Sun has been emitting unknown particles, carbon dating may be completely off

How were the dinosaurs so big? Given what we know about science, their size is not possible. You cannot answer that question without breaking one of our fundemental laws. Something in science is broken. That is why I posted this. No matter what direction you take the answer, you run into a wall. It is not possible to answer this question without changing the laws of physics.
 
Also: When we explore "Dark Matter" we are investing all this time and money to prove that physics worked properly 5 billion years ago when we already know FOR A FACT that it did not work properly right here on earth just 65 million years ago. This is pure hypocrisy.
 
I didn't check if the size of the dinosaurs is possible in the the environments we currently think they lived in, but if that is the case: Are you really saying that it is more likely that there's something wrong with our understanding of basic Newtonian physics or that the laws of physics were different in the time of dinosaurs then that our assumptions/findings about their environment (like air composition, atmospheric pressure etc.) aren't yet good enough?
 
Atheist said:
I didn't check if the size of the dinosaurs is possible in the the environments we currently think they lived in, but if that is the case: Are you really saying that it is more likely that there's something wrong with our understanding of basic Newtonian physics or that the laws of physics were different in the time of dinosaurs then that our assumptions/findings about their environment (like air composition, atmospheric pressure etc.) aren't yet good enough?
Click to expand...

Of course. One is boring incremental progress, the other is anti-establishment and cool.
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
I have never heard of it. And google searches turn nothing up on this. If this has been studied anywhere, please point me to it because I looked and was unable to find anything on it.
Click to expand...

I believe this hits on a genuine problem. I've got ok search engine skills and I often struggle to find papers that I already know exist, let alone track down possible ones in a field that I have little knowledge of.

edit:
However, in this case googling "atmospheric density history" provided 3 relevant papers in the first 2 pages of results.
 
Genius Gone Insane said:
Also: When we explore "Dark Matter" we are investing all this time and money to prove that physics worked properly 5 billion years ago when we already know FOR A FACT that it did not work properly right here on earth just 65 million years ago. This is pure hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I find it ironic that you spend so much energy saying we shouldn't think we are right, when you are so sure we are not even before any proof is given. Typical of you, man.

@John_c : yeah I don't know how he googles but I'm pretty sure I linked something that was in the fist page since I rarely check page 2 in google.
 
John_C said:
Good idea. Try it. Publish your findings. You won't be the first, but maybe you have some new insights to share.

I'm not joking.

If you think you have a good idea then you need to follow it up. Or if you don't want to put in the time and effort, find a theoretical physics genius to do it.

Innovation is driven by people having new ideas and then knuckling down to making them work. If you think you've spotted something that people haven't already, then it is pretty much your duty to human knowledge to explore it.
Click to expand...

The thing is...this goober thinks HE is onto something, like physicists are so fucking dumb and never thought of that. You didn't think of a damn thing GGI.

There have been many papers concerning these ideas, by smart mother fuckers who know what they are talking about. The ideas aren't popular for the simple reason that they just don't explain our observations as well as the current popular ideas in cosmology.

Get over yourself GGI. If you would spend half the amount of time learning about physics instead of just talking bullshit and being a detractor, you might have known this already.
 
I'm just figuring if I enter this thread in any contribution type way that my head will explode or at least start throbbing intensely in short order.

I'll simply say what I've said in other threads - science adapts and considers new data sets, but new data does not singularly discredit existing theories nor can any one study/observation bring a "Serious Blow" to those same theories.

It seems we have a general blurring of theories and hypotheticals and what they imply/mean in the small set of pages I've read in this thread. I'll let you guess who seems to be the culprit ;)

But once again - my head is already hurting :(
 
LeSedna said:
I like how the very link you publishes does not contradict the principle of dark matter itself yet you hijack it as if it were
Click to expand...

I agree. However, dark matter is looking a bit dodgy these days. Still better than the alternatives but I do get the feeling that we're in need of one of those magic "aha!" moments. Interesting times :)
 
opinions-change-new-info.jpg
 
John_C said:
I agree. However, dark matter is looking a bit dodgy these days. Still better than the alternative but I do get the feeling that we're in need of one of those magic "aha!" moments. Interesting times :)
Click to expand...

Indeed, but this paper does not contradict the existence of dark matter (yet). It just states the model does not match with the (a priori) observed reality in the particular case of the sun's area, leading to the thought the model is not good enough as a whole. In a nutshell, the paper is gonna help refine and/or contradict the model. Which is called... science !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back