He invented the Internet. To state the obscenely obvious, the Internet has changed the world in every way conceivable (can you think of a human process it hasn't altered or influenced?) and its impact on the future of mankind is of an immeasurable and incomparable magnitude. So why hasn't he been acknowledged with a Nobel Prize?\n\nThe argument that the Internet isn't a "traditional science" is invalid, in my opinion. It has impacted every one of the fields covered by the Nobel. What do you think?
127973
What, a KCBE isn't enough??
257435
Bill Gates??  No way!!  He has a gift to make money out of technology, but he's no mathematician, neither a technology guru.\n\nI suggest Alan Turing, British mathematician who is considered the father of computer science.  Modern computers are all based on principles of his "Turing Machine".
633420
I asked too, and was told he has always been present, which scares me and answer a lot of questions.  I guess he was around forever.  He was the one who created everything like, dinosaurs, etc. So I guess he got better along the way and created man and we have been here every since.  WOW!  I never thought of it that way.  Still confused, I am on a mission know.  To be honest I don't think we are going to get a straight answer because that will prove the true existence and challenge everything that we believe.  Imagine what would become of the world if we found out this was all a farce to keep most of us straight.  It is because of religion that we are doing okay today, of course man has rules. laws, and regulations for the ones who are non-believer's and the slackers. That would open up another Pandora's Box.  WOW!
544181
1. His scientists developed the modern rocket,  which was and is still used in space exploration.\n2. His scientists also developed the jet engine, without which modern flight would take much longer.\n3. He created a war so horrific that it forced Europe to realize war was the means of destruction only, and that to grow as a continent, they must learn to live in cooperative peace.  This is really the first time this concept has been brought to frution.\n\nOkay, enough devil's advocate for one day.
217422
We're not here to do your homework for you, but I don't mind pointing you in the right direction.\n\nStart out by spelling the names correctly - I think you're interested in the contributions of Max Planck and Albert Einstein, not "Walk the" Plank and some other guy I've never heard of named Einstien.\n\nSince both are Nobel Prize winners, a good place to start your research would be with their official biographies at the Nobel Prize homepage - see the links below for those:\n\nYou'll find lots more information at the Wikipedia encyclopedic entry for each of these two famous German-born scientists - I've linked those sites below as well.\n\nRead the bios - then do your own homework!
306034
To be sure, the theory has a lot of gaps.  So it's not a Law.  All's it takes is one scientifically provable discovery that doesn't fit the theory to launch a search for a new theory that will explain the new information while keeping the old proven stuff too.  A good example is Einstein's Theory of Relativity.  Newtonian Mechanics fails at extreme sizes and speeds.  Relativity so far has been able to explain all the variances found to date at those extremes, but has not been proven to be 100% valid all the time, so it's not a law yet.  If you can discover something that invalidates evolutionary theory, you'll probably win a Nobel Prize!
425459
1.  Great place to start and understand the universe.\n2.  Nice "simple" version of # 1.\n3.  It's a classic and not useless at all, but it contains information that is outdated now (not necessarily wrong, just not inclusive of the future).\n4.  Most of his books I consider to be very simple and for general audiences.\n5.  Parallel universes might not exist - I haven't read this!
411875
This is serious:\n\n1. It's up to him to prove it is shrinking, not up to you to prove it isn't.  He, after all, is the one who supports the hypothesis he read on the internet.  Just say "Prove it".  \n\n2. You gave the source of his information as "the internet".  That's too vague.  Where on the interent?  What web site?  What "expert(s)" in what fields(s)?  What proof did the internet article(s) present in support of the hypothesis?  How can anyone support or deny those proofs if we don't know what they are?\n\n2. What is meant by "getting smaller"?  As you can see from the other responses, different people have different ideas about which quantity is decreasing.  One person, who understands nothing about Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity, thought the mass was "getting smaller".  Another thought you meant the size, as in the diameter and/or volume.  Another seemed to think the entire universe is involved in the shrinkage.\n\nThe problem here is not so much your friend's outlandish claim as your inability to ask a critical question.
39591
>>> info saying global warming is not a big deal.\n>>> I got stuck on the side saying global warming does not\n>>> exist.\n\nHang on, are you arguing that it doesn't exist, or are you arguing that it's not a big deal? Those are two totally seperate arguments with no relationship to one another.\n\nIf you are arguing that it's not a big deal then I second the recommendation of Lomborg. \n\nIf you are arguing that it doesn't exist then Lomborg is worthless since he is one of the most vocal supporters of global wamring the world has ever seen. Lomborg is quite convinced that it exists and goes to lengths to convince others that it exists. He just doesn't  see it  as a catastrophe.\n\nAs you can see these are two totally separate issues, and you really need to tie down what you mean before you can even start your research.\n\nIf you really are attempting to argue that global warming does not exist you have an uphill battle.  AFAIK all scientists accept that it exists. The only argument is how much of it is caused by humans and what the efcets will be. You are really knobbled if you have to arguee against the entire scientific community. I can't believe your teacher would set this up.\n\nBut if that is the case then you are really restricted to a few essentially crank websites. I've provided a link to one of the best ones out there, but it's still not terribly scientific or accurate.\n\nGood luck and return if you need more help. And you're gonna need if you are arguing that global warming doesn't exist.
560656
That is total rubbish and a scam.\n\nFirstly where is the real data? Has he done any proper scientific study to prove the results. Go to PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and search for Mr. Babubhai Thakkar. This site will give you an idea of any real research this individual may have done. \n\nAIDS is unfortunately still incurable. But modern science is making advances every day so who knows what the future has in store.
158488
I cant beleive the ppl this is drawing - I wish I had been in time to answer Deepak Chopra's question :)\n\nI missed Tom's question - but hes a little odd now - I might not have even answered LOLOL..
523657
I agree with the previous post-I thought I could pull this one right out and I can't find a thing - though still looking.\n\nI am still looking on this....damn it must be some high government secrect...\n\nI have found out that while he was dying - he suffered greatly.\n\nok keep looking , i am getting booted out of the pc room but I wish you luck...if you ever do find out please email me and let me know at MY USER NAME at yahoo.com\n\nthanks,\n\nI really dont' know what it says - it just know that Leiden means sorrow or anguish, I know what his grave site said, how many kids he had, who studied under him, but not that he tripped on descartes shoes while being chased with a chain saw !!!!!!!\n\nI am beginning the t hink the man is still alive!  \n\nLOL
507179
it is difficult to exist without it.\n\nIt sounds like one of those overanalyzed philosophical bs topics. It is as if there was a choice as to whether the universe should exist or not. It is not a debate, just as death is not a debate. It is...just is. \n\nOne could argue that God is he source of the universe or perhaps that it preceeded Him. We don;t know and frankly, it isnt that important to spend such an effort over...just as the discussion of death is kinda pointless...it just is. \n\nWhy not spend the effort discussing topics that make a diffeence? Stem cell research, nuclear power for a cleaner environment, the morality of killing terrorists (OK, I threw in an easy one)
318106
I certainly believe he would eventually have come to a conclusive resolution to the problem because Western Science as well as Eastern Philosophy are being unified in the same way, by accepting the importance of intuitive thinking as a complementary element in relation to logical thinking in getting to T/truth/s.  Eastern thought has intuitively understood universal/existential truths for thousands of years longer than Western scientific deductive reasoning has allowed Western civilization to understand those same universalities.  Math and Philosophy are unifying because the universe is unifying.  Let me give you an example I got from a book called The Tao of Physics.  It provided philosophical proof that because of the elemental nature of the universe it is possible to travel in time, and then the author proved it using mathematical formulas provided by Western Science to support truth that had been formulated over a thousand years ago.  This is what I mean when I say they are unifying.  And, I believe Einstein would have come to his conclusions in the same way because so many of his colleagues were beginning to become involved in the study of Eastern philosophy as a viable approach to understanding the nature of the universe.\n\nNow, understand that I am not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination. I am an English professor by trade and a scholar by heart.  But, everything I have read over the years about this issue among many others having to do with the nature of reality and its relationship to our omniverses points in this direction.  Yet, I'm still afraid I am being more intuitive than I am being logical.  As a Libra, it satisfies my nature though, to come to believe these kinds of things the way I come to believe them.\n\nIt's not much of a mathematical answer, but it is an answer of sorts.  I hope it gives peace and contentment to you.\n\nCC Ryder
252540
Al Gore invented the internet.  He said so.
183915
Yes, modern day inventions are fascinating. Imagine the stuff that companies have developed but have not shown us. Just the other day, I was reading about quantum teleportation and about creating force fields with plasma. It is amazing how far we have come and where our imagination can take us.
231242
Einstien didn't create the nuclear bomb. He just gave E=mc square. Even if he would not be there, it would have been discovered few years later. America would have won, but maybe few years later. And yes, don't blame Einstien for nuclear bomb tragedy. It would be like blaming Newton if someone fall off a building, because he discovered the nature of Gravity !!