Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

But Wait......I thought global warming was a myth?

broonzy

New member
N.Y. City-sized ice breaks up on Antarctica - Climate Change - MSNBC.com

Jesus, why won't these tree huggers stop making up these stories?

BERLIN - New satellite images from the European Space Agency show massive amounts of ice are breaking away from an ice shelf on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, researchers said Wednesday.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf had been stable for most of the last century, but began retreating in the 1990s. Researchers believe it was held in place by an ice bridge linking Charcot Island to the Antarctic mainland.
But the 127-square-mile bridge lost two large chunks last year and then shattered completely on April 5.
"As a consequence of the collapse, the rifts, which had already featured along the northern ice front, widened and new cracks formed as the ice adjusted," the European Space Agency said in a statement Wednesday.
The first icebergs started to break away on Friday, and since then some 270 square miles of ice have already dropped into the sea, according to the satellite data. That's nearly the size of New York City and much more is expected to break off.
"There is little doubt that these changes are the result of atmospheric warming," said David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.
"The retreat of Wilkins Ice Shelf is the latest and the largest of its kind," he said, adding that "eight separate ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula have shown signs of retreat over the last few decades."
Strong warming on peninsula
Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 50 years — higher than the average global rise, according to studies.

The loss of ice shelves — which are ice floating on the sea and linked to the coast — does not raise sea levels significantly because the ice is floating and already mostly submerged by the ocean.
But the big worry is that their loss will allow ice sheets on land to move faster, adding extra water to the seas.
Wilkins has almost no pent-up glaciers behind it, but ice shelves further south hold back vast volumes of ice.
The Wilkins shelf, which is the size of Jamaica, lost 14 percent of its mass last year, according to scientists.
Antarctic ice shelves to break up abruptly include the Larsen A in 1995 and the Larsen B in 2002.
Breakup to continue for weeks
Over the next several weeks, scientists estimate the Wilkins shelf will lose some 1,300 square miles — a piece larger than the state of Rhode Island.


One researcher said, however, that it was unclear how the situation would evolve.
"We are not sure if a new stable ice front will now form between Latady Island, Petrie Ice Rises and Dorsey Island," said Angelika Humbert of Germany's Muenster University Institute of Geophysics.
But even more ice could break off "if the connection to Latady Island is lost," she said, "though we have no indication that this will happen in the near future."
In the meantime, researchers said the quality and frequency of the ESA satellite images have allowed them to analyze the Wilkins shelf breakup far more effectively than any previous event.
"For the first time, I think, we can really begin to see the processes that have brought about the demise of the ice shelf," Vaughan said.

 
Its also funny how global temperatures have cooled since 2000 at a pace that is directly in line with the decrease in sun activity.

Nobody is saying the earth wasnt warming. People are saying its probably not due to CO2 emissions.
 
Nothing. It's all a lie.

Polluting the atmosphere has absolutely zero consequences.
Fugging wimmenz hair spray thats what is doing it. There should be a hole the size of Texas over my mutha in laws house.:mad:
 
I love how we had a few 90 degree days in Dc and all the sudden everyone's al "Gahhh!!! It's gobal warming!!!" Hey retard, global warming happens about one degree per century. This is called a heat wave. They happen.
 
I love how we had a few 90 degree days in Dc and all the sudden everyone's al "Gahhh!!! It's gobal warming!!!" Hey retard, global warming happens about one degree per century. This is called a heat wave. They happen.
Good Post, I hear all the time on the local news of how the temp was such and such today and as hot as that was for this time of the year it falls short of the record set in 1946 by 6 degrees. Some people have nothing else to do but preach DOOM. Global Warming, Swine Flu, Geigh Marriage who gives a fuck.:biggrin:
 
And his post conveniently leaves out the fact that theres actually more and thicker ice in the arctic now than compared to 2000.

Again, sort of fits in line with that whole crazy sun theory.
 
Really? I didn't know that. Polar bears must have gotten stupider then. :confused:

Polar bears drown as ice shelf melts - Times Online

No, its just you.

Instead of an article from more than 3 years ago, heres an article (with actual data, not just some sob story about a polar bear) from a little more than 3 days ago.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking « Watts Up With That?

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.
 
No, its just you.

Instead of an article from more than 3 years ago, heres an article (with actual data, not just some sob story about a polar bear) from a little more than 3 days ago.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking « Watts Up With That?


Ok let me clear something up for you.

ARCTIC = north pole

ANTARCTIC = South Pole

Your first post mentions ice getting thicker in the arctic, and to prove your point you post an article indicating ice getting thicker in the Antarctic?

So far in this thread we have one person saying the earth is cooling not warming.

Another person saying, "Yeah, it's warming but there is no proof why"

Another person saying it's just a heat wave.


Now I'm even more confused??
 
Ok let me clear something up for you.

ARCTIC = north pole

ANTARCTIC = South Pole

Your first post mentions ice getting thicker in the arctic, and to prove your point you post an article indicating ice getting thicker in the Antarctic?

So far in this thread we have one person saying the earth is cooling not warming.

Another person saying, "Yeah, it's warming but there is no proof why"

Another person saying it's just a heat wave.


Now I'm even more confused??


Um, excuse me? I never said global warming is "just a heat wave." I said a heat wave is not indicative of global warming and that global warming is imperceptible to humans because it is so freaking slow. As i said, like one degree per century. So when people are flipping out about a heat wave being global warming, yes, they are fucking idiots.
 
Ok let me clear something up for you.

ARCTIC = north pole

ANTARCTIC = South Pole

Your first post mentions ice getting thicker in the arctic, and to prove your point you post an article indicating ice getting thicker in the Antarctic?

So far in this thread we have one person saying the earth is cooling not warming.

Another person saying, "Yeah, it's warming but there is no proof why"

Another person saying it's just a heat wave.


Now I'm even more confused??


Try reading the links.

Ice is not disappearing

Arctic website Crysophere Today reported that Arctic ice volume was 500,000 sq km greater than this time last year.
 
This is really one of those subjects people need over a 90 IQ to discuss, because it involves the VERY COMPLEX process of reading scientific journals. I mean, you have to type CLIMATE CHANGE under 'search', then actually READ ARTICLES. This is hard stuff indeed.

PSA: Global warming has nothing to do with warm temperatures. If you cannot see past this misnomer, please stop discussing ASAP. Moreover, if you think omg-snow-above-the-equator-GW-is-a-myth, please STFU immediately and killself.

HTH



:cow:
 
This is really one of those subjects people need over a 90 IQ to discuss, because it involves the VERY COMPLEX process of reading scientific journals. I mean, you have to type CLIMATE CHANGE under 'search', then actually READ ARTICLES. This is hard stuff indeed.

PSA: Global warming has nothing to do with warm temperatures. If you cannot see past this misnomer, please stop discussing ASAP. Moreover, if you think omg-snow-above-the-equator-GW-is-a-myth, please STFU immediately and killself.

HTH



:cow:

Samoth = smart guy
 
This is really one of those subjects people need over a 90 IQ to discuss, because it involves the VERY COMPLEX process of reading scientific journals. I mean, you have to type CLIMATE CHANGE under 'search', then actually READ ARTICLES. This is hard stuff indeed.

PSA: Global warming has nothing to do with warm temperatures. If you cannot see past this misnomer, please stop discussing ASAP. Moreover, if you think omg-snow-above-the-equator-GW-is-a-myth, please STFU immediately and killself.

HTH



:cow:
My only question is who really gives a fuck? But yea after reading your post I will shut up and kill myself.:biggrin:
 
I did read them. They are basically saying that 1 year of ice growth and cooler temperatures erases the last 50 years of documented melting and temperature rise.

Look at the chart here. Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can see there are peaks and valleys but the general trend is a warming one. Look how steeply it rises from 1980 on.


"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any topic, so you know you're getting the best information."

- Michael Scott
 
"Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any topic, so you know you're getting the best information."

- Michael Scott


Still waiting for the correct chart that shows the earth is not warming.
 
Climate cycles. rather than looking at the warming trend, how about looking at the overall big picture?

Global Climate Change Chart on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Please note the concurrence of the climate swings with natural occurances.

MIT Scientists Ask: Is Global Warming Part of a Natural Cycle?

A team of MIT scientists recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels -the first increase in ten years. What baffles the team is that this data contradicts theories stating humans are the primary source of increase in greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. Since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, however, it is probable that this may be part of a natural cycle - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

Melting Antarctic Ice Part of Natural Cycle | The Resilient Earth

Historical records for the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) show that it is particularly prone to rapid climate change—change that occurs in cycles of ~200 years and ~2500 years. By studying major transitions in plankton productivity in the western Antarctic, scientists have shown that “spectacular” ice-cover losses have happened many times in the past. In other words, the “unprecedented rapid loss of ice” from parts of Antarctica that global warming alarmists make so much of are a normal part of nature's cycles.
 
Nef you idiot...I don't see a chart.

You have to show a chart if you want to be taken seriosuly.

Fucking wimminz.
 
Climate cycles. rather than looking at the warming trend, how about looking at the overall big picture?

Global Climate Change Chart on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Please note the concurrence of the climate swings with natural occurances.

MIT Scientists Ask: Is Global Warming Part of a Natural Cycle?



Melting Antarctic Ice Part of Natural Cycle | The Resilient Earth


The chart you posted shows that the current warming trend appears to be part of a natural cycle, and part of it probably is. But the current rise seems to much quicker and steeper than previous ones based on your chart and most others.

That article in your second link completely contradicts the article it refers to as its source.
Levels of the greenhouse gas methane begin to increase again - MIT News Office

Levels of the greenhouse gas methane begin to increase again

New surge ends a decade of stability; cause still unknown

David Chandler, MIT News Office
October 29, 2008

The amount of methane in Earth's atmosphere shot up in 2007, bringing to an end a period of about a decade in which atmospheric levels of the potent greenhouse gas were essentially stable, according to a team led by MIT researchers.
Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than tripled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming. Until recently, the leveling off of methane levels had suggested that the rate of its emission from the Earth's surface was approximately balanced by the rate of its destruction in the atmosphere.
However, since early 2007 the balance has been upset, according to a paper on the new findings being published this week in Geophysical Review Letters. The paper's lead authors, postdoctoral researcher Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, say this imbalance has resulted in several million metric tons of additional methane in the atmosphere. Methane is produced by wetlands, rice paddies, cattle, and the gas and coal industries, and is destroyed by reaction with the hydroxyl free radical (OH), often referred to as the atmosphere's "cleanser."
One surprising feature of this recent growth is that it occurred almost simultaneously at all measurement locations across the globe. However, the majority of methane emissions are in the Northern Hemisphere, and it takes more than one year for gases to be mixed from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. Hence, theoretical analysis of the measurements shows that if an increase in emissions is solely responsible, these emissions must have risen by a similar amount in both hemispheres at the same time.
A rise in Northern Hemispheric emissions may be due to the very warm conditions that were observed over Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas. However, a potential cause for an increase in Southern Hemispheric emissions is less clear.
An alternative explanation for the rise may lie, at least in part, with a drop in the concentrations of the methane-destroying OH. Theoretical studies show that if this has happened, the required global methane emissions rise would have been smaller, and more strongly biased to the Northern Hemisphere. At present, however, it is uncertain whether such a drop in hydroxyl free radical concentrations did occur because of the inherent uncertainty in the current method for estimating global OH levels.
To help pin down the cause of the methane increase, Prinn said, "the next step will be to study this using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks." But doing that could take another year, he said, and because the detection of increased methane has important consequences for global warming the team wanted to get these initial results out as quickly as possible.
"The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus an idecrease in the rate of removal," Prinn said. "Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each" is responsible for the overall increase.
It is too early to tell whether this increase represents a return to sustained methane growth, or the beginning of a relatively short-lived anomaly, according to Rigby and Prinn. Given that, pound for pound, methane is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the situation will require careful monitoring in the near future.
In addition to Rigby and Prinn, the study was carried out by researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. These methane measurements come from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) that is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.
 
lol 75th Pwned this guy!

seriously give me some academic and credible links.. bullshit about polar bears is fucking retarded..

also I read something a year or so ago that said thier numbers were up..

fuck al gore should be stabbed in the neck
 
I love global warming cuz it keeps my dinner plate warm when i get up to take a shit.
 
lol 75th Pwned this guy!

seriously give me some academic and credible links.. bullshit about polar bears is fucking retarded..

also I read something a year or so ago that said thier numbers were up..

fuck al gore should be stabbed in the neck


Really? Read a little closer, 75th claims the earth is COOLING, When all evidence points to us being in a warming trend.

Who mentioned anything about Al Gore?
 
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2005 Summation
2005cal_fig1_s.gif


NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eigth Warmest on Record

Nef, for every person that crys global warming when it hits 90, there are 2 who say global warming's a joke when it gets cold, even in the winter.
 
I'll say it again. When I was in middle grade school years our text books said the U.S. would be as cold as Canada is by now.
 
Really? Read a little closer, 75th claims the earth is COOLING, When all evidence points to us being in a warming trend.

Who mentioned anything about Al Gore?


Please...he claimed it had cooled in the last few years, where your chart claims it was warming gradually. there's no contradticion.
 
it's ok.. with china stopping their industrial revolution (after all who's buying anything) the air should clear up by next week..

and with all the volcano's erupting putting that much ash in the atmosphere we should see the next ice age in about 12,000 years if we don't do something to stop those polluting volcanoes..
 
Well then why is he arguing with me?

because he thinks you are an alarmist. In earlier posts he said he believes the general trend is due to natural forces, as do I. No one here is calling GW a myth. We're just debating that we don't believe it's due to man made influences.
 
"whatsupwiththat.com"...???? seriously, I feel retarded for having clicked on that link. If the numbers they're talking about in that article are substantiated, than SURELY this will be written about somewhere else....especially conservative outlets that latch on to every single anti GW research that comes out, no matter who conducted that research.



No, its just you.

Instead of an article from more than 3 years ago, heres an article (with actual data, not just some sob story about a polar bear) from a little more than 3 days ago.

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking « Watts Up With That?
 
Um, excuse me? I never said global warming is "just a heat wave." I said a heat wave is not indicative of global warming and that global warming is imperceptible to humans because it is so freaking slow. As i said, like one degree per century. So when people are flipping out about a heat wave being global warming, yes, they are fucking idiots.


nef....you have to understand this point.....this isn't about temperatures getting warmer, despite the fact it's called "global warming". In fact, quite the opposite is bound to happen as the earth tries to "right" itself. I'm not going to get into the argument over whether global warming is man made or not, because there is "some" substantial debate still there to be flesched out. However, what is non debateable are the consequences. What most normal people out there who have never studied the sciences don't understand is that everything in the universe is a "system". And systems tend not to like being fucked with. The earth is a "system". You unbalance something somewhere and it will want to get back to "equilibrium" or whatever. And the way the earth may go about doing that may make things unpleasant for human life. As we can see it's already making things unpleasant for certain animals in certain locations. Years ago before this was given any real thought, people were saying that within a decade allergies would start to skyrocket......and waddya know they were right. I don't know the exact specifics of why, but irritants like pollen and such are getting stronger and stronger every year because of the "system" getting imbalanced. I never had allergies in my entire life until the last couple years. There's just so much shit that isn't getting swept away anymore because the wind patterns are shifting because this ice is melting or this forest isn't producing this anymore....it's ridiculous to keep track of, everything is intertwined.

I'm not suggesting we completely halt the modern industrial/technological economy, but we need to chill a minute and figure things out before we move forward. The next 5-10 years are going to be staggering in terms of technological changes, and we need to know exactly what we're doing BEFORE we bring alot of this stuff to market........nanotechnology for one has the potential to be very dangerous, but also amazing in what it can bring us. What people did 500 years ago had very little impact on the environment......today, what some little nerd in some university laboratory is working on could potentially irrevocably harm the environment.

So your point about GW being imperciptable to humans is right on......but that one degree a year can have fantastic consequences on other parts of the environment which has effects on another thing than on and on.........I don't know where humans are on that totem pole, but I'm guessing we're not too far from the top. If we see environments springing up around the globe where certain virus's and bacteria can grow more quickly and more easily therefor mutating much more rapidly, that can fuck with humans real quick can't it?
 
"whatsupwiththat.com"...???? seriously, I feel retarded for having clicked on that link. If the numbers they're talking about in that article are substantiated, than SURELY this will be written about somewhere else....especially conservative outlets that latch on to every single anti GW research that comes out, no matter who conducted that research.


Bor, it linked an article in The Australian. That website just reprinted it. That's like saying you wouldn't trust a NYT article because it was linked from the Drudge Report.
 
I did read them. They are basically saying that 1 year of ice growth and cooler temperatures erases the last 50 years of documented melting and temperature rise.

Look at the chart here. Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can see there are peaks and valleys but the general trend is a warming one. Look how steeply it rises from 1980 on.



those sharp spikes are the result of the earth doing "something" to maintain equilibrium, but you'er right the overall trend is toward melting and the earth clearly doesn't like that and we se it doing something about it. But in doing so some other part of the globe get's unbalanced.
 
Bor, it linked an article in The Australian. That website just reprinted it. That's like saying you wouldn't trust a NYT article because it was linked from the Drudge Report.



who were the people who conducted the study? I apologize, I don't know what the "australian" was. It just came across as a blog site and I HATE BLOG SITES because they hardly ever link to anything substantiated. Again, my bad.
 
who were the people who conducted the study? I apologize, I don't know what the "australian" was. It just came across as a blog site and I HATE BLOG SITES because they hardly ever link to anything substantiated. Again, my bad.

I'm gonna start a blog. You better fucking read it.
 
Really? Read a little closer, 75th claims the earth is COOLING, When all evidence points to us being in a warming trend.

Who mentioned anything about Al Gore?

uhm if it wasn't for al gore, your pretty little head wouldn't have even considered this garbage.

but thanks for coming out.
 
YES!!! That would most certainly include Al Gore! :D

(as well as everyone in the country of canada)



:cow:

Rent 2001 and watch it with Stefka after she finishes her finals...trust me...she'll see sci fi in a different light...it's a good movie and I'm going to make the Hal 9000. :)

I'm also pissed you haven't watched it yourself as a sci fi nerd. :)

 
Rent 2001 and watch it with Stefka after she finishes her finals...trust me...she'll see sci fi in a different light...it's a good movie and I'm going to make the Hal 9000. :)

I'm also pissed you haven't watched it yourself as a sci fi nerd. :)



I've never been a big fan of stuff that came out before I was alive, whether music, television, movies, etc.

I think we might do this, though.



:cow:
 
I've never been a big fan of stuff that came out before I was alive, whether music, television, movies, etc.

I think we might do this, though.



:cow:

So, you consider Einstein a douchebag? :)

I'm giving you good bro advice....connect with Stefka's inner female...she genetically likes Stanley Kubrick
..just like she likes Shakespeare..:)
 
Please show how the debate on, e.g., the third law of thermodynamics or Newton's second law are not "over".

:cow:



what those guys at CERN are doing may throw classical physics on it's head. As it pertains to "every day life", those laws are immutable........but our understanding of them may change so drastically that a new debate may indeed rise. In a few years they may be able to create "spaces" where those laws don't apply.........kind of like the "expanse" from Star Trek enterprise. I know :nerd:
 
what those guys at CERN are doing may throw classical physics on it's head. As it pertains to "every day life", those laws are immutable........but our understanding of them may change so drastically that a new debate may indeed rise. In a few years they may be able to create "spaces" where those laws don't apply.........kind of like the "expanse" from Star Trek enterprise. I know :nerd:


They're not doing anything that will affect classical physics. They're doing high-energy physics. Changes to the standard model will not do anything to basic physics.

Abstract mathematical spaces have existed for centuries. Something like twistor space or Hilbert space is but a theoretical construct.



:cow:
 
They're not doing anything that will affect classical physics. They're doing high-energy physics. Changes to the standard model will not do anything to basic physics.

Abstract mathematical spaces have existed for centuries. Something like twistor space or Hilbert space is but a theoretical construct.


Nobody knows exactly what's going to come from the experiments........but if they get down to the building blocks of our universe they may indeed be able to say that what goes up doesn't necessarily come down. Or other long standing laws.

Of course this will all exist at the fundamental level of our universe, not in our discrete world. They may fuck with alternate realities where they're going....who knows. That thing may open up doors even science fiction writers would not have thought of.........it all depends on the people and the experiments they run.
 
Nobody knows exactly what's going to come from the experiments........but if they get down to the building blocks of our universe they may indeed be able to say that what goes up doesn't necessarily come down. Or other long standing laws.

Of course this will all exist at the fundamental level of our universe, not in our discrete world. They may fuck with alternate realities where they're going....who knows. That thing may open up doors even science fiction writers would not have thought of.........it all depends on the people and the experiments they run.


http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~dfehling/particle.gif
Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What happens at the quantum level has nothing to do with what happens in the classical world. Classical laws will not change. Nobody's opening up black holes and dragons are not going to consume the world. Particle accelerators have been around for over a century, and they are well-understood. Short of a Dyson Sphere, it is physically impossible on this planet to achieve energies high enough to do anything destructive.

The only problem is the layperson watching too much television and not knowing how to differentiate fiction from reality.



:cow:
 
dragons consuming the world?:lmao: Do I even want to ask?:lmao:


ANyway, I'm not even remotely suggesting shit like that can happen.........what I'm suggesting is that they themselves may start to see and become of aware of things in our universe on a level the standard lay person will probably never experience. They may see things that human beings simply aren't programmed to perceive naturally. And no, i'm not talking about south parks imagination land......






http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~dfehling/particle.gif
Standard Model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What happens at the quantum level has nothing to do with what happens in the classical world. Classical laws will not change. Nobody's opening up black holes and dragons are not going to consume the world. Particle accelerators have been around for over a century, and they are well-understood. Short of a Dyson Sphere, it is physically impossible on this planet to achieve energies high enough to do anything destructive.

The only problem is the layperson watching too much television and not knowing how to differentiate fiction from reality.



:cow:
 
dragons consuming the world?:lmao: Do I even want to ask?:lmao:


ANyway, I'm not even remotely suggesting shit like that can happen.........what I'm suggesting is that they themselves may start to see and become of aware of things in our universe on a level the standard lay person will probably never experience. They may see things that human beings simply aren't programmed to perceive naturally. And no, i'm not talking about south parks imagination land......

Dude, you didn't see that article? People were actually scared that CERN would open a black hole and dragons would come through and destroy Earth. People got super weird with this whole thing.

I was just trying to say that quantum and classical physics have nothing in common. What we discover on the sub-Planck scale will not have any bearing on Newton's Laws or change the fact that entropy always increases in an isolated system. The broken plate will never come together and jump back up on the table, even though it's allowed by the laws of physics, lol.



:cow:
 
I won't pretend to know anything about Global warming... One thing I'm sure about: We should look for better energy sources than Oil...
 
A) dude, I thought you were fucking around......are you being dead serious that people actually talked about dragons coming through a black hole? I mean I know about some people being worried about these miniature black holes they'll create at CERN "possibly" getting bigger like a snowball rolling down hill. But I never heard about dragons.

B) We're in total agreement. To us, Newtons laws are immutable and more than likely always will be unless something truely remarkable happens to our universe. So to us, what goes up will always come back down. But to the guys at CERN, they may start to see things differently.

At the risk of doing some "tin hat" speculating myself.........it is possible though that they find something so astounding at CERN that it could possibly affect our daily interpretations of classical physics. I can't obviously give any examples without sounding like the "dragons are coming through the gates" people. By the way, dude...I want a link to the dragon story. I will print that and frame it for the love of god. I'm off to google it.........if you know it offhand, please link me. I've been chuckling nonstop for the last 5 minutes since I read that.




Dude, you didn't see that article? People were actually scared that CERN would open a black hole and dragons would come through and destroy Earth. People got super weird with this whole thing.

I was just trying to say that quantum and classical physics have nothing in common. What we discover on the sub-Planck scale will not have any bearing on Newton's Laws or change the fact that entropy always increases in an isolated system. The broken plate will never come together and jump back up on the table, even though it's allowed by the laws of physics, lol.



:cow:
 
A) dude, I thought you were fucking around......are you being dead serious that people actually talked about dragons coming through a black hole? I mean I know about some people being worried about these miniature black holes they'll create at CERN "possibly" getting bigger like a snowball rolling down hill. But I never heard about dragons.


http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/c...ight-make-dragons-might-eat-us-up-609228.html

In addition to the numerous death threats CERN dudes were receiving:

http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/c...receiving-death-threats-news-item-609395.html



:cow:

EDIT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM

:D :D :D
 


nice:supercool
I luv'd tha lil rap diddy u posted (prolly bc u KNEW most ppl on here wouldn't read much of tha other stuff .... 2many of those one thingies .... words)
I was just thinkin and I gotta say I really miss all of your older threads about tha cool stuff (stars, science, physics...and so on). Do u remember? Well, sure u do.
Yea, I miss that stuff. I hope you didn't feel like you were wasting ur time.
I thought they were stellar.
 
Top Bottom