8 Questions You Won't Believe

[Rapacity]

science can't answer: http://www.cracked.com/article_19442_8-simple-questions-you-
wont-believe-science-cant-answer.html.

Really good article. Pretty weird too.

[froggerfreak]

September 20, 2011 2,271,293 views

OLD. I'm sure half the people here already read Cracked anyway.

[Nor]

I've seen it.

[Winrar1337]

Science doesn't know how a bicycle works? That's laughable bullshit.

[HipnikDragomir]

1. We get worked up and tire ourselves out, so we need a break to cool off

2. We don't need scientific hypotheses for this; we just need to look and count

3. When things freeze, their cells stop moving and are more compact - I think ice still retains water's slippiness

4. This one is dumb - just look at the bicycle's mechanics to see how it works. Obviously, the person that invented it knew how it worked

5. It's a computer game - it cheats

6. Same thing with the planets - just look it up

7. Tides keep going up and down, therefore it keeps changing

8. This is the only one that's still up in the air - just a bunch of theories

Apart from number 8, this whole was fucking stupid.

[JSX1A]

At 6/23/12 03:08 PM, jjjkuk wrote: 1. We get worked up and tire ourselves out, so we need a break to cool off

2. We don't need scientific hypotheses for this; we just need to look and count

3. When things freeze, their cells stop moving and are more compact - I think ice still retains water's slippiness

4. This one is dumb - just look at the bicycle's mechanics to see how it works. Obviously, the person that invented it knew how it worked

5. It's a computer game - it cheats

6. Same thing with the planets - just look it up

7. Tides keep going up and down, therefore it keeps changing

8. This is the only one that's still up in the air - just a bunch of theories

Apart from number 8, this whole was fucking stupid.

You make some clearly confident, yet obvious, remarks -- but no real meat as to explain why.

You've also inverted your list - your 'explanation' for #8 to #1 is listed as #1 to #8.

1 #8. Some people can sit around and laze all day - what is there to cool off? Do *you* tire yourself out on the couch? Can you do absolutely nothing for 72 hours and stay alert and awake?

2 #7. Looking won't always give us much detail. You must understand we're still limited by our own spacial limits and optical physics (that we're currently aware of, that is, at the moment) so we're left to theorize and conclude based off of only what we're able to experience given our current technologies.

'Looking and counting' equates to seeing a bunch of (give or take) white specs in a vast black darkness for the majority.

3 #6. "I think" isn't scientific, nor conclusive. Nor is "Their cells stop moving". Scientists have always concluded that Ice shares the same properties as water.

But saying it doesn't conclude the 'why'. Specifically because while Ice is a state of water, as water is a state of ice (don't go there) - Ice is a solid state. A state of much lower friction than other materials that share properties of its density.

Which is why the debate:

Sure, Ice is only open-air and the compaction causes the change in state to water. But given the actual construction of ice, the resulting change into liquid would have little effect.

Or, it could be flash-melting: the change in state due to the friction of contact, thus creating the 'slipperiness'.

4 #5. When is the last time you invented something that changed the world?

Have you ever developed a ground-breaking innovation and were able to legitimately claim "Yes, this is exactly how I planned it. Here's my thesis, etc research, and charts?"

The key factor here is the disproval of the gyroscopic AND caster effect. They did this by building a bike adverse to the effects of the (theoretical) gyroscopic and caster physics that would otherwise have an observational effect on a bike (meaning they really wanted this bike to fall over, but still be what would somehow be considered a bike).

We're not saying "How does this machine function". Of course, 2 pedals, a chain, 2 wheels, all held together with a frame. The question here isn't the bike, it's how physics interacts with the bike with only 2 wheels - and doesn't fall over.

Fully credentialed scientists of today can not look you in the eye and truthfully tell you how a bike actually stays up.

That's the dilemma.

5 #4. Simply cheating? I could surmise some sort of random number methodology and assume there are certain computed chances of winning and losing, purely based on computed mathematics.

But... consider this. Don't use a computer and play it.

Would you then claim the cards are cheating?

6 #3 That's exactly what they're doing now. Even with a 'use our senses and catalogue' method: they are still finding more species every day. And that's only the land-portion.

Consider that approximately 70% of Earth's surface is water. That 96.5% of Earth's water is the oceans. According to popular research (and taxonomy) we've only delved into 10% of Earth's sub-surface life.

Given that... it's easy to theorize that even more of Earth's species exist underwater (hey, land is only 30% buddy).

7 #2 Why don't you measure the coastline and approximate, to enlighten all of us? Sure coastlines change given the tide. But even approximately - you'd still have some 'in the ballpark' records from different sources. 12k, 30k, and 95k are VERY different numbers.

Well "Why rely on them?" you may ask? To that I reply "Go measure it".

8 #1 I'm glad we agree.

The point I'm making here is not to throw you off the boat or to make me seem like some awesome smart guy (because I'm really not), but to make more informed observations and avoid claiming the first thing that comes to mind is the answer.

But I really encourage you to really think about the gravity (pun) of these concepts. They really will boggle your mind for a bit.

[Emma]

Science doesn't know how bikes work ... Lol.

[yurgenburgen]

I wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer at school but I don't consider "How does gravity work?" and "How many species of animal are there?" to be simple questions.

[Yert]

At 6/23/12 03:08 PM, jjjkuk wrote: 1. We get worked up and tire ourselves out, so we need a break to cool off

wow you really are fucking dumb

[Dawnslayer]

Magnets.

[Gario]

At 6/23/12 04:35 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Magnets.

Yeah, how the fuck do they work?

[HipnikDragomir]

At 6/23/12 04:34 PM, Yert wrote:

At 6/23/12 03:08 PM, jjjkuk wrote: 1. We get worked up and tire ourselves out, so we need a break to cool off

wow you really are fucking dumb

Way to give an explanation as to why like the other person, you twat.

[Light]

At 6/23/12 03:08 PM, jjjkuk wrote: A list of reasons.

It's apparent that you didn't read the whole article....or even made any honest attempt.

[MrPercie]

At 6/23/12 04:34 PM, Yert wrote: wow you really are fucking dumb

how can someone be intelligent or not when the matter has no fact or truth but only theorys behind it?

dont like his theory? fine, no need to be a whiney bitch about it.

[i-am-ghey]

ice is slippery because the surface is smooth. there is less friction acting on you as you slide across the surface. i thought that gyroscopic effect was the explanation to why a bike is more stable when it is moving. i have no explanation to that one if the theory has indeed been disproved.

it is funny that scientists are able to discover deep theories and sophiscated models while being unable to answer a supposedly simple question on mechanics.

[PuRpLe-KusH]

I was watching some really interesting vids recently, and came across even more mind blowing mysteries that don't make any scientifical sense either other than "thats the way the creator or God wanted it to be" because it can't be proven why they function the way they do; other other than thats the way it was made to be !

I might make a sepertae topic on this cuz its really something to think about

[Raab]

Solitare can't be explained with mathematics since statistics are completely bullshit.

Probability is something that most of you were taught in school..... but what you were never taught in school was possibility.

if you have 4 squares, and one of those squares randomly lights up every ten seconds...

Standing on the same one square for 100 seconds should yield ~25 times your square will light up.

Reality:

You will do the experiment 1 million times and get the predicted result of 25 a COMPLETELY RANDOM number of times.
the is random to begin with.

As a matter of fact, you are probably furthest from getting the prediction 100% correct than guessing randomly.

Now.... in your mind you can easily see that standing in one place the entire time will only achieve you standing on the right square a fraction of the time.....

But what happens when you change squares between each illumination?

do you increase the chances of getting the lit square?

is that right?

if you were just on a lit square the odds that that square will get lit again are slim..... but that doesn't mean a damn thing.

IT IS RANDOM.

RANDOM = RANDOM = RANDOM.

solitare doesn't even use a true random, and instead uses a pesudo-random (as it is a machine)

probability is useless.

[Sensationalism]

Is this anti-science?
Just because science can't explain everything and there are still mysteries doesn't mean science is wrong. It has answered many things for us and the scientific method is solid.
I respect religion and all that but if we're pitting the two against each other in which explains our world better I don't think "because God" holds up too well.

[PuRpLe-KusH]

At 6/25/12 04:23 AM, Sensationalism wrote: Is this anti-science?
Just because science can't explain everything and there are still mysteries doesn't mean science is wrong. It has answered many things for us and the scientific method is solid.
I respect religion and all that but if we're pitting the two against each other in which explains our world better I don't think "because God" holds up too well.

I don't think science is wrong, or learning alternatives is anti-science; but science and logic can only reach so far before it hits a brick wall and the ONLY option left is that some concious being created it ! The more I study science AND the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the more I realize how much God and science actually compliment each other !

I hope to make a topic on this later, look out for it =)

[The-universe]

That article made me chuckle.

Although I think some folks are taking it too seriously.

[PrincessLuna]

At 6/25/12 05:22 AM, PuRpLe-KusH wrote: I don't think science is wrong, or learning alternatives is anti-science; but science and logic can only reach so far before it hits a brick wall and the ONLY option left is that some concious being created it ! The more I study science AND the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the more I realize how much God and science actually compliment each other !

I hope to make a topic on this later, look out for it =)

A best way to engage how someone truly perceives science is to ask them simple questions.

1) How old do you believe the earth is?
2) What are your views on the big bang?
3) Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
4) Do unicorns exist?

[Thedark]

A very interesting article i was wondering too why we sleep

[Thedark]

At 6/25/12 01:09 PM, Amaranthus wrote:

At 6/25/12 01:08 PM, Thedark wrote: A very interesting article i was wondering too why we sleep

Google it.

Hohohoo Amaranthus you are hilarious

[shadow55555]

You guys are shiting me,right?
Dont want to be anti religion(I am but going to control it here) but here is the deal:
Because of Cristianity(main causer) we have been sufering a serious tecnological break,in the past and today.
Before saying a scientific fact=Burning in a post alive for 2 to 4 hours...
Science can aswer the questions,its just not developed yet.
Religion can just say God did it and all their problems are solved,Science must use principals,equations and actualy explains the fenomenom.
All of these questions have been aswered(Except the universe,Great compresed mass in extreme heat before existence was and is?That was being lazy,but what the hey)

[BizzarroPMP]

They don't know why ice is slippery...?

Of course they do. Even when it's cold out, the solidity of water is precarious. It's slippery BECAUSE IT'S MADE OF FUCKING WATER! And water makes EVERYFUCKINGTHING slippery....

[Emma]

At 6/25/12 03:27 PM, shadow55555 wrote: Because of Cristianity(main causer) we have been sufering a serious tecnological break,in the past and today.

Do you have any specific examples to support this?

[Rapacity]

At 6/25/12 04:01 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

Do you have any specific examples to support this?

Catholic Church persecuting Galileo Galilei
Catholic support of Hitler and other fascists
Witch hunting

Religiotards being tards.

[Sensationalism]

At 6/25/12 05:22 AM, PuRpLe-KusH wrote: I don't think science is wrong, or learning alternatives is anti-science; but science and logic can only reach so far before it hits a brick wall and the ONLY option left is that some concious being created it ! The more I study science AND the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the more I realize how much God and science actually compliment each other !

I hope to make a topic on this later, look out for it =)

I'm not too fond of those stories.
I prefer the bhagavad gita to the bible.

I'd be interested to see it. And in case I miss it I wouldn't mind a PM when you make it!

[i-am-ghey]

9th question:

a point mass is attached to a cart as shown in the figure. initially the mass is held at rest. it is then released and the mass sticks to the vertical surface upon collision.

describe what happens to the position of the cart

(a) when the mass is falling

(b) after collision

[shadow55555]

At 6/25/12 04:01 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 6/25/12 03:27 PM, shadow55555 wrote: Because of Cristianity(main causer) we have been sufering a serious tecnological break,in the past and today.

Do you have any specific examples to support this?

Stem cells research being forbiden by the all mighty world ruling 500 years old sack of bones caled ye Pope...
Cloning being halted by guess who: Cristianity and guess who also halted in mediavel times all of the scientific advance:Ctrl c Ctrl v cristianity
Do you have any conter-argument to what I just said?I dont believe so...