's a simple thought experiment/simulation of something floating in space. That last time you blew a soap bubble (or a gum bubble for that matter) what shape did it "naturally" take?
ShinguVegan is offline  
#29 Old 02-24-2004, 10:08 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Tofu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by SystmDwnGrl View Post

No thanks, I actually have to take the supplements for various reasons.



But still no examples of what you claim.?.?. If you can't back it up then it is just your perception of things... you know what you hear?? that is the worst evidence ever!



So you really don't know about any of what I wrote? Just do a search and you will see. Please don't be rude.
Tofu is offline  
#30 Old 02-24-2004, 10:18 AM
Veggie Regular
 
SystmDwnGrl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,992
rude...how was I rude??.. it's true non-factual antecdotal evidence is some of the worst ever...I prefer not to rely on web stories for information. Are these scientific journals or scientific magazines that I should be searching for according to you?? I doubt it. Reporters, yes they make claims and twist facts and oftentimes have an agenda. However, that is not what I am talking about.
SystmDwnGrl is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off