digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

13 Things That Do Not Make Sense

sixside.com — At least to the average person.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ironeus, on 08/15/2008, -57/+26The placebo effect isn't too difficult to understand, it's simple mind over matter.
    • karlw, on 08/15/2008, -5/+53"naloxone result seems to show that the placebo effect is somehow biochemical"
    • Brododium, on 08/16/2008, -0/+31And from the rest of that section:
      "Benedetti says, but one thing is clear: the mind can affect the body's biochemistry"
    • iampriteshdesai, on 08/16/2008, -7/+6Have you seen the 2. Horizon problem? They have made a mistake. It says the horizons are 28 billion light years apart and speed of light is only 14 billion light years. Actually the heat sarted a the midpoint and moved in both directions so in 14 billion years it moved a total of 14*2 = 28 billion yrs. Isn't it simple?
      • jp12380, on 08/16/2008, -0/+12I don't think it's that simple otherwise it would not be on the list.
      • DeathB4Life, on 08/16/2008, -0/+9its the fact that the heat is uniformly spread. there should exist a temperature gradient where the space closest to the heat source has the highest temperature while the space furthest away is coolest. instead the universe has reached a temperature equilibrium which should take much longer than the age of the universe, unless space "inflates" to spread the heat faster than it does by natural convection.
    • Neiby, on 08/16/2008, -1/+23Saying that the placebo effect is "simple mind over matter" is not an explanation. That's an assertion that tells us nothing we didn't already know.
      • lukas88, on 08/16/2008, -3/+1Actually if you take "mind over matter" to mean "top-down processing," you are basically describing it how a cognitive scientist would. Our expectations (prior knowledge) have a huge affect on how we perceive things. It is basically the same phenomena that is allowing you to read these words. Prior exposure to the patterns in letter features, letters, words, and sentences shape your reality so that you don't perceive a bunch of nonsense chicken scratch but words and ideas. Pain or symptom control through a placebo works in a similar way. Information we have received (the doctor says it will help) become implemented into the "reality" that our brain creates for us. From then on it becomes a matter of modification through neuronal inhibition and excitation on information received from our senses to create a compromise between what we think is going to happen and what really happens. That's the theory.
    • elperegrino, on 08/16/2008, -0/+15that's what i thought about the placebo effect. but that doesn't explain why a morphine inhibitor blocks the effects of a saline placebo.
    • newms32, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5I don't know why #1 acts like placebo so unknown. It's well accepted in neuroscience that the placebo response is due to changes in the release of endorphin, enkephalins and other naturally produced opioids when the body expects the relief of pain. This produces a 100% "real" pain relief effect and is likely the reason why there appears to be a benefit to acupuncture. Naloxone blocks the endogenous opioids from binding to their receptors, which prevents the physiological effects of the expectation. It makes perfect sense.

      I guess the author found some old sources for that info.

      For a real *****, try this: blocking opioid receptors partially blocks the reinforcing effects of cocaine and marijuana.
      • rowjimmy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1"For a real *****, try this: blocking opioid receptors partially blocks the reinforcing effects of cocaine and marijuana."

        again, couldn't endogenous opioids be the culprit here? eg, whatever the action of any drug, if it causes euphoria, at some point it stimulates endogenous opioid production?
  • SuperWinner, on 08/16/2008, -2/+78I wonder why they did not mention spooky action at a distance? That one makes no sense at all.
    • santaliqueur, on 08/16/2008, -0/+18What is that?
    • Abram730, on 08/16/2008, -3/+10What people don't understand seems spooky or magic...
      My conclusion is the Einstein didn't really understand quantum mechanics all that well even though he started it or perhaps it was the requirement of not being able to know in a man driven by wanting to know.

      “If you think that you understand quantum mechanics, it just shows that you do not understand it.”

      Here is some of that "spooky action at a distance"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
      think the equipment did it? Nope.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBOaXcG3sJ0
      The experiment has even been done where the decision on whether to know or not was made after the particle was fired and still the same result.

      entanglement
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5poD3nXdJ8
      quantum computing
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KUMXe9gh7c
      • scojerroc, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2In the double slit experiment, i'd like to know what happens when they look at the back wall, then reads the count. he spoke of erasing the data, but not of just looking at it afterward. and what if one person views the wall, and another views the data?

        and maybe this was covered in another part, i'll have to finish the series
      • B1663r, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Fantastic presentation!!!
      • Abram730, on 10/30/2008, -0/+1Thank you B1663r

        scojerroc, If one were to look at the wall while the data existed then they would not see an interference pattern, has the what path information still exists. Once that has been observed then what you do with the data has no affect as you observed. It's only when the data is erased that the interference pattern shows back up.

        I'm unsure if you leave the data and decide just not to look at the data if you see the interference pattern.

        This experiment as some big implications as it both shows that on this small scale things exist in many places at the same time or don't exist as a thing and all at the same time, unless one place can be determined. The other is that time isn't what we think. The idea of things not existing in one place and one time unless they are observed is quite spooky to many.

        Einstein was comfortable explaining about time not being what people thought. Time slows down as you move faster and stops at the speed of light. As in if you left your newborn at the age of 18 and traveled at the speed of light for say 70 years in an arc ending up back at earth. You would still be 18 but would be caring for your 70 year old, elderly child.
    • IRDrew, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Probably because no scientist has really any tangible theories as to how/why this is happening... which is why the hilarious pet name of "spooky action" that's used to describe it, is so frequently used.

      In this case, "Spooky" = "we seriously don't have any clue to wtf is going on here"

      Not exactly a whole lot to write an article section on... lol
  • Askee, on 08/16/2008, -16/+79414. Women
    • ZeeZee2k, on 08/16/2008, -2/+90I wonder who dugg you down....
      • Kajman, on 08/16/2008, -3/+127the only 3 women on the internet?
      • coffeebot, on 08/16/2008, -7/+46men use the internets
        womens text
      • fartingbob, on 08/16/2008, -6/+28There is a good reason Digg is mostly men.
        The Kitchen is not a good place for a computer.
      • xanaka, on 08/16/2008, -11/+2There is a good reason Digg is mostly only men,
        ugly men need something to do.
    • noen, on 08/16/2008, -30/+5There is a difference between "things that don't make sense" and "I don't understand women".
      • darkwing81, on 08/16/2008, -2/+33ya, men don't understand women BECAUSE they don't make sense.
      • cnot3, on 08/16/2008, -8/+29Sorry, I just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die.
      • kaosethema, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2get laid quite often, do you?
    • diskit, on 08/16/2008, -3/+5Tell me about it!
    • mufffin, on 08/16/2008, -4/+17the 5 women on digg?
      • hannahruth0, on 08/16/2008, -2/+5I dugg it up, wasn't me. I know we don't make sense!
    • Roland1232, on 08/16/2008, -5/+6Women don't hold a candle to the stuff in this article.
    • DrZocktahedron, on 08/16/2008, -5/+40Why couldnt Hellen Keller drive?

      Because she was a woman.
    • cutekelvins, on 08/16/2008, -3/+18In Soviet Russia, sense makes woman.
    • dilberter, on 08/16/2008, -16/+1415. Religion
    • skabyss, on 08/16/2008, -0/+8Why would a wookie want to live on Endor with a bunch of tiny little Ewoks? It just don't make no sense!
    • honutt, on 08/16/2008, -1/+7http://www.instantrimshot.com/
    • rory2267, on 08/16/2008, -3/+516. LOST
    • cyborg, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4Ahhhh, that would explain why you like men then.
  • Zep77, on 08/16/2008, -2/+132This was a lot more interesting than I thought it was going to be.
    The Pioneer anomaly is fascinating.

    For a physics nerd like me, at least.
    • TheMoniker, on 08/16/2008, -0/+17That makes at least two of us.
    • DanQuist, on 08/16/2008, -0/+9I would rename this article "13 Things that we do not understand"

      Every one of these things makes perfect sense, we just don't understand why.
    • drexl, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1Count me as eleven-teen!
  • Bakdan87, on 08/16/2008, -0/+48How about the fact that a wavefunction collapses instantaneously. I've been living in the world of physics for a while, and it still freaks me the ***** out!
    • wonderchemist, on 08/16/2008, -0/+46Stop looking at the wavefunction and it won't collapse! Problem Solved!
    • Stormwern, on 08/16/2008, -1/+6Quantum tunneling is about as strange as it gets too.
    • TheMoniker, on 08/16/2008, -1/+15I like some of the lines from one of my 3rd/4th year quantum texts (Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 4th Ed.", I'm paraphrasing): "just what caused the particle to 'choose' that state, we dare not ask," etc.
      • jpjandrade, on 08/16/2008, -0/+9Ok, I just had to correct it, it's 1st or 2nd edition, there's no edition beyond the 2nd.

        Sorry =)
      • TheMoniker, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2You're right! I apparently lost my mind for a moment there. It is in fact the 2nd edition.
  • SuperIntendent, on 08/16/2008, -3/+28I'm confused...
  • Evilblobs, on 08/16/2008, -14/+3Placebo effect isnt confusing.

    Everything else there whooshes over my head, mostly due to sci-babble
    • scotteth, on 08/16/2008, -1/+11the placebo effect isn't confusing by itself, but the study implicates that the body essentially produces morphine even when saline is only present. if you can understand why and how the body produces morphine independently, than congrats.. go write a paper.
      • prefan21, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3The body doesn't produce morphine, it produces substances that act on the same opioid receptors that morphine acts on -- endorphins, dynorphins, enkephalins, etc.

        They're endogenous substances and the body produces them constantly. It's not the big "HOW ON EARTH DID THE BODY MAKE MORPHINE?!" you made it out to be. The question isn't how, it's why saline triggered it.
      • ThatDeadDude, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2I'm no expert, but as far as I understand it the major effect of morphine is on the brain itself, as opposed to the rest of the nervous system. As such, after a few doses of real morphine one would imagine there's quite a lot of scope for conditioning - at first the morphine would cause a cascading neural reaction as the binding triggers the release of natural transmitters further along the line. By the time saline is administered instead, the brain may have conditioned itself to release these later neurotransmitters at the implication that morphine will be received (cf. the whole Pavlov's dogs thing).

        The effect of the naloxone may be due to blocking the cascade, as opposed to the morphine binding itself. This is uninformed speculation though.
    • LiberalKid, on 08/16/2008, -2/+12When did modern physics become sci-babble?.......
    • darkwing81, on 08/16/2008, -2/+8get back to work Mr. President
    • 10scott10, on 08/16/2008, -5/+1a major part of the placebo effect is the natural rate of people to get better on their own
      • MtheoryX, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3I'm not quite sure exactly how you could make any less sense, but I predict you will find a way soon.
  • tomarocco, on 08/16/2008, -16/+215. Digg
  • Bologner, on 08/16/2008, -3/+24513 Things that alot of people have no idea about in the first place.
    • warsongs7, on 08/16/2008, -0/+9Yeah, the only thing that I was aware of was the placebo effect.
    • fabkebab, on 08/16/2008, -4/+25Yeah - All I know about are LOL cats, Paris Hilton, Rick Rolling, Obama, The impending economic meltdown, the 14 hottest female olympians and hilarious "faceplant" videos - Please dont bring us down with something that ACTUALLY MIGHT MATTER!!!!!
    • MrSidnet, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I thought number 6 was solved, due to the finding of perchlorate on Mars.
    • ThatDeadDude, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3Urgh... I must need to get out more :-(. I knew about all of them except 3 and 4.
    • megamod, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Well at least he was able to give a simple overview that even non-technical people could understand as to why these very complex issues do not make sense.
  • Lithium19, on 08/16/2008, -4/+79As Stephen Colbert summed up perfectly about Dark Matter; Maybe regular matter is 15% heavier than we think.
    • SaperKain, on 08/16/2008, -2/+44I think Stephen Colbert is the greatest scientist of our time.
    • shakbhaji, on 08/16/2008, -1/+33"Nobel Prize please!"
      *extends hand*
  • Cloud7654, on 08/16/2008, -11/+28Really interesting article, but the website design is treacherous.
    • krAzykrAkr01, on 08/16/2008, -0/+13What's even more interesting is that if you peel off the last part of the url and go to the home page (sixside.com), it's a web design site. LMAO
      • richardhenry, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2First they built the box, and then they thought outside of it! Then lifted some weights! YEAH!

        What a great company.
    • widgetmaker, on 08/16/2008, -1/+28I like it, all the text on one page with no flashy graphic, as a pure article it's great.
    • antipoet, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6It could use to be edited once more too, there are quotes that have been misplaced.
    • triskele, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4I don't follow web design trends, but at one point the author mentions a NASA probe scheduled for launch in 2006. So assuming the article is pre-2006 that might account for this treachery you speak of.
  • 8randon, on 08/16/2008, -3/+6913_Things_That_Do_Not_Make_Sense_9

    well, at least i know that there are over 117 things that don't make sense
  • DillonHinson, on 08/16/2008, -19/+10The title is misleading. The Average Person doesn't think about any of those 13 things enough to care if it makes sense enough. And for me, sometimes knowing the truth about something kind of ruins the fun mysteriousness of it. It's just cool to let your mind imagine things.
  • chompapotamus, on 08/16/2008, -8/+15the average person? the articles says cosmetologists are all sorts of confused by it too..
    • santaliqueur, on 08/16/2008, -0/+41COSMOLOGISTS are confused by these complex situations. Cosmetologists are confused by everything.
      • darkwing81, on 08/16/2008, -2/+9but they know how to sell my grandma a bunch of crap that "will take years" off her wrinkled prune face. maybe we should give them a crack at a few of these problems.
      • drexl, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1No! Leave the cosmetologists out of this....if they were involved in cosmology the universe as we know it would cease to exist. All the planets would get make overs and then everything would be given stupid pet names.
    • Knowa22, on 08/16/2008, -1/+11Ha ha, nice. To clear it up: Cosmologists study the cosmos; Cosmetologists, cosmetics.

    • Anzat, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4COSMETOLOGISTS work with makeup. COSMOLOGISTS are a type of astrologer.



      (OK I just couldn't resist saying something so ironically stupid. Now I have to point out that I meant "astronomer," so nobody thinks I'm actually that stupid...)
  • VyPR, on 08/16/2008, -17/+200'Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

    Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.'
    • tedrock, on 08/16/2008, -1/+25digg x ∞
    • ReeferChiefer42, on 08/16/2008, -3/+22This was the first thing I thought of the second I read the title of the article! How are you not being dugg up more? I guess not everyone has discovered the brilliance South Park offers.
      • moongoggles, on 08/16/2008, -3/+9Because anyone can pull a South Park quote out of their ass. Doesn't make it clever or funny.
    • Psi57, on 08/16/2008, -2/+11I think you just won an internet.
    • fjeirsou, on 08/16/2008, -0/+10Here, look at the monkey.
  • DillonHinson, on 08/16/2008, -12/+2The title is misleading. The Average Person doesn't think about any of those 13 things enough to care if it makes sense enough. And for me, sometimes knowing the truth about something kind of ruins the fun mysteriousness of it. It's just cool to let your mind imagine things.
  • dmark77, on 08/16/2008, -17/+3221) My relationship with my ex-girlfriend.
    • ZeeZee2k, on 08/16/2008, -2/+17That would be under the title, Things That We don't give a f***
    • abtarhar, on 08/16/2008, -1/+2It doesnt make sense cause it is non-existent.
  • Plasmodia, on 08/16/2008, -1/+7"A variation in the speed of light could solve the problem, but this too is impotent in the face of the question 'why?'"
    • WoollyMittens, on 08/16/2008, -0/+9Because all the mass and energy in the universe is dependent on that constant.
      • solistus, on 08/16/2008, -5/+2A variation in the speed of light could solve the problem, but this too is impotent in the face of the question 'why?'
      • Vodd9, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1That's not really an answer.
      • xptoast, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1I think it is silly to base measurements against the "constant" speed of light as it is not constant. Want to know why?

        Speed has to do with having a constant to relate to. That is a problem as well as the fact that time is not constant either. Anyone notice that time fluctuates thus screwing with satellites and such? It all has to do with energy interactions on the particle level. Gravity as well as time fluctuates based on the amount of dense energy packets throughout the universe.

        It is like having an unimaginable amount of particle sized magnets strewn about the universe all in motion. All pulling and repelling and some just floating around. Denser packets pull more than the smaller packets.
    • diggnik, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Or a variation in the rate ot time.
      • oneoverzero, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1We wouldn't notice if time started slowing down.

        Think about it.
    • dazparkour, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3We already know light travels at half the speed through Diamond etc.

      Problem solved?
      • PurpleSfinx, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3No, I think the problem was to do with the amount of energy it had, and it was a GAIN anyway. Still, it could be somehow related perhaps? Like... ANTIDIAMOND!
      • matt510, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2That is only because it is a different medium, it is not a fundamental change in the nature of light which is what they are talking about.
    • honeybrass, on 08/16/2008, -0/+0The question about every force or effect in the universe, including those we readily observe is 'why?'. 'Why' is only important when the theory becomes difficult to test.
    • klue900, on 08/17/2008, -0/+0Ok. My theory is you dont need to worry about inflation, dark matter or the horizon problem. What you need to worry about is being the other side of an event horizon. Dark matter doesn't matter, because we aren't ever able to see the whole of the universe, and in any case, black holes are leaky systems; the black hole is a local phenomena and so we might assume the horizon tempreture is even - the cooling time not mattering, because for the universe is limited by what we can see, and therefore what we think of as the age of the universe is in fact, the length of time since we passed inside; inflation is also irrelevent, because this only depends when you enter the black hole, since the black hole causes acceleration to occur and relativity takes care of expansion.
      Anyway. Probably wrong.
  • OrrusTHX, on 08/16/2008, -21/+1buried, this article is all garbage and no science.
    • LiberalKid, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5Would you care to elaborate?
    • travis1982, on 08/16/2008, -0/+4Honestly, why are their dumb people on Digg? Not that Digg is some website solely for smart people...because their is a lot of garbage on this site..but come on. How are you even operating a computer?
  • Mysticcal, on 08/16/2008, -2/+74The WoW effect is true. I have no clue why I still log onto World of Warcraft.
    • Risingashes, on 08/16/2008, -2/+9Failure of the substitution effect.
      • LimeParrot, on 08/16/2008, -1/+2Subtle. I see what you did there!
      • RadiatedAnt, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1I was immune, must be in my jeans.
    • Brad324, on 08/16/2008, -0/+8you know the weirdest thing about it - I actually feel that little voice in the back of my head nagging me to get my quests done, while I'm busy doing dishes. WoW doesn't just keep you from caring about homework/chores, it actually subconsciously nags at you when you try to do these things.
    • honeybrass, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2The placebo effect, you logged on for a while so now you will continue to even if the 'medicine' is replaced.
    • JBish828, on 08/16/2008, -2/+3Because you're a dork.
  • TopBanana, on 08/16/2008, -3/+136Sixside, why no credit for the original article?
    http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg1852 ...
    • geartype2, on 08/16/2008, -13/+5probably because the original article has tons of ads, and this was text, and very easy to read.
    • roystgnr, on 08/16/2008, -0/+16The original article had niceties like exponents, rather than nonsense like "blowing up by a factor of 1050 in 10-33 seconds". Perhaps instead of plagiarizing their next article, sixside.com can write an original sequel, "13 Things That Do Not Make Sense To SixSide Editors", with entries like "HTML Tags", "Copyright Law", and "Childproof Bottles"
    • fudged71, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3I knew I recognized this article!
  • haxyo, on 08/16/2008, -7/+1bookmarked
    • tedrock, on 08/16/2008, -3/+11because bookmarking something static is useful?

      "Hey it's that same article I read last week, yep still the same. Right then off to masturbate."
  • maj0rm0j0, on 08/16/2008, -13/+87The laws of physics are man-made and are in no way a barrier. It's quite conceited of the human race to claim to understand the universe so fully that we set laws saying what physically can or cannot happen in the entire universe when we have never even landed a human on another planet.

    One of the most ignorant things a scientist can say is "that's impossible, it defies the laws of physics". We do not own, control, or even understand the universe, therefore we do not have any conclusive right to set universal laws.
    • superman787, on 08/16/2008, -5/+3scientific laws are just tenancies
    • grumpyrain, on 08/16/2008, -0/+16Agreed. The strongest statement that can meaningfully be made is along the lines that a particular observation or theory appears to contradict prior conclusion; conclusions we found were backed by extensive observations and observations we will need to revisit in context of this new understanding.

      Nothing that happens can defy the "laws" of the universe. Things can happen that our current understandings are unable to explain.
    • Knowa22, on 08/16/2008, -2/+15A tendency to use 'spellcheck' would be nice
    • tocsy, on 08/16/2008, -1/+26While true, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the phrase "it defies the laws of physics." If the phenomenon actually does happen, it means "*****, we have to change how we think about the universe." Science is not about confining what is possible to a certain small number of occurrences, it's about explaining the universe in the best possible way. If something happens that defies our laws of physics, it simply means there's more to explore and discover.
      • maj0rm0j0, on 08/16/2008, -7/+3No, I do understand the "intention" of the phrase, but when we are basing a scientific "law" on a subject it is based in fact and we are referring to a system of unbreakable rules. Such as the "Law of Gravity". This is a constant that is completely understood and proven. The "Laws of Physics" would be more accurately described as "Man's Interpretation of Physics". Really we are learning more and more that rather than a law, it is more of a theory.
      • tocsy, on 08/16/2008, -1/+9That's not quite right maj0rm0j0. Any law of physics we have come up with is simply our best guess. They could be right, or they could be wrong, and gravity is no exception. And actually, the correct term is the "Theory of Gravity." It seems like a moot point, but laws and theories are different - basically, theories are more broad and laws deal with specific circumstances. Even so, the Theory of Gravity is not perfect. For example, why does the Theory of Gravity break down at quantum levels? Because it's not QUITE right. But it's a damn good approximation for every day use.
      • maj0rm0j0, on 08/16/2008, -4/+2Sorry tocsy I missed the reply. But no simply put, your wrong. It's "The Law of Gravity"
        Links for reference:
        http://zebu.uoregon.edu/%7Esoper/Orbits/newtongrav ...
        http://physics.about.com/od/classicalmechanics/a/g ...
        http://www.jimloy.com/physics/gravity.htm

        It has been proven that each object in the universe attracts each other body. So it is a law and not a theory. I don't have time to get into the quantum physics with you, but I would love to. I'll add you as a friend to maybe discuss more, but as far as gravity it is proven and is a law, not a theory. Please read the reference links. Thank you.
      • tocsy, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I did some searching, and it seems as if there's a problem: Newton's findings are referred to as both a law and a theory. However, when referred to as a theory, it's usually called "theory of universal gravitation," so they may be slightly different. That's something that definitely needs to be made clear.

        I've been reading your other posts in this thread, I think maybe your usage of the word "theory" is somewhat mistaken. Theories are just as well supported by evidence as laws, and are more overarching explanations of the universe, whereas laws deal with more specific situations.

        Finally, I hate to be picky, but the law (or theory, whatever it is) of gravity is not COMPLETELY understood and proven. The way gravity works at quantum levels definitely matters for this argument. You yourself said something akin to "it's conceited to think we know everything about the universe." We have no idea if every single possible type of particle is subject to gravity. As I said before, Gravity's not QUITE right, but it's a very close approximation.
      • Baskins, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Apparently there is some dissatisfaction (or misunderstanding) with the semantics used in science.

        The best definition of law that I could find (*emphasis* mine):
        "A law generalizes a body of observations. *At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law*. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

        Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened."
        http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawth ...

        And I haven't a clue as to the point of maj0rm0j0's original post. I've read it like 6 times now. He doesn't seem to like the way man goes about scientific developments, or doesn't like that man can't universally explain all of existence yet, or that scientists can be baffled by observations that don't play by the rules *of prior existence*. The only common theme throughout ends up being something like "...only god can do that". Read it again and you'll see what I'm talking about.
    • pmilkman, on 08/16/2008, -1/+6You misunderstand the term. Our 'laws' of physics are simply another way of saying, 'Well, after zillions of observations, experiments and measurements, these behaviors seem to be the way this whole Universe place works.'
      • maj0rm0j0, on 08/16/2008, -7/+2No sir, you are misunderstanding the scientific meaning. If it's not proven it isn't a law. We have thought we have proven the laws of physics in the past, but when that law is consistently wrong, then it isn't a law is it? It is a theory. No matter how many zillion tests we run, we come up with a "belief" from those tests, not a law. It's not a law until it is proven fact and I think you'll agree that this simply isn't the case.
      • pmilkman, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Actually, we're in complete agreement there. The only reason they're referred to as 'laws' is because that's what Isaac Newton called his findings. The term has been carried on from then in science. Any scientist worth his salt will tell you the exact same thing you just said. Notice my use of the words 'seem to be'. They're a moving target for sure.

        If you wish to slam science for being 'conceited', blame Newton, or the scientific community for continuing the use of the term.
      • maj0rm0j0, on 08/16/2008, -4/+2I appreciate your conversation pmilkman. Your dead on regarding Newton, and your right. It seems as if it's time to change some terminology. To be honest I guess it would be better served to point a finger at the scientific community for continually following the roads that were laid, instead of traveling new ones a little more often.
      • Frustian, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Maybe you should understand terminology before criticizing it.

        Laws are a statement that is proved by experiments, similar to what you said, and can and have been tweaked, Newton's laws have changed or been bent because of many phenomenon here on earth, nobody thinks they are 'iron-clad' laws that are never broken.

        Theories are a law (a statement that is proved by experiments, etc.), but is also backed up by a possible explanation for why it happens, for example, if Newton figured out a reason why there could be gravity, it would be called the theory of gravity. Theories are therefore much more 'iron-clad' and less likely to be completely disproven.
    • warsongs7, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3Agreed. The smartest man is the one that knows he doesn't know anything.
      Or something like that.
    • dlllb, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1Dugg for common sense.
    • matt510, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1The laws of physics are not man made. The description of the laws of physics are man made. A subtle, but extremely important difference.
  • WoollyMittens, on 08/16/2008, -7/+35I think you could add "fractional reserve banking" and "religion" to that list. :)
    • Sogui, on 08/16/2008, -3/+3Fractional reserve banking has allowed us to invest in infrastructure that would otherwise exceed the limitations of any single individual, government, or corporation. These investments have allowed us to obtain cable networks, the internet, interstate highways, skyscrapers, and virtually every (expensive) modern marvel of human technology.

      Even Ron Paul conceded that the very cable network he was speaking on at the time wouldn't exist if not for the investing system made possible from fractional reserves.

      • bullhead2007, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6Instead we're left with a debt no single individual, government, or corporation could ever pay off, and an exponential inflation rate.
      • Vanzetti, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2Fractional Reserve Banking wasn't THAT bad because our money was backed by, well, a fractional reserve. Our money now is FIAT system - backed by nothing but paper and how much paper is in circulation. This allows the government to tax individuals blindly and print money at will.

        When we left fractional reserve banking that is what prompted Ron Paul to get into politics.

        Know your *****.
    • Anzat, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2What's hard to understand about religion?

      Primitive people wanted to understand life's mysteries and be comforted about death, but they had no means to get the actual answers, so they made some up. Some people who had a part in making up the answers, or spreading the made-up answers, saw to it that the answers gave them some power to control the believers, and organized religion was born. There you go... a complete understanding of religion and everything about it.
  • SugarCoatedSalt, on 08/16/2008, -0/+30freaking great article, had me glued to the screen. dugg
    • KMartSheriff, on 08/16/2008, -2/+26THIS is what Digg used to be about. None of that Political crap or random pictures of dogs or some *****. Dugg.
    • whoaohh, on 08/16/2008, -0/+2I miss old Digg :(
  • kipmartin, on 08/16/2008, -17/+7#14. Vista
  • santaliqueur, on 08/16/2008, -17/+5Nobody said anything about the war, or George Bush's presidency making no sense? This is Digg, right?
    • KMartSheriff, on 08/16/2008, -2/+6Why must you bring politics into everything?
  • meinrosebud, on 08/16/2008, -4/+1Sure enough Billy Joe Bob, but what does it have to due with RVs anyway?
  • r2builder, on 08/16/2008, -6/+23Homeopathic medicines are one of the biggest scams that are going on today. They have zero of the active ingredient in them at the point of sale. They should be illegal, as the average person shopping in a pharmacy won't know that homeopathic pills are about as useful as a dreamcatcher. James Randi has a lot on this topic if you care enough to Google him.
    • Neiby, on 08/16/2008, -2/+20Your point, that they have zero active ingredient, is precisely why the experiment mentioned in the article is interesting. That was sort of the point. And as I recall, I believe (but am not certain) that those experiments have been replicated by others.

      I personally feel that the field of homeopathy is bunk, but I'm open-minded enough to be intrigued by experimental results.
      • krAzykrAkr01, on 08/16/2008, -2/+1Dugg for using "bunk". I haven't heard that word in almost 20 years.
      • znicket, on 08/16/2008, -3/+4She hasn't replicated the results, has she? Every experiment has 1% or 5% chance of giving false results - must be replicated to eliminate the possibility.
      • Ron999, on 08/16/2008, -1/+11"The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule - worked just like histamine."
      • CasualReader, on 08/16/2008, -2/+3Homeopathic treatments are very likely just the placebo effect in action. Until they do a double blind experiment and also do it on enough people to get decent statistics, I will remain unconvinced.
      • Herostratos, on 08/16/2008, -2/+2"And it remains true that no homeopathic remedy has ever been shown to work in a large randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial"
      • Wrathernaut, on 08/17/2008, -1/+1That particular experiment was debunked. Thoroughly.
        If your first experiment doesn't work under truly controlled conditions, the first is invalidated.

        If only more woo-woo followers could understand this, the world would be a better place.

        If four labs follow the instructions that don't include proper controls they're just as bunk.
    • vvargoal, on 08/16/2008, -3/+10Homeopathic experiments have not been replicated, that's the whole idea. When you tighten up the experiments, run a good double-blind study, the results magically disappear.
    • waylander632, on 08/16/2008, -1/+6http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopat ...

      "As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure water Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was over was it revealed which samples were real.
      To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been."

      That doesn't address the Ennis experiments, but I'm guessing the scenario was similar.

    • raskali, on 08/16/2008, -0/+3Well, you might as well condemn most pharmaceuticals as well, many of those don't work either but still people buy them. Allen Roses, of GlaxoSmithKline, is quoted in a national newspaper as saying more than 90% of drugs only work in 30-50% of people.
    • absurdist, on 08/16/2008, -7/+4The Annoying Randi? Please. I'm certainly not interested in having anything explained away by a professional skeptic and sleight-of-hand artist.
    • dgrant, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1Yeah I stopped reading after I read the homeopathy one. Utter *****.
  • NaziHatinChimp, on 08/16/2008, -2/+1I think 2 and Dark Matter might be related. I mean the universe might be so long because of it's expansion which is probably caused by dark matter.
    • tedrock, on 08/16/2008, -4/+1just thought that up? you should go write a paper. i'm sure it will get published with that 11 seconds of "research".
      • NaziHatinChimp, on 08/16/2008, -0/+8Mystery 14
        Why do people have to be a dick to strangers on the Internet to make themselves feel better? Hope you sleep better dickface.
    • matt510, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I think you are thinking of Dark Energy, not Dark Matter. Two different things that have opposite effects.
  • ashwinmudigonda, on 08/16/2008, -20/+3Add to that,

    -1 x -1 = 1
  • solistus, on 08/16/2008, -9/+1A variation in the speed of light could solve the problem, but this too is impotent in the face of the question 'why?'
  • duggdowncatisad, on 08/16/2008, -3/+3Wow -- 30 years ago today.
  • mkamal, on 08/16/2008, -3/+1http://static.squidoo.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1 ...
  • cnot3, on 08/16/2008, -5/+12The Chewbacca Defense
    • Psi57, on 08/16/2008, -1/+1Look ~10 posts up.
      • nshady, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I'm procrastinating so much that I actually went up and counted. It was actually twenty posts up, if you're interested.
      • whoaohh, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1Now, 10 just doesn't make sense...
  • Kajman, on 08/16/2008, -3/+24This is one of the best articles I've read on digg in a long time.
    • Neiby, on 08/16/2008, -1/+11You mean, since the last time it was posted?
    • Canadian0207, on 08/16/2008, -4/+1that's not saying much
    • KMartSheriff, on 08/16/2008, -2/+6It really is. It's a nice breath of fresh air to not see more crappy headlines about politics or non-tech related *****. (and don't give me that "un-check political and it won't show up for you" crap).
  • patbon, on 08/16/2008, -5/+13Worst tagline EVER. "At least to the average person"? The whole point of this article is that no one understands these things
  • clancyryan, on 08/16/2008, -3/+1whats confusing about the placebo affect is that its on this list with 12 astronomy things. Did it start out as a random assortment? I can think of at least one astronomy conundrum that could have replaced it. are there stars so big that their immense gravity keeps light from escaping?
  • BonersMilloy, on 08/16/2008, -9/+5Add another: People thinking that they're smart and know politics because they visit digg.
  • j0hn, on 08/16/2008, -2/+71An interesting list of 13 things, all on one page, in an easy to read format with no advertisements. This is an amazing article.
    • Vodd9, on 08/16/2008, -6/+2Those of us using AdBlock Plus rarely see any advertisements anywhere at all.
    • matt510, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1That was blatantly copied from another source without credit given...
  • TheMachine1, on 08/16/2008, -1/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect

    Or the fact that hot water in some circumstances can freeze before and equal starting amount of cold water is counter intuitive to even most educated scientists. I still do not believe its not all some elaborated multi decade hoax.
    • sabach, on 08/16/2008, -0/+1I always thought it was because there were fewer dissolved gases in the hot water.
  • Canadian0207, on 08/16/2008, -8/+9here's something i don't understand

    why does Taco Bell taste better than anything after a night of drunken silliness?
  • M724, on 08/16/2008, -5/+3Thanks for telling me that the sciences I have learned in school were false. I feel like I've lost something.
  • INTERNETMASTER, on 08/16/2008, -6/+3COOL
  • username7410, on 08/16/2008, -3/+6Did I just click back into time?
  • surfmore, on 08/16/2008, -9/+38 The Pioneer anomaly

    God is doing it... Duh...
  • dighere, on 08/16/2008, -17/+1Article quote, "Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding. Astronomical observations suggest that dark matter must make up about 90 per cent of the mass in the universe, yet we are astonishingly ignorant what that 90 per cent is."

    Doctrine and Covenants 131:7 (spirit matter)
    There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
    • hawkspur, on 08/16/2008, -1/+13Go wave your religious nonsense elsewhere.
    • SuperWinner, on 08/16/2008, -0/+8its amazing how the religious will latch onto anything that is unsolved in science and say its a ***** angel or a spirit. I just have to shake my head sometimes, these idiots will never go away...
    • Yareking, on 08/16/2008, -2/+1Go Obama go!!!! Oups wrong story...
  • diskit, on 08/16/2008, -1/+10More like 3 things that does not make sense to the average person and 10 things they've never heard of.
  • Adam420, on 08/16/2008, -3/+3crazy
  • fadingsignal, on 08/16/2008, -0/+10We've come so far, but have a very long way to go...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.