PDA

View Full Version : Science



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

tigeraid
March 20th, 2014, 06:22 PM
Don't see how we can have a "Religion" thread without it. Maybe a weekly update with "what's going on in science!" ?

Anyone been watching Cosmos lately? What a great, great way to get science across to the average viewer. My wife is loving it. She even pauses it and asks me clarifying questions throughout the show. Learning is fun!

In related news, this happened in science this week:

Incredible Discovery Provides Evidence for the Big Bang Theory

http://space.io9.com/have-physicists-detected-gravitational-waves-yes-1545591865


Kamionkowski and his team were there to announce that B-modes of gravitational waves have been detected in the cosmic microwave background radiation. Put simply, this is the best evidence yet that our universe was formed when very rapid expansion known as the Big Bang started a process that physicists call "inflation." As a result of this rapid inflation of physical space, everything in the universe was born.

Gravitational waves have been observed before, but the B-mode polarization is something new. This is a kind of gravitational wave that cosmological theorists have predicted would peak during those first 10-34 seconds of the primordial universe when we exploded from nothing into everything. So this announcement today confirms our first real observations of early inflation. Now that we can see B-mode gravitational waves, those observations put limits on just what happened when our universe was young, and how it got to be way it is today.

This isn't the first time gravitational waves have been detected. The 10-meter South Pole Telescope detected gravitational wave B-modes last summer, then Polarbear confirmed those results. What makes the BICEP-2 discovery different is that it's detecting primordial gravitational waves right at that early moment in the universe when waves from inflation are expected to peak. The actual signal is the faint twisting pattern in the polarization data. Mathematically, it's the curl. Colloquially, today's stories are going to be full of swirls.

Why does it matter? In a world with no data, all theories are equal. We now have data, so the number of inflation models that still make sense is a much smaller set. Even with this announcement, research isn't done — more projects going forward will be expanding and confirming these results. For more on all the details, Nature is running an entire special on gravitational waves and inflation. We also had some awesome discussion in the comments section yesterday about potential implications, with cosmologists from other projects jumping in to clarify.


Here's Professor Andrei Linde, one of the earliest proponents of the Big Bang Theory and a founder of Inflation Theory, being told his life's work was worth it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA


And here's a really simple, elegant explanation of what we now know about gravitational waves and the Big Bang:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvc0Az1XG1Q#t=70

Time to celebrate! Another exciting step toward comprehension of the universe.

FaultyMario
March 20th, 2014, 06:25 PM
In plural, you mean.

overpowered
March 20th, 2014, 06:40 PM
Anyone been watching Cosmos lately? What a great, great way to get science across to the average viewer. My wife is loving it. She even pauses it and asks me clarifying questions throughout the show. Learning is fun!I'm finding it a bit on the "fluffy" side but given that it's aimed at kids and people who aren't particularly scientifically literate, that's to be expected. I have learned a few things from it though and expect to learn more. I generally enjoy listening to NdGT talk about science anyway. He's got a great enthusiasm for the subject that's kind of infectious.

Rare White Ape
March 21st, 2014, 06:23 AM
1) what has science got to do with religion, or as a counterpoint to religion?

2) why did I just know that this gravitational waves thing was going to be the first thing posted in this thread?

Kchrpm
March 21st, 2014, 06:51 AM
Aerogel FTW. One day almost everything will be made of this stuff. It's got incredible physical properties, but can't be easily made at the moment.

http://gizmodo.com/amazing-aerogel-eight-looks-at-the-ghostly-supermateri-1525014861

tigeraid
March 21st, 2014, 08:00 AM
Oh my. Think of the automotive applications.

Cam
March 21st, 2014, 08:10 AM
Did I mention my wife is a scientist? :D

359

It's a work in progress.

Kchrpm
March 21st, 2014, 09:38 AM
Will yours be blue, too?

tigeraid
March 21st, 2014, 09:51 AM
That immediately makes her hotter.

thesameguy
March 21st, 2014, 10:07 AM
Look guys, if we all stop believing in science it will probably just go away.

overpowered
March 21st, 2014, 10:37 AM
Silica based aerogels (the most common type) are brittle and hard to work with. Applications are limited even when cost is not an issue. Insulation for space craft comes to mind due to the advantages of maximum insulation relative to space used and being ultra light and having a tolerance for very high temperatures.

However, it's pretty neat that they exist and have the properties that they do, even if they can't be used for many practical applications.

I'm not sure about the newer graphene type which I'm not familiar with. If it has some flexibility, that could really be something.

Crazed_Insanity
March 21st, 2014, 12:21 PM
1) what has science got to do with religion, or as a counterpoint to religion?
Some people worship science and therefore could be a form a religion! ;) People do need to realize that science should just be a tool... further not all religions, even Christianity, are against science. Modern science was started by a lot of Christians. So yeah, science and religious faith shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive.


2) why did I just know that this gravitational waves thing was going to be the first thing posted in this thread?
Because that's like the latest and greatest thing going? Any ape could think of it! :p

Rare White Ape
March 21st, 2014, 01:49 PM
Way to massively miss the point of both questions.

overpowered
March 21st, 2014, 08:38 PM
Creationists Complain Neil deGrasse Tyson's 'Cosmos' Isn't Giving Them Airtime (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/creationists-neil-degrasse-tyson-cosmos-unbalanced)

:rolleyes:

Jason
March 23rd, 2014, 02:05 PM
:lol:

Alan P
March 23rd, 2014, 06:10 PM
It's BECAUSE It's based on science that they're not getting a look in!

Fiat500
March 23rd, 2014, 11:19 PM
That's just in the part of the universe that's 6000 years old. In other parts, where time is different, they get YEARS of airtime.

tigeraid
March 24th, 2014, 05:02 AM
Not NEW science, but a fun article:

http://www.damninteresting.com/absolute-zero-is-0k/



At the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, newfangled steam machines began to chuff heat into work, and science into profits. Cracking the true nature of heat would lead to more efficient power plants, so the utmost intellectual and financial assets converged upon the problem. When centuries of “common sense” were finally set aside in favor of the scientific method, theorists and experimenters gradually ascertained that all molecules in nature are restless, agitated things that randomly wiggle and wobble, bumping into neighbors like billiard balls on an overcrowded table. The net effect of these molecular motions is what we observe as heat, and temperature is directly proportional to the speed of these movements. From this, Lord Kelvin inferred that if one were to reduce the heat in a substance sufficiently, one would reach a temperature where the molecules become entirely still--a minimum possible temperature. His calculations correctly indicated -273.15°C as this physical boundary.

This landmark discovery invited even more inquiry than it had quieted. Might it be possible to actually reach absolute zero? What would happen to molecules forced into such stillness? Would they disintegrate? Would they convert to a yet-to-be-observed phase of matter? Who goes there? What is the meaning of this?


This is a really great site by the way, I once binge-read it over the course of 3-4 slow days at work. Their updates can be agonizingly slow, unfortunately, but the writing is fantastic.

mk
March 24th, 2014, 07:14 AM
Big Bang and Dark Matter are bad names only because they are not known as names.

BTW,
Who would let the bit at the time be a boss and how much it could save say per shopping trip if only cash is allowed and below average amount is available?

tigeraid
March 24th, 2014, 09:42 AM
Oh goody, a spam bot.

Random
March 24th, 2014, 10:03 AM
No, just mk.

Dicknose
March 24th, 2014, 01:44 PM
Big Bang was the name created by those trying to laugh at the idea.
Funny that it's the name that stuck.

tigeraid
March 24th, 2014, 02:39 PM
No, just mk.

Wait, he's human? WTF is he saying?

Fiat500
March 24th, 2014, 03:23 PM
Wait, he's human?

More than that, he's Finnish. :)

overpowered
March 24th, 2014, 06:28 PM
Were we ever clear that mk was a he?

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 05:41 AM
Big Bang was the name created by those trying to laugh at the idea.
Funny that it's the name that stuck.

It ended up being as unfunny as the show named after it. That's some mystical shit.

21Kid
March 25th, 2014, 06:17 AM
Wait, he's human? WTF is he saying?

We are never quite sure... :|

FaultyMario
March 25th, 2014, 10:49 AM
Some say it is not human, all we know it's called MK!

FaultyMario
March 25th, 2014, 11:23 AM
Anyway, related to my first post on this thread about it needing to address its plurality (sciences) I have a question, Where does the notion that "the market will fix it" or that "markets will sort themselves out" come from? Was it from Ricardo or Smith, is it more recent? Does it apply to the productive forces in general? Pointers are much needed.

Kchrpm
March 25th, 2014, 11:29 AM
It looks like the idea behind that, the laissez-faire economic principle, comes from 1681.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

FaultyMario
March 25th, 2014, 11:45 AM
Thanks, K.

Dicknose
March 25th, 2014, 02:23 PM
We tend to say "science" (singular) but "mathematics" (plural)
And abbreviate that to maths.
I still find it funny to hear the word "math"

Rob
March 25th, 2014, 02:25 PM
See also "sports".

overpowered
March 25th, 2014, 02:29 PM
Nobody says "maths" in the U.S.

tigeraid
March 25th, 2014, 06:42 PM
And we find it funny to hear "maths." Whenever Clarkson says it I giggle.

tigeraid
March 25th, 2014, 06:43 PM
With all the clockwork predictability of Halley's Comet, last week Danny Faulkner of Answers in Genesis plead for Cosmos to show more "balance" by covering creationism. Tyson derided the idea as being akin to giving the Flat Earth Society equal time. Ridicule is the appropriate response to the ridiculous.

The episode opens by describing the mystery we are all born into. Awakening into existence on this tiny world under a blanket of stars, we are like abandoned babies who must break our cosmic isolation by figuring nature out for ourselves. The subtext, which rapidly becomes text as the episode proceeds, is that there is no received wisdom, no obvious divine plan, no big book of answers. There is only us and our capacity for pattern recognition to light a candle in the dark.

http://io9.com/cosmos-chronicles-how-knowledge-conquers-fear-1550158286/+jasonshankel01


A great episode. It's important that Cosmos spend the first couple of episodes shoving Creationism bullshit to the side and showing the importance of questioning our existence. I am fucking loving this show, even if (for me) it's more of a refresher course. This is the shit TV needs.

Rob
March 26th, 2014, 03:58 AM
and mashed "potatoes".

Crazed_Insanity
March 26th, 2014, 05:52 AM
Nobody says "maths" in the U.S.

Thanks for that OP, I was like, wow, was I getting it wrong all these years? We Americans just are weird! Kinda like we don't say aluminium. Strange that we develop a bit of our own English. Maybe we should just call our language Americanese!

tigeraid
March 26th, 2014, 10:17 AM
Well we don't say it in Canada either. In fact I've only ever heard British people say it.

LHutton
March 27th, 2014, 12:31 PM
Don't see how we can have a "Religion" thread without it. Maybe a weekly update with "what's going on in science!" ?

Anyone been watching Cosmos lately? What a great, great way to get science across to the average viewer. My wife is loving it. She even pauses it and asks me clarifying questions throughout the show. Learning is fun!

In related news, this happened in science this week:

Incredible Discovery Provides Evidence for the Big Bang Theory

http://space.io9.com/have-physicists-detected-gravitational-waves-yes-1545591865


Kamionkowski and his team were there to announce that B-modes of gravitational waves have been detected in the cosmic microwave background radiation. Put simply, this is the best evidence yet that our universe was formed when very rapid expansion known as the Big Bang started a process that physicists call "inflation." As a result of this rapid inflation of physical space, everything in the universe was born.

Gravitational waves have been observed before, but the B-mode polarization is something new. This is a kind of gravitational wave that cosmological theorists have predicted would peak during those first 10-34 seconds of the primordial universe when we exploded from nothing into everything. So this announcement today confirms our first real observations of early inflation. Now that we can see B-mode gravitational waves, those observations put limits on just what happened when our universe was young, and how it got to be way it is today.

This isn't the first time gravitational waves have been detected. The 10-meter South Pole Telescope detected gravitational wave B-modes last summer, then Polarbear confirmed those results. What makes the BICEP-2 discovery different is that it's detecting primordial gravitational waves right at that early moment in the universe when waves from inflation are expected to peak. The actual signal is the faint twisting pattern in the polarization data. Mathematically, it's the curl. Colloquially, today's stories are going to be full of swirls.

Why does it matter? In a world with no data, all theories are equal. We now have data, so the number of inflation models that still make sense is a much smaller set. Even with this announcement, research isn't done — more projects going forward will be expanding and confirming these results. For more on all the details, Nature is running an entire special on gravitational waves and inflation. We also had some awesome discussion in the comments section yesterday about potential implications, with cosmologists from other projects jumping in to clarify.

Here's Professor Andrei Linde, one of the earliest proponents of the Big Bang Theory and a founder of Inflation Theory, being told his life's work was worth it:
The really interesting part is that inflation was driven by vacuum energy from empty space outside the expanding visible universe and this vacuum energy concentration was roughly equal to the energy of Grand Unification at which the strong, weak and electromagnetic force combine to form one force. This is roughly equal at the particle level to 1x10^12 LHCs.

Dicknose
March 27th, 2014, 01:24 PM
The really interesting part is that inflation was driven by vacuum energy from empty space outside the expanding visible universe
Why outside the visible universe? (Why not inside and outside)
Isn't the point of the theory to explain why inside and outside the visible universe look the same as the visible universe (horizon) has grown to include more of the overall universe.
Ie the visible universe centered on us should be no different to one centered at any other location.
You make it sound like there is a difference between inside and outside our visible region.

And the word "empty" seems loaded when used with "outside", as if implying that the visible universe was not empty.

LHutton
March 28th, 2014, 01:06 PM
Why outside the visible universe? (Why not inside and outside)
Isn't the point of the theory to explain why inside and outside the visible universe look the same as the visible universe (horizon) has grown to include more of the overall universe.
Ie the visible universe centered on us should be no different to one centered at any other location.
You make it sound like there is a difference between inside and outside our visible region.

And the word "empty" seems loaded when used with "outside", as if implying that the visible universe was not empty.
Sorry man that's the way it seems to be explained by the Physicists. The gravitational force remained inside the visible universe while the electonuclear force (electromagnetism + weak + strong at 10^16 GeV per particle concentration) abandoned ship and acted from outside the expanding mass as vacuum energy, during the period of inflation, that was later converted to mass as the conventional big bang began. The mass collected in the warped space-time like water collects in a puddle and bingo we have where we are now.

That's pretty much what this Antartic microwave telescope has been able to detect from the swirling pattern of the polarisation of microwave radiation from afar.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/newsreview/features/article1390627.ece

tigeraid
April 3rd, 2014, 12:24 PM
http://io9.com/weve-found-a-hidden-ocean-on-enceladus-that-may-harbor-1557622077

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--n2QQhCAz--/c_fit,fl_progressive,w_636/bya6vgdvqdh9pp3fhnuv.jpg



Gravity measurements made by Cassini have confirmed that Enceladus, a tiny moon orbiting Saturn, hosts a subsurface ocean in its southern latitudes. Astronomers are now saying it's potentially habitable.e, but it has a turbulent ocean that lies beneath. Today astronomers announced that new… Read…

The idea that Enceladus may host a subsurface ocean is nothing new. Back in 2005, NASA's Cassini spacecraft beamed back images showing what appeared to be plumes of water vapor spewing out from fractures, called "tiger stripes," near the icy moon's southern pole (similar to what was recently detected on Europa, another icy moon with a subsurface ocean). By itself, these plumes didn't prove that liquid water existed under the ice. It's conceivable, for example, that massive tectonic forces exerted by Saturn's gravity was creating friction along the plates of ice, resulting in cracks and the jettisoning of liquid water

tigeraid
April 11th, 2014, 05:23 AM
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/04/09/first-succesful-organ-regeneration-in-a-living-animal/



Scientists discovered a way to reverse the process of aging — and no, they didn’t invent another skin cream. Instead, a team of scientists from the University of Edinburgh has, for the first time, succeeded in regenerating a living organ in an animal.

The team manipulated a single protein in very old mice that caused their bodies to rebuild their thymuses — an organ that produces white blood cells. After receiving the treatment, the senior citizen mice not only had thymuses that were similar in structure to a young whippersnapper’s, but they were also twice as large.

Scientists have in the past grown organs using stem cells, but this is the first time a living organism has repaired its own organs via a chemical trigger. The thymus is typically the first organ that shrinks and deteriorates as we age, so researchers are hoping this finding leads to treatments to bolster the immune systems of elderly people.

Researchers targeted a single protein in the thymus, called FOXN1, that serves as a transcription factor — a master switch for lots of other genes. They increased the level of this protein, which in turn instructed immature cells in the thymus to start differentiating. The thymuses in treated mice started growing and producing more white blood cells. The team published their findings this month in the journal Development.

Kchrpm
April 11th, 2014, 05:54 AM
Hopefully they have that ready for common and effective human use during my lifetime, WHICH WILL THEN LAST FOREVERZ.

Rare White Ape
April 11th, 2014, 01:04 PM
So they're stepping toward the goal of immortality by working with a protein called FOXN1.

Eventually, since everyone will live forever, things will quickly become overpopulated and they'll need a way to knock people off.

I predict the development of an anti-FOX protein virus. I hope someone calls it FOXDIE.

tigeraid
April 11th, 2014, 03:29 PM
That, to me, goes back to the problem of science vs. dim-witted, conservative religious values on a grander scale. A complete Catch-22.

Overpopulation is not a problem right now. It will be in the future. There are two possible solutions:

1 - one child policies, combined with genetic modification to ensure the ratio of boys to girls
2 - migrating to other planets

#1 can't work because of antiquated beliefs about population control, religious fear-mongering, and, granted, the potential for corruption. #2 can't work because the country with the technology and money to BUILD colonies on Mars, the Moon, etc etc and/or terra-form them, is too busy spending 250,000x that money invading countries and killing brown people.

thesameguy
April 11th, 2014, 03:56 PM
It seems to be true that first world countries move naturally towards a declining population. It's been true in other countries (eg Oz) for years, and the US has officially become a declining population as well (1.8 children per couple). The places prone to overpopulation tend to be 3rd world, and to a lesser degree 2nd world countries where circumstances result in short average lifespans anyway. Although I support population control (through a variety of possible methods, and for a variety of reasons) I don't think overpopulation is really our biggest threat. If we were to reach a true overpopulation tipping point, it's likely resources would become expensive and unattainable, and the problem would sort itself out in a short period of time. I think the more likely overpopulation scenario would be an unexpected one - a war or cataclysmic event that resulted in a sudden resource shortage. From that perspective, I think oddball personal values aside, actually noodling through a "good" (aka defensible) population control methodology would be really, really tough. How many people is too many?

Rare White Ape
April 12th, 2014, 01:12 AM
If you think places like Africa are overpopulated, this list might surprise you.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

The things that cause 3rd world countries to become scarce for resources are poor societal structure, corruption and environmental factors that are unfavourable for growing food.

LHutton
April 12th, 2014, 06:07 AM
I don't think the statement holds for Western Europe either. Population is projected to grow there/here too. Expecting the problem to sort itself out by resources becoming expensive and unattainable involves people dying, either due to starvation or war.

Dicknose
April 12th, 2014, 11:52 AM
Oz has a growing population. It's mostly migration, but I thought our birth rate exceeded death rate.
Wikipedia almost the same as USA and comfortably positive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_increase

I know some of Europe was decreasing, was surprised by Russia.

Interesting that there are big variations in both birth and death rate.
Surprising that the US death rate is higher than Sri Lanka and Iran!
I'd guess it's a sign of an older population.
You death rate decreases as expected age increases, but catches up when life expectancy stagnates and the population ages (assumes birth rate is similar)

Also birth rate in western countries is a combination of fewer (especially big families) and also later.
It also skews a bit as the population ages, bigger percentage of past the age of having kids, birth rate decreases.

thesameguy
April 12th, 2014, 07:20 PM
That data is four years old...

However it looks like the US has indeed shifted, going from 1.8 births per woman in 2012 to 2.01 in 2014. Good for us keeping it positive!

Australia is 1.77 in 2014, so unless women there make babies by themselves, eventually you will eventually run out of natives.

Or, so says the CIA.

Obviously these numbers don't account for immigration in any given year, but there really isn't a great way to track the ebb and flow of people globally.

Random
April 12th, 2014, 09:27 PM
I met an astronaut today!

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

thesameguy
April 13th, 2014, 09:33 AM
Don't get me started on "astronauts." How much do you have to pay a person to lie to the world about having been in "space," aka a secret government movie studio?

Godson
April 13th, 2014, 09:30 PM
So they're stepping toward the goal of immortality by working with a protein called FOXN1.

Eventually, since everyone will live forever, things will quickly become overpopulated and they'll need a way to knock people off.

I predict the development of an anti-FOX protein virus. I hope someone calls it FOXDIE.



:lol: Glad I wasn't the only one to think of that.

Godson
April 13th, 2014, 09:41 PM
It seems to be true that first world countries move naturally towards a declining population. It's been true in other countries (eg Oz) for years, and the US has officially become a declining population as well (1.8 children per couple). The places prone to overpopulation tend to be 3rd world, and to a lesser degree 2nd world countries where circumstances result in short average lifespans anyway. Although I support population control (through a variety of possible methods, and for a variety of reasons) I don't think overpopulation is really our biggest threat. If we were to reach a true overpopulation tipping point, it's likely resources would become expensive and unattainable, and the problem would sort itself out in a short period of time. I think the more likely overpopulation scenario would be an unexpected one - a war or cataclysmic event that resulted in a sudden resource shortage. From that perspective, I think oddball personal values aside, actually noodling through a "good" (aka defensible) population control methodology would be really, really tough. How many people is too many?

This is usually how nature works. During a period of over-population, a large portion of a species dies off from either disease or lack of supplies. Tuberculosis is a good example of a disease that shows up in crowded populations.

Dicknose
April 14th, 2014, 02:33 AM
That data is four years old...

However it looks like the US has indeed shifted, going from 1.8 births per woman in 2012 to 2.01 in 2014.

How do they define those numbers?
How the hell do they change that much in 4 years?

If it's measured against all women in the USA, with about 150 million women, in just 2 years you got 0.2 * 150M extra births.
That's 30 million babies. Or 10% of your population.

So I'm not sure how they are defining that stat, or how it can change so quickly.

Godson
April 14th, 2014, 04:54 AM
Because people like to hump?

thesameguy
April 14th, 2014, 08:57 AM
People like to hump, but they increasingly don't like having babies, apparently.

As for how they got the numbers I have no idea. But I wouldn't question them. It's the CIA, after all. They can read your thoughts.

tigeraid
April 17th, 2014, 06:12 AM
http://io9.com/new-evidence-suggests-pluto-has-an-ocean-beneath-its-su-1563365762

New Evidence Suggests Pluto Has An Ocean Beneath Its Surface


Billions of years ago, Pluto's moon Charon was created after a giant object smashed into its icy mantle. The subsequent release of heat may have melted the interior of Pluto, creating an ocean that would have survived for a remarkably long period. And in fact, it could still be there.

According to the researchers, Pluto may still be warm enough to harbor an ocean beneath more than 62 miles (100 km) of ice. This is possible because liquid water, once mixed with other materials, like ammonia and low-eutectic salts, takes on properties similar to antifreeze.

Excitingly, we may be able to find even more evidence to support this theory once the New Horizons spacecraft gets there in July 2015. Should it detect signs of ancient tectonic activity — which would appear as scars and fault lines on the icy surface — it would further the notion that Pluto had or may still have an internal ocean.

Dicknose
April 17th, 2014, 03:04 PM
There has been suggestions of an ocean for a few years.
This is just a specific version with its own telltale signs.

An ocean will rely on an energy source.
As good an insulator as hundred km of ice, a few billion years and -200C will take it's toll.
I think antifreeze is a small issue compared to energy.

I believe the current best theory is nuclear decay. But most other objects of that size are moons and rely on tidal forces.

It's great that scientists are making suggestions in preparation for New Horizons.
But I think these are at the wildly hopeful end of the scale (but make cool headlines)

Rare White Ape
April 17th, 2014, 05:54 PM
Wildly hopeful hypotheses are all that anyone hears.

But gimme a hard-to-understand story like Z(4430) and I'm happy.

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/04/the-lhc-has-found-a-new-particle-unlike-any-other-form-of-matter/

Drachen596
April 17th, 2014, 07:57 PM
Think I saw a story that said Saturn may be developing a new moon.

Godson
April 17th, 2014, 08:30 PM
Soooo, The second show of Cosmos has been watched. Loving the show.

NDT is a badass.

tigeraid
April 21st, 2014, 08:35 AM
Yup. I am pleasantly, PLEASANTLY shocked that the ratings have been good and there's a possibility of a second season already.

Dicknose
April 22nd, 2014, 11:36 PM
Worlds longest experiment...
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/pitch-err-this-worlds-longestrunning-experiment-finally-drops-20140423-zqy9g.html

They make it sound like its taken 80 years to do anything - when actually it does something every 10 years or so.
Just that this is the first time its been seen/recorded.

All a bit pointless and "experiment" is probably not as good a description as "demonstration".
But you do have to admire something that he been going so long, more so as our world seems to speed up and things last less time.

Reminds me of the astronomer who went to India to watch a transit of Venus. Went a year out to setup, got caught up in a war, missed the transit because he was still at sea.
Then he went - WTF Ill just wait the 8 years till the next one!!
Then missed that as well!
(google + wiki to the rescue - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Le_Gentil)

science can be a bitch.

Fiat500
April 23rd, 2014, 04:55 AM
Heh, that's a fantastic story!

Random
April 23rd, 2014, 08:32 AM
all his relatives had "enthusiastically plundered his estate".[ (http://gtxforums.net/#cite_note-3)


Sounds like The Hobbit. :lol:

Crazed_Insanity
April 23rd, 2014, 11:32 AM
science can be a bitch.

Nah, I think just that pitch drop experiment can be a bitch. I can't imagine what it must've felt like to miss witnessing it drop for multiple times in your life! Go get a cup of tea for 5 minutes... missed it! Install a webcam... power outage!?!?!? Man..., don't think I'll be able to deal with that... :p

Rare White Ape
April 24th, 2014, 02:26 AM
I wanted to see the second coming of Christ but he finished on my tits.

Freude am Fahren
April 24th, 2014, 05:55 AM
In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, "come again"

Crazed_Insanity
April 24th, 2014, 11:30 AM
Jesus Christ! What is wrong with you people? I thought there's a religion thread? Why are you guys derailing a science thread?

Anyway, believe it or not, Jesus still loves you guys. :)

Rob
April 25th, 2014, 03:53 PM
Science says you're going to rot in the ground with your family weeping. The end.

Crazed_Insanity
April 28th, 2014, 08:01 AM
Well, faith in God doesn't deny the reality that I'm going to die and rot in the ground and with my family weeping. Bible doesn't teach that I'm never going to die and won't ever rot and my family will never cry in this world. So I hope you understand that having faith in God doesn't mean one has to go against science. The main contention is how things end... or does it?

Many of the famous fathers of modern science believed in God... so it proved that faith doesn't have to interfere with development of science. I really don't think the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, please, let's return this to our regularly scheduled programming... ;)

Drachen596
April 28th, 2014, 08:59 AM
Isnt there theory that glass flows slowly like that or did it get disproven?

I just remember it being in relation to some of the really old stained glass found in Europe.

thesameguy
April 28th, 2014, 09:37 AM
Long held, recently disproven.

Dicknose
April 29th, 2014, 03:48 AM
I think it's been found that older glass making process wasn't good at even thickness.
Once you have a rectangle with one end thicker, it seemed obvious to put that at the bottom (although it probably doesn't make a difference, but gut feel is that is a better balance)
And some old panes exist where it is thicker at the top!

Glass does have some structural properties that are similar to liquid.
And glass requires quick cooling to stop crystals forming, which means it's often described as super cooled liquid.
But frozen solid quickly from liquid is probably a better description, with emphasis on solid.

21Kid
April 29th, 2014, 06:01 AM
I had not thought of that before. I was told that glass sagged and just believed it, I guess.

But, yeah... of course it makes sense to put the thicker end at the bottom.

LHutton
May 1st, 2014, 04:01 AM
http://screen.yahoo.com/nasas-orion-readies-final-tests-090118856.html


NASA'S ORION READIES FOR FINAL TESTS

Cam
May 1st, 2014, 08:19 AM
My wife has a lab. Over the last couple of months, she's been populating her new lab with brand-new scientific instruments. They are very expensive, some of which cost tens of thousands of dollars. As of today, four of those instruments did not work properly out of the box. :erm: This morning, one of her new instruments leaked a significant amount of water overnight. It ran into her cabinets, over the floor and into the lab below hers, ruining two computers and a printer. Previously, one of the other instruments that didn't work was "fixed" by a technician sent from the manufacturer. He installed the wrong software and it still didn't work after he "fixed" it. :rolleyes: It's a sad situation when you can count on the majority of your gear not working out of the box, especially when other equipment gets ruined when one malfunctions. What does that say about the state of manufacturing and service of these things? I just have to shake my head at it. :smh:

On the other hand, you could look at it from the perspective that it's a freakin' miracle that these instruments can even do the things they do. They're so specialized and have to be so precise that it's no wonder they're touchy. It's amazing what they examine and the data they produce. It's beyond the scope of my comprehension. :lol:

Kchrpm
May 1st, 2014, 08:41 AM
Silly Canadians, being impressed by refrigerators and microwaves.

Dicknose
May 1st, 2014, 01:21 PM
It's almost counter intuitive that a $100 device could be better built than a $100k device.

But the cheaper one has to work out of the box, at that price you can't have someone installing it.
The more expensive stuff you make less of them, getting production quality right isn't as important if you can afford yo gave each one hand installed.

overpowered
May 12th, 2014, 12:43 PM
They've discovered a plant that absorbs and retains ridiculous amounts of nickel that would kill most plants and stores it in its leaves:

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/newly-discovered-plant-eats-heavy-metal

There is already active work in using plants that absorb heavy metals from soil for decontamination.

There is speculation that it could even be used for mining, though that's still just theoretical.


"Hyperacccumulator plants have great potentials for the development of green technologies, for example, 'phytoremediation' and 'phytomining'" says Dornonila. Phytoremediation is the use of plants to concentrate metals from soil to an extent that the leaves are easier to remove for safe burial than the polluted soil would have been. Phytomining involves the idea that plants could extract commercial quantities of metal from soils where it would not be economic or environmentally suitable to mine them in other ways. Phytoremediation of soils polluted with metals is still in its infancy, while phytomining still theoretical.

I would guess that the leaves would be toxic to leaf eating animals. That might be a good in some areas but bad in others.

Dicknose
May 13th, 2014, 12:15 AM
Cool stuff.
But I struggle to see how it could clean that well compared to basic "haul it all out"
Certainly helpful if you want to do a "casual clean, without bringing in heavy equipment" - say its in an area that cant be cleaned by other means.

Maybe it could be used post cleanup, as an insurance against more leaching back in from pockets that werent cleaned so well.

Anyway - its cool people find this stuff. Then cool again when someone else comes up with neat ways to use it.
And especially when its something cool that a living thing is doing - you go "oh yeah I can see how that could be useful and an advantage" - Im immune to a toxic substance and can store it up to use as a defense.

overpowered
May 14th, 2014, 08:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keMpUaoA3Tg

Godson
May 14th, 2014, 08:58 PM
There is some serious money in that video...

Random
May 14th, 2014, 09:13 PM
$200-400 for the pipe and disc magnet, depending on details.

Rare White Ape
May 15th, 2014, 02:18 AM
I wonder, when the pipe is picked up with the magnet inside (or indeed when the magnet is dropped through the pipe) is the weight of the magnet transferred through the pipe and included in the force required to lift it?

I say yes, as the magnet can't be picked up 'for free' and the magnetism pulls on the pipe as well. It's just that the pipe is more massive and the effect is less noticeable. That's my hypothesis.

LHutton
May 15th, 2014, 02:55 AM
I wonder, when the pipe is picked up with the magnet inside (or indeed when the magnet is dropped through the pipe) is the weight of the magnet transferred through the pipe and included in the force required to lift it?

I say yes, as the magnet can't be picked up 'for free' and the magnetism pulls on the pipe as well. It's just that the pipe is more massive and the effect is less noticeable. That's my hypothesis.
Newton's 3rd law and diamagnetism.

Freude am Fahren
May 15th, 2014, 04:15 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwVDDxoKBk4

Leon
May 16th, 2014, 01:38 AM
Soooo, The second show of Cosmos has been watched. Loving the show.

NDT is a badass.

I've chosen instead to watch the old Sagan Cosmos.

Very awesome :)

overpowered
May 17th, 2014, 07:38 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8mzDvpKzfY

Rob
May 17th, 2014, 07:54 PM
I saw that helium balloon vid a couple of weeks back and it's amazing. Mind blowing yet completely logical, all at once.

Rare White Ape
May 18th, 2014, 12:24 AM
Someone will plod along with quality content for ages, and once in a while they will publish something that, for some reason, grabs everyone's attention.

That balloon video seems to be Destin Sandlin's big break. A lot of his other stuff is way better (look for his series on how helicopters work for a perfect illustration of this) but this one has found a massive audience.

Do yourselves a favour and subscribe to Smarter Every Day. Or at least spend a rainy afternoon with the kids watching the offerings on his channel. The cat physics episodes are great, too.

Godson
May 19th, 2014, 09:01 PM
Totally awesome.

Cam
May 20th, 2014, 10:46 AM
The machine that leaked water simply won't work at all now. Company is replacing it. :rolleyes:

Crazed_Insanity
May 23rd, 2014, 08:33 AM
http://gaspull.geeksaresexytech.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/lovescience.jpg

Cam
May 23rd, 2014, 10:54 AM
:lol:

overpowered
May 24th, 2014, 08:17 PM
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/303/380/f94.jpg

MR2 Fan
June 9th, 2014, 12:26 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/a-computer-passed-the-famous-turing-test-for-the-first-88270310244.html

Turing test "passed"....thoughts?

overpowered
June 9th, 2014, 12:53 PM
Let's not break out the champagne just yet....

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/turing-test-not-so-fast/

Dicknose
June 9th, 2014, 01:39 PM
I did think a 30% pass mark was weak.

It's good that progress is being made, but I do t see any leaps, more a very slow crawl.

Godson
June 9th, 2014, 04:12 PM
And it isn't necessarily a pass. They created a niche character to make it seem plausible. Active manipulation.

Alan P
June 9th, 2014, 04:25 PM
Hmm, the choice of a foreign young boy was interesting. make it a 40 year old College Professor and I'll be interested/creeped the hell out.

overpowered
June 9th, 2014, 05:38 PM
A better article on why it didn't really pass:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07284327524/no-computer-did-not-pass-turing-test-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml

Cam
June 12th, 2014, 05:08 AM
Lori's at a conference. Coincidentally, she encountered the guy that got the job in Edmonton that she interviewed for over two years ago. He still doesn't have a lab and his first instrument arrives in September. Meanwhile, Lori has a lab full of instruments, despite her getting her current gig after the Edmonton guy. I guess we're glad she didn't get that job after all. :erm: :lol:

Godson
June 12th, 2014, 06:36 AM
Are they paying him to just sit there?

Cam
June 12th, 2014, 09:57 AM
I didn't ask. He's probably doing a lot of writing--papers and proposals.

player2
June 12th, 2014, 12:31 PM
Google (sorry, enter into your preferred search engine) "captain cyborg"

tigeraid
June 19th, 2014, 11:37 AM
Great rant:

The United States spends 0.4% (NOT 4%) per tax dollar on the space program. 16 million dollars, on average, is what NASA gets every year. That is fucking useless. This is the future of the human race! If you make that a PENNY on the dollar, it would be enough to go to Mars. The 850 BILLION dollar bank bailout, and the most conservative estimate on the war in Iraq, 787 BILLION dollars, are each more than the entire budget of the 50 year existence of NASA.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl07UfRkPas&feature=share

Alan P
June 20th, 2014, 01:15 PM
And yet look what they managed to do with it! No way a Private enterprise (;)) would be able to get that shit done on that budget!

LHutton
June 21st, 2014, 12:18 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACRbp7KtepQ

LHutton
June 23rd, 2014, 11:34 AM
US ballistic missile defense interceptor scores a direct hit in space | Defense Update: ('http://defense-update.com/20140622_us-interceptor-scores-a-direct-hit-in-space.html#.U6iABvldWak')

The US Missile Defense ('http://defense-update.com/tag/missile-defense') Agency has validated today the newest generation of ground based interceptor (GBI ('http://defense-update.com/tag/gbi')) interceptor designed to defend the United States from a possible intercontinental ballistic missile attack from North Korea.

Godson
June 23rd, 2014, 04:06 PM
Wouldn't the pre-requisite for the system be for North Korea to have a missle that can fly for more than 1 minute...

Dicknose
June 24th, 2014, 12:53 AM
No - increased public fear and kick backs from contracts are the main requirements!

21Kid
June 24th, 2014, 06:19 AM
Don't the people of N Korea need some freedom or something?

Godson
June 24th, 2014, 08:50 AM
No - increased public fear and kick backs from contracts are the main requirements!


Sorry, I think my sarcasm was lost in text.

tigeraid
June 24th, 2014, 11:29 AM
It makes me so angry that so many countries (mine included) put so little effort into Solar power.


"Germany has played a large part in bringing the cost of solar panels down by 80% in five years, allowing other countries to follow in its footsteps for a fraction of the price, particularly those with more sunlight. Moreover, where the initial stages of the move to wind were driven by government subsidies, solar power in Germany can now compete with fossil fuels on price alone, and continues to expand, albeit at a slower rate than a few years ago."


http://www.iflscience.com/technology/germany-now-produces-half-its-energy-using-solar#r44iofgKYTLdCdfq.01

Rare White Ape
June 24th, 2014, 03:22 PM
Don't the people of N Korea need some freedom or something?

I read something somewhere that calculated the effects of giving freedom to the people of North Korea, and they found that it would be pretty horrendous for the people of North Korea, and for whoever led the charge, and their allies. And NK would retaliate by attacking Japan and S. Korea. That's just the personal effect.

The economic effect of the fallout from China (they are sorta friends with NK and own the economy, remember) and a devastated Japan would be also very damaging for the whole world.

So attacking N. Korea would require an all-or-nothing approach, and 10+ million people would die. We haven't seen that since WWII.

LHutton
July 2nd, 2014, 04:42 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/higgs-quest-deepens-realm-physics-035140731.html


Paris (AFP) - Two years after making history by unearthing the Higgs boson, the particle that confers mass, physicists are broadening their probe into its identity, hoping this will also solve other great cosmic mysteries.

But, some of them admit to be puzzled.

The better they become acquainted with the Higgs at the infinitely small quantum level, the further the experts seem from explaining certain cosmic-scale questions, like dark matter.

Crazed_Insanity
July 2nd, 2014, 06:44 AM
Ha! Classic. The more way know the more we realize we don't know jack! :D

mk
July 2nd, 2014, 08:07 AM
I've wondered why around here nobody have ever done a total winter heat storage by sun heated water.
Can't think of any other reason than the energy is just too cheap.

About higher level of stuff,
what is the name of the situation where spiral galaxy stars seems to rotate their center faster than their visually observed mass calculated gravitation predict?

Another thing,
did you know that 57% of Brazil is covered by a rain forest and the rest is covered by Manuel Neuer.

21Kid
July 2nd, 2014, 09:16 AM
I read something somewhere that calculated the effects of giving freedom to the people of North Korea, and they found that it would be pretty horrendous for the people of North Korea, and for whoever led the charge, and their allies. And NK would retaliate by attacking Japan and S. Korea. That's just the personal effect.

The economic effect of the fallout from China (they are sorta friends with NK and own the economy, remember) and a devastated Japan would be also very damaging for the whole world.

So attacking N. Korea would require an all-or-nothing approach, and 10+ million people would die. We haven't seen that since WWII.
Maybe not attacking them directly...
What if the dear leader "got sick"?

LHutton
July 3rd, 2014, 09:25 AM
Maybe not attacking them directly...
What if the dear leader "got sick"?
A replacement would be found and the new dear leader would be rejoiced in a forced kind of way.

MR2 Fan
July 3rd, 2014, 12:13 PM
Maybe not attacking them directly...
What if the dear leader "got sick"?

They're on their third dear leader....even if all of the main family died,I'm sure they'd find a lost second cousin or something

Random
July 5th, 2014, 07:59 PM
About higher level of stuff,
what is the name of the situation where spiral galaxy stars seems to rotate their center faster than their visually observed mass calculated gravitation predict?


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

mk
July 13th, 2014, 02:45 AM
Triceratops safari illegal?

Fogelhund
July 13th, 2014, 11:54 PM
Great rant:

The United States spends 0.4% (NOT 4%) per tax dollar on the space program. 16 million dollars, on average, is what NASA gets every year.




You've got a small decimal place error there... that is $16 Billion, not Million. $16,865.2 Million Dollars for 2013 was the budget... http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/508_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf

tigeraid
July 14th, 2014, 07:35 AM
Typo on my part probably. is the PERCENTAGE correct? Tyson quoted the percentage....

Freude am Fahren
July 14th, 2014, 09:20 AM
Total (Fed, State*, Local*) Tax revenue in 2013 was 5.4 Trillion. (2.8 of which was Federal) http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2013US

.4% of 5.4T is 21.6B. So actually a bit less than .4%. (11.2B if you take just Fed revenue, so more than .4% of that)

*State and Local taxes estimated from that site.

Dicknose
July 14th, 2014, 05:50 PM
I think a better question would be - what percentage of science research does it get?
Ignoring medical research (which usually has plenty of backing, from charities and companies)

Does NASA get its fair share of general science money?

And while its easy to say "but eventually we need to get off this Earth" - I dont think thats actually a high priority for the immediate future (or even the next 100 or 1000 years)
Would we be better off being able to put humans on Mars or have better storage of electricity for electric vehicles? Or better ways to generate power? Or cool nanoparticles?

I think the space program is good. But so is a lot of other science/technology.

tigeraid
July 15th, 2014, 06:16 AM
eeeeeh but given the time constraints required to settle Mars, or even the MOON, it's really important that we start ASAP. Sure, we can have some people living on the moon in a couple years, and not even spend much, but it's not really a HABITAT. If we're talking a CITY on the moon, or a COLONY on Mars, there needs to be a ton of money and a lot of time spent planning and executing this.

More to the point is resources; the long-term survival of our civilization (unless we all revert to vegan, no car-driving, no-power using druids) depends on us gaining access to the Asteroid belt and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn for both water and minerals. And sadly, that will likely be done in a commercial fashion--whatever mining company gets up there first will pretty much rule the world.

Godson
July 15th, 2014, 06:37 AM
And essentially create an environment like shown in borderlands.

thesameguy
July 15th, 2014, 02:51 PM
Or, we just stop reproducing at such an alarming rate. Spend trillions and go to the moon... or use more contraception. Hmm. Let me think.

Freude am Fahren
July 15th, 2014, 04:33 PM
God doesn't want us to do either, so obviously the only right answer is "drill, baby, drill."

tigeraid
July 16th, 2014, 09:46 AM
Or, we just stop reproducing at such an alarming rate. Spend trillions and go to the moon... or use more contraception. Hmm. Let me think.

Logical people know that answer. Unfortunately that's only about 1 billion of the 6 billion shitheads on this planet.

Freude am Fahren
July 16th, 2014, 02:41 PM
Didn't know you were such an optimist.

overpowered
July 16th, 2014, 05:42 PM
The world topped 7 billion a couple of years ago or so.

LHutton
July 17th, 2014, 02:17 AM
The world topped 7 billion a couple of years ago or so.
Has anyone been watching Utopia or read the book?

JoshInKC
July 17th, 2014, 04:17 AM
The show is pretty good and weird, was unaware of any book.

MR2 Fan
July 19th, 2014, 05:08 PM
http://d3dsacqprgcsqh.cloudfront.net/photo/aQqw8Vq_460s.jpg

tigeraid
July 20th, 2014, 11:28 AM
:up:

LHutton
August 3rd, 2014, 09:04 AM
http://cmns.umd.edu/news-events/features/2356


Imagine being able to instantaneously run an optical cable or fiber to any point on earth, or even into space. That’s what Howard Milchberg, professor of physics and electrical and computer engineering at the University of Maryland, wants to do.

In a paper published in the July 2014 issue of the journal Optica, Milchberg and his lab report using an “air waveguide” to enhance light signals collected from distant sources. These air waveguides could have many applications, including long-range laser communications, detecting pollution in the atmosphere, making high-resolution topographic maps and laser weapons.

Milchberg’s air waveguides consist of a “wall” of low-density air surrounding a core of higher density air. The wall has a lower refractive index than the core—just like an optical fiber. In the Optica paper, Milchberg, physics graduate students Eric Rosenthal and Nihal Jhajj, and associate research scientist Jared Wahlstrand, broke down the air with a laser to create a spark. An air waveguide conducted light from the spark to a detector about a meter away. The researchers collected a strong enough signal to analyze the chemical composition of the air that produced the spark.

Cont.

http://cmns.umd.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/images/news/milchberg-image.jpg

FaultyMario
August 5th, 2014, 06:30 PM
Do you think, that confirmation (http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/oerjans-blog-leg-1)of us being pretty much fucked (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/climatologist-arctic-carbon-release-could-mean-%E2%80%9Cwere-fucked%E2%80%9D) over our irrational use of our planet will lead to some sort of financial catastrophe?

there's the craters in the russian arctic, most likely caused by the heating/release of sub-permafrost methane (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/scientists-may-have-cracked-the-giant-siberian-crater-mystery-and-the-news-isnt-good/?tid=pm_national_pop)these craters and plumes may be a sympton that we could be seeing too much fresh water poured (http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp) into the Atlantic.

Anyway, let's not hear much about methane hydrates (http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/energy/methane-hydrates/) in the future.

MR2 Fan
August 9th, 2014, 10:23 AM
Deep thought topic here...apologies in advance

I've been seeing tweets about A.I. recently by these guys...



Elon Musk

Hope we're not just the biological boot loader for digital superintelligence. Unfortunately, that is increasingly probable

While on the subject of AI risk, Our Final Invention by @jrbarrat is also worth reading

Worth reading Superintelligence by Bostrom. We need to be super careful with AI. Potentially more dangerous than nukes."


Neil deGrasse Tyson

Seems to me, as long as we don't program emotions into Robots, there's no reason to fear them taking over the world.


Always an interesting topic to me and plenty of Sci-Fi warnings. Both of these guys are in other fields, but they are leaders in those fields so I can't totally ignore their opinions.

One funny thing to me is the concept that several intelligent robots could decide that humans are the ones harming the earth and seek to get rid of us...but would this A.I. consider earth to be important, when related to the massive scale of the universe.

I mean, it is important because it is the only place that we know of supporting "natural" life...but A.I. is suddenly artificial life that may not rely on most of "nature" the way humans do.

I think in general, humans are much more primitive than we make ourselves out to be...and hence an A.I. that thinks on its own is potentially the most unpredictable thing, because we're limited by our humanism.

Dicknose
August 10th, 2014, 03:34 AM
The big danger is if we reach the "singularity", where development of AI is out of our control.
This would tend to imply the AI has control over both it's software and hardware.
Boot loader is a good description if we get left behind.

As for Neil's comment, it assumes we have to design for emotion. But what if it simply happens as an emergent property (ie unexpected side effect) of the AI?
Then again, emotion might be what saves us.

MR2 Fan
August 12th, 2014, 01:52 PM
Related to this, I finally watched "Transcendence", earlier this year's horribly rated movie about A.I. Well the critics and audiences were right.

I'm not sure how they were able take such an intriguing idea and turn it into such a boring, paint by numbers movie. They didn't even try to explain how all of these "breakthroughs" happened. Oh well.

Crazed_Insanity
August 13th, 2014, 10:00 AM
http://d3dsacqprgcsqh.cloudfront.net/photo/aQqw8Vq_460s.jpg

Just saw your post...

Just want to point out that religion isn't against science and isn't about promoting laziness. One can love science and love Jesus at the same time. Further, as I've pointed out long ago, most fathers of modern scientists were in fact Christians. Scientific community has became more atheistic recently, but same can be said about the general population.

As for laziness, famous religious folks such as mother Teresa or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. are also not the kind of people who'd pray all day while doing nothing. Belief in God doesn't mean we expect God to do everything so that we don't have to. Is it really necessary to put others down while promoting something? Anyway, my point is one shouldn't have to hate something in order to love something else.

Anyway, as for the AI part... personally, I think we're God's created 'AI'. We're very similar to God, but obviously not quite as perfect. It'll most likely impossible for us to end up creating artificial perfection as well... so whatever artificial smart creations that we created..., surely we have to tread carefully...

However, I don't think we're that close to creating a decent creepy AI at this point, or do we?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1Q8oFpX1Y

thesameguy
August 13th, 2014, 01:00 PM
I think that's obvious. Everyone knows that the only question about creating AI is whether it will lead to Skynet or the Matrix. Could go either way at this point. How close we are to that is moot. Continuing development of AI can only lead to one of these two eventualities. I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.

MR2 Fan
August 13th, 2014, 03:13 PM
Just saw your post...

Just want to point out that religion isn't against science and isn't about promoting laziness. One can love science and love Jesus at the same time. Further, as I've pointed out long ago, most fathers of modern scientists were in fact Christians. Scientific community has became more atheistic recently, but same can be said about the general population.

As for laziness, famous religious folks such as mother Teresa or Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. are also not the kind of people who'd pray all day while doing nothing. Belief in God doesn't mean we expect God to do everything so that we don't have to. Is it really necessary to put others down while promoting something? Anyway, my point is one shouldn't have to hate something in order to love something else.

Anyway, as for the AI part... personally, I think we're God's created 'AI'. We're very similar to God, but obviously not quite as perfect. It'll most likely impossible for us to end up creating artificial perfection as well... so whatever artificial smart creations that we created..., surely we have to tread carefully...

However, I don't think we're that close to creating a decent creepy AI at this point, or do we?



Has religion posed any great breakthroughs in the past few thousand years to advance civilization? no. In fact, in many ways just the opposite.

Also, "religion" can't be called a single entity the way you are. Science is made up of many different disciplines, yet are all part of the same overall entity. Religion is broken into thousands of factions, many of which hate each other, or claim the others are flat out "wrong".

I realize the sign I posted was referring both to a single entity, but it was also not trying to be 100% serious, just trying to prove a point.

Rare White Ape
August 13th, 2014, 06:19 PM
It's funny.

Science isn't against religion. Really, science (or nature) doesn't care. All science does is take in what it observes nature doing and create explanations to fit the data. If the data doesn't fit the explanation, then the explanation changes. Religious people have explanations for nature that date back thousands of years, and those explanations (gospel) stay rigid and unchanging.

But religious people are the ones creating ignorant discourse that questions or tries to suppress advancements in knowledge such as evolution, big bang cosmology, etc.

There are other interests that claim that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist, that fossil fuels don't pollute, that solar panels are not viable.

All this is despite evidence that all of these things are proven to exist.

They (religion and other interests) have something in common, in that they have something to lose if their point of view is proven to be wrong. They try to hold back society to keep their interests secure, rather than letting it go and allowing everyone else to progress into the future, and this makes me angry.

On the other hand, if it is found that god is proven to exist, or that the big bang never happened, or that climate change won't create any problems for the environment, then science will take that data and change its explanation to suit.

thesameguy
August 13th, 2014, 06:44 PM
I always wonder whether it's "religious people" creating the ignorance, or "the power mad under the guise of religion backed by people who are too confused or too uncaring to do anything about it" who are creating the ignorance. Frequently seems like the latter to me.

Rare White Ape
August 13th, 2014, 08:32 PM
You're probably very correct.

Crazed_Insanity
August 13th, 2014, 11:14 PM
Science cannot be held back forever by whatever political or religious ideology. likewise, i dont believe Jesus can be held back by anything. if something is true, it'll eventually bubble up to the top. can't cover up the truth forever.

Anyway, my real point was that this thread really should be about science. No need to involve religion here. If you feel necessary to bash religion, there's always the religion thread.

Kchrpm
August 14th, 2014, 06:25 AM
I always wonder whether it's "religious people" creating the ignorance, or "the power mad under the guise of religion backed by people who are too confused or too uncaring to do anything about it" who are creating the ignorance. Frequently seems like the latter to me.
This all the time.

LHutton
August 20th, 2014, 02:26 AM
http://i.imgur.com/2vPniva.gif

http://gizmodo.com/this-electron-gun-turns-titanium-powder-into-turbine-bl-1623144300


This Electron Gun Turns Titanium Powder Into Turbine Blades For Planes

LHutton
August 23rd, 2014, 01:30 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-rocket-powerful-enough-damage-nearby-buildings-launch-190226037.html


NASA’s New Rocket Is Powerful Enough To Damage Nearby Buildings At Launch

overpowered
August 25th, 2014, 12:15 PM
http://www.iflscience.com/space/there-are-still-people-who-believe-earth-flat-usa

Rare White Ape
August 25th, 2014, 02:48 PM
I bet many of them still enjoy watching live TV broadcasts from the other side of the world.

Dicknose
August 25th, 2014, 02:53 PM
We could prove it's not flat.
All take a photo on the same night of a crescent moon.
Then compare them.
The "up top" and "down under" photos will be different.

The article is right in that it sounds like it's a business.
Would be interested to know if there are people who truly believe it's a conspiracy.

tigeraid
August 26th, 2014, 06:54 AM
For fun, I started reading their facebook page. Flat Earth society or whateverthefuck.

The delusion is staggering, but from THEIR point of view, perfectly logical, because they believe anything that DOES prove the Earth is round is either a science "establishment" conspiracy, or false because our PERCEPTION is the only thing you can believe.

I truly hope none of these people work in any form of trade, or people's lives are regularly put in danger by them. "I can't SEE this nailgun producing nails, they just magically appear...."

Freude am Fahren
August 26th, 2014, 07:18 AM
Yeah, logic and facts just don't work on people like that. It seems so simple to most of us, but when you're that stupid...

Drachen596
August 26th, 2014, 07:36 AM
:thppt:LOOK the world is flat, it just has those edge warp things that send you to the other side like a Star Fox 64 Multiplayer Map!:assclown:

Rare White Ape
August 26th, 2014, 01:32 PM
If you draw a large enough triangle on the earth it will consist of three 90-degree angles.

#Ohmygodconspiracy

overpowered
August 29th, 2014, 08:08 AM
Ant hill art, made by pouring molten aluminum into ant hills, especially fire ant hills.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCslpm3Swt7AWO9cJ8c-EZYA

Dicknose
August 29th, 2014, 04:43 PM
If you draw a large enough triangle on the earth it will consist of three 90-degree angles.

#Ohmygodconspiracy
How do you get straight lines on that scale?

Rare White Ape
September 1st, 2014, 02:39 PM
You can't because you go over the horizon.

It's part of the round earth conspiracy.

Another way to look at it:

Using a two-coordinate system you get straight lines but they never meet up (visualise drawing a plot on a map).

But on a three-coordinate system (a sphere, which matches up to our three spatial dimensions) the lines meet up but they are curved across the face of the sphere.

overpowered
September 3rd, 2014, 09:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYcmVNrbMj0

Crazed_Insanity
September 4th, 2014, 08:56 AM
Wow. That's amazing!

However, how is it science related? :p

overpowered
September 4th, 2014, 10:14 AM
Studying insect behavior isn't science?

Crazed_Insanity
September 4th, 2014, 10:36 AM
Well, I was certainly impressed by the team work, but that 15s clip didn't really explain or show how those ants linked up together like that and how that helps move such massive score...

Anyway, don't mean to be so picky, it's just that if I were the 1st to discover this clip, I probably wouldn't post it in this thread that's all.

Drachen596
September 4th, 2014, 10:48 AM
BIOLOGY!

thesameguy
September 5th, 2014, 11:33 AM
Entomology!

LHutton
September 5th, 2014, 11:49 AM
They discovered a really big dinosaur carcass lately. My 10 cents on a Friday night.

Crazed_Insanity
September 5th, 2014, 01:05 PM
Entomology mixed with religion?

Behold, the awesome praying mantis!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hGuallLPcM

LHutton
September 6th, 2014, 09:21 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ao5SCedIk

Crazed_Insanity
September 8th, 2014, 09:11 AM
SR-71's engine is really a technological marvel. Supposedly it's top speed isn't limited by the engine because it's seemingly capable of producing more thrust the faster it goes...; however, its titanium airframe would simply melt if pilots push it any faster...

LHutton
September 8th, 2014, 12:06 PM
SR-71's engine is really a technological marvel. Supposedly it's top speed isn't limited by the engine because it's seemingly capable of producing more thrust the faster it goes...; however, its titanium airframe would simply melt if pilots push it any faster...
There are interesting pilot's stories mentioning speeds well over Mach 3.5.

I was honestly surprised that it wasn't operating as a pure ramjet at those speeds.

overpowered
September 8th, 2014, 02:30 PM
http://deepseanews.com/2014/01/triton-not-dive-or-dive-not-there-is-no-triton/

Godson
September 8th, 2014, 08:30 PM
Damn.

overpowered
September 9th, 2014, 10:32 AM
61% decrease in genital warts attributed to the Gardasil vaccine:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/gardasil-vaccine-success-against-genital-warts

It's still too early to tell on cervical cancer since that takes a lot longer to develop but this is promising.

Dicknose
September 10th, 2014, 02:39 AM
The whole "virus increases risk of cancer" was a massive break through.
Seemed crazy talk at first.

tigeraid
September 17th, 2014, 11:56 AM
Good read. All I have to say is, thank Zeus Cosmos was around.


http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/08/20/shark-week-goes-belly-up/



Clearly, money talks and scientists and teachers have no influence any more, because this last “Shark Week,” Discovery Channel doubled down on the “fake-umentaries” and “docu-fiction”. First, they released a video hoax onto YouTube supposedly showing a shark in Lake Ontario, all to build publicity for “Shark Week”. Then, as a sequel to the original “Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives”, they ran a new show called “Megalodon: The New Evidence”. Nothing in it qualified as “evidence”—it was just additional faked footage and more faked “eyewitness accounts” performed by actors. Many of my colleagues who actually work on these fossils, and frequently speak to the public say they’re now overwhelmed with questions from everyone, kids to adults, all convinced that the giant shark is still alive. Many not willing to believe a fossil shark expert right in front of them vs. a TV program that was pure fiction.


But this goes beyond creating entirely hoaxed shows with faked footage and actors from fictional “institutes” pretending to be real scientists on camera. Even more despicable is their practice of “bait and switch” filming, where they sit down and film a scientist on the pretext of doing a legitimate interview, but then take a tiny clip from hours of footage out of context and make the scientist appear foolish by seemingly saying something that supports their outlandish claims. A number of scientists have now come forward and documented that the interviewers misled them and the viewers by showing them as representing views that are not scientific.

This is comparable to the numerous “stealth creationist” film operations out there, which invite legitimate scientists and scholars to an interview under false pretexts, then film hours of footage with leading questions that might force the scientist to say something that can be edited out of context to sound like a support for creationism. That’s exactly how Ben Stein and his crew lured Michael Shermer, Genie Scott, P.Z. Myers, Will Provine, and even Richard Dawkins to agree to an interview with them—they called the project something else and completely hid their creationist agenda. Then when “Expelled” came out, you could clearly see that the quotes were out of context or that they were not really supporting the claim that Stein would drone into the camera. Now it is to the point that we scientists must be very careful about which documentary filmmakers we agree to work with. Not only are some of them stealth creationists, but even legitimate documentarians are now rewarded by sensationalizing their product and quoting us out of context.

Crazed_Insanity
September 17th, 2014, 12:04 PM
Good read too! Scientists prove that there's life after death!

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/german-scientists-prove-there-is-life-after-death/

JoshInKC
September 17th, 2014, 12:14 PM
Unsurprisingly, that's nonsense. from the "Disclaimer" link at the top of the page: (http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/)

Disclaimer

World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.
- See more at: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/#sthash.9X7UNgxA.dpuf Bolding mine
Also, the Dr mentioned does not appear to have existed prior to the existence of this news story.

tigeraid
September 17th, 2014, 01:41 PM
I.... I....

Good god I really hope Billi had tongue in cheek for that post.

Fucking World News Daily? Have you lived under a rock your whole life? Those are the same shitheads who chase "Bat Boy" around the Southern states.

Rare White Ape
September 19th, 2014, 05:21 PM
Good read. All I have to say is, thank Zeus Cosmos was around.


http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/08/20/shark-week-goes-belly-up/

Nothing good has ever come from Discovery Channel, or Nat Geo, or the History Channel.

Nothing good, unless you like Killer Secret Nazi War Machines of Hitler's Last Inner Circle Days, or if you like Killer Hurricanes of Death Tornado Tsunami Earthquake Disasters, or if you like Shark Lazer Secret Extinct Tornadoes Snakes on a Plane, or Secret Egyptian Tombs of Death Slavery, or any of the above but with added Nazis.

Freude am Fahren
September 19th, 2014, 05:33 PM
Umm, Planet Earth? Plenty has come from those channels. Just not in the last 5 years or so.

tigeraid
September 20th, 2014, 05:23 AM
Agreed. Old Discovery was great. And even Mythbusters, yes, dubious scientific method at times, but fun and educational. Lately the whole channel has turned to complete garbage.

Random
September 20th, 2014, 09:19 AM
Wings!

Freude am Fahren
September 20th, 2014, 08:59 PM
YES. I think they actually made a Wings channel, though I don't think it's widely distributed.

LHutton
September 28th, 2014, 09:41 AM
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/28/the-worlds-first-genetically-modified-babies-will-graduate-high-school-this-year/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000591


The World’s First Genetically Modified Babies Will Graduate High School This Year

overpowered
October 3rd, 2014, 04:01 PM
http://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570

Dicknose
October 3rd, 2014, 04:15 PM
Cool.
Written by someone from my uni.
Actually had a double take because I thought a friend of mine was prof of astrophysics there.
Turns out he is head of physics, so this guys boss.

Rare White Ape
October 3rd, 2014, 11:18 PM
The conversation does really good articles in that vein.

I read one this morning that dealt with common mistakes in interpreting research, like biases and fallacies. It blew my mind!

Well, not really, but it did highlight a bunch of things that I would never fall for.

overpowered
October 6th, 2014, 03:38 PM
Yo! Magnets bitch!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BBx8BwLhqg

Crazed_Insanity
October 9th, 2014, 07:31 AM
Good read too! Scientists prove that there's life after death!

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/german-scientists-prove-there-is-life-after-death/

Wow, this time is for real, right?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/near-death-experience-study-suggests-awareness-continues-aft#3bpgjxe

Dicknose
October 9th, 2014, 01:23 PM
Death is a very hard thing to define.
Is it that surprising that your brain partially functions for a while after blood flow is stopped?
It's not a simple on/off device.
Sleep, feinting, general anesthesia - lots of different ways for the brain to shut down higher level functioning.
It's interesting but not hardly surprising that it might go through some steps in shutting down as part of dying (or near death)
Obviously very hard to question those who do die.

Do any of you notice your thoughts just before/as falling asleep?
Sometimes I do and if I have a moment of waking up I can be aware of what I was thinking. And it's weird.
They are usually extremely random and unrelated to anything I was thinking about before starting to fall asleep.
Most don't even make real sense.
I'd guess the "thinking" part is turning off a bit at a time and the remaing parts still struggle on but get very confused.

Crazed_Insanity
October 9th, 2014, 01:46 PM
Besides NDE, I do wonder if our physical brain is really what's controlling us... or is our brain simply another "organ" that we can use to our advantage. For example, if we are happy, then we smile. Research has also shown that if we force a smile, it can also make our brains happier. So who's controlling what?

Our real consciousness will probably be very difficult for scientists to grasp... wonder which will we figure out first... the mystery of our universe or the mystery of our minds. Maybe they're linked somehow... ;)

mk
October 10th, 2014, 08:22 AM
Happiness is a state of limbic system that has no time.

CPR is a manual heart-lung machine.

Back in the day some hospitals put A4 size letters above cabinets and so, and changed them regularly also.
(no info how NDE folks saw them)

overpowered
October 13th, 2014, 03:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXq0ao2GmrQ

Dicknose
October 15th, 2014, 03:24 AM
Sublime!

LHutton
October 16th, 2014, 11:17 AM
Skunk Works Reveals Compact Fusion Reactor Details | Technology content from Aviation Week ('http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details')

Dubbed the compact fusion reactor (CFR), the device is conceptually safer, cleaner and more powerful than much larger, current nuclear systems that rely on fission, the process of splitting atoms to release energy. Crucially, by being “compact,” Lockheed believes its scalable concept will also be small and practical enough for applications ranging from interplanetary spacecraft and commercial ships to city power stations. It may even revive the concept of large, nuclear-powered aircraft that virtually never require refueling—ideas of which were largely abandoned more than 50 years ago because of the dangers and complexities involved with nuclear fission reactors.

...

Although the company released limited information on the CFR in 2013, Lockheed is now providing new details of its invention. Aviation Week was given exclusive access to view the Skunk Works experiment, dubbed “T4,” first hand. Led by Thomas McGuire, an aeronautical engineer in the Skunk Work’s aptly named Revolutionary Technology Programs unit, the current experiments are focused on a containment vessel roughly the size of a business-jet engine.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/10/Compact%20Fusion%20Reactor%20Diagram_0.png
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/10/AW_10_20_2014_3719_1.jpg

LHutton
October 16th, 2014, 11:20 AM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/scientists-bashing-lockheed-martins-nuclear-232518813.html

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/BTzgL_iLfy1bi4VFcGnLrQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Scientists_Are_Bashing_Lockheed_Martin%27s-d0eee437cb6b2e58eb02cd6223a33463


Researchers at Lockheed Martin Corp.'s Skunk Works, announced on Wednesday their ongoing work on a new technology that could bring about functional nuclear reactors powered by fusion in the next 10 years.

But most scientists and science communicators we talked to are skeptical of the claim.

"The nuclear engineering clearly fails to be cost effective," Tom Jarboe told Business Insider in an email. Jarboe is a professor of aeronautics and astronautics, an adjunct professor in physics, and a researcher with the University of Washington's nuclear fusion experiment.

overpowered
October 17th, 2014, 02:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS53yy_2R0Q

overpowered
October 22nd, 2014, 03:35 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izko8eu0HqA

Rare White Ape
October 23rd, 2014, 03:09 AM
Stuff about fusion

It's very interesting, and I hope this comes off.

But I'll believe it when I get my first power bill that lists fusion as one of my energy sources.

It's always ten years away. Whenever anyone ever talks about the future of energy, fusion is always listed as being ten years away.

So close, yet so far.

LHutton
October 23rd, 2014, 04:40 AM
It's very interesting, and I hope this comes off.

But I'll believe it when I get my first power bill that lists fusion as one of my energy sources.

It's always ten years away. Whenever anyone ever talks about the future of energy, fusion is always listed as being ten years away.

So close, yet so far.
True, it was ten years away 30 years ago.

overpowered
October 28th, 2014, 02:46 PM
What could possibly go wrong?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12fR9neVnS8

Rare White Ape
October 29th, 2014, 04:36 AM
The Russians could make sugar rockets without them blowing up, I'll bet.

LHutton
October 30th, 2014, 01:25 AM
The Russians could make sugar rockets without them blowing up, I'll bet.
I bet they wouldn't have some private contractor using refurbished 50 year-old rocket engines either.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/28/antares-rocket-explodes-nasa-launch-pad-orbital-science


“Their rocket honestly sounds like the punchline to a joke,” said Elon Musk, founder of rival SpaceX, in an interview in 2012. “It uses Russian rocket engines that were made in the 60s. I don’t mean their design is from the 60s — I mean they start with engines that were literally made in the 60s and, like, packed away in Siberia somewhere.”

LHutton
November 2nd, 2014, 04:54 AM
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/193343-darpa-creates-first-1thz-computer-chip-earns-guinness-world-record

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/guinness-world-records-original-darpa-1thz-chip-170x300.jpg ('http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/guinness-world-records-original-darpa-1thz-chip.jpg')
Official PR image for DARPA’s World Record 1THz chip. Yup.

The DARPA/Northop chip reportedly has excellent properties, with a gain of 9dB at 1THz, and 10dB at 1.03THz. “Gains of six decibels or more start to move this research from the laboratory bench to practical applications — nine decibels of gain is unheard of at terahertz frequencies” says Dev Palmer, DARPA’s THz Electronics ('http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/MTO/Programs/THz_Electronics.aspx') program manager. “This opens up new possibilities for building terahertz radio circuits.”

A solid-state amplifier is just one piece of the terahertz puzzle, of course. To actually create usable T-rays, you need a complete transceiver and antenna — and I don’t think DARPA is quite there yet. Still, the creation of transistors that are capable of switching at 1,000GHz, however, is exciting. This doesn’t mean that you’re going to magically start seeing computers that operate in the 1THz range — the power requirements and heat dissipation would be utterly insane — but we can at least begin to sketch a roadmap towards a future where everything from computers, to networks, to surveillance and medical imaging are supercharged way beyond what is currently possible.

Rare White Ape
November 2nd, 2014, 11:56 AM
I bet they wouldn't have some private contractor using refurbished 50 year-old rocket engines either.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/oct/28/antares-rocket-explodes-nasa-launch-pad-orbital-science

Roscosmos (Russia's space agency) was keen to point out that the rocket engines were Ukranian. Funny political point.

overpowered
November 4th, 2014, 10:01 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

overpowered
November 6th, 2014, 10:19 AM
https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/63733_987277647965549_8522755205499691319_n.jpg?oh =7ccafc79b044dd78395f98a6e2136d92&oe=54EE1C2A

Dicknose
November 6th, 2014, 11:16 AM
I have a hippo repellant that works.
Use it every day and never had a hippo attack me.

Crazed_Insanity
November 6th, 2014, 11:28 AM
No thanks. We don't believe in hippos anyway.

Godson
November 6th, 2014, 08:16 PM
https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/63733_987277647965549_8522755205499691319_n.jpg?oh =7ccafc79b044dd78395f98a6e2136d92&oe=54EE1C2A

I am laughing so hard I am crying right now.

Rare White Ape
November 6th, 2014, 10:35 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

Pffft. Been there, done that, NASA. Get with the times, will ya?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk

overpowered
November 6th, 2014, 10:59 PM
Too fuzzy. 1080p!

LHutton
November 7th, 2014, 01:31 AM
Apparently genetically determined gut microbes determine whether we're fat. Heard it on Ch4 news here last night.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-help-make-us-fat-and-thin/

Godson
November 7th, 2014, 08:30 AM
I thought we had decided the was a large relation to that a long time ago....

overpowered
November 12th, 2014, 12:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRngPHRj0vA

FaultyMario
November 12th, 2014, 10:26 AM
Kraken!

21Kid
November 12th, 2014, 10:31 AM
That's not really new. :? Isn't that the same as what we've been using for 20+ years as fireworks? Maybe called can of worms, or wiggle worms, or Black Snake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_snake_(firework))?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGSidkWhnmU

Freude am Fahren
November 12th, 2014, 03:36 PM
Yeah, thermite is more fun.

overpowered
November 19th, 2014, 01:07 PM
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/what-happens-if-10-ml-elemental-mercury-injected-intravenously

http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/styles/ifls_large/public/blog/%5Bnid%5D/Mercury.png?itok=gijv027U

Godson
November 19th, 2014, 06:44 PM
Should have done her research....

Rare White Ape
November 20th, 2014, 01:44 AM
The best part about I Fucking Love Science is the ad under that story that says Aussies can buy iPads for $29.

LHutton
November 20th, 2014, 01:49 AM
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/what-happens-if-10-ml-elemental-mercury-injected-intravenously
Off the same link I found this. Gets funnier towards the last slide.

http://caliser.com/before-after-marijuana-11-horrifying-images/1/

overpowered
November 26th, 2014, 03:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTzZBzQg2Rw

Godson
November 27th, 2014, 10:31 AM
neat

overpowered
December 4th, 2014, 07:04 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPBBEOqvsPA

overpowered
December 8th, 2014, 01:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs

Crazed_Insanity
December 10th, 2014, 07:47 AM
Ha! What a cool video. Earth can be both round and flat depend on how you look at it. So flat earthers need to travel at speeds close to light in order show that earth is flat.

Freude am Fahren
December 10th, 2014, 08:21 AM
Nah, that's BS. If I look at something with poor vision, it doesn't mean that thing is blurry. Appearing and being are not one and the same.

Crazed_Insanity
December 10th, 2014, 09:29 AM
Remember time isn't absolute. Regardless of whether a proton's wearing glasses or not, relative to a photon, earth would be like a flat round disc.

tigeraid
December 10th, 2014, 10:24 AM
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg

Dicknose
December 10th, 2014, 11:30 AM
And to another photon traveling in a different direction it would be flat in that direction.

The only way to look like a flat disc from every direction is to be a sphere.

Godson
December 10th, 2014, 06:07 PM
Funny, because protons can't see....

Rare White Ape
December 10th, 2014, 11:11 PM
What if earth is just projecting a false flat disc to what ever frame of reference a luminal being is viewing it from, and earth is just a singularity at the centre?

It would certainly be doing that to test our faith.

Crazed_Insanity
December 11th, 2014, 08:43 AM
And to another photon traveling in a different direction it would be flat in that direction.

The only way to look like a flat disc from every direction is to be a sphere.

From a different frame of reference, you will see a different reality. It'd be difficult to convince a photon that earth is round..., just as it'd be difficult to convince us that earth is flat. If we're all traveling at near speed of light, flat earthers would have a better chance convincing folks that earth is flat.

Point is that under certain circumstances, science can be used to support the claim that earth is flat, but of course most people now know that earth is round.

Similarly, I think scientific theories could be used to show that physical creation of the universe could literally be only few days old if you're out side of the universe, but while inside our expansive universe, of course it's been billions of years old.

All this is because time isn't absolute...

Crazed_Insanity
December 11th, 2014, 08:49 AM
What if earth is just projecting a false flat disc to what ever frame of reference a luminal being is viewing it from, and earth is just a singularity at the centre?

It would certainly be doing that to test our faith.

It's certainly possible that it's all just a simulation. As scientists discover more things, the Architect of this Matrix just keep on coming up with stuffs to throw us off! Maybe it's like a game of chess... the Architect wanted to see if He or She can create something that can outsmart him or her... if someday scientists were to answer all of the mysteries of the universe then the game would be over! :p

MR2 Fan
December 11th, 2014, 02:48 PM
:popcorn: :? :| :smh:

Godson
December 11th, 2014, 08:57 PM
What the fucking fuck.

LHutton
December 12th, 2014, 11:49 AM
Science explain the Monk's head at 0:20???


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e4rB7xzzY0

Crazed_Insanity
December 12th, 2014, 12:08 PM
Maybe he knows "Iron Head", that's why he didn't think he needs to defend his head in a fight?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHPub8WdLvQ

"Qi" or "Chi", literal meaning is 'gas'. Similar to "Force" in Star Wars. Can be summoned or focused onto a particular way to strengthen for defensive or offensive purposes. I've also seen Qi masters able to move or level a crowd of people.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVdANNX2zP4

Having crowd of people just fall over is almost like watching some of those crazy Evangelical Christians fall over during services too... So Chinese Christians tend to view QiGong as people utilizing "evil spirits" to do their things... I guess anything other than Holy Spirit would be classified as evil spirits.

Anyway, there are lots of things that can't be explained by science at the moment. Chinese accupuncture also baffles western doctors, but it does work pretty well medically.

Leon
December 12th, 2014, 01:10 PM
Obvious overacting is obvious.

Crazed_Insanity
December 12th, 2014, 01:24 PM
For something like acupuncture, healing of the sick cannot be faked.

As for Qi Gong, yeah, it is possible that it's all just a show. Fake crowds, fake iron bars(or knotched iron bars), but unless that kick boxing match is also fixed, you gotta admit that was pretty impressive. Still, if he really is a Qi Master, why couldn't he use the "force" to deliver a knock out win quickly?

I don't completely buy into this Qi thing... because after all China was thoroughly trashed by western fire power during wars. Qi Masters were not able to overcome the evil empires that invaded them. However, I'm not willing to completely write it off either. There are just too many of these unexplained spiritual forces at work. Besides China, India has Yogi masters. Of course in western cultures, there are the crazy evangelical Christians.

overpowered
December 15th, 2014, 04:11 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bumUw0lNOz0