Will 2012 BE THE END?

Написано RaulPB, 16.05.2017 at 12:55

Написано Helly, 16.05.2017 at 12:12

We can't even detect species at the bottom of our own oceans, you can't say that with 100% certaintly, no matter how likely.

Point being they do not have an ocean to be that much isolated from their atmosphere.

Point being: how do we know a hundred meters below the surface, there aren't some underground ecosystems that managed to adapt to the cold? Even on earth , there are organisms that can survive extreme cold, dry, oxygen deprived environments.

Написано RaulPB, 16.05.2017 at 12:54

Написано Helly, 16.05.2017 at 12:11

I'm not a chemist, I won't pretend I am, but I will use the atom as an example of how I feel about facts. What exactly is a atom made of? What are those made of? I'm sure as our technology improves we will be able to see even further then the atom. Things are only facts because of the information provided so far. When new information is learned what is precieved as factual changes. A perfect example is dark matter and how it does not act like normal matter, we can't even obtain it to gain a scientific explaination. The day we are able to study dark matter is the day you chemist will have to relearn what is factual all over again. My entire point being that science is evolving and changing. That we are possibly one discovery away from rewriting history. I'm not saying your wrong, under our current knowledge your 100% correct. But don't stubbornly hold onto what is fact today when it might just be a tiny spec in human history. Everything could change and it would be best to embrace the future.

See even further into the atom? In what sense? Phylosophically speaking? atoms are a fact, they exist, we've detected them, we've studied them, we've proved them. No further information is gonna change the fact that atoms exist. You talk of facts as if we were making guesses. Guess what? They are FACTS. Meaning they will not change because they are already proven. What you're talking is about theories that try to explain the behaviour of matter around us which are yet being studied.

As for dark matter, we just discovered it somehow exists, you can't possibly compare it to atoms. The fact in dark matter is that there's something beyond our reach right now. And it's not gonna change. We might eventually understand it but it doesn't change the fact that it exists.

Science is not changing. Science is developing, making progression or whatever you want to call it. But the basis stays relatively unchanged, no evolution there, only more deepness into knowledge, like a tree expanding. Heck... I wonder if you've ever read articles explaining facts. You sound like the perfectly ignorant student that doesn't want to bet for single answer when asked about a simple equation just in case he's wrong. I'm not sure you even realize what's our actual level of knowledge...

There are so many misconceptions about science that I sometimes feel like keeping it all secret to citizens so they can't misjudge...

no you misunderstood the point i was trying to make, a cell was at one point as far as we could see, now it is the atom, what comprises an atom will one day be discovered, seeing as an atom is also made of matter it can be devided into parts, we just cant do so scientifically yet, but one day. It was an example of how the atom is not the basis of matter but rather its components are, and the components of those components are, changing the definition of what matter is everytime we go a layer deeper. Dark matter was another example of something unexplainable that will change our percieved reality once we do. But like i said your right by todays standards. i just believe todays facts could very well be something our ancestors laugh at in the future about how naive we where and how far we have come.

Написано Helly, 16.05.2017 at 13:20

no you misunderstood the point i was trying to make, a cell was at one point as far as we could see, now it is the atom, what comprises and atom will one day be discovered, seeing as an atom is also made of matter it can be devided into parts, we just cant do so scientifically yet, but one day. It was an example of how the atom is not the basis of matter but rather its components are, and the components of those components are, changing the definition of what matter is everytime we go a layer deeper. Dark matter was another example of something unexplainable that will change our percieved reality once we do. But like i said your right by todays standards. i just believe todays facts could very well be something our ancestors laugh at in the future about how naive we where and how far we have come.

Oh, you mean subatomical particles? Yeah, we already know those exist. Yet they did not chance the definition of matter, however as you said they added deeper layers of knowledge and further helped the scientific community to try understand and explain the matter. You're using the term "change" too lightly. As for dark matter, it adds layers of knowledge since it complements (not change yet) our knowledge of the universe and probably will end up in an improvement of our understanding of it. Yet, we don't know if it will really CHANGE anything already stablished.

They may laught at whatever they please but our facts will stay as facts until their days arrive, of that I'm sure.

Написано brianwl, 16.05.2017 at 13:13

Point being: how do we know a hundred meters below the surface, there aren't some underground ecosystems that managed to adapt to the cold? Even on earth , there are organisms that can survive extreme cold, dry, oxygen deprived environments.

Point being that as long as they remain attached to the same atmosphere, there will always be a waste or a track that comes from them, if they are alive

Написано Helly, 16.05.2017 at 12:11

Написано RaulPB, 16.05.2017 at 06:50

Написано Helly, 16.05.2017 at 01:41

By Contemporary standards in science you would be correct. But once apon a time we thought flying was witchery, and telecommunication to be fictional. Humanity is always one scientific break through from entirely changing what is and is not possible. My geuss is the next break through comes from quantum computing.

Edit: I did not know you where a chemist that's interesting.

If there's something that will never change, those things are facts. Once we know a fact for sure, doesn't matter what happens next, it keeps being a fact just like atoms will never be proven to be false.

Mars is what it is and if we ever wanna make it habitable, we'll need to build its atmosphere from scratch, fertilize the soil, tweak its temperature, build a magnetic field out of nowhere, stablish some sort of fresh liquid water resource, heat up Mars' core, etc. That's a titanic job, no matter the technologies we have due to what I've already explained beforehand...

PS: yup, I am and I see atoms instead of things mwahahaha

I'm not a chemist, I won't pretend I am, but I will use the atom as an example of how I feel about facts. What exactly is a atom made of? What are those made of? I'm sure as our technology improves we will be able to see even further then the atom. Things are only facts because of the information provided so far. When new information is learned what is precieved as factual changes. A perfect example is dark matter and how it does not act like normal matter, we can't even obtain it to gain a scientific explaination. The day we are able to study dark matter is the day you chemist will have to relearn what is factual all over again. My entire point being that science is evolving and changing. That we are possibly one discovery away from rewriting history. I'm not saying your wrong, under our current knowledge your 100% correct. But don't stubbornly hold onto what is fact today when it might just be a tiny spec in human history. Everything could change and it would be best to embrace the future.

1. We can already see beyond the atom. Muons, gluons, WIMPs, MACHOs, quarks, fermions, mesons, neutrinos, bosons etc.
Atoms are made of protons, electrons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons. Quarks in turn are made of preons.

2. Dark matter is completely hypothetical. It may not even exist which is why we can't study it. Also even if it does, it exists only between solar systems and galaxies. Your point is irrelevant.

3. If we can't use what is fact today as a basis, what do we do then?

Написано Darth., 16.05.2017 at 18:23

Написано Helly, 16.05.2017 at 12:11

Написано RaulPB, 16.05.2017 at 06:50

Написано Helly, 16.05.2017 at 01:41

By Contemporary standards in science you would be correct. But once apon a time we thought flying was witchery, and telecommunication to be fictional. Humanity is always one scientific break through from entirely changing what is and is not possible. My geuss is the next break through comes from quantum computing.

Edit: I did not know you where a chemist that's interesting.

If there's something that will never change, those things are facts. Once we know a fact for sure, doesn't matter what happens next, it keeps being a fact just like atoms will never be proven to be false.

Mars is what it is and if we ever wanna make it habitable, we'll need to build its atmosphere from scratch, fertilize the soil, tweak its temperature, build a magnetic field out of nowhere, stablish some sort of fresh liquid water resource, heat up Mars' core, etc. That's a titanic job, no matter the technologies we have due to what I've already explained beforehand...

PS: yup, I am and I see atoms instead of things mwahahaha

I'm not a chemist, I won't pretend I am, but I will use the atom as an example of how I feel about facts. What exactly is a atom made of? What are those made of? I'm sure as our technology improves we will be able to see even further then the atom. Things are only facts because of the information provided so far. When new information is learned what is precieved as factual changes. A perfect example is dark matter and how it does not act like normal matter, we can't even obtain it to gain a scientific explaination. The day we are able to study dark matter is the day you chemist will have to relearn what is factual all over again. My entire point being that science is evolving and changing. That we are possibly one discovery away from rewriting history. I'm not saying your wrong, under our current knowledge your 100% correct. But don't stubbornly hold onto what is fact today when it might just be a tiny spec in human history. Everything could change and it would be best to embrace the future.

1. We can already see beyond the atom. Muons, gluons, WIMPs, MACHOs, quarks, fermions, mesons, neutrinos, bosons etc.
Atoms are made of protons, electrons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons. Quarks in turn are made of preons.

2. Dark matter is completely hypothetical. It may not even exist which is why we can't study it. Also even if it does, it exists only between solar systems and galaxies. Your point is irrelevant.

3. If we can't use what is fact today as a basis, what do we do then?

Rude, im done. period.

Написано Helly, 16.05.2017 at 18:27

Rude, im done. period.

Didn't mean to be rude. Sorry

Написано Helly, 16.05.2017 at 18:27

Rude, im done. period.

But how was that rude?

Написано RaulPB, 16.05.2017 at 13:38

Написано brianwl, 16.05.2017 at 13:13

Point being: how do we know a hundred meters below the surface, there aren't some underground ecosystems that managed to adapt to the cold? Even on earth , there are organisms that can survive extreme cold, dry, oxygen deprived environments.

Point being that as long as they remain attached to the same atmosphere, there will always be a waste or a track that comes from them, if they are alive

Point being, if you believe NASA, the main composition of the Martian atmosphere is... C02, with traces of methane. (common waste products,)
Life on Mars ftw ♥

Написано brianwl, 17.05.2017 at 06:38

Point being, if you believe NASA, the main composition of the Martian atmosphere is... C02, with traces of methane. (common waste products,)
Life on Mars ftw ♥

Methane is not an exclusive product of life beings tho, so that's not a reaffirming proof.

Написано RaulPB, 17.05.2017 at 09:10

Написано brianwl, 17.05.2017 at 06:38

Point being, if you believe NASA, the main composition of the Martian atmosphere is... C02, with traces of methane. (common waste products,)
Life on Mars ftw ♥

Methane is not an exclusive product of life beings tho, so that's not a reaffirming proof.

Of course - i would not be so bold... i was responding to your claim that there was no life on Mars:

Написано RaulPB, 16.05.2017 at 07:01

"If there were any sort of life remaining, we would have been able to detect it by now... there would be some trace, some heat signal, something that would inevitably point out to life."

I'm just pointing out that life on Mars is still possible (using the facts you've brought to the table) ♥

Написано brianwl, 17.05.2017 at 11:35

Of course - i would not be so bold... i was responding to your claim that there was no life on Mars:

I'm just pointing out that life on Mars is still possible (using the facts you've brought to the table) ♥

I haven't said there isn't (conclusively), what I've insinuated is that there's very little chances of there being any life being nowadays. There should be more traces of currently living creatures, if there were. I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't find anything alive, but if we did, I'd be surprised as to how well they hide themselves XD leaving no traces basically means they're completely isolated from the atmosphere, nothing goes in nor outside, which is kinda hard.

Anyway, in case methane actually came from living beings, there's also a chance that those creatures are long gone, maybe after the magnetic field got completely screwed. Besides, why would methane be the only trace available? Is it some microorganism that metabolises CO2 (what else would it be? We haven't found organic compounds yet) and turns it into CH4? Idk, too much thinking

I think its no

Hi its me from the future and the world didn't end

Написано Al Fappino, 19.05.2017 at 17:56

Hi its me from the future and the world didn't end

Well there it is, it's settled ♥

Написано brianwl, 20.05.2017 at 05:52

Написано Al Fappino, 19.05.2017 at 17:56

Hi its me from the future and the world didn't end

Well there it is, it's settled ♥

Don't listen to him, the world was actually destroyed, he's just trolling

Написано Zephyrusu, 20.05.2017 at 07:32

Написано brianwl, 20.05.2017 at 05:52

Написано Al Fappino, 19.05.2017 at 17:56

Hi its me from the future and the world didn't end

...

Don't listen to him, the world was actually destroyed, he's just trolling

Написано Zephyrusu, 20.05.2017 at 07:32

Написано brianwl, 20.05.2017 at 05:52

Написано Al Fappino, 19.05.2017 at 17:56

Hi its me from the future and the world didn't end

Well there it is, it's settled ♥

Don't listen to him, the world was actually destroyed, he's just trolling

The world was destroyed for you in 2008 when u got troika'ed