13 things that do not make sense

Post by **Massive Quasars** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:16 am

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/spa ... 524911.600

A good leisure read.

Post by **duffman91** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:33 am

That was extremelly informative. I've always liked your posts.

Post by **4days** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:48 am

:icon14:

Post by **Ryoki** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:49 pm

Interesting stuff :icon14:

Post by **Pext** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:33 pm

nice read!

Post by **blood.angel** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:34 pm

I think the Belfast one has already been discredited by a science TV program, making it the same as the placebo effect.

Post by **Who** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:39 pm

Post by **R00k** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:47 pm

Can somebody explain something to me?

#2 - The Horizon Problem... When they talk about the microwave background radiation. Are they talking about the radiation OUTSIDE the known universe, the radiation just at the edges, or the uniform radiation throughout our universe?

From the way it reads, I take it they're talking about the uniformity of the radiation throughout our universe. But my roommate tells me that background microwave radiation is what's at the edge of the universe according to Stephen Hawking; and not throughout the center of our universe. Which just doesn't make sense to me.

Can anybody shed a little light on this for me?

Post by **Pext** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:53 pm

i think they are talking about the distance at which you cant differentiate between signals and background radiation anymore and strangely the distance is equal in all directions. or am i wrong? mq?

Post by **Arkleseizure** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:17 pm

Read it yesterday when I found it on Digg.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:57 am

Good evening my friends

I didn't read it all but saved it in my favorites.
Very interesting.

Thanks for the link.
If you find anything else like that, please post it again.

Pete

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:04 am

You're Optimus Primes Alt aren't you?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:22 am

Kracus wrote:You're Optimus Primes Alt aren't you?

Are you testicules' brother?

Pete

Post by **Massive Quasars** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:41 am

R00k, I don't know what your friend is talking about. Either I'm ignorant of this, or he's wrong, or you haven't explained his position properly.

Post by **Scourge** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:44 am

Interesting stuff. Kinda getting the urge to jump head first into some astronomy the rest of the weekend. :icon14:

Post by **mjrpes** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:16 am

Webb's are not the only results that suggest something is missing from our understanding of alpha. A recent analysis of the only known natural nuclear reactor, which was active nearly 2 billion years ago at what is now Oklo in Gabon, also suggests something about light's interaction with matter has changed.

what exactly would a natural nuclear reactor be?

EDIT: from number 12 in the article.

Post by **Massive Quasars** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:23 am

Here, and how.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:59 am

That was interesting. So hot fusion really exists?

Post by **blood.angel** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:21 pm

ToxicBug wrote:That was interesting. So hot fusion really exists?

Its hot fusion that works in stars.

Post by **Bacon** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:36 pm

Nice read :icon14:

Post by **Arkleseizure** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:12 pm

mjrpes wrote:
Webb's are not the only results that suggest something is missing from our understanding of alpha. A recent analysis of the only known natural nuclear reactor, which was active nearly 2 billion years ago at what is now Oklo in Gabon, also suggests something about light's interaction with matter has changed.
what exactly would a natural nuclear reactor be?

EDIT: from number 12 in the article.

A natrual reactor would be a star or other solid piece of matter in the universe able to with stand the fusion and fission of the atoms.

Post by **Arkleseizure** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:14 pm

R00k wrote:Can somebody explain something to me?

#2 - The Horizon Problem... When they talk about the microwave background radiation. Are they talking about the radiation OUTSIDE the known universe, the radiation just at the edges, or the uniform radiation throughout our universe?

From the way it reads, I take it they're talking about the uniformity of the radiation throughout our universe. But my roommate tells me that background microwave radiation is what's at the edge of the universe according to Stephen Hawking; and not throughout the center of our universe. Which just doesn't make sense to me.

Can anybody shed a little light on this for me?

For one, Stephen Hawking is a complete idiot. Other than that, the background radiation is simply the radiation in the background of the universe. Not the edge, since we don't know where the edge was. If it was at the edge, then how do we know it's there? More than likely it means across the whole universe.

Post by **R00k** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:27 pm

Massive Quasars wrote:R00k, I don't know what your friend is talking about. Either I'm ignorant of this, or he's wrong, or you haven't explained his position properly.

Could you maybe just clarify to me what that part of the article is about then?

It seems to me to be saying that background radiation throughout the known universe has uniform heat.
My roommate is trying to convince me that they aren't talking about heat throughout the universe, but rather that they are trying to say the heat is uniform around the actual edge of the universe, where it is expanding into whatever is beyond.

His theory is that maybe what's beyond the universe is causing a type of friction against the universe's expansion, therfore creating the uniform heat around the edges. Which I think is total bunk of course.

Post by **R00k** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:27 pm

Arkleseizure wrote:
R00k wrote:Can somebody explain something to me?

#2 - The Horizon Problem... When they talk about the microwave background radiation. Are they talking about the radiation OUTSIDE the known universe, the radiation just at the edges, or the uniform radiation throughout our universe?

From the way it reads, I take it they're talking about the uniformity of the radiation throughout our universe. But my roommate tells me that background microwave radiation is what's at the edge of the universe according to Stephen Hawking; and not throughout the center of our universe. Which just doesn't make sense to me.

Can anybody shed a little light on this for me?
For one, Stephen Hawking is a complete idiot. Other than that, the background radiation is simply the radiation in the background of the universe. Not the edge, since we don't know where the edge was. If it was at the edge, then how do we know it's there? More than likely it means across the whole universe.

That was basically my thought as well. It's not like we can even see the edge, so how in hell can we say what the heat around it is like?

Post by **Arkleseizure** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:03 pm

Check Hawking's website on Microwave Background Enegry, doesn't mention anything about the edge. Just the gasses left over from the big bang.