WRONG!!1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_misconceptions)
Huh, the equal transit time thing being false kinda caught me.
You have no idea what a relief it is to hear that.
Why does that unsettle other people when you tell them the same thing?
Most of the things that were new to me were just stuff I wouldn't claim to know about, anyway, so not really a misconception. Except maybe the glass is not actually a liquid thing. Anyway, I liked this one:
QuoteThere is no single, strict scientific method used by all scientists, a misconception popularized by elementary science textbooks. The rigid hypothesis→experiment→conclusion model of science is an important part of many fields, particularly basic sciences like physics and chemistry, but is not the only way to perform genuine science. Many sciences do not fit well into this mould (astronomy, paleontology, mathematics), and much important scientific work has come from curiosity and unguided exploration
Who was it that said Mathematics is not actually a science, again?
Everything you know has been to SPACE.
SPAAAAAAACE!!!!!
Well I am pretty stupid, I would not be surprised. :wink:
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2010, 10:15:30 AM
Most of the things that were new to me were just stuff I wouldn't claim to know about, anyway, so not really a misconception. Except maybe the glass is not actually a liquid thing. Anyway, I liked this one:
QuoteThere is no single, strict scientific method used by all scientists, a misconception popularized by elementary science textbooks. The rigid hypothesis→experiment→conclusion model of science is an important part of many fields, particularly basic sciences like physics and chemistry, but is not the only way to perform genuine science. Many sciences do not fit well into this mould (astronomy, paleontology, mathematics), and much important scientific work has come from curiosity and unguided exploration
Who was it that said Mathematics is not actually a science, again?
I don't believe I've expressed that here, but it isn't science under *any* definition of science I've ever heard. You can't prove something in math and then later on new evidence comes up that proves the old theory wrong. Astronomy and paleontology, by contrast, allow for the observe and and make predictions based on those observations, even if you can't create a controlled experiment. Those predictions can turn out wrong later.
HAH. I love that the "carrots can improve your night vision" myth was misinfo spread by the Allies to hide the fact that they were using RADAR.
:lulz:
America was really clever back then.
You should read up on the ghost army during the invasion of Normandy and the time they threw an corpse out of a plane dressed up like a general with false attack plants handcuffed to the wrist onto the shores of North Africa.
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on April 24, 2010, 10:41:11 PM
America was really clever back then.
You should read up on the ghost army during the invasion of Normandy and the time they threw an corpse out of a plane dressed up like a general with false attack plants handcuffed to the wrist onto the shores of North Africa.
Americans are still smart.
(http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/george-bush.jpg)
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 24, 2010, 10:04:05 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 24, 2010, 10:15:30 AM
Most of the things that were new to me were just stuff I wouldn't claim to know about, anyway, so not really a misconception. Except maybe the glass is not actually a liquid thing. Anyway, I liked this one:
QuoteThere is no single, strict scientific method used by all scientists, a misconception popularized by elementary science textbooks. The rigid hypothesis→experiment→conclusion model of science is an important part of many fields, particularly basic sciences like physics and chemistry, but is not the only way to perform genuine science. Many sciences do not fit well into this mould (astronomy, paleontology, mathematics), and much important scientific work has come from curiosity and unguided exploration
Who was it that said Mathematics is not actually a science, again?
I don't believe I've expressed that here, but it isn't science under *any* definition of science I've ever heard. You can't prove something in math and then later on new evidence comes up that proves the old theory wrong. Astronomy and paleontology, by contrast, allow for the observe and and make predictions based on those observations, even if you can't create a controlled experiment. Those predictions can turn out wrong later.
Yeah, I'm not sure I would consider mathematics as a science. Its a language used to deal with quantities, real and imaginary, an accessory to all the sciences, but also to non-science as well.
Also, it's true that not all sciences use a method which calls for manipulative experimentation (the historical sciences use observational experiments), science does in general follow the hallmark of induction and deduction, in a cyclical process. And the hallmark of really GOOD science is strong inference.
QuoteWhile putting metal in a microwave can damage the magnetron by causing an impedance mismatch, it depends on the shape and size of the metal and the time it is in the microwave. Electrical arcing may also occur on pieces of metal that are not smooth, or have points (e.g., a fork). Distributed metallic surfaces that are not subject to arcing and do not appreciably alter the magnetron's RF load can be used in a microwave with no danger; examples include the metalized surfaces used in browning sleeves and pizza-cooking platforms
True, and please consider that putting things that aren't food in the microwave is completely awesome. CDs are an old classic, but true nucular physicalists know that you can put a lit match under an upturned glass in there and freak your mom out something fierce.
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on April 24, 2010, 10:41:11 PM
America was really clever back then.
You should read up on the ghost army during the invasion of Normandy and the time they threw an corpse out of a plane dressed up like a general with false attack plants handcuffed to the wrist onto the shores of North Africa.
Is there a list of this sort of military scam somewhere?
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 25, 2010, 03:35:49 AM
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on April 24, 2010, 10:41:11 PM
America was really clever back then.
You should read up on the ghost army during the invasion of Normandy and the time they threw an corpse out of a plane dressed up like a general with false attack plants handcuffed to the wrist onto the shores of North Africa.
Is there a list of this sort of military scam somewhere?
Probably, but I don't know what it is.
Ha! I actually knew everything Human body and health section. So take that, OP!
Quote from: Kai on April 24, 2010, 11:21:18 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure I would consider mathematics as a science.
Just pointing out that I
do consider mathematics a Science.
I looked it up, and it seems opinions on this in the Scientific as well as Mathematical communities are just divided.
I wrote up a bunch of arguments, the basic point is that Mathematics is quite a bit more than just a tool or a language.
But then I stopped and decided it's just arguing semantics anyway, so never mind.
The author of that list is obviously a jazz enthusiast. And I never realized whether or not Louis Armstrong was born in 1900 or 1901 was a big mysterious controversy.
I wish they was an item about how blood is never blue.
That pisses me off trying to explain that even with no oxygen the color of blood never even comes close to blue to normally intelligent people.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 24, 2010, 05:31:13 AM
Huh, the equal transit time thing being false kinda caught me.
Me too! I just spent 1.5 hours learning about aerodynamics.
Air is weird.
Faster moving air learns faster so it is less dense. (or acts as if it is less dense, or something)
Air travels faster over the top of a wing and slower on the bottom of the wing (it finally gets some time in the shade, so it doesn't want to leave) and this creates lift.
And then there was something about air being sticky.
And 2 vortexes, one on the front and one on the back of the wing with the back one getting distracted by something shiny and wandering off every time the wing was moving for a while, i think rear vortexes all have ADD.
Vortexes are cool, so now the wing is attracted only by the vortex on the front. This gives extra speed to the wing and extra speed means a bigger flowspeed difference between upper and lower airlayer wich means more lift.
It makes perfect sense.
Quote from: Pariah on April 26, 2010, 03:07:36 PM
I wish they was an item about how blood is never blue.
That pisses me off trying to explain that even with no oxygen the color of blood never even comes close to blue to normally intelligent people.
:lol: in high school teacher, my bio teacher got really emotional about this. a bunch of kids were
insisting that blood is blue, because they learned it from their parents, you know?
The winning argument was:
Do you watch E.R.?
yesHave you ever been to a hospital?
yesHave you
ever seen a bag of blue blood?
noThat's because BLOOD ISN'T BLUE, YOUR VEINS MAKE IT LOOK THAT WAY
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on April 25, 2010, 04:24:52 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 25, 2010, 03:35:49 AM
Quote from: Vladimir Poopin on April 24, 2010, 10:41:11 PM
America was really clever back then.
You should read up on the ghost army during the invasion of Normandy and the time they threw an corpse out of a plane dressed up like a general with false attack plants handcuffed to the wrist onto the shores of North Africa.
Is there a list of this sort of military scam somewhere?
Probably, but I don't know what it is.
Here's a bit of more modern military fuckery, with some great links too.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/11/secret-rocket-b/
Quote from: Pariah on April 26, 2010, 03:07:36 PM
I wish they was an item about how blood is never blue.
Unless you're a REAL AMERICAN™, you fucking commie.
Or an English peer.
<edited for retardation>
Blood can be purple though, I think. Depending on oxygen levels?
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 26, 2010, 10:00:41 PM
...Or on it's way to the lungs?
NO. ALL AMERICAN BLOOD IS BLUE. ALL OF IT.
This is a test for REAL Americans™...if you bleed red, you're a fucking commie, or some kind of leftist hippie immigrant terrorist-kisser.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 26, 2010, 10:01:45 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 26, 2010, 10:00:41 PM
...Or on it's way to the lungs?
NO. ALL AMERICAN BLOOD IS BLUE. ALL OF IT.
This is a test for REAL Americans™...if you bleed red, you're a fucking commie, or some kind of leftist hippie immigrant terrorist-kisser.
(http://www.scuffletown.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/nou.gif)
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 26, 2010, 10:00:41 PM
<edited for retardation>
Blood can be purple though, I think. Depending on oxygen levels?
wiki says red with a blueish hue... which sounds like purple, or something similar to purple.
The official words from my Anatomy and Physiology textbooks say blood is either a brighter ruby red when carrying oxygen or a darker shade of red when not carrying oxygen.
Both parents work in the medical field. When you have to draw blood when it has no oxygen into an airless container it comes out dark red, almost brown.
Quote from: Pariah on April 27, 2010, 01:00:02 AM
Both parents work in the medical field. When you have to draw blood when it has no oxygen into an airless container it comes out dark red, almost brown.
Sure.
If you're a commie.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 03:50:03 AM
Quote from: Pariah on April 27, 2010, 01:00:02 AM
Both parents work in the medical field. When you have to draw blood when it has no oxygen into an airless container it comes out dark red, almost brown.
Sure.
If you're a commie.
Haha, Yeah, those commies are so full of shit, even their blood is brown!