Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What is it? (Score 1) 140

And yes, you simply don't CARE about the unending suffering of billions of animals. Care to explain why?

And why don't you care about the suffering of the plants? Do you think they don't feel pain? They certainly do. They even communicate to each other when being attacked by insects or bacteria and viruses. You care about one life form over another, but that does not mean anything in the grand scheme. You probably have no problem swatting a mosquito that is biting you, or pulling a tick out of your skin and killing it. Life feeds on life. Get used to it!

Comment: Re:More detailed ratings are a good thing (Score 1) 637

by Agent0013 (#48405355) Attached to: Sweden Considers Adding "Sexism" Ratings To Video Games
On the flip-side of this though is the MPAA. They are not a government organization, nor are they mandated by the government. They do possess quite the power to stop certain things from being shown in movie theaters though. Plenty of producers have forced the editing of movies so they could avoid certain ratings. And we are not even allowed to know who the people are who produce the ratings, or how they are created. It is a black box that controls what gets shown in theaters. Check out the movie "This Film Is Not Yet Rated (2006)" [] if you want more details.

Comment: Re:Huh (Score 1) 223

by Agent0013 (#48387857) Attached to: Comet Probe Philae To Deploy Drill As Battery Life Wanes

This mission has been compared to "throwing a hammer from London and hitting a nail in New Delhi".

Why do all the comparisons involve a non-powered ballistic object like a bullet or in this case a hammer. The Rosetta probe does have thrusters on it and can adjust it's trajectory to hit the comet. It would be more like a heat seeking missile shot at a flare.

Comment: Re:Huh (Score 1) 223

by Agent0013 (#48387741) Attached to: Comet Probe Philae To Deploy Drill As Battery Life Wanes

"It seems to me the design and/or planning of this mission were poorly thought out"

Is the funniest fucking thing I've heard all day. Do you have any idea how well thought out this mission was? FFS look at the trajectory it took 10 YEARS(!) to get to the comet. And you think they overlooked the fact that the comet is craggly?

If they knew it was craggly, then why were they surprised at how irregularly shaped it was. I remember them saying how they suspected comets would be much more smooth than this was and they had a tricky time trying to find good places to land.

Comment: Re:The mathematics is only a model of the physics (Score 1) 429

by Agent0013 (#48336113) Attached to: Mathematical Proof That the Universe Could Come From Nothing

In other words, if you assume that the Earth is the stationary center of the universe, with the rest of observed reality rotating around it, the numbers still work just fine....

I think the real point of relativity is that not only do the numbers work, but that there's absolutely nothing more or less true about that assumption than there is about assuming any other frame of reference. They're all perfectly valid, not just numerically, but because the laws of the universe are fundamentally consistent and favor no frame of reference over any other. Indeed, the way relativity came about was because Einstein felt like such fundamental consistency was how things had to be, and then proceeded to work out the math needed to describe a universe that behaved that way.

And then experimentalists verified that his mathematical model indeed works in every case that we have been able to measure. Which is a deeply extraordinary fact.

Sure, we devised mathematics to model bits of the universe, but the fact that the models work perfectly so far beyond what was being modeled is really mind-blowing -- and to me, at least, strongly implies that we shouldn't simply ignore singularities and other corner cases in the models.

It may work out mathematically the same way. But, if the universe was rotating around the earth, then there are a whole lot of stars and galaxies out there that are travelling much faster than the speed of light. Since nothing can travel faster than that speed, doesn't that mean the two are not equivalent?

Comment: Re:um no (Score 1) 138

by Agent0013 (#48327091) Attached to: Physicists Resurrect an Old, Strange Dark Matter Theory

Thanks for all of the info. I read up on this stuff, but it is nice to have someone who understands it better put things into another way to look at it that makes things a little easier to understand.

Your point about gravity being a conservative force where the object speeds up the same amount that it slows down when leaving makes sense. I should have thought of that as I do know that objects in space aren't just captured in orbit without making some sort of changes to their velocity. This then makes me wonder how the dark matter ever gathered together in the first place with the galaxies.

The exact GR you speak of sounds interesting. Is that related to calculating the gravity in the galaxy more accurately than treating it as all the mass being in the center? Because the matter at the edge of the spiral is getting pulled by all the other matter around. And with it moving toward some of the mass and away from some other mass, it could be seeing some sort of gravity red-shift that causes a further speed up (I am thinking of the speed of gravity and the searched for gravity waves). I don't quite see how that would hold the elliptical galaxies together in the same fashion as they are all moving pretty randomly as I understand it.

And thinking about the idea of dark energy, after watching some videos on these subjects, makes me wonder if the big bang isn't just a mis-interpretation of the expansion due to this dark energy phenomenon. There is the cosmic microwave background radiation that supposedly comes from the early big bang. But if there was another place that could come from. . . I guess it still leads to a smaller universe in the distant past and you don't quite get around it leading back to a point in space. Unless new matter is created somewhere in between the current matter. Then you could have expansion indefinitely where it didn't start at one point or one time.

The universe is a pretty interesting place. From the quantum scale where totally weird things take place, to the cosmic scale where unexplained things are observed. I just hope we find some answers to this stuff because it sure would suck to stay in the dark for the rest of my life. And it seems like dark matter and dark energy should be two aspects of one think somehow. Like if we really understood how gravity worked, perhaps quantum gravity, they would both be explained there.

Again, thanks for the time you have given posting your very informative text.

Comment: Re:um no (Score 1) 138

by Agent0013 (#48325225) Attached to: Physicists Resurrect an Old, Strange Dark Matter Theory

Ok, I went back and looked at what she was saying about the Coma galaxy cluster again. The dark matter was in the center, but the galaxies did not collide like I thought she was saying. They are just swirling around each other.

This isn't just a handwavy argument - when you put dark matter and baryons into detailed physical simulations

You do realize they decide what dark matter must do, then put it into the simulation that way. Of course it will act in the exact way they said it should. That is quite obvious. The question is whether there is actually matter or something else causing these observations.

It seems like you know something about the math used to find the time dilation caused by gravity. How are you calculating this? What does the Schwartzchild radius have to do with it?

The other thing I don't quite get is how they think they know the amount of matter there is in the galaxies. Plenty of scientists talk about how hard it is to find brown dwarfs. We can't even find all the earth impacting asteroids in our solar system, much less the small ones out there just floating about. How can they be so sure they have an accurate count for the amount of mass when they are just trying to count the visible stuff.

The other thing that seems like it does not make sense is the way they say the dark matter just streams right through the earth. If it has gravity, and reacts to gravity, then why does it not react to the earth's gravity or even the gravity of the sun. Shouldn't the dark matter clump up in a ball in the center of the sun making the mass of the sun greater? First they say it feel gravity, then they say it doesn't.

You also act like this is known stuff. You do realize that nobody knows what is going on and dark matter is just a place holder for the lack of knowledge about what is happening at large scales in the universe, don't you?

Comment: Re:um no (Score 1) 138

by Agent0013 (#48320407) Attached to: Physicists Resurrect an Old, Strange Dark Matter Theory

And it clumps together forming the scaffolding for the galaxies, but it also somehow separates out to only show up as a halo around the outer edge of the galaxies. I was just watching this video yesterday to understand what they think this stuff is and many of the things she says contradict themselves.

Plus, nowhere do they ever say they account for time dilation in the galactic rotation speed. If gravity is more intense in the center of the galaxies, then time there will be slower. Which will appear as the outer edge of the galaxy rotating faster than it should. Time is moving faster for the matter there, so it moves further from our viewpoint. Our most accurate clock shows a difference from moving the clock from the floor to putting it up on the wall, I think there would be somewhat more of a difference when you move towards the center of a galaxy.

She also says how it passes through when two galaxies collide without interacting, but in some cases it collides and stays in the middle while the galaxies pass through and are on opposite sides. It seems to be some magical stuff that can do whatever the physicist wants it to do at the moment.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.