Posts by mawibse

  • Your pros and cons?

    Pros:

    -I can pick my nose with my tounge.

    -IQ 72, so while I might appear dumb, I'm actually much dumber.

    Cons:

    -My nose tastes bad.

    -IQ 72, have you ever worried that hitting yourself with a hammer on the genitals might hurt? Nah, me neither. *THUD!*

  • big bang

    Quote from Skjalg

    oh and, he was able to pull up some examples of things we dont understand to make his point better, my memory just sucks ass.

    There is a shitload scientists don't know or have reliable theories about, AND THATS HOW ITS SUPPOSED TO BE!

    It has always been this way and will always be.

    And when you get insecure and want answers where there are non you will make things up, or have someone make things up for you, that will make you feel better.

    That has also always been and will always be.

    And future generations will laugh at what the past generations thought was true.

    This also will be an eternal truth... until we inevitably become extinct.

    If the above scares you, then imagine that there is a greater purpose for this, and feel better.

    And Nexus, stop smoking that shit!

  • big bang

    Oh great, make me feel bad about me being an ass why dont you Skjalg!

    Ok... sorry, didn't mean to imply youre stupid, I was just frustrated, my bad.

    I don't think there is a trend amongst scientists "going back"!

    And we have certainly NOT begun to understand that there are "things out there", what would give you such an idea?

  • big bang

    Quote from Skjalg

    Didnt you see that "bafffling" video RD posted ?http://www.mapcore.net/forums/viewtopic ... t=baffling

    "This baffled scientists" why? because they cant explain it, knowing all that we know, and we cant explain something like that...

    What do you mean we cant explain it?

    Listen, if you observe an electron "this way" it colapses to a particle and if you observe it "like that" it colapses into a wave because the observation contains enough energy to affect the electron.

    You know what, that the earth was round and not flat was friggin "bafffling" scientists... a long time ago!

    The double slit experiment is at least two hundered years old.

    The experiments described in the video was first performed in the seventies, so trust me, scientists are NOT baffled by this anymore. Geeez.

  • big bang

    Quote from Nz-Nexus

    big bang is known, but what is before bigbang is unknown.explain that now.

    A cyclic universe, which I have mentioned in this thread, has everything to do with pre big bang, try again.

    Quote from Skjalg

    So basically you broke down my post only to agree with me in the end?

    Cool.

    So basically you answered my post without answering my question?

    Cool.

  • big bang

    Quote from Skjalg

    Theres too much science cant explain, so we do assumptions.

    Except those mentioned in this thread, what important stuff is it that science cant explain you think?

    Quote from Skjalg

    All laws of physics are based upon these assumptions, so everything you "prove" with science contains some assumptions. Thats why you cant really have anything 100%, all we can do is say that "It is most likely like this".

    And most likely it is close to 99,9% on most basic stuff which is as good as it gets.

    Quote from Skjalg

    I'm not good at explaining, but atleast, thats basically how my physics teacher started the year =)

    If you study physics enough, there is this stage that begins with "Everything you have learned about physics so far, I want you to forget it."

  • big bang

    Sorry Fletch, none of the links provided make it seem easier to revise a religion then it is to revise a scientific theory. Please try again.

    Photosynthesis is a theory, a very very well established theory, but so are evolution and radiocarbon dating and a surprising many refuses to believe in them.

    And as we all now, everything we base on observation, measurements and such are never 100% but may still be considered a fact when exact enough. The very image this thread is about has an error margin of at least 0.5% due to measurement discrepancies and such but it is still used as a scientific basis for verifying loads of cosmological theories because that is good enough, for those theories, other theories need to wait for even better observations.

    A scientific proof is never 100%, but to be fair, a scientific proof is more proof then any other proof we are aware of in existence.