I bet you didnt know that

Fourier

Ineedaname wrote: »

The Big Bang theory says the universe began as a singularity which by definition has a size of 0.

It doesn't.

A singularity is something that occurs in General Relativity under certain circumstances, but reflects gaps in General Relativity rather than anything real. It's like how models of crystals produce "infinite" values for brittleness at the melting temperature of the crystal, rather than becoming infinitely brittle the crystal just melts into a liquid, but crystal models can't handle that. Something similar is going on with General Relativity, but we don't know what.

In any case the Big Bang theory does not describe the universe as originating from a singularity. It's not part of the theory.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

In 1916, the German navy wanted to resume unrestricted submarine warfare but the army blocked it as it could bring neutral nations into the war. They weren't worried about the US or any of the other large neutral nations- they were worried about Denmark. German troops had been stretched so thin by Romania entering the war that they had nobody left to patrol that border and the Danes could have marched far into Germany. Romania was quickly overrun and then unrestricted submarine warfare began, helping to bring the US into the war.

foxy farmer

One from a table quiz I was at tonight.
Bob Dylan and George Bernard Shaw are the only 2 people to have won an Oscar AND been awarded a Nobel Prize.

Ineedaname

Fourier wrote: »

It doesn't.

A singularity is something that occurs in General Relativity under certain circumstances, but reflects gaps in General Relativity rather than anything real. It's like how models of crystals produce "infinite" values for brittleness at the melting temperature of the crystal, rather than becoming infinitely brittle the crystal just melts into a liquid, but crystal models can't handle that. Something similar is going on with General Relativity, but we don't know what.

In any case the Big Bang theory does not describe the universe as originating from a singularity. It's not part of the theory.

I know that. They aren’t an actual thing just a name for when the maths starts giving you the finger.

Capt'n Midnight

New Home wrote: »

^^^

42.



(Sorry, but I had to do it, you forced my hand, Capt'n).

"I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."
...
"So once you know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means."
- Deep Thought

Fourier

Anders Shy Aircraft wrote: »

There's also a theory that the universe, as we know it, is just one iteration of it as it will eventually expand fully then collapse back to the singularity , explode and expand again the way it has done several time already.

Unfortunately that theory has long been proven to develop problems with the laws of thermodynamics, it only seems to make sense when you consider gravity and nothing else.

Also I should say even in these bounce models the universe does not collapse back to a singularity, rather any region which is currently large would collapse to an atomic size before enlarging again.

Even the Big Bang theory is like this, it only says the visible universe was pea-sized 13.7 billion years ago, not how large the universe in total was. Although it does say the total universe was smaller by the same factor as the visible one, i.e. if the whole universe is ten times larger than the visible universe, then it was ten times the size of a pea. Problem is we don't know the size of the whole universe. We only know it's at least fifty times larger than what we see, i.e. it's at least 1 trillion light years wide.

New Home

Bob Marley's wife, Rita, was shot in the head during his attempted assassination. However, she had dreadlocks so thick they saved her life.

Clara B

Cartouche wrote: »

John F. Kennedy was dating Miss Denmark in the 1940's, and when they stayed at Summer House in Charleston the FBI bugged their room because they thought she may be a Nazi spy. Turns out they didn't hear a lot of conversation, but instead a lot of NSFW time. Tapes are in the Library of Congress

He was also married before Jackie-to a socialite-never divorced.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Clara B wrote: »

He was also married before Jackie-to a socialite-never divorced.

That was well proven to be a false rumour based on an error in a genealogy of a man named Blauvelt. The story was exploited by extreme right wing groups in 1961 but was, as stated, untrue. Look up the "Blauvelt Affair".

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Fourier wrote: »

Unfortunately that theory has long been proven to develop problems with the laws of thermodynamics, it only seems to make sense when you consider gravity and nothing else.

Also I should say even in these bounce models the universe does not collapse back to a singularity, rather any region which is currently large would collapse to an atomic size before enlarging again.

Even the Big Bang theory is like this, it only says the visible universe was pea-sized 13.7 billion years ago, not how large the universe in total was. Although it does say the total universe was smaller by the same factor as the visible one, i.e. if the whole universe is ten times larger than the visible universe, then it was ten times the size of a pea. Problem is we don't know the size of the whole universe. We only know it's at least fifty times larger than what we see, i.e. it's at least 1 trillion light years wide.

In other words, when it come to the Universe we really haven't a notion.

New Home

Our commercial bananas (which are, for the most part, the Cavendish variety) have been specially bred over the years so that they are seedless triploids (with three sets of genes, instead of just two) that do not form mature seeds. If you've noticed little black dots in the middle of the banana, you've discovered immature seeds that won't develop, which happens with triploids.

The Cavendish banana is named for the 7th Duke of Devonshire, William Cavendish, who acquired the variety from Mauritius and cultivated it in England. The plant became an official cultivar in 1836 before making its way back to tropical regions, where it now is primarily grown.

New Home

The eastern part of Laos was so heavily bombed during the Vietnam War that most people can supplement their income by collecting scrap metal 40 years later and some completely rely on it.

david75

New Home wrote: »

The eastern part of Laos was so heavily bombed during the Vietnam War that most people can supplement their income by collecting scrap metal 40 years later and some completely rely on it.

I’ve been to Laois. It’s never fully recovered. Electric picnic brings a few quid in each year tho.

Chancer3001

Will Smith had his character in the French Prince if bel air called will Smith because he was so confident people would associate him with this role for years and years and wanted to get his actual name out there

On November 26 1938, a young Frank Sinatra - working as a singing waiter in New Jersey, was charged with Seduction. He was accused of seducing and having intercourse with a young single woman of good repute under the promise of marriage - not my wording - and was released on a bond of $1,500 pending trial.

It transpired that the young single lady of good repute already had a husband, and the revised charge of adultery was applied and his bond reduced to $500. The charge was later dismissed.

According to the FBI papers on him released about 20 years ago, he was also suspected of bribing an army psychiatrist to declare him unfit for service. He was apparently found to suffer from psychoneuroses that included a terror of crowds, although he was pulling crowds of thousands of screaming girls for his performances at the time.

The files also revealed that later in life he made three known attempts to end his life.

I never knew adultery or seduction were once crimes.

server down

Definitely breaking off an engagement was actionable (in civil not criminal law) in many countries. Was considered an oral contract. The civil tort was called breach of promise. The law was generally only applied to men who chickened out. The remedy is called a heart balm.

Edit:

In parts of the US the law still stands (it’s a common law). Here’s an interesting case (from 2012) where the male sues his ex for return of the ring, and she counter sues for breach of promise. This verdict is the appeal. The appeal court says that the original courts decision that the ring does not get returned if the man breaks off the engagement (as a form of heart balm) is incorrect in law. However it says that breach of promise hasn’t been abolished. It therefore finds the fact that the original jury didn’t award damages to the woman while returning the ring inconsistent, so it allows a new trial.

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=16439775895686510622&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=yunaU-GFE5fq8AXRp4H4Aw&ved=0CB4QgAMoATAA

New Home

server down wrote: »

Definitely breaking off an engagement was actionable (in civil not criminal law) in many countries. Was considered an oral contract. The civil tort was called breach of contract. The law was generally only applied to men who chickened out.

I think (but I'm not sure) that's also linked to the fact that the bride-to-be would get a dowry/make and embroider all the things she would need for her new married life (bed linen, nightgowns, tablecloths, napkins, etc), so she and her family would have to go through the expense of supplying all that.

server down

server down wrote: »

Definitely breaking off an engagement was actionable (in civil not criminal law) in many countries. Was considered an oral contract. The civil tort was called breach of contract. The law was generally only applied to men who chickened out. The remedy is called a heart balm.

Edit:

In parts of the US the law still stands (it’s a common law). Here’s an interesting case (from 2012) where the male sues his ex for return of the ring, and she counter sues for breach of promise. This verdict is the appeal. The appeal court says that the original courts decision that the ring does not get returned if the man breaks off the engagement (as a form of heart balm) is incorrect in law. However it says that breach of promise hasn’t been abolished. It therefore finds the fact that the original jury didn’t award damages to the woman while returning the ring inconsistent, so it allows a new trial.

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_case?case=16439775895686510622&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr&sa=X&ei=yunaU-GFE5fq8AXRp4H4Aw&ved=0CB4QgAMoATAA

That's very interesting.

My new favorite expression is 'heart balm'.

New Home

New Home wrote: »

I think (but I'm not sure) that's also linked to the fact that the bride-to-be would get a dowry/make and embroider all the things she would need for her new married life (bed linen, nightgowns, tablecloths, napkins, etc), so she and her family would have to go through the expense of supplying all that.

In the US up until the 60's or even the 70's, the tradition was that the fiancee often make her own wedding dress, and usually household linens, sometimes infants clothes, bedding, curtains, draperies and table napery, clothes for the honeymoon and lingerie for the wedding night as well as larger - and quite culturally significant items like a patchwork quilt - (made in a 'wedding ring' pattern) and these would sometimes even be monogrammed with the couples initials and placed in a 'Hope Chest', where these accoutrements of married life would be stored in preparation for the wedding. All made by hand or with very basic equipment in those days. Theses skills are undergoing something of a revival lately, actually.

You can imagine the time, expense and labour that went into making these things, and their significance, if an engagement was broken.

Capt'n Midnight

The worlds oldest surviving armoured vehicle is in the Curragh.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The worlds oldest surviving armoured vehicle is in the Curragh.

Is that the Rolls-Royce Armoured Car?

maudgonner

That's shocking. We really need to start funding the army a bit better, let them buy some new gear.

Fourier

Another one for anybody into science, Evolutionary Psychology has very little evidence despite how frequently it appears in pop-science articles or blogs. Anything that purports to relate any aspect of the mind to some evolutionary purpose is 99% of the time pseudoscience with no evidence and essentially a "just so" story.

A fundamental component of most theories is that the brain is modular which has no neurological evidence.

In short we know more about the cores of alien stars than why you learn the way you do or like sunsets.

Capt'n Midnight

Anders Shy Aircraft wrote: »

Is that the Rolls-Royce Armoured Car?

Indeed it is.

Wibbs

Fourier wrote: »

Another one for anybody into science, Evolutionary Psychology has very little evidence despite how frequently it appears in pop-science articles or blogs. Anything that purports to relate any aspect of the mind to some evolutionary purpose is 99% of the time pseudoscience with no evidence and essentially a "just so" story.

While it is brought into the public discourse way too often and with way to much weight given to it, I would contend it has some value in some areas of how humans respond to things.

Though I would agree, "Evolutionary Psychology" is up there with "Quantum Physics" in the pseudoscience in the public mind and if someone references either when they have no good reason to do so, beyond promoting their own worldview, I do think g'way to fook.

Fourier

Wibbs wrote: »

While it is brought into the public discourse way too often and with way to much weight given to it, I would contend it has some value in some areas of how humans respond to things.

I think it is of immense value, unfortunately the genuine science rarely appears in popular accounts. I do think it is important to note that for the genuine science the evidence is much weaker than most other sciences, as is typical for psychology in general.

On a similar line the actual findings of infant psychology are almost the opposite of their "popular" or "internet" versions.

"Quantum Physics" in the pseudoscience in the public mind

Don't get me started on that!!

StupidLikeAFox

Fourier wrote: »

A fundamental component of most theories is that the brain is modular which has no neurological evidence.

So you are telling me that Keith Barry is talking bollox when he says I'm left brained because I picture the Abrakebabra chips?

server down

Wibbs wrote: »

While it is brought into the public discourse way too often and with way to much weight given to it, I would contend it has some value in some areas of how humans respond to things.

Though I would agree, "Evolutionary Psychology" is up there with "Quantum Physics" in the pseudoscience in the public mind and if someone references either when they have no good reason to do so, beyond promoting their own worldview, I do think g'way to fook.

From what I’ve read evolutionary psychology is much better than the charlatanism of Freud or Jung, or indeed most blank slate theories.

Cookie_Monster

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Indeed it is.

ah come on now, define "vehicle"? there are older ships or chariots for example

sbsquarepants

Fourier wrote: »

In short we know more about the cores of alien stars than why you learn the way you do or like sunsets.

I can clear that up right now.
The answers are because I'm an idiot, and because they're pretty.
Now back to those stars:D

Fourier wrote: »

Problem is we don't know the size of the whole universe. We only know it's at least fifty times larger than what we see, i.e. it's at least 1 trillion light years wide.

Case in point!

The visible universe is expanding, this much is clear. But is it "expanding" just because as time progresses we can see farther into what is already there, or is the whole thing actually getting bigger?

i.e. galaxies are moving outward - the further away they are, the faster they're moving, but what are they moving into? Is it just a akin to giant room and we see more and more as the light reaches farther into it or is it like a balloon being blown up and actually increasing in size? If so where is the extra size coming from?

By that I mean is "empty" space actually made of some sort of "stuff" or is it just defined as the distance between other "stuff". I personally find it hard to believe it's not made of something - for the simple reasons that I can't really comprehend nothingness (a lack of anything at all implies non existence to me, and if you're looking at it how can you say it doesn't exist!) and also seeing as "empty" space can transmit force, carry light etc, it seems reasonable to expect that there must be some medium to physically enable the transmitting / carrying.

Sorry - I realise these are questions, not snippets of information!