he kind of has a dag thing going on back then... I wonder if dag will turn into an astrophysicist

In reply to this comment by highdileeho:
I got to say, Astrophysicists are the creationist of the scientific community. Almost every single modern theory regarding this subject is completly untestable. And in every other scientific discipline you cannot even create a hypothesis unless it is 'testable' let alone assert it as being a theory. Try publishing an ecological journal without signifigant testable data to back you up; It would be your last. You certainly wouldn't be visited by nerds, sipping wine at a vineyard talking about your insane ramblings. A theory based on what? the fact that another scientist cannot test it to be false simply because it is physiclly impossible? That logic is exactly aligned with religions 'faith' based principles that we all love to bash so freely. I think We can only say that certain sub-atomic and atomic particles react a peticular way. But making wild assertins as to how, why, and how we can manipulate those wild assertions is where we all went astray. I blame Einsteen, He duped the entire world, and became an icon to astrophysicists. So now they all follow his very arrogant and presumptious methodology. Being right 2 or 3 times when you were wrong hundreds is a terrible ratio for any scientist...well except for...you know fake scientists like these guys. ohhh snap, ecologists talking trash...what Son! We run this bitch!
And Relying soley on Mathamatics it very very faulty. Even newton who was thinking way beyond the scale of any measurable device was innovative enough to create devices to test his hypothosis'ss's. The bottom line is, it's not a theory unless you can repeatedly test a hypothosis as being true, beyond crunching numbers. Face it, you can bend any number into another to bolster a pre-existing concept. So I don't want to hear any rebuttle about how this is different because the scale is so much more vast than 'typical' science.

I got to say, Astrophysicists are the creationist of the scientific community. Almost every single modern theory regarding this subject is completly untestable. And in every other scientific discipline you cannot even create a hypothesis unless it is 'testable' let alone assert it as being a theory. Try publishing an ecological journal without signifigant testable data to back you up; It would be your last. You certainly wouldn't be visited by nerds, sipping wine at a vineyard talking about your insane ramblings. A theory based on what? the fact that another scientist cannot test it to be false simply because it is physiclly impossible? That logic is exactly aligned with religions 'faith' based principles that we all love to bash so freely. I think We can only say that certain sub-atomic and atomic particles react a peticular way. But making wild assertins as to how, why, and how we can manipulate those wild assertions is where we all went astray. I blame Einsteen, He duped the entire world, and became an icon to astrophysicists. So now they all follow his very arrogant and presumptious methodology. Being right 2 or 3 times when you were wrong hundreds is a terrible ratio for any scientist...well except for...you know fake scientists like these guys. ohhh snap, ecologists talking trash...what Son! We run this bitch!

1. Love my wife

2. Consider myself the best husband/partner ever

3. Been recently told by some tests I'm in the IQ top 1-2%, am planning to join Mensa

4. Am pretentious

5. Think I have a very very very high pain threshold

6. Once broke both arms' ulnae and radii and went on with my daily activities for a week until family finally persuaded me to have an X-ray

7. Told not a single lie for approx. 4 years (2001-2005)

8. Talked very little for approx. 4 years (2001-2005)

9. Am an extremely efficient lie-spotter; am a lousy liar

10. Lost my sky-high narcissistic ambitions some 3 years ago

11. Am becoming too altruistic for my own good

12. Am becoming too cynical for my social status' good

13. Have been assured I WILL be (no confusion with might be/could be) the president by more than 20 adults outside family who actually meant it

14. Don't want to hold no political power; strong desire to possess/command extreme scientific power

15. Dislike all kinds of stupid shit, want to help the world get rid of it

16. Nowadays am thinking of ways to make help humanity give up indoctrination whenever I have a moment of leisure

17. Love bunnies ever since wife nicknamed me "Rabbit"; turns out last name is actually literally French for "Rabbit"

18. Have had greying hair since age of 18

19. Heart has occasionally raced well over 200 beats per minute since at least the age of 8; did so at one point while writing this

20. In a perfect world would be an astrophysicist

21. Saved a couple of girls from gang rapes on two separate occasions

22. Had/still kind of have an obsessive desire to save a drowning person's life; actually stalked people on city canal ice in winter a couple of times

23. Have no idea what to specifically do with my life other than knowing I should/could make my wife and some 6,8bn other folks happy

24. Never ever smoked a cigarette/did any drugs

25. Feel grateful to this amazing one of a kind community for providing quality entertainment and enlightenment.

1: I tend to be too long winded. after reading several of these, i started writing my own in my head. Even in my head i realised some points would need footnotes because i am not concise.

2: when speaking i can sustain a single sentence for so long, that people glaze over, loosing focus on the words that im saying and become facinated by the fact that i am not breathing. they often feel forced to inturpt me to demand that i breath.

3: I have come to learn reacently that i place enourmouse value on respect. being respected by others, and in my giving it (more slack on that). this insight has come from my realising so many relationships (esp family) had not included it, and i had acepted this, without realising what was absent.

4: I often find that other people are facinating when i shutup and let them speak about themselves. doing so enriches me, and i feel my life events are so less interesting in comparison. There is a balance to be ahd here, which i have not achived

5: I am dislexic. i'm also lazy. i could spellcheck this, but i've chosen not to for ilisturtive purpoises. i often misspell phoneticaly. where i have not its probably a typeo. these are not the same thing. i've correct a few of those or this would be genuinly ilegiable.

6: I feel that the human mind is incredible. it can re-peace together information from a single with a lot of noise in. like typos/misspellings, or a crowded room/party. the mind is so good at this that we can stop listening to people, thinking we've heard them and understood, when actualy we havent. listening is a pasive act, not an active one.

7: i have insights that are not original and get me nowhere either.

8: I once had my right testicle swell from about walnut size to bigger than a tenis ball in a mater of minuits. my left was unchanged. they injected morphine into my leg to calm me down. this was good.

9: one of my middle names is Kevern. It is after a cornish town near where i was born.

10: my mother was one of the last débutantes, introduced to the queen. my father was working class, and became an anglican vicar. This has left me with mild class confusion. i can be neither upper, nor working class, as i lack the inside information both would have. so i must be a variation of middle. about as mild and irelivant an identity crissis as one can have. very british.

11: i consider myself both british and cornish, but not enlgish.

12: I am a geek. i read alot, would have collected comics had there been a shop near when growing up (and had i had money), played warhamer 40k/bloobowl, RPGs etc. still do. only reacently played DnD. wasnt keen. want to play a game with a few friends to a system im making up myself.

13: I dont belive women like men. This is not a logical feeling, but its clear i feel it deep down. I get symanticaly hung up on things, and feel the term "men" is to broad. "women tend to like some men" is perfectly true. this is only important because i consider myself a member of "men" but, not of "some men". this is deeply unoriginal i'm sure, but influences how i interact with people, and is so likely to be one of the many factors that maintain my singleness. I mention it because its something about myself i'd like to change, but about which i feel powerless to do so.

14: I have 1 older brother. I always wanted to have a daughter, but I now dislike my own genes so strongly, i would not like to be a genetic father. as i am 31, this may not matter. I would hope i could be a good father. I would be determined to not make the mistakes my own father did, but would likely faily in atelast part as well as making my own new ones. joy.

15: I am thin, but not fit. i'd like to be strong. but i play video games for hourse. I like dance, freestyle, and almost joined a dance group as a child, but was peer preasured out of it. i like to sing, but am not good. I have reacently started Capoeira. this seems to be a wonderfull balance of all those thigns for me.

16: I grew up always imaging i would go to university and get a degree because that was what you did. discovering that this was not an expectation/aspiration/the norm for some people shocked me, because it made me realise how much i'd taken that path for granted.

17: I wanted to be an astrophysicist. i longed for space but the UK has no space program and im not that bright.

18: i have changed academic course in my life several times, at alive, degree, and then quit my PHD after 18months of it due to realising i had a violent hatred towards it and was depressed.

19: I once had to ask a friend in class how to spell the word "the" because i had forgotten. this was a foolish move.

20: As a young child, my bowels did not tell me when they needed to be evacuated. they just did their own thing. This was socially disastrous. 2 years ago i had 1/3rd of my large intestine removed due to cancer, and now im just glad they work atall. perspectives change.

21: I have great respect for the military, but dislike that we need one. I understand their need for discipline, but had i joined, would likely have passively resisted it untill i had gone insane. i am contridictions.

22: I can hold long converastions with myself, often considering what i would say to people, going overthings and yet once did not speak to a person for almost a week. i was brushing amdness, had breakdowns, and have had a panic attack in a restaurant. the human condition can be frustraighting.

23: I've gone over 24hrs without eating more than once, because i've been busy/distracted. i dont always take good care of myself. i dont always care.

24: I have things i need to be doing. I barely watch any videos on VS any more, due to time. maybe 1 or 2 every 2 weeks. and yet i check sift-talk/blogs page daily. the people matter.

25: as i keep mentioning, my new belife system is atheist. It seems that lossing christianity is very common, but as when someone is first converted, the point of change can be a profund period internaly. I have a strong science background, and a respect for holistic things. i dont reject things i dont understand, but i dont integrate them either. i belive in chaos. belife is not worship. i dont worship anythign.

26: i found others lists very interesting. i doubt mine has been, but found value in typing it. theres in isight in the selections i chose, from many for the 25, and i apologise that being of interest to others is not the primary criteria i chose by

First time I had read the Bible
It had stroke me as unwitty
I think it may started rumor
That the Lord ain't got no humor

Put me inside SSC
Let's test superstring theory
Oh yoi yoi accelerate the protons
stir it twice and then just add me, 'cause

I don't read the Bible
I don't trust disciple
Even if they're made of marble
Or Canal Street bling

From the maelstrom of the knowledge
Into the labyrinth of doubt
Frozed underground ocean
melting - nuking on my mind

Yes give me Everything Theory
Without Nazi uniformity
My brothers are protons
My sisters are neurons
Stir it twice, it's instant family!

I don't read the Bible
I don't trust disciple
Even if they're made of marble
Or Canal Street bling

My brothers are protons
My sisters are neurons
Stir it twice dlja prekrastnih dam...

Do you have sex maniacs
Or schizophrenics
Or astrophysicists in your family
Was my grandma anti anti
Was my grandpa bounty bounty
Hek-o-hek-o-hej-o
They ask me in embassy!

'Cause I don't read the Bible
I don't trust disciple
Even if they're made of marble
Or Canal Street bling

And my grandma she was anti!
And my grandpa he was bounty!
And stir it twice
And then just add me!
Partypartypartypartypartyparty
now afterparty...

Man's technology has exceeded his grasp. - 'The World is not Enough'
Zealous Nobel Prize hungry Physicists are racing each other and stopping at nothing to try to find the supposed 'Higgs Boson'(aka God) Particle, among others, and are risking nothing less than the annihilation of the Earth and all Life in endless experiments hoping to prove a theory when urgent tangible problems face the planet. The European Organization for Nuclear Research(CERN) new Large Hadron Collider(LHC) is the world's most powerful atom smasher that will soon be firing subatomic particles at each other at nearly the speed of light to create Miniature Big Bangs producing Micro Black Holes, Strangelets and other potentially cataclysmic phenomena.
Particle physicists have run out of ideas and are at a dead end forcing them to take reckless chances with more and more powerful and costly machines to create new and never-seen-before, unstable and unknown matter while Astrophysicists, on the other hand, are advancing science and knowledge on a daily basis making new discoveries in these same areas by observing the universe, not experimenting with it and with your life.
The LHC is a dangerous gamble as CERN physicist Alvaro De Rújula in the BBC LHC documentary, 'The Six Billion Dollar Experiment', incredibly admits quote, "Will we find the Higgs particle at the LHC? That, of course, is the question. And the answer is, science is what we do when we don't know what we're doing." And CERN spokesmodel Brian Cox follows with this stunning quote, "the LHC is certainly, by far, the biggest jump into the unknown."
The CERN-LHC website Mainpage itself states: "There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions,..." Again, this is because they truly don't know what's going to happen. They are experimenting with forces they don't understand to obtain results they can't comprehend. If you think like most people do that 'They must know what they're doing' you could not be more wrong. Some people think similarly about medical Dr.s but consider this by way of comparison and example from JAMA: "A recent Institute of Medicine report quoted rates estimating that medical errors kill between 44,000 and 98,000 people a year in US hospitals." The second part of the CERN quote reads "...but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator,..." A molecularly changed or Black Hole consumed Lifeless World? The end of the quote reads "...as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe." These experiments to date have so far produced infinitely more questions than answers but there isn't a particle physicist alive who wouldn't gladly trade his life to glimpse the "God particle", and sacrifice the rest of us with him. Reason and common sense will tell you that the risks far outweigh any potential(as CERN physicists themselves say) benefits.
This quote from National Geographic exactly sums this "science" up: "That's the essence of experimental particle physics: You smash stuff together and see what other stuff comes out."
Find out more about that "stuff" below;
http://www.SaneScience.org/
http://www.LHCFacts.org
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon1.htm
http://www.lhcdefense.org/
http://www.lhcconcerns.com
Popular Mechanics - "World's Biggest Science Project Aims to Unlock 'God Particle'" - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/4216588.html"

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'll see if I can find it. I heard something similar on a radio interview with an astrophysicist.

In reply to this comment by rosspruden:
Where can I find that article about physicists exploring "universe as a simulation"? (Totally agree with you, by the way -- the evidence is out for both sides!)

In reply to this comment by dag:
I'm no theist, but I don't think Dawkins does his movement many favours with his attitude. The thing that annoys me, is that he seems to have it all worked out. He's as sure of himself as the devout. That's the wrong approach.

There may well be beings in our universe or outside our universe that are so far beyond us that we might as well call them gods. We may all be running as a simulation on their iPhones. (no not really, but yes really for the magnitudes this implies).

I was reading an article recently that physicists are starting to seriuosly explore the "universe as a simulation" idea. I hope someday, we crack an atom in a collider and open up the admin panel to this universe. Some Buddhist monks think they already have.

I'm surprised how funny this astrophysicist is.

Bravo. It's funny that Rock and Roll Guitarists and Astrophysicists look so similar to one another.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2007/08/bang-queens-guitarist-turns-in-his.html

I took a geology class with a professor who studied gypsum caves in Northern New Mexico and, after collaborating his data with an astrophysicist, developed a theory that the temperature rise on earth was due to the cycling of sun spots that occurs about every 600 years. He is still working on it. But who knows if that one is true either.

I agree with the last sentiment given by Patrick Moore in that we might keep environmentalism in mind in order to improve our methods. Because honestly, would anyone give up their life right now, unless they were forced to? Those kids are at that rally to socialize and conjure up material for poetry chapbooks. That woman who lived in the tree for years was dangling with jewelry. Does she know how's that's mined?

I really detest scare tactics of all kinds. And I think most University activist leaders, spouting this stuff, are just doing it to get laid.

And I consider myself liberal.

No, I'm not a phyicist, but Mycrofthomlz is, so he might be able to help you if you really want to know. I wish I knew the answer too.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
yeah I got the humor part.
I wrote back directly, though, because I thought had read before that you were a physicist. I also wondered if I was asking a silly question after reading yours and deathcow's comments.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I know it was a serious question. My answer was my silly way of saying that I have no clue. I didn't think you were calling "FAKE" or anything like that either. I was just having a little fun.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
It was supposed to be a serious question. Did I miss something in the video that explains it? I looked around for info on the nasa site and wikipedia and elsewhere, but the source of the emission isn't really ever brought up. Just that the interaction of the star moving that fast through interstellar space "ignited" the material left behind. Obviously, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can't think of any other phenomenon in which energy is emitted for that long without some source of energy.

I'm not suggesting the data was faked or anything, just trying to understand what is clearly a very odd finding.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.

I'm not questioning that a tremendous amount of energy would be released as the star blasts through interstellar material. The question is how can that matter continue to emit energy so long after the source of energy is long gone. Note that the brightness of the tail is fairly similar for a very long time/distance. The star passes by, shedding some of its matter and the collision emits a lot of energy. A kind of wake is left behind, but instead of continuing to expand (and interact with more matter), it just emits radiation near where the star passed, and at a similar level for tens of thousands of years.

In the case of a supernova remnant, there is an expanding shell of (a vastly greater amount of) matter that continues to slam into the surrounding material. When a supernova first blows up it can outshine the galaxy it's in. The expanding shell of material continues to sweep up more matter and the whole system grows much dimmer very quickly. Also, a supernova remnant (usually?/always?) has a continuing source of energy from whatever is left over at the center.

As I wrote to KP, I'm definitely not an astrophysicist - just trying to wrap my head around this really weird phenomenon.

yeah I got the humor part.
I wrote back directly, though, because I thought had read before that you were a physicist. I also wondered if I was asking a silly question after reading yours and deathcow's comments.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I know it was a serious question. My answer was my silly way of saying that I have no clue. I didn't think you were calling "FAKE" or anything like that either. I was just having a little fun.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
It was supposed to be a serious question. Did I miss something in the video that explains it? I looked around for info on the nasa site and wikipedia and elsewhere, but the source of the emission isn't really ever brought up. Just that the interaction of the star moving that fast through interstellar space "ignited" the material left behind. Obviously, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can't think of any other phenomenon in which energy is emitted for that long without some source of energy.

I'm not suggesting the data was faked or anything, just trying to understand what is clearly a very odd finding.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.

I know it was a serious question. My answer was my silly way of saying that I have no clue. I didn't think you were calling "FAKE" or anything like that either. I was just having a little fun.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
It was supposed to be a serious question. Did I miss something in the video that explains it? I looked around for info on the nasa site and wikipedia and elsewhere, but the source of the emission isn't really ever brought up. Just that the interaction of the star moving that fast through interstellar space "ignited" the material left behind. Obviously, I'm not an astrophysicist, but I can't think of any other phenomenon in which energy is emitted for that long without some source of energy.

I'm not suggesting the data was faked or anything, just trying to understand what is clearly a very odd finding.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
^Ya know dude, I'm not really sure about all of that. I might have known, but I got kicked out of MIT's astrophysics program for immoral experiments with gravity. I don't think those kittens suffered. Too much.