KCRag Forum

They may not fly but

A new protected area designed to save one of Earth's most mysterious and elusive creatures has been established in a lush, mountainous region of Vietnam, officials announced Wednesday.

The creature, the saola (known colloquially as the "Asian unicorn") is a small, horned animal that resembles a strange goat-antelope hybrid, but is more closely related to a kind of wild cow.

"It's a very beautiful forest ungulate, and really looks like nothing else in Asia," said Barney Long, manager of the Asian species conservation program at the conservation group WWF and a key figure behind the creation of the newly established Saola Natural Reserve, which covers an area about three times the size of Manhattan along the Vietnam-Laos border.

Is it supernatural!?

Scientists used to joke that there should be a "Journal of Irreproducible Results".

The media jumps on all the studies.  The disclaimer (single study, etc.) is always buried.

mean wrote: Is it supernatural!?

Doesn't matter - there is a living animal called "unicorn".

Ah, ok. So if I start calling kangaroos Pegasuses... I get where you're going with this. I think I'll start calling my left big toe Allah and my right big toe Yaweh.

The animal is called the Asian Unicorn, go ahead and look it up.  It may not be what you typically call a unicorn but unicorn is still in it's common name and it is a real, honest-to-goodness, live although rare animal.  So you can call your toes, or any other part of your body, anything you want it still doesn't change the fact that this animal has "unicorn" in its name. 

OMG have u guys heard about this thing they call it a "komodo dragon"!!!  THERE ARE REAL LIVE DRAGONS IN THE WORLD!!!!!  IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE NAME!

Take that, Beowulf!!

And so therefore supernatural forces exist...

You guys really need to lighten up.  ignatius is always talking comparing religion to flying unicorns and I just pointed out a few instances of unicorns, all in fun.

Kinda like when I was young and someone would mention robin.  Some might think of a girl name Robin.  Others might think of the bird species.  And others who followed baseball at the time might think of Robin Roberts.  Or describe a chair.  One could describe a kitchen chair.  Another an executive office chair.  Another a La-Z-Boy recliner.  What about "for", "four", and "fore".  And so on.

Just having some fun about a team of unicorns and an animal with the word of unicorn in its name (although it has two horns).  I know these usages have nothing to do with his usage of unicorns.  Just using the word unicorn and putting it into a different context.

I get what you were trying to do, I just think it's silly. 

Hawking has made a statement that heaven is a fairy tale.  Also something about a human mind is like a computer, once it dies that is it.  One of the networks' segments covering this statement also included a piece about a boy who saw heaven during a surgery when he was 4.  His father is a preacher who has written a book about his son's experience.  The boy said he saw Jesus along with Peter and Paul.

Do I believe the story told by the boy?  No.  Do I believe Hawking?  Given the fact that it wasn't long ago that the scientific community believed all life was carbon based and that assumption has been disproven it does open the door that other things are also possible.  There are things out there that we have no knowledge of and can change what we currently know, or challenge scientific principals as we know them now.

Again, do I believe in Hawking's  statement?  No.

A recent test by European scientists may have just upset the world of physics and put our knowledge of the universe upside down. What, may you ask?

A test concerned subatomic particles called neutrinos. Evidently they can travel just a shade faster than the speed of light. Results haven't been replicated at this time but the equipment and data of that initial test has been checked and the same results have occurred.

Of course if true this would not prove the existance of a god but it does show how little we know or how much more we have to learn about this universe.

aknowledgeableperson wrote:Of course if true this would not prove the existance of a god but it does show how little we know or how much more we have to learn about this universe.

It shows we are learning it...

It's not expected to hold up. Only one group has set this position and only because they have no other explanation. It needs peer review as well as be duplicated.

Reminds me of another time e=mc2 was challenged. When gamma rays were first discovered, it was thought the most intense ones we detected could only be generated within our galaxy. It would've appeared to break e=mc2 if they were generated in great distances with as much energy that was showing up. After a new satellite was sent out to detect gamma rays, turned out intense rays showing up are generated in other galaxies. The initial assumption was the energy was burst out in all directions evenly distributed from the source, which would be too much energy to reach us at that degree to be possible according to e=mc2 (energy release in all directions). But then it was discovered the abnormally strongest ones are emitted as concentrated beams rather than even distribution, which does not violate e=mc2. I've oversimplified and may not have it exactly right but it's something like that.

Point is, this new find is hardly the only e=mc2 challenge.

And if it does turn out to be 'true', then we have another model with a different set of rules... like Newtonian physics and Quantum physics, which are not always compatible - different tools used for different models. It's a pretty big deal though if we have another model to work with. Could mean a whole new set of tools/discoveries in the way that Quantum physics led to computer chips and atomic energy - Newtonian physics would've never led to those. Would be exciting if it's the case actually. It wouldn't necessarily kill e=mc2.. it would just say e=mc2 works in some models that we make practical use of and does not apply to other models, which we might be able to make a whole new set of practical uses from.

The faster than light claim didn't hold up. There were apparently equipment problems. This is why there needs to be several layers of peer review before such claims make it out to mass media.

The Sikh shooting is awful, whether he confused Sikh for Muslims or not but the guy has been identified and many in past have described him as white supremist so it may have not mattered what religion.

If anything comes out of this it may be that more uninformed Americans will understand that Sikhs are not at all Muslims.

Why Isn't the Oak Creek Shooting Being Covered Like the Aurora Shooting?

The tragic events in the Milwaukee suburb were also treated differently by political élites, many fewer of whom issued statements on the matter. While both Presidential candidates at least made public comments, neither visited, nor did they suspend campaigning in the state even for one day, as they did in Colorado. In fact, both candidates were in the vicinity this weekend and failed to appear. Obama hugged his children a little tighter after Aurora, but his remarks after Oak Creek referred to Sikhs as members of the “broader American family,” like some distant relatives. Romney unsurprisingly gaffed, referring on Tuesday to “the people who lost their lives at that sheik temple.” Because the shooting happened in Paul Ryan’s district, the Romney campaign delayed announcement of its Vice-Presidential choice until after Ryan could attend the funerals for the victims, but he did not speak at the service and has said surprisingly little about the incident.

As a result, the massacre in Oak Creek is treated as a tragedy for Sikhs in America rather than a tragedy for all Americans.

^I think a number of things.

1. The guy is dead, they can't show the pycho killer, do multiple stories on him, show him in the court room and dig up his past.
2. Less People died in this shooting
3. Batman was a huge movie, tons of people across america went to midnight showings, it basically happened during a pop culture event.
4. News wants to appeal to the majority of viewers, who are white middle class, Sikhs do not fall in that demographic so it probably means less ratings for news station if they were to keep covering this massacre.

.

Well, there is a new Pope. A Jesuit from Argentina that is from outside of the church hierarchy. Does bring hope that there will be substantial changes coming to the Roman Catholic Church, over time.