flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Intel Readies Massive Multicore Processors

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Oh many thanks for reading that you can measure up to 60,000 years with that method (first paragraph).
Post 23 Jun 2007, 02:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
I did read a bit of that, thank you. I'm taking a great assumption though, that that calculation is based on nothing interrupting the process. Like i said, global events such as an overly large flood, a really, really bad earthquake, or even un-anticipated diffusion.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 02:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Invention_of_radiometric_dating
Quote:
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years (4.567×10^9 years).


4.567×10^9/6x10^4 = 4.567x10^5/6 = ~7.6x10^4

Sorry if I'm missing something but unless the time machine exists it is impossible to measure the age of something that exceeds the maximum of the method. In particular, the estimated age of the Earth is aproximatelly 7.6x10^4 times older than the maximum measurable age of the 14^C.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 03:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Sorry if I'm missing something but unless the time machine exists it is impossible to measure the age of something that exceeds the maximum of the method. In particular, the estimated age of the Earth is aproximatelly 7.6x10^4 times older than the maximum measurable age of the 14^C.


Then i'm assuming you're saying that carbon dating can't determine the age of earth. I apologize, i assumed you were saying the contrary.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 03:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
If you agree why did you say the quote below?
Quote:
Also, there has been talk that a great flood (where it rained for a long period and "ground water" spurted up) could possibly cause carbon dating (which is used to say how old the earth is) to become very, very innaccuret.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 03:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
My point is, the theory, of how old the Earth is, is based on a flawed method. Now some people have came up with the same number based on different methods, but carbon dating is supposedly used to date fossiles and things millions of years back. Carbon dating is often believed to be flawless (with the exception of the 30 - 40 year inaccurecy). It's used alot for political jargon as well.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 03:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
I still don't get where carbon dating takes place on Earth's age determination.

And again
Quote:
but carbon dating is supposedly used to date fossiles and things millions of years back


You're right in that carbon dating is used to date fossiles (among other things) but not THAT old. 60,000 fits ~16.7 times in one millon.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 03:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
You're right in that carbon dating is used to date fossiles (among other things) but not THAT old. 60,000 fits ~16.7 times in one millon.


I know the limits. I'm saying that some people don't listen to the limits. From many things i've been told, carbon dating is used for a heck of alot more.

Though, i still say that there are things outside the decay rate that can corrupt results.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 04:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
From many things i've been told carbon dating is used for a heck of alot more
told by whom?
Post 23 Jun 2007, 07:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Various teachers.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 07:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
kohlrak wrote:
Really? You and f0dder are doing a damn good job at saying the contrary. What's your deffinition?

i provided you link that explained what a "scientific theory" is. And that is not MY definition, it's everyone's definition. If we would speak just of theory, okay, there is ambiguity, but you was talking about scientific theory (reread your post). And most times when scientists are speaking about theories, they mean scientific theories.

Quote:
Is it contrary to the english dictionary? Yes, i know people make up what the english language is more than the dictionaries, but the dictionaries listen to those who make up what the words mean. Science dosn't have priority over non-scientists on what is the meaning of a word. And unless you come up with a deffinition that co-exists with the english dictionary, i won't be capable of taking you seriously.
definition of "scientific theory" is very clear for everyone. it's well explained on the site i provided, and i have never seen any dictionary that would define scientific theory differently.

Quote:
Quote:
And regardless of whether you meant scientific theory or grandma's theory (which is "hypothesis" in science), you was wrong.

Say that to yourself out loud and give me one reson to allow you to tell me what words in english mean.

Reason: because you demonstrated you don't have a tiny bit of knowledge about science, yet you are using term "scientific theory".

Quote:
Quote:
To "prove" your post, can you give us some example of scientists calling some theory (or hypothesis, or whatever) scientifically based, when it's no so scientific? This would prove you didn't pull that "argument" out of your ... theory.

I have no provided names. The theories which i've seen which have been based entirely upon other theories weren't given names. Though embarrassingly, i've seen most of them on "the science channel" and "the history channel."
As you pointed out, TV in not a good source for real scientific information. If you really want to comment on science, you should at least know what it is. You won't learn from that TV, go on and read something, like the link i gave you.

Quote:
Also, there has been talk that a great flood (where it rained for a long period and "ground water" spurted up) could possibly cause carbon dating (which is used to say how old the earth is) to become very, very innaccuret.

Sentence with "there has been a talk" has zero meaning in scientific context. Where has the talk been? Who was telling it? Where can we find exact contents of that "talk"?

Learn what a "scientific theory" is, and we can continue talk about !scientific! theories about age of earth.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 07:49
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
kohlrak wrote:
From many things i've been told carbon dating is used for a heck of alot more
vid wrote:
told by whom?
kohlrak wrote:
Various teachers.

what were their names? What was their backing to comment on scientific methods of dating age of earth? I believe that they did this properly and provided references to those many scientific works trying to incorrectly date age of earth with carbon dating...
Post 23 Jun 2007, 07:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
i provided you link that explained what a "scientific theory" is. And that is not MY definition, it's everyone's definition. If we would speak just of theory, okay, there is ambiguity, but you was talking about scientific theory (reread your post). And most times when scientists are speaking about theories, they mean scientific theories.


Scientific is an adjective, and noun is theory... So scientific means tested and contradicted by nothing?

Quote:
definition of "scientific theory" is very clear for everyone. it's well explained on the site i provided, and i have never seen any dictionary that would define scientific theory differently.


Because more dictionaries are ment to define single words and compound words, but not two seperate words. Therefor, you'll find that very few (if any) dictionaries you find will even have "scientific theory" in them. Especially, because not everyone goes by that "general deffinition." Hence, the comment about "grandma's deffinition."

Quote:
Reason: because you demonstrated you don't have a tiny bit of knowledge about science, yet you are using term "scientific theory".


I'm telling you that it's contradictory to english, and for science to throw out it's jargon to the non-science community is very deceiving and is a nice way to get theories mixed with non-theories which are called theories based on the real deffinition of theory.

Quote:
As you pointed out, TV in not a good source for real scientific information. If you really want to comment on science, you should at least know what it is. You won't learn from that TV, go on and read something, like the link i gave you.


Of course it's not. But teachers, sometimes other scientists, and alot of other people don't know that, and end up basing things on that. It's the TV guy's i'm mainly going after for that very reason. I have nothing against science when it's done the right way and never expects results to be absolute truth (since it's philosophized to be impossible). My problem is when clowns they call scientists go political. You can go to collage and get a particular degree and now you're an infalable thing that is better than humans and knows everything. Don't tell me that no one'll take advantage of that. Plus, even if they don't intend to take advantage of that, who says that collage or university science courses are any less efficient (learning wise) as collage or university programming courses?

Quote:
Sentence with "there has been a talk" has zero meaning in scientific context. Where has the talk been? Who was telling it? Where can we find exact contents of that "talk"?


"There has been talk" is a slang phrase of "There have been talks." Perhaps it's local dialect... I should watch out for that more often. The problem with this evidence is that it's mostly hearsay. But hearsay (despite how unreliable it is) still should be considered and checked.

Quote:
Learn what a "scientific theory" is, and we can continue talk about !scientific! theories about age of earth.


That is still in debate, though.

Quote:
what were their names? What was their backing to comment on scientific methods and dating age of earth? I believe that they did this properly and provided references to those many scientific works trying to incorrectly date age of earth with carbon dating...


I don't give out names of teachers when mentioning their political views. Their backing was their word on their degree. And as for expecting a teacher in america to do what's proper, you would be wise to lower your expectations (no pun intended). XD
Post 23 Jun 2007, 08:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Scientific is an adjective, and noun is theory... So scientific means tested and contradicted by nothing?
why the hell don't you just read that article i linked?

"scientific theory" has different meaning than common use of "theory", regardless of gramatical constructs or stuff. Like it or not, it's the way it is. Same problem as with "hacker".

Quote:
I'm telling you that it's contradictory to english, and for science to throw out it's jargon to the non-science community is very deceiving and is a nice way to get theories mixed with non-theories which are called theories based on the real deffinition of theory.

yes, i agree. many people even support these non-theories, just to make them appear more scientifical and credible.

Quote:
Of course it's not. But teachers, sometimes other scientists, and alot of other people don't know that, and end up basing things on that. It's the TV guy's i'm mainly going after for that very reason. I have nothing against science when it's done the right way and never expects results to be absolute truth (since it's philosophized to be impossible). My problem is when clowns they call scientists go political.

Of course, i agree on this, there are many who try to pretend being scientific to get credibility. This happens to such extent that most people don't know what real science is now. But you yourself didn't show much of scientific approach in your argumentation.

Quote:
"There has been talk" is a slang phrase of "There have been talks." Perhaps it's local dialect... I should watch out for that more often. The problem with this evidence is that it's mostly hearsay. But hearsay (despite how unreliable it is) still should be considered and checked.

Considered and checked maybe, but it doesn't have any argumentation weight. Because it is unverifiable, anyone could construct any such "evidence" that suits him well.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 09:00
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
why the hell don't you just read that article i linked?


I did... I don't trust it for it's wiki.

Quote:
"scientific theory" has different meaning than common use of "theory", regardless of gramatical constructs or stuff. Like it or not, it's the way it is. Same problem as with "hacker".


Like it or not? Obviously, dictionaries would have included it if that's the way it is. Though to go further onto your hacker deal, dictionaries do have hacker in them.

Quote:
yes, i agree. many people even support these non-theories, just to make them appear more scientifical and credible.


That's why i do alot more mental deduction than reading reports. If i want to know, when making a game or something, how things react to each other i would use mental deduction and maybe check it with something and due my own experiments even if i have to resort to a virtual, mathematical, or representation scale. Usually the results are close enough, but even those i don't take as law. I try to remind myself and others the flaws of science thanks to human weaknesses, since the chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Quote:
Of course, i agree on this, there are many who try to pretend being scientific to get credibility. This happens to such extent that most people don't know what real science is now.


A nice question would be if it exists anymore. Think about it, with all the politics out there, how can you tell if anyone has enough "good in them" to do things right? Sometimes they do things right half the time, but not all the time, which make them more decieving (sp?).

Quote:
But you yourself didn't show much of scientific approach in your argumentation.


If it was truely scientific, would there be an argument (no pun intended)? If i would sit here and abide by the rules of science to argue about science, would it be possible to argue against science? It has this funny way of protecting itself.

Quote:
Considered and checked maybe, but it doesn't have any argumentation weight. Because it is unverifiable, anyone could construct any such "evidence" that suits him well.


It does have argumentation weight if it's never been checked. Now, i'll admit it, i didn't sit here and check to see if it was tested or not, but since i believe it and proposed it for argumentation, that makes it your chore to either do the same and provide no evidedence and pass the chore, of providing it, to me, or you can prove me wrong and provide the evidence that it has been tested.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 09:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
kohlrak wrote:
Quote:
why the hell don't you just read that article i linked?


I did... I don't trust it for it's wiki.

No, I didn't post any link to wikipedia (that was f0dder i think). I posted link to article that tests your knowledge about science, and then explains what science is. Please read it, i hope it will clear many thinks.

Quote:
Like it or not? Obviously, dictionaries would have included it if that's the way it is. Though to go further onto your hacker deal, dictionaries do have hacker in them.

so do they have theory in them. Only dictionary i know is this one: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory, and i says same thing i do. You are welcomed to reference other dictionaries that define theory differently.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course, i agree on this, there are many who try to pretend being scientific to get credibility. This happens to such extent that most people don't know what real science is now.


A nice question would be if it exists anymore.

yes, science still exist, but you won't see it media.

Quote:
Think about it, with all the politics out there, how can you tell if anyone has enough "good in them" to do things right? Sometimes they do things right half the time, but not all the time, which make them more decieving (sp?).

real science has nothing to do with politics

Quote:
If it was truely scientific, would there be an argument (no pun intended)? If i would sit here and abide by the rules of science to argue about science, would it be possible to argue against science? It has this funny way of protecting itself.

yes, right Smile
still i somehow prefer scientific way, because it managed to do great "miracles", unlike all other philosophies, religions, worldviews etc...

Quote:
It does have argumentation weight if it's never been checked. Now, i'll admit it, i didn't sit here and check to see if it was tested or not, but since i believe it and proposed it for argumentation, that makes it your chore to either do the same and provide no evidedence and pass the chore, of providing it, to me, or you can prove me wrong and provide the evidence that it has been tested.

i believe in this case you are the one who should provide evidence, as opinion/hypothesis you voiced isn't the common one.

If you want some info on carbon-14 dating, here is some: www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/
Post 23 Jun 2007, 11:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
No, I didn't post any link to wikipedia (that was f0dder i think). I posted link to article that tests your knowledge about science, and then explains what science is. Please read it, i hope it will clear many thinks.


Oh sorry. XD Though, I did read parts of the things i missed on that little "quiz."

Quote:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena:


That basically says that it's nothing more than a well-put together concept.

Quote:
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.


No comment needed.

Quote:
Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.


Mathematics.

Quote:
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.


Not the same kind of science as the science we're talking about (skills).

Quote:
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.


Based on this, my theory on conducting theories is that you don't impose them on people without plenty of proof (not evidence, proof).

Quote:
contemplation or speculation.


This is the deffinition i use alot.

Quote:
guess or conjecture.


The same as the one just above it, only it gives it a "less likely to be true" feeling.

Quote:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena;


Many of which aren't as accepted... I guess that many things that are called theories really aren't, including the theory of evolution? Hardly accepted, though it is very political. Anyway, i really can't argue much with that accept for it being the only dictionary that has a deffinition for "scientific theory."

Quote:
a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena;


Cute deffinition...

Quote:
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. (See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)


Obviously political.

Quote:
A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.


Medical dictionary. XD

Quote:
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena


Plausible...

Quote:
a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation


Need i remind you the vagueness of what is considered evidence?

Furthermore, click on the thesaurus...

Quote:
Synonyms: approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, plea, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, shot*, speculation, stab*, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding
Antonyms: fact, proof, reality


There goes that...

Quote:
yes, science still exist, but you won't see it media.


Media is everything. Including computers, which is, of course, also corrupted. Chances are, unless we know one of these scientists who practice true science, we won't be able to tell the reals from the fakes.

Quote:
real science has nothing to do with politics


True.

Quote:
still i somehow prefer scientific way, because it managed to do great "miracles", unlike all other philosophies, religions, worldviews etc...


Depends on what you see as miracles. Religion has stopped many a war as well, but you won't find that documented, because peace (with the exception of the end of a war) usually isn't written down.

Quote:
If you want some info on carbon-14 dating, here is some: www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/


I like how they treat the whole thing as a debate even though the debators are years apart from each other and the creationist dosn't get the last say in anything. But aside from that...

Quote:
Laboratories, of course, do have techniques for identifying and correcting contamination. There are various methods of cleaning the material, and the activity of each rinse can be measured. Lab contamination and technique can be checked by running blanks. A careful choice of samples will often minimize contamination. Dating various portions of a sample is another kind of check that may be performed.


Alright, here's a concept. Let's destroy the C-14 on the outside and assume it only gets rid of the contamination, not the other stuff.

Quote:
A wooden walkway buried in a peat bog in England has been dated to about 4000 BC by the carbon-14 method (Scientific American, August 1990, p.30). Odd, that Noah's flood neither destroyed it nor deposited thick sediments on top of it!


Have a date to Noah's flood? Here's another concept, maybe it was already burried.

Quote:
They found out that the walkway, known as the Sweet Track, was built from trees felled in the winter of 38073806 BC. Pretty close agreement, huh?


What's 38073806+1990? Is it greater than 60,000?

LocoDelAssembly wrote:
Oh many thanks for reading that you can measure up to 60,000 years with that method (first paragraph).


Though aside from all of this, i admit that i can't argue that there havn't obviously been studies done. Though, while i'm not overly convinced that this site's information is accuret (nice place to get some laughs, as some of the anti-thiest ads and comments are cute), i'm not overly concerned about arguing this for it isn't contradictory to my beliefs.
Post 23 Jun 2007, 13:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
LocoDelAssembly
Your code has a bug


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 4633
Location: Argentina
LocoDelAssembly
Perhaps my bad english skills don't let me understand your quote right but as I understand they used another method to say that age.

Lets contextualize the quote
Quote:
Jennifer Hillam of the University of Sheffield and Mike Baillie of Queen's University of Belfast and their colleagues were able to date the walkway by a second method, i.e., treering dating. They found out that the walkway, known as the Sweet Track, was built from trees felled in the winter of 38073806 BC. Pretty close agreement, huh?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology


So "What's 38073806+1990? Is it greater than 60,000? " I don't know what has to do with the REAL method utilized. Though, I seriously doubt about this method because 38073806 BC is really too much, specially because once the tree is dead I think it cannot produce more rings but maybe there is something more...

Also, sorry again for my english skills, why the discussion stills goes in the direction of carbon dating when, so far, every date discussed here was obtained by a different method?

You also say that teachers says that Earth's age determination is done by using the carbon dating but teachers are not the guys that performed the scientific research nor published anything about Earth's age. Try finding the word "carbon" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth (I couldn't).
Post 23 Jun 2007, 18:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
Also, sorry again for my english skills, why the discussion stills goes in the direction of carbon dating when, so far, every date discussed here was obtained by a different method?


Missed that... XD The page is on carbon dating, so being a bit tired i only looked at the numbers.

Quote:
You also say that teachers says that Earth's age determination is done by using the carbon dating but teachers are not the guys that performed the scientific research nor published anything about Earth's age. Try finding the word "carbon" in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth (I couldn't).


I can't. XD Though, like i said, i'm not concerned for it dosn't contradict my interpretation of the bible. I'll leave the chore of arguing the age of the Earth up to a concerned person. Though, i will admit that there are some "young earth christians" that have an interesting theory on how much longer the Earth has. I don't bother with this theory because i'm afraid of it being false (as i would much rather it be true and the earth to end soon).
Post 23 Jun 2007, 21:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Goplat



Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 181
Goplat
kohlrak wrote:
Quote:
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. (See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)


Obviously political.
This definition is the one that's relevant in a discussion about natural science. In a topic about the "pop" instruction in x86 assembly, would you talk about popcorn? Because that's essentially what you're doing when you're trying to claim that "theory" implies something that you could reasonably doubt.
Quote:
Quote:
They found out that the walkway, known as the Sweet Track, was built from trees felled in the winter of 38073806 BC. Pretty close agreement, huh?


What's 38073806+1990? Is it greater than 60,000?
Gee, it couldn't possibly be that the original article had a dash in there, could it? When it mentions the "MayJune" issue of American Scientist, they must be talking about some weird new month I've never heard of!
Post 23 Jun 2007, 21:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.