DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: rumborak on July 25, 2013, 11:38:58 AM

Title: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 25, 2013, 11:38:58 AM
Ok, let's try this again. Post cool stuff you read here and there about science and nature.

I'll start:

1) Scroll down a bit, there's a woman putting on sunscreen while being filmed by a camera that only sees UV light. So cool.

https://www.lifepixel.com/galleries/uv-ultraviolet-photography-gallery

2) "Mudskippers", fish that evolved the capability to walk on land. It's eerily close to all those depictions of evolution where you see a fish dragging itself onto land:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAz7iMcC8e0
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 26, 2013, 10:48:06 AM
Bummer. Nobody is interested in this kind of stuff?  :(
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Big Hath on July 26, 2013, 10:55:29 AM
that lady needs to eat something
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 26, 2013, 11:47:45 AM
Because she isn't overweight?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Dr. DTVT on July 26, 2013, 12:03:09 PM
I love the Nat Geo stuff.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Perpetual Change on July 26, 2013, 12:08:15 PM
I need to learn more about the sciences. Starting by reading Bill Bryon's history.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sigz on July 26, 2013, 12:09:31 PM
Ok, let's try this again. Post cool stuff you read here and there about science and nature.

I'll start:

1) Scroll down a bit, there's a woman putting on sunscreen while being filmed by a camera that only sees UV light. So cool.

https://www.lifepixel.com/galleries/uv-ultraviolet-photography-gallery

Oh man, that's awesome. I mean, it's precisely what you'd expect, but still really cool to actually see it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Big Hath on July 26, 2013, 12:12:03 PM
Because she isn't overweight?

look at her shoulder/arm in that bottom pic.  Does that look right to you?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 26, 2013, 02:00:24 PM
Yeah, it does to me. She is skinny, sure, but she just happens to have an angular face.
If I  may say so, it looks to me that due to the obesity epidemic your "normal" has shifted to the point where a skinny person looks anorexic to you.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 26, 2013, 02:02:51 PM
I need to learn more about the sciences. Starting by reading Bill Bryon's history.

I finally finished MLK's autobiography yesterday, which means I can return to Brian Greene's latest book about the origins of the universe. I love reading that stuff, even though I expect a ton of stuff I already know.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: sueño on July 26, 2013, 02:20:34 PM
Yeah, it does to me. She is skinny, sure, but she just happens to have an angular face.
If I  may say so, it looks to me that due to the obesity epidemic your "normal" has shifted to the point where a skinny person looks anorexic to you.

I don't know...in that last picture, the lady's right arm/shoulder looks so thin as to be deformed.

(https://www.lifepixel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/visible-light-vs-uv-light-skin-portrait1.jpg)     :omg:

Her face is fine.

Very cool site, though!   :tup
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sigz on July 26, 2013, 03:47:51 PM
This is pretty cool: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/50-000-year-old-forest-of-fresh-trees-found-in-4657102.php
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Rattlehead on July 26, 2013, 05:00:20 PM
Because she isn't overweight?

look at her shoulder/arm in that bottom pic.  Does that look right to you?

She looks a little bony and underweight to me too... but we are Americans after all, so that must mean that the obesity epidemic has completely skewed our perception of this matter.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: wasteland on July 26, 2013, 05:04:56 PM
A very cool bit about the lady's UV pic:

Quote
You can also see that the eyes appear entirely black in the UV image, this is because eye chromophores absorb UV rays for protection against UV light damage.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: sueño on July 26, 2013, 05:19:13 PM
Because she isn't overweight?

look at her shoulder/arm in that bottom pic.  Does that look right to you?

She looks a little bony and underweight to me too... but we are Americans after all, so that must mean that the obesity epidemic has completely skewed our perception of this matter.

Her chest looks rather concave, as well.   ???
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TempusVox on July 26, 2013, 10:27:23 PM
Yeah...she needs to eat more than a couple lf almonds for lunch. Has nothing to do with the American obesity epidemic..Jesus...she's incredibly skinny. Bony in fact. But the UV absorption thing is cool. Anyhoo! Back on topic.

If this thing came out of the woods and approached me, I think I'd wet myself getting away from it. Very cool though.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz4HXyxcess
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 28, 2013, 11:02:51 AM
This is pretty cool: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/50-000-year-old-forest-of-fresh-trees-found-in-4657102.php

Interesting. Bummer that the article doesn't explain the mechanism of the preserved underwater forests. It seems to me the forest must have suddenly been buried under the water, since a gradual water level rise would just slowly have killed off the trees.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Ħ on July 28, 2013, 11:13:10 AM
Skinny is good. That skinny is bleach
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: millahh on July 28, 2013, 12:51:27 PM
This is pretty cool: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/50-000-year-old-forest-of-fresh-trees-found-in-4657102.php

Interesting. Bummer that the article doesn't explain the mechanism of the preserved underwater forests. It seems to me the forest must have suddenly been buried under the water, since a gradual water level rise would just slowly have killed off the trees.

I was wondering that as well...I'm figuring the area was below sea level at the time, and whatever earthen dam was holding back the water broke in some catastrophic event and flooded the whole region.  that's pretty much the only way I can figure that it would go from dry to anoxic quickly enough to have this kind of preservation occur.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on July 28, 2013, 01:00:20 PM
Following, epic thread :tup
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sigz on July 28, 2013, 04:30:07 PM
This is pretty cool: https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/50-000-year-old-forest-of-fresh-trees-found-in-4657102.php

Interesting. Bummer that the article doesn't explain the mechanism of the preserved underwater forests. It seems to me the forest must have suddenly been buried under the water, since a gradual water level rise would just slowly have killed off the trees.

I was wondering that as well...I'm figuring the area was below sea level at the time, and whatever earthen dam was holding back the water broke in some catastrophic event and flooded the whole region.  that's pretty much the only way I can figure that it would go from dry to anoxic quickly enough to have this kind of preservation occur.

There's a more in depth article here https://www.livescience.com/37977-underwater-cypress-forest-discovered.html

Quote
The Bald Cypress forest was buried under ocean sediments, protected in an oxygen-free environment for more than 50,000 years, but was likely uncovered by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, said Ben Raines, one of the first divers to explore the underwater forest and the executive director of the nonprofit Weeks Bay Foundation, which researches estuaries.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 28, 2013, 04:53:29 PM
I think that explains why the forest was conserved long term, but I think the immediate conservation is still mysterious to me. Anything gradual would have rotted the trees.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 29, 2013, 07:59:24 PM
For once some positive news when it comes to CO2: They are testing CO2 sequestration in basalt.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pilot-projects-bury-co2-in-basalt
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on July 30, 2013, 08:58:31 AM
I find that I get a lot of my interesting science facts from xkcd recently.  Apparently, there is a canyon larger than the Grand Canyon buried in sediment in the lower Nile river valley.  This was discovered when core samples were drilled for construction of the Aswan dam while looking for bedrock.  The bedrock near the river banks was under about 30 feet of sediment, whereas in the center of the river, it was 900 feet below sediment. Further down river, it is much deeper.

https://groups.yahoo.com/group/InPursuitofWisdom/message/3821

Summary from the link:

A vast deep canyon, which five million years ago looked like the Grand Canyon of Arizona, lies buried under Cairo, and extends southward for 600 miles to Aswan, Egypt, where its further path is lost.

More info   https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/remsens/Nile/geology.html
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 30, 2013, 09:22:38 AM
Dang, that is huge. I just looked up where that dam is that marks the end of the canyon, and it's at the southern tip of Egypt!  :omg:
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on July 30, 2013, 02:15:34 PM
For once some positive news when it comes to CO2: They are testing CO2 sequestration in basalt.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pilot-projects-bury-co2-in-basalt
CO2 sequestration in olivine works great! https://www.smartplanet.com/blog/savvy-scientist/throwing-rocks-at-co2/275 and https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/39497/kwon_soonchul_201105_phd.pdf
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on August 01, 2013, 07:10:08 AM
(https://amyshirateitel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Earth-from-Cassini-Rings-NASA.jpg)

Quote from: https://amyshirateitel.com/2013/07/30/a-photographic-history-of-our-pale-blue-dot/
The Earth as seen by NASA’s Cassini Spacecraft on July 19, 2013. Were the small dot, halfway down the image and slightly to the right. Saturn and its rings are in the foreground. The blue haze is sunlight refracting from Saturn E ring, which is made of material shot into space from the moon Enceladus. Credit: NASA

And a slideshow of images of the earth from space... the first from 1946!
https://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/pale-blue-dots-space-missions-pictures-130723.htm
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on August 01, 2013, 07:36:42 AM
(https://amyshirateitel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Earth-from-Cassini-Rings-NASA.jpg)
Quote from: https://amyshirateitel.com/2013/07/30/a-photographic-history-of-our-pale-blue-dot/
The Earth as seen by NASA’s Cassini Spacecraft on July 19, 2013. Were the small dot, halfway down the image and slightly to the right. Saturn and its rings are in the foreground. The blue haze is sunlight refracting from Saturn E ring, which is made of material shot into space from the moon Enceladus. Credit: NASA

And a slideshow of images of the earth from space... the first from 1946!
https://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/pale-blue-dots-space-missions-pictures-130723.htm
Awesome stuff!  :metal

Remainder that we have a space and astronomy thread:

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=35392.0
 :)


Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on August 01, 2013, 11:00:21 AM
Great idea for a thread. Thank you.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 01, 2013, 11:10:40 AM
I fucking love science!

(https://mommacommaphd.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/funny-captions-neil-degrasse-tyson-science-is-awesome1.jpg)

(https://www.rugusavay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Carl-Sagan-Quotes-1.jpg)

(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6938373120/hCB19E78E/)

(https://i.qkme.me/36jgcc.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 01, 2013, 11:19:40 AM
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6938373120/hCB19E78E/)

Woooord.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 01, 2013, 11:21:14 AM
*snip*

Woooord.

In high school I wanted to use "I don't want to believe, I want to know" by Carl Sagan... the school denied it because it was too controversial.... pussies.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 02, 2013, 06:57:43 AM
This is my favorite quote ever, and I praise whoever made the cartoon to go along with it.

The coolest part is that the kid in it is Carl Sagan and the library story is one he used to tell all the time.  :heart

(https://i.huffpost.com/gen/1275392/original.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 02, 2013, 07:55:34 AM
Just ordered one of these bad boys. I've never worn an article of clothing with profanity on it and usually bitch about people who do #hypocrite.

(https://images.sunfrogshirts.com/fing-science-t-shirt-black.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Implode on August 02, 2013, 02:35:04 PM
Tyson is coming to my school this fall! :metal
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on August 04, 2013, 08:19:30 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaMWxLCGY0U

Video of liquid gallium alloying with aluminum, making it no stronger than wet cardboard.

Also, unrelated,
I need to read more Carl Sagan.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: millahh on August 04, 2013, 08:50:08 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaMWxLCGY0U

Video of liquid gallium alloying with aluminum, making it no stronger than wet cardboard.

I've just spent the last 20 minutes watching the videos on that guy's Youtube channel.

I feel like I should have taken more advantage of the opportunities to just screw around like that in grad school...especially with the unfettered access to as much liquid nitrogen as my heart desired, and plenty of late nights in lab with few people around to raise "safety concerns".
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 04, 2013, 01:20:34 PM
We had one cryo experiment in the whole of my EE master's program, but I didn't get to do it :(
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on August 06, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
Lab grown burger.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23576143)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on August 06, 2013, 03:32:03 PM
This can't end well.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on August 06, 2013, 03:42:42 PM
With regard to photos of other planets, etc.

When I see photos of Mars, for example, I would like to know how the image has been altered, if at all.  Of course, there is no such thing as "unaltered" since many images contain non-visible wavelengths, but it would be interesting to know whether an image is displayed as the human eye would see it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 06, 2013, 03:52:16 PM
This can't end well.

That can only end in success and will result in millions of tons of methane not being released into the atmosphere. We will also be able to eat legitimate meat once humans start travelling to Mars.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 06, 2013, 05:58:35 PM
Let alone the ethical considerations of eating meat.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 06, 2013, 08:26:26 PM
Let alone the ethical considerations of eating meat.

I'm sure uneducated/uniformed people will still argue that you are eating a living being because the cells are growing and reproducing... completely unaware of the fact that it's no different than what's going on in a fruit or vegetable.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 09, 2013, 10:36:50 PM
Dolphins remember each other even after not having seen for 20 years:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130806203146.htm
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: aprilethereal on August 10, 2013, 02:19:12 AM
Following this thread
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jsem on August 12, 2013, 05:24:44 AM
I want test tube burgers now. With some test tube bacon on top.

Seriously though, ethically, environmentally etc, test tube meat is nothing but brilliance.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on August 12, 2013, 09:18:33 AM
I want test tube burgers now. With some test tube bacon on top.

Seriously though, ethically, environmentally etc, test tube meat is nothing but brilliance.
Yes, it is.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 12, 2013, 12:22:54 PM
I want test tube burgers now. With some test tube bacon on top.

Seriously though, ethically, environmentally etc, test tube meat is nothing but brilliance.
Yes, it is.

And is more or less the solution to having a meat supply in space. It may arguably end up being one of humankinds' greatest achievements,
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on August 12, 2013, 01:22:34 PM
Yes, if it comes to that. It may take some time before we actually go colonising other planets (a lot of time), but test tube meat would be a #1 solution for at least part of the food problems.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 12, 2013, 01:30:14 PM
4:30 PM (eastern time)

ELON MUSK UNVEILS HYPERLOOOOOOOOOOP !!!

(https://media.giphy.com/media/SKfPndVEMrXd6/200.gif)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 12, 2013, 02:25:29 PM
Oooh, sounds interesting, I had not heard of that.

Please don't let it be one of these guys:

(https://www.diseno-art.com/images/mcLean-V8-Monowheel.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 12, 2013, 02:45:09 PM
4:30 PM (eastern time)

ELON MUSK UNVEILS HYPERLOOOOOOOOOOP !!!

(https://media.giphy.com/media/SKfPndVEMrXd6/200.gif)

https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf

edit*

Just read through that document.

Holy. Shit.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 12, 2013, 03:05:25 PM
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/tube_of_death_zpsf499a84d.jpg) (https://smg.photobucket.com/user/rumborak/media/tube_of_death_zpsf499a84d.jpg.html)

45 minutes strapped in a tube you can't stand up in? Hmm, no.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on August 12, 2013, 03:10:35 PM
It's a great idea, though.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 12, 2013, 06:02:26 PM
[/URL]

45 minutes strapped in a tube you can't stand up in? Hmm, no.

I strap myself onto a couch and don't get up for hours at a time.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 12, 2013, 07:28:15 PM
How do you take a leak inn those things? Or, what happens if somebody has a claustrophobic attack?

Nah. Any means of transportation needs a fast way of getting out. In a car you pull over, in trains and planes you get out of the seat and go to the bathroom.
Technically, I also found his solution for earthquakes rather dismissive. At those speeds even the tiniest shift gets magnified.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on August 13, 2013, 01:01:33 AM
How do you take a leak inn those things? Or, what happens if somebody has a claustrophobic attack?

I would definitely get claustrophobic in that thing.
It doesn't look like it would fit any decent amount of luggage either (unless I skipped some part where it mentions storage), not to mention that people are getting larger, so I can only imagine how much worse that would be. And I hope it has a good air system, because imagine being stuck in an enclosed space with some stinky dude.

Seems like a lot of infrastructure for something with many potential limitations compared to other transportation methods.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 13, 2013, 03:51:58 AM
Storage was definitely in the PDF. I'd look, but I'm half asleep using an iPad on the toilet. No thanks lol.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on August 13, 2013, 03:57:24 AM
Ah yeah, it is mentioned in the text that there would be a luggage compartment in either the front/rear of the thing, with a luggage limit of 2 bags per person, no more than 50kg/110lb in total. I was judging by the diagrams when I did my initial skim.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 13, 2013, 07:34:26 AM
Iv think we should rather focus in reducing the number of people traveling from coast to coast for no purpose other than to present some slides in front of a few people.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 13, 2013, 08:00:56 AM
Iv think we should rather focus in reducing the number of people traveling from coast to coast for no purpose other than to present some slides in front of a few people.

 :rollin

Funny you say that. My dad was just bitching about this last weekend. Last week, he flew to California and back (we are in CT) in less than a 24 hour period, just so he could attend a 3 hour meeting with some higher-ups.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Nekov on August 13, 2013, 08:04:16 AM
Super hydrophibic nanotech  :omg:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPM8OR6W6WE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPM8OR6W6WE)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on August 13, 2013, 08:57:55 AM
Iv think we should rather focus in reducing the number of people traveling from coast to coast for no purpose other than to present some slides in front of a few people.
Absurd.  Last month I had no less than 10 people fly here for 3 days from 3 different parts of the country to view a presentation that I could have easily done through webex or something.  Each one, no doubt, had their own hotel room and rental car.  Even funnier, is that some were returning home for a few days only to repeat this process elsewhere in the country.

There is value in meeting with people face-to-face in these meetings, but it usually doesn't offset the expense of gathering all these people.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 13, 2013, 11:50:21 AM
My most absurd trip was a two-leg flight to San Antonio (leaving from Boston) with a coworker. Took about 6 hours flight or so to get down there, checked into hotel. Got up next morning, drove to army base to demo our software (which runs on Android phones). Arrive at the army base, sergeant greets us, takes our phones and tells us we can't stay on the base because we're not cleared. So, we drive back to the hotel, and fly back to Boston the next day.
Essentially, we were FedEx. Six man-days wasted on top.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on August 13, 2013, 12:29:31 PM
Iv think we should rather focus in reducing the number of people traveling from coast to coast for no purpose other than to present some slides in front of a few people.
I completely agree with you.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sketchy on August 14, 2013, 01:44:22 PM
https://www.nature.com/news/metric-for-consciousness-tracks-waking-states-1.13556

Neuro article about measuring brain activity to determine awakeness in brain damaged patients.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7462/full/nature12394.html

Genetics article on turning off the extra chromosome in Down's Syndrome.

https://www.nature.com/news/rare-star-probes-supermassive-black-hole-1.13560

Astro article on radio phenomena from a black hole.

Nature has some pretty boss articles today
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Fiery Winds on August 14, 2013, 03:47:36 PM
Iv think we should rather focus in reducing the number of people traveling from coast to coast for no purpose other than to present some slides in front of a few people.

Why not both? I know quite a few people who would love being able to get from SF to Disneyland in half an hour for $20.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on August 14, 2013, 07:58:14 PM
The fallibility of memory gains traction. 

In New Jersey recently, the supreme court required jurors to be educated on the fallibility of memory as a standard procedure.

https://www.nature.com/news/evidence-based-justice-corrupted-memory-1.13543

With regard to questioning of eye-witnesses, a psychologist “realized that these questions were conveying information... I began to think of it as a process of memory contamination, and we eventually called it the misinformation effect.”  The wording of the questions has a large effect on the response and recall of memories.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: soundgarden on August 14, 2013, 08:09:36 PM
Nova: Absolute Zero

Great documentary on history of man's mastery of the cold; beginning with the first technical air conditioner by blowing air over jars of ice to the modern day studies in super conductivity.

https://youtu.be/y2jSv8PDDwA?t=1s

Man, I seriously love science history documentaries.. :loser:
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: millahh on August 14, 2013, 08:45:37 PM
The fallibility of memory gains traction. 

In New Jersey recently, the supreme court required jurors to be educated on the fallibility of memory as a standard procedure.

https://www.nature.com/news/evidence-based-justice-corrupted-memory-1.13543

With regard to questioning of eye-witnesses, a psychologist “realized that these questions were conveying information... I began to think of it as a process of memory contamination, and we eventually called it the misinformation effect.”  The wording of the questions has a large effect on the response and recall of memories.

Awesome...we're finally moving out of the dark ages.

If you haven't already, check out The Invisible Gorilla...excellent book on the gaps between perception and reality, including the illusion of memory.
https://www.amazon.com/The-Invisible-Gorilla-Intuitions-Deceive/dp/0307459667/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376534615&sr=8-1&keywords=invisible+gorilla
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Implode on August 14, 2013, 10:07:56 PM
Nova: Absolute Zero

Great documentary on history of man's mastery of the cold; beginning with the first technical air conditioner by blowing air over jars of ice to the modern day studies in super conductivity.

https://youtu.be/y2jSv8PDDwA?t=1s

Man, I seriously love science history documentaries.. :loser:

I just watched the whole thing. Thanks.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 14, 2013, 10:27:58 PM
I heard about the wrong memories thing a while ago, and they had this story of a woman who had been raped by a man. She claimed to know the man's name and reported it. The thing is, that name was a character of a TV show she had watched shortly before. Her brain had fused the two pieces together. Even when confronted with the incontrovertible evidence that the name came from TV did she stick to her story.

EDIT: Here's an article about it.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/09.19/FalseMemories.html
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 15, 2013, 11:58:52 AM
New shirt came in the mail yesterday !!!

(https://imageshack.us/scaled/large/23/o1zs.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sketchy on August 15, 2013, 12:01:36 PM
Nice tshirt.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on August 15, 2013, 01:51:27 PM
Nova: Absolute Zero

Great documentary on history of man's mastery of the cold; beginning with the first technical air conditioner by blowing air over jars of ice to the modern day studies in super conductivity.

https://youtu.be/y2jSv8PDDwA?t=1s

Man, I seriously love science history documentaries.. :loser:

I just watched the whole thing. Thanks.

Ditto. That was a great program - other than the hairdo on the last scientist.  :eek
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 15, 2013, 01:58:09 PM
I don't think there has ever been an episode of NOVA that I didn't like.  :tup
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 15, 2013, 03:04:38 PM
Nova: Absolute Zero

Great documentary on history of man's mastery of the cold; beginning with the first technical air conditioner by blowing air over jars of ice to the modern day studies in super conductivity.

https://youtu.be/y2jSv8PDDwA?t=1s

Man, I seriously love science history documentaries.. :loser:

I just watched the whole thing. Thanks.

Ditto. That was a great program - other than the hairdo on the last scientist.  :eek

OMG, I was thinking the same :lol I think he saw himself as this supper-funny, super-cool (ha, pun) dude, but his horrendous comb-over totally killed all that.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on August 15, 2013, 04:43:12 PM
Yea, that has to be the worst skullett I've ever seen.  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 15, 2013, 05:04:13 PM
A research lab developed a smart glass compound that can independently block heat and light on demand:

https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3604
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on August 15, 2013, 07:33:02 PM
A research lab developed a smart glass compound that can independently block heat and light on demand:

https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=3604
I was wondering if it was a fully solid state process, but later in the article, they mention a change in the physical structure of the glass.  They imply some usefulness of this property, but I'm not sure I get it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 19, 2013, 09:24:09 PM
Apes exposed for a prolonged amount of time to a body of water figure out how to swim:

https://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2013/08/video-swimming-apes-caught-tape
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on August 20, 2013, 03:45:00 AM
Cool. I know of certain primates that can swim pretty well, but the fact that chimps and orangutans can learn it is pretty cool.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: wasteland on August 30, 2013, 10:17:44 AM
An ASTONISHING result in particle physics. NSFW?  :lolpalm:

Link! (https://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/plot_week_how_susy_got_scrd_lhc-119422)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on August 30, 2013, 02:01:38 PM
 :eek
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on August 30, 2013, 02:08:40 PM
 :rollin
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on August 30, 2013, 02:17:34 PM
That is the best thing ever!  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sketchy on August 31, 2013, 09:13:21 AM
Wow, that beats the ARSPIPES acronym used by the nano-lot.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sigz on September 12, 2013, 02:45:22 PM
Found: The First Mechanical Gear in a Living Creature Living Creature (https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/the-first-gear-discovered-in-nature-15916433?click=pm_latest)

Quote
With two diminutive legs locked into a leap-ready position, the tiny jumper bends its body taut like an archer drawing a bow. At the top of its legs, a minuscule pair of gears engage—their strange, shark-fin teeth interlocking cleanly like a zipper. And then, faster than you can blink, think, or see with the naked eye, the entire thing is gone. In 2 milliseconds it has bulleted skyward, accelerating at nearly 400 g's—a rate more than 20 times what a human body can withstand. At top speed the jumper breaks 8 mph—quite a feat considering its body is less than one-tenth of an inch long.

This miniature marvel is an adolescent issus, a kind of planthopper insect and one of the fastest accelerators in the animal kingdom. As a duo of researchers in the U.K. report today in the journal Science, the issus also the first living creature ever discovered to sport a functioning gear. "Jumping is one of the most rapid and powerful things an animal can do," says Malcolm Burrows, a zoologist at the University of Cambridge and the lead author of the paper, "and that leads to all sorts of crazy specializations."

The researchers believe that the issus—which lives chiefly on European climbing ivy—evolved its acrobatic prowess because it needs to flee dangerous situations. Although they're not exactly sure if the rapid jump evolved to escape hungry birds, parasitizing wasps, or the careless mouths of large grazing animals, "there's been enormous evolutionary pressure to become faster and faster, and jump further and further away," Burrows says. But gaining this high acceleration has put incredible demands on the reaction time of insect's body parts, and that's where the gears—which "you can imagine being at the top of the thigh bone in a human," Burrows says—come in.

(https://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/ba/Issus-02-0913-de.jpg)

"As the legs unfurl to power the jump," Burrows says, "both have to move at exactly the same time. If they didn't, the animal would start to spiral out of control." Larger animals, whether kangaroos or NBA players, rely on their nervous system to keep their legs in sync when pushing off to jump—using a constant loop of adjustment and feedback. But for the issus, their legs outpace their nervous system. By the time the insect has sent a signal from its legs to its brain and back again, roughly 5 or 6 milliseconds, the launch has long since happened. Instead, the gears, which engage before the jump, let the issus lock its legs together—synchronizing their movements to a precision of 1/300,000 of a second.

The gears themselves are an oddity. With gear teeth shaped like cresting waves, they look nothing like what you'd find in your car or in a fancy watch. (The style that you're most likely familiar with is called an involute gear, and it was designed by the Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler in the 18th century.) There could be two reasons for this. Through a mathematical oddity, there is a limitless number of ways to design intermeshing gears. So, either nature evolved one solution at random, or, as Gregory Sutton, coauthor of the paper and insect researcher at the University of Bristol, suspects, the shape of the issus's gear is particularly apt for the job it does. It's built for "high precision and speed in one direction," he says. "It's a prototype for a new type of gear."

Another odd thing about this discovery is that although there are many jumping insects like the issus—including ones that are even faster and better jumpers—the issus is apparently the only one with natural gears. Most other bugs synchronize the quick jolt of their leaping legs through friction, using bumpy or grippy surfaces to press the top of their legs together, says Duke University biomechanics expert Steve Vogel, who was not involved in this study. Like gears, this ensures the legs move at the same rate, but without requiring a complicated interlocking mechanism. "There are a lot of friction pads around, and they accomplish pretty much of the same thing," he says. "So I wonder what extra capacity these gears confer. They're rather specialized, and there are lots of other jumpers that don't have them, so there must be some kind of advantage."

Even stranger is that the issus doesn't keep these gears throughout its life cycle. As the adolescent insect grows, it molts half a dozen times, upgrading its exoskeleton (gears included) for larger and larger versions. But after its final molt into adulthood—poof, the gears are gone. The adult syncs its legs by friction like all the other planthoppers. "I'm gobsmacked," says Sutton. "We have a hypothesis as to why this is the case, but we can't tell you for sure."

Their idea: If one of the gear teeth were to slip and break in an adult (the researchers observed this in adolescent bugs), its jumping ability would be hindered forever. With no more molts, it would have no chance to grow more gears. And with every bound, "the whole system might slip, accelerating damage to the rest of the gear teeth," Sutton says. "Just like if your car has a gear train missing a tooth. Every time you get to that missing tooth, the gear train jerks."

Full paper is here: https://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1254

It's really interesting, especially given the fact that they evolved only for a specific period in its lifecycle.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 12, 2013, 02:52:58 PM
Dang that is cool.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on September 12, 2013, 08:50:24 PM
That's awesome. Nature wins again. :P
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on September 16, 2013, 09:34:23 AM
This article has animations of the mechanism, and of the bug jumping.

https://www.npr.org/2013/09/13/219739500/living-gears-help-this-bug-jump
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 18, 2013, 09:34:20 PM
Physicists are struggling to measure G, the gravitational constant:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: wasteland on September 19, 2013, 02:14:14 AM
Physicists are struggling to measure G, the gravitational constant:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show

Since the 19th century Gravity has always been the hardest force of the lot to figure out.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Zydar on September 19, 2013, 03:40:25 AM
Just wanted to post this here.

(https://i.imgur.com/DrXpLu5.gif)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on September 19, 2013, 04:09:51 AM
Great gif. Damn, now I feel like watching the Stargate Atlantis episode with Bill Nye and Neil Degrass Tyson in it again. :blob:
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 19, 2013, 09:55:54 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/A8zL2kM.jpg)

Corresponding Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vdLM5gMJN0&sns=em
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 19, 2013, 09:59:42 AM
Does anyone watch Brian Cox's series?

He's the guy who did Wonders of the Universe and Wonders of the Solar System. I just started his newest one, Wonders of Life. So goooooood.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on September 19, 2013, 02:04:11 PM
Does anyone watch Brian Cox's series?

He's the guy who did Wonders of the Universe and Wonders of the Solar System. I just started his newest one, Wonders of Life. So goooooood.
I only know him from QI, but he's a genius. I'll probably need to watch that starting this weekend if I can find some spare time  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 19, 2013, 02:05:56 PM
Does anyone watch Brian Cox's series?

He's the guy who did Wonders of the Universe and Wonders of the Solar System. I just started his newest one, Wonders of Life. So goooooood.
I only know him from QI, but he's a genius. I'll probably need to watch that starting this weekend if I can find some spare time  :lol

Yeah, definitely get on that. Next to Carl Sagan's voice/Cosmos, that's by far my favorite show/series to rattle my brain.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 22, 2013, 12:05:18 AM
This is not for the squeamish, but there's a FB page called "The Brain Scoop" where this girl taxidermist dissects a wolf from beginning to end. Incredibly fascinating, and it's better than probably most of you highschool biology class taken together.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sketchy on September 22, 2013, 05:33:53 AM
Physicists are struggling to measure G, the gravitational constant:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show

Since the 19th century Gravity has always been the hardest force of the lot to figure out.

And I don't see us measuring the mass of the sun perfectly accurately any time soon, which would be a great help.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on September 22, 2013, 08:01:06 AM
I could be wrong but I think the mass of the sun is actually estimated by using the radii of the planets' orbits and their masses, and plugging in G.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sketchy on September 22, 2013, 08:09:07 AM
Actually, you're probably right on that one. Either way, one of them is really hard to determine because of the other not being well known. I could have sworn it was that way round, but thinking about it, how the hell does one measure the mass of the sun otherwise?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on September 22, 2013, 08:48:52 AM
Well there would be other ways but they would require much more information. If we have very good theoretical stellar models for example, the mass could be determined using parameters like the luminosity, composition, radius, etc.

Another problem there is those models will surely use gravitational interactions in the star, which in turn will rely on G, so probably not a good way to go either.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sketchy on September 22, 2013, 08:50:51 AM
Yup, that's pretty much exactly it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on September 22, 2013, 09:12:21 AM
I had an introductory astronomy course, so all in all I'm not too familiar with stellar models beyond the basics... But there are many technical as well as practical difficulties I would think when you would try to determine the mass of the sun accurately enough to estimate G (even if you ignore that the model itself depends on G). One I can think of is the fact that stars lose mass throughout their lives, so we would need to know the age of the sun in the same order of precision, which is impossible.
But probably there are models for the trajectories of the planets, given a star with a slightly decreasing mass but I doubt that they would be accurate enough for comparison with our present situation.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 22, 2013, 09:22:33 AM
Age of stars, to my knowledge, are actually estimated through their spectral emissions. E.g. a young red dwarf has different spectra than an old red dwarf.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on September 22, 2013, 01:32:17 PM
That is correct. But determining the age to a accuracy good enough to make corrections to the known value of G? I don't think that is possible.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: wasteland on September 22, 2013, 01:37:41 PM
Age of stars, to my knowledge, are actually estimated through their spectral emissions. E.g. a young red dwarf has different spectra than an old red dwarf.
This is really the same thing as guessing one's person age looking at his face. You can almost always guess at what point of its life the star is, but not figure out the exact age with sufficient accuracy.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: wasteland on September 25, 2013, 06:13:00 AM
Milena's sister gave me this pic.

(https://blog.the-dot.co.uk/images/bp/strange-animals-you-didnt-know-2-10-1.jpg)

WHAT. THE. FUCK. IS. THIS.  :omg: :omg:
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on September 25, 2013, 06:18:07 AM
Immediately thought of:

(https://www.mobilblogg.nu/files/Nettan/20110224164709.jpg)

But now yellow fins so: (https://www.chickencrossing.org/forum/img/smilies/shrug.gif)

Dory is a Paracanthurus hepatus btw.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: ReaperKK on September 25, 2013, 06:28:30 AM
Wow, earthquake in Pakistan creates a new island:

https://www.emirates247.com/pakistan-earthquake-latest-death-toll-reaches-327-new-island-created-2013-09-24-1.522199
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on September 25, 2013, 06:33:56 AM
That's amazing!  :omg:
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: ZirconBlue on September 25, 2013, 09:01:41 AM
Milena's sister gave me this pic.

(https://blog.the-dot.co.uk/images/bp/strange-animals-you-didnt-know-2-10-1.jpg)

WHAT. THE. FUCK. IS. THIS.  :omg: :omg:


Haven't you ever read One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sigz on September 25, 2013, 12:18:44 PM
It's a Blue Parrot Fish. They have kinda beak-like mouths, and feed off coral and algae they scrape off of rocks with it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 25, 2013, 12:32:19 PM
Being out of the water does not allow its patterns to really shine.

(https://www.getahugetank.com/images/assorted_Parrotfish.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Midnight-parrotfish.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Midnight_parrotfish.jpg)

As you can see, underwater, they don't look as blue as a whole. The X-grid pattern makes for some pretty good camouflage.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 25, 2013, 01:20:01 PM
Wow, earthquake in Pakistan creates a new island:

https://www.emirates247.com/pakistan-earthquake-latest-death-toll-reaches-327-new-island-created-2013-09-24-1.522199

Can you imagine what kind of stories would have come out of this event 2,000 years ago? Shaking earth, flooding, hundreds dead, island appears from nowhere out of water.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 25, 2013, 02:36:58 PM
Wow, earthquake in Pakistan creates a new island:

https://www.emirates247.com/pakistan-earthquake-latest-death-toll-reaches-327-new-island-created-2013-09-24-1.522199

Can you imagine what kind of stories would have come out of this event 2,000 years ago? Shaking earth, flooding, hundreds dead, island appears from nowhere out of water.

It's insane to think about. I often find myself asking this very question.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 25, 2013, 04:42:38 PM


Dawwwwwwwwww


(https://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/never-not-5-04.jpg?w=750&h=1125)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 29, 2013, 05:47:57 PM
UK shows a single plant that grows both tomatoes and potatoes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24281192

(https://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70126000/jpg/_70126537_tv019434091.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on September 29, 2013, 09:19:08 PM
OH GOD that is my dream plant. :| Seriously.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 29, 2013, 09:41:26 PM
Make it grow sausages, and you can call it the "English breakfast plant".
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on September 29, 2013, 09:46:26 PM
What about a pig that lays eggs?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Sketchy on September 30, 2013, 12:20:08 AM
Nice. It's easy to forget they're both in the same family of plant... As is deadly nightshade.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on October 15, 2013, 03:21:22 AM
https://www.thesleuthjournal.com/radioactive-water-from-fukushima-is-systematically-poisoning-the-entire-pacific-ocean/#

What could they possibly do about this now? Scary stuff when you think about it.

Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on October 15, 2013, 03:30:28 AM
One of the comments links to this-
https://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/fukushima.asp

I'd like to believe the less dire of the two is true!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on October 15, 2013, 03:45:40 AM
That's a relief, just saw it on facebook so I guess it spreads slowly at my end of the world.  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on October 15, 2013, 06:18:36 AM
Whenever I see anything of that nature on FB, the first thing I do is type it into Google. More often than not, I'll get a page of results debunking it. :lol

FUCK YEAH CYNICISM!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on October 15, 2013, 07:08:53 AM
Whenever I see anything of that nature on FB, the first thing I do is type it into Google. More often than not, I'll get a page of results debunking it. :lol

FUCK YEAH CYNICISM!
Cynicism gets a bad rep.  It's associated with cranky and grumpy, and doesn't get recognized for its value in finding truth.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on October 15, 2013, 09:11:07 AM
Whenever I see anything of that nature on FB, the first thing I do is type it into Google. More often than not, I'll get a page of results debunking it. :lol

FUCK YEAH CYNICISM!
This. The amount of crap people would believe is insane.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 15, 2013, 09:37:52 AM
I have learned over the years that several of my friends are the same kind of people who back in the 80s would continue chain letters.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on October 15, 2013, 12:26:08 PM
I have learned over the years that several of my friends are the same kind of people who back in the 80s would continue chain letters.

Ugh. I hate chain anything.

Repost this to show that your life has in some way been affected by cancer.
Repost this if you love your kids more than anything else in the world.
Repost this if you want Brian Mendicino to block you for all of eternity because you are fucking annoying.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 17, 2013, 01:50:27 AM
The worst are the ones containing some motivational life lesson ("Happiness is a choice you take one step at a time" or shit like that)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on October 17, 2013, 01:54:24 AM
I had a really really shitty one a couple of weeks ago. I had to save it:
(https://i.imgur.com/0dx3OnV.png)

....  Worst analogy ever?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 17, 2013, 02:09:00 AM
Oh my god, somebody on my FB list had that too. It is sooo bad.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on October 17, 2013, 04:50:23 AM
It still amazes me sometimes how these things literally go around the world.

Anyway, back on topic:
Next week some people from the VUB are coming to talk about the nobel prize in physics at our university, should be cool. Sadly Englert probably won't be there though.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on October 17, 2013, 10:13:47 AM
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1383376_427807977323268_430348543_n.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on November 14, 2013, 09:52:28 AM
One step closer to an invisibility cloak. (https://www.news.utoronto.ca/invisibility-cloak-actually-works?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=News&utm_campaign=Generic)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on November 15, 2013, 10:03:18 PM
There is a theory that a butterfly is not just transformed from the pupa, but actually created from the dissolved matter of the liquefied pupa's remains. (https://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/08/01/157718428/are-butterflies-two-different-animals-in-one-the-death-and-resurrection-theory)  A separate DNA sequence assembles the butterfly from these remains.

I can't tell if I'm incredibly ignorant of biology, and simply too enamored with this idea to see how ridiculous it is, or if this does actually seem like a plausible theory.  At the end of the article is mention of scientific criticism of this theory.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on November 16, 2013, 10:49:09 AM
That's a pretty cool idea. But yeah, without genetic evidence of separate ancestors it's going to be hard to prove such a theory.
Btw, why does it have to have happened through mating? Couldn't one also have been a parasite to the other?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on November 17, 2013, 12:10:35 PM
Thats an interesting idea.  A parasite infects an insect, causing it to transform into another animal.  There are other species that have similar metamorphoses, so could the same parasite infect other animals in the same way, or could there just be a category of species of the parasite that perform this function?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on January 15, 2014, 01:35:05 PM
https://www.nature.com/news/ampere-to-get-rational-redefinition-1.14512

The definition of the ampere is being refined.  Since the charge of an electron has been measured precisely...

Quote
The charge of the electron and Boltzmann’s constant have both been measured precisely

...shouldn't that automatically pin down the ampere?  If not, this is really the redefinition of the coulumb, isn't it?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on January 15, 2014, 02:16:08 PM
The Boltzmann constant is down to a stochastic effect though, right? You can measure it very accurately, but I would think you can only use it for defining yet another stochastic effect, heat. (i.e. Kelvin)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TempusVox on January 15, 2014, 03:37:20 PM
Very cool.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2014/01/15/massive-hole-discovered-under-antarctica-bigger-than-the-grand-canyon/
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on January 15, 2014, 03:42:21 PM
That's awesome!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on January 15, 2014, 03:43:41 PM
SO amazing. Gives me chills.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TempusVox on January 15, 2014, 03:44:37 PM
Thats an interesting idea.  A parasite infects an insect, causing it to transform into another animal.  There are other species that have similar metamorphoses, so could the same parasite infect other animals in the same way, or could there just be a category of species of the parasite that perform this function?

Your query reminded me of this. Basically spores infect ant, ant clamps onto central or primary leaf veins, and never let go. Fungus uses ants mandibles as a means to extract plant nutrients, thereby ensuring its survival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis

Scary shit.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on January 15, 2014, 04:07:26 PM
Oh, the zombie ants. Yeah, that is crazy scary.

A few days ago I went on a Wikipedia article-hopping spree, where I eventually ended up on the page for "Amniotes". Amniotes are animals that have a protective layer around their offspring during gestation (in humans, the "amniotic sac"). While that in itself is not that exciting, the article pointed out that this protective layer was an adaptation of formerly aquatic animals to be able to have offspring on land. Fish are all anamniotes because they don't need that layer, but all land-living animals are. Except amphibians, who circumvented the problem by reproducing in water, and then leave it when growing up.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on January 18, 2014, 12:28:53 PM
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2014/01/26271801-1.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on January 20, 2014, 08:45:41 AM
2 very cool posts! Thanks rumborak!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on February 03, 2014, 07:31:15 AM
I didn't know where else to put this but I saw a documentary on TV today about programming the computer that competed on Jeopardy. Very interesting stuff about the difficulties of programming AI in general, and it's funny seeing the early failings of the project.

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

And here are the two episodes of Jeopardy, in case anyone has watched that far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLR1byL0U8M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDA-7O1q4oo
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on February 03, 2014, 09:54:09 AM
I didn't know where else to put this but I saw a documentary on TV today about programming the computer that competed on Jeopardy. Very interesting stuff about the difficulties of programming AI in general, and it's funny seeing the early failings of the project.

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

And here are the two episodes of Jeopardy, in case anyone has watched that far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLR1byL0U8M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDA-7O1q4oo
Awesome, i'm watching it at the moment. Had to of course google Eliza....

(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/509x366q90/801/zh0y.jpg)

Pwned by Eliza!  :blush
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on February 03, 2014, 09:55:04 AM
OH SNAP!
I used to have Eliza on our old Amiga 500. Good times. :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on March 16, 2014, 12:52:42 AM
So this is interesting and scary or more the idea behind it although I don't think we'll ever see something like that.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10697529/Prisoners-could-serve-1000-year-sentence-in-eight-hours.html
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on March 16, 2014, 03:42:49 AM
Did anyone else instantly think Star Trek DS9 - Hard Time? Of all the technologies Trek is given credit for inspiring, I hope that doesn't become one of them. :P
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on March 16, 2014, 07:18:42 AM
No offense, but that article was pretty junky.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on March 17, 2014, 11:39:26 AM
Gravitational waves detected!!

https://www.iflscience.com/physics/scientists-detect-direct-evidence-big-bang%E2%80%99s-gravitational-waves
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Fiery Winds on March 17, 2014, 11:40:38 AM
New major discovery today seems to confirm Einstein's prediction of gravitational waves. Very cool!

https://www.space.com/25078-universe-inflation-gravitational-waves-discovery.html?cmpid=514648

EDIT: Dammit Rumby!  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on March 17, 2014, 11:43:42 AM
EDIT: Dammit Rumby!  :lol

(https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mduzh2pot41rxmai6o1_500.gif)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Nick on March 17, 2014, 04:15:04 PM
Saw that during work and was coming to post the same thing.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on March 20, 2014, 05:26:16 AM
A full chunk of awesome science talk if your up to it:

The Great Debate - The Storytelling of Science 1/2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8rxbN_SLs)
The Great Debate - The Storytelling of Science 2/2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N22eMZP5phI)

Goddamn NDT is intense...  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on March 31, 2014, 10:28:45 AM
Gizmodo Australia: Bugs Have Already Evolved Immunity To GMO Corn. https://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw3r-aoxo

Damn you, natural selection!!!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on March 31, 2014, 12:33:49 PM
Gizmodo Australia: Bugs Have Already Evolved Immunity To GMO Corn. https://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw3r-aoxo

Damn you, natural selection!!!

Stupid nature. Being all resilient and shit.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on April 02, 2014, 01:13:57 PM
This is pretty cool and what a large yoke! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXCDeqjWuDg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on May 01, 2014, 03:34:45 PM
Did you know that whales can explode? Well me neither...

Quit literally an exploding whale so avoid if you find that not pleasant!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCsMNurn3bQ

Story:
https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/caution-dead-whale-contents-under-pressure
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on May 01, 2014, 04:08:01 PM
I love that video. The guy barely escaped it :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on May 02, 2014, 12:26:46 AM
Yea I love the silence before and the way he pokes it carefully and just runs for his life when he feels it's about to happen.  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on May 02, 2014, 02:51:28 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6lTSxJvR4w
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on May 02, 2014, 03:16:04 AM
Yea I saw that, the genius that hatched that idea....  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on May 02, 2014, 04:47:18 AM
I remember reading about something similar a long time ago, but I hadn't seen it. Both of those exploding whale videos were great. :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on May 02, 2014, 07:03:37 AM
Quote
There are actually three gasses behind this phenomenon: methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide. As you might imagine, this combination smells really, really bad. Methane is a by-product of digestion, ammonia is what gives cat urine its distinct pungent odor, and hydrogen sulfide is the gas that smells like rotting eggs. So, if you can imagine a whale-sized fart/cat pee/egg bomb with blood and entrails flying at your face, that’s pretty much the full experience of an exploding whale.
I'm not sure I really can imagine that but havin smelled ammonia I might have a hunch, only 10 times worse I guess. (https://herohog.com/images/icons/smileys/barfaway.gif)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on May 02, 2014, 07:05:15 AM
I remember an article years ago about a whale that blew up in the middle of a city. It was being moved via 18 wheeler.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on May 06, 2014, 07:39:27 PM
Watching episode 2 of "Your Inner Fish" right now. A lot better than Cosmos, IMHO.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on May 06, 2014, 08:45:46 PM
I also enjoyed "Your Inner Fish" more than "Cosmos" so far.  I've only seen the first 2, but I expect the third episode to be just as good.  My girlfriend even enjoys it, and I think it is because it isn't trying to be epic the way "Cosmos" does.  It clearly states what it is trying to demonstrate, then demonstrates exactly that in a very convincing and concise way.

To me, Cosmos gets a bit carried away with itself.  It begins with clear and sequential logic to explain a phenomenon, but gets way too ambitious and starts talking about black holes and other tangentially related ideas.  I've heard most of it before and can mostly hang on until the monologue circles back to the original point (though sometimes it doesn't), but I can feel the attention of others around me beginning to wane when this happens.  Not a good feature of a series meant to draw in novices.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on May 06, 2014, 09:09:52 PM
What I really like about YIF is that it combines the scientific work of the main guy and others to what they are trying to find out. For example, I really liked in the first episode how they showed the researchers poring over maps to find the most likely spots of fossils. It really gives you the impression that there are guys having put hard work into finding out what they did.
Also, while YIF uses animations and special effects, it only uses them for illustrations. Cosmos often goes into segments that have no educational value but are plain CGI for its own sake. A classic example was when NDT flies to the edge of a black hole. What was shown had neither basis in science, nor did it get anything across other than "we spent a ton of money on this special effect".
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on May 07, 2014, 09:49:59 AM
I've got Your Inner Fish queued up on my Kindle so once I'm done with the book I'll probably check out the show. Sounds great from your descriptions!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on May 07, 2014, 12:22:20 PM
What I really like about YIF is that it combines the scientific work of the main guy and others to what they are trying to find out. For example, I really liked in the first episode how they showed the researchers poring over maps to find the most likely spots of fossils. It really gives you the impression that there are guys having put hard work into finding out what they did.
Also, while YIF uses animations and special effects, it only uses them for illustrations. Cosmos often goes into segments that have no educational value but are plain CGI for its own sake. A classic example was when NDT flies to the edge of a black hole. What was shown had neither basis in science, nor did it get anything across other than "we spent a ton of money on this special effect".

I agree, but NDT ripping the stratum of the Grand Canyon apart was pretty awesome.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: orcus116 on May 07, 2014, 07:29:28 PM
I've only seen a few episodes of Cosmos but it doesn't really live up to the billing of the "Planet Earth for space" like the commercials were portraying it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on May 15, 2014, 10:30:47 AM
https://www.outsideonline.com/news-from-the-field/Blazing-Trails-Solar-Panels-Could-Replace-Roads.html
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on May 15, 2014, 11:03:52 AM
I've seen that article being sent around, but I gotta be honest, my response is: Show me the road a year later. Show me the road after a few flatbed trucks have gone over it and a nice New England blizzard has taken its toll on it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on May 15, 2014, 11:08:38 AM
I've seen that article being sent around, but I gotta be honest, my response is: Show me the road a year later. Show me the road after a few flatbed trucks have gone over it and a nice New England blizzard has taken its toll on it.

I have the exact same doubts about how it would go in practice, but in theory I think it's a great idea, and I hope it has a chance to develop to a point where they can overcome any such problems and limitations to make it viable. They're funding the first real world test, so I fully expect there will be issues, but you gotta start somewhere.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on May 15, 2014, 03:07:24 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10834778/Massive-dose-of-measles-virus-kills-cancer-cells.html

And a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LImk-KdMT1w

Yikes on the side effect! Pretty cool technology though.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on May 19, 2014, 02:41:13 PM
Several months ago I bookmarked an episode of NOVA about absolute zero which I finally watched the other night.  Early in the episode was a story of a 16th century alchemist who was able to cool a large room in a castle during a hot summer.  I was curious as to how he did this.  Well, he blew air over ice...  but he added salt to the ice to "make it colder"...  alright, then...

I was very annoyed by this point.  No mention of where in the hell he got ice in the middle of a hot 16th century summer in the first place, along with the completely incorrect idea that adding salt makes ice colder.  That was the extent of the explanation.  Not good for people not well versed in science who want to learn something.  I thought NOVA had better scientific advisors than this.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on May 19, 2014, 02:47:52 PM

I was very annoyed by this point.  No mention of where in the hell he got ice in the middle of a hot 16th century summer in the first place, along with the completely incorrect idea that adding salt makes ice colder.  That was the extent of the explanation.  Not good for people not well versed in science who want to learn something.  I thought NOVA had better scientific advisors than this.

No clue where he got the ice (There were areas of the world undergoing a miniature ice age at the time I believe. Perhaps he imported the ice), but the salt thing is kind of valid. I don't recall seeing that episode, so I don't know how they worded it. The addition of salt causes the ice to melt faster, which in turn releases more cool temperature over a shorter period of time, making it seem colder.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on May 19, 2014, 04:24:51 PM
I don't know when it started, but in the 19th century they had ships going up the eastern coast of the Americas, shipping up nothing but ice to places like New York. I can imagine this happening in Europe much earlier, especially when there's snow-capped mountains in Iceland and Scandinavia.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on May 19, 2014, 06:43:39 PM
Yep, ice was both imported from cold places but also saved in huge chunks during the winter for use in summer (probably kept under ground somewhere cool).

Also salt will indeed not make ice colder but since most people in general have no coherent idea of what temperature is, I think it's OK to say that it does for simplicity. There are far worse thing said in popsci.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Implode on May 20, 2014, 09:54:16 AM
That was like the episode about history of science and cold, right? Great program.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on May 20, 2014, 10:21:29 AM
Here it is:

https://youtu.be/y2jSv8PDDwA?t=3m10s
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on May 20, 2014, 01:14:10 PM
Watch a tornado supercell form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoO89cqDgJU
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Implode on May 20, 2014, 02:02:45 PM
Basehunters have some awesome Tornado videos.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on May 24, 2014, 07:07:24 AM
Not science more like technology but I didn't know were to post it.

https://www.neowin.net/news/ssd-breakthrough-means-300-speed-boost-60-less-power-usage-even-on-old-drives

Quote
In tests, drives using the technology wrote data 55% less often than drives without and performance increases of up to 300% were noted. This could enable high-end devices to easily reach transfer speeds of 1.5GB/s as current models achieve around 500MB/s typically; 60% less power was also used in the lab tests due to the lack of additional drive writes.

If you are reading this on a computer booting from an SSD and are thinking of splashing out on one of these next-generation models equipped with new NAND chips then perhaps you should wait a moment. The changes made by the team were purely software-based. There is definitely a possibility that existing devices still in support by their manufacturers may get firmware updates in the near future so that they store data in the new manner and  benefit from the increased speed, decreased power consumption and increased expected life of drives equipped with the new NAND controller firmware.
Pretty cool that by downloading just a firmware update your SSD can get much much faster instead of buying a new one.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on May 26, 2014, 08:19:35 PM
Firmly in the WTF category:

https://www.iflscience.com/space/ancient-texts-be-sent-moon

There's now effort on the way to send ancient texts to the moon.
My suggestion would be to rather send a book about General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and maybe "The Origin of Species". You know, the stuff that actually showcases our intellectual achievements.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 04, 2014, 11:40:17 AM
The kilogram is the only one of the 7 fundamental units of nature that is based on a particular artifact rather than derived from physical principles.  (The meter, for example is defined as the distance traveled by light in a particular period of time, where the second is defined by the time taken for some number of vibrations of a cesium atom.)

The mass of a platinum/iridium ingot in Paris, which is used as the international reference standard, has changed slightly since it was made in the late 1800's.

The avogadro project (https://www.acpo.csiro.au/avogadro.htm) is making a new reference kilogram (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMByI4s-D-Y) from a precision ground silicon sphere.  I guess silicon is more stable than platinum, and won't absorb or lose any mass.  Still, it will be an artifact used to define the kilogram.

For those more knowledgeable in physics than me: what is the difficulty in defining the kilogram by reference to physical principles?

Also: Temperature is one of the seven fundamental units of nature.  Isn't temperature just a measure of kinetic energy, which is just composed of the fundamental units of mass, distance and time?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 04, 2014, 11:48:06 AM
I guess silicon is more stable than platinum, and won't absorb or lose any mass.  Still, it will be an artifact used to define the kilogram.
For those more knowledgeable in physics than me: what is the difficulty in defining the kilogram by reference to physical principles?

It's essentially an issue of accuracy. Sure, that round ball of silicon is essentially clunky and difficult to handle, but it is also damn accurate. When you redefine a unit, you want to replace it with something more accurate, and that's what they've been struggling to achieve.

Quote
Also: Temperature is one of the seven fundamental units of nature.  Isn't temperature just a measure of kinetic energy, which is just composed of the fundamental units of mass, distance and time?

Temperature is a bit sucky, because it is a stochastic measure. So, it's not that every atom in your soup has the same kinetic energy; what defines the overall temperature is the average kinetic energy of the atoms. And weird things can happen with that kind of definition, like Negative absolute temperature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature). "A substance with a negative temperature is not colder than absolute zero, but rather it is hotter than infinite temperature"
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 04, 2014, 12:07:32 PM
As I watch the video I linked before, it appears that once the spheres are complete they will determine the number of atoms in them will be determined which will redefine Avogadro's number.  Once this is done, the physical spheres won't really be needed anymore since it can be said that X moles of silicon = 1 kg, and the kilogram can be derived from principles rather than artifacts.

https://youtu.be/ZMByI4s-D-Y?t=8m39s
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 04, 2014, 12:12:11 PM
I understand that temperature is an average value of kinetic energy, but energy is still a composite unit.  I suppose my question one of semantics then.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Ħ on June 04, 2014, 04:38:48 PM
I understand that temperature is an average value of kinetic energy, but energy is still a composite unit.  I suppose my question one of semantics then.
Right, but the total energy of the system does not imply that the definite and discrete parts of the system have equal energy. (A 100 cal system comprising 100 atoms does not imply each atom has 1 cal, but only that the average amount of energy per atom is 1 cal.)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on June 05, 2014, 12:40:40 AM
Lava meets Ravioli:

https://youtu.be/6M-YX-r0Ll4

Something very eerie about watching something getting swallowed slowly.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on June 05, 2014, 12:45:38 AM
That's so awesome. I friggin' love lava. I wanna bathe in it.


...


New death metal band...


BATHING IN MAGMA ROROROROROROROROROOROROR

Science fact: Lava is the Earth's smile.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 05, 2014, 09:37:47 AM
My girlfriend is pretty cool

(https://i60.tinypic.com/29sqpg.png)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on June 05, 2014, 09:39:14 AM
Yeah but she's not Carl Sagan.



You will never be happy settling, Chino... Go out there and get that man. Get him good.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on June 06, 2014, 02:50:20 AM
Here's a little mystery for y'all:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_QyGANCUJI&feature=youtu.be

Someone mentioned the shark swimming near volcanic activity, sounds pretty reasonable but who knows. Maybe something big in the food chain is lurking around in the deep.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on June 06, 2014, 04:55:31 AM
Ugh, that was horrible.
"There is no doubt the shark was eaten by a super-predator of the deep." Yeah right. I hate those kind of things. Definitely not science.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Phoenix87x on June 07, 2014, 04:00:52 AM
So I was thinking about War of the Worlds a little bit, but then reversed it for if humans ever did hypothetically get to other worlds.

So if we ever were to find a planet with breathable atmosphere, wouldn't it be an incredible risk of even attempting to live there, because of micro-organisms.

Any planet we step on could be like the Native americans coming in contact with Smallpox, or even a worse, more alien/dangerous version of a Virus, or bacteria which could potentially wipe out any colonizing party, since there's no natural immunity.

I'm guessing science would be so advanced at that point to rapidly come up with some sort of immunization, but since there's billions of different species of micro-organisms, it would probably take decades of research on that planet to fully immunize a human being to the point where they can actually even survive on the planet.



Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 08, 2014, 05:38:00 PM
I'd be surprised if this hadn't been studied before.  My guess would be if some alien pathogen were biologically compatible with the human body, in the sense that it could infect it, it wouldn't be much unlike the Native Americans' exposure to smallpox.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Phoenix87x on June 08, 2014, 06:12:37 PM
I'd be surprised if this hadn't been studied before.  My guess would be if some alien pathogen were biologically compatible with the human body, in the sense that it could infect it, it wouldn't be much unlike the Native Americans' exposure to smallpox.

That's actually a very interesting point that I didn't even consider. A alien micro-organism on a new planet might not even be biologically compatible to the point where it could even infect us. Fascinating stuff though.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 09, 2014, 08:18:19 AM
This was one of the first questions I asked myself when watching Avatar. At one point, we hear the line " find out what these blue monkeys want. We try to give them medicine, education, roads". I always assumed that if we could make medicine for the aliens, we could vaccinate ourselves as needed.

I think in a real world scenario, if the alien bacteria was even able to interact with our biology (or ours theirs), it would come down to whichever organism could evolve immunity the fastest. It truly is a crap shoot. I don't think any test in the lab could prepare us for a completely new ecosystem that evolved in complete isolation from our own.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on June 09, 2014, 04:26:51 PM
My uniformed opinion: I highly doubt that is any issue, just look at how many viruses, bacteria, funghi, .. exist on our planet and how little of those can actually "infect" us. There are so many pathogens limited to just one species. I don't think a completely different biology would be compatible.
A much bigger problem would be surviving in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 09, 2014, 04:57:08 PM
My uniformed opinion: I highly doubt that is any issue, just look at how many viruses, bacteria, funghi, .. exist on our planet and how little of those can actually "infect" us. There are so many pathogens limited to just one species. I don't think a completely different biology would be compatible.
A much bigger problem would be surviving in the atmosphere.

I think he atmosphere would probably be one of the easier challenges. If the celestial body we are dealing with is larger than Earth, I'd expect gravity to be a pretty big deal.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 09, 2014, 05:22:51 PM
Yeah, but there'd be no reason to assume it's a nitrogen/oxygen environment.
I agree with the general sentiment here, I think this planet would constitute an incredibly hostile environment to any foreign pathogen.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on June 10, 2014, 02:09:38 AM
Yes, that's what I meant. The composition of the atmosphere can be completely different.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: wasteland on June 10, 2014, 04:18:53 AM
https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.222002

High Energy Physics News: LHCb analysis confirms four-quarks bound state Z(4430). The Standard Model only presently accounts for two-quarks (mesons) and three-quarks (baryons, of which we are entirely made of) states.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on June 23, 2014, 01:13:07 AM
Live feed of lightning strikes around the world. Satisfying to just look and hear the click. I'm not sure what the black little squares are that fades away after a hit, maybe those are the strikes.

https://www.blitzortung.org/Webpages/index.php?lang=en
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on June 23, 2014, 01:19:06 AM
Live feed of lightning strikes around the world. Satisfying to just look and hear the click. I'm not sure what the black little squares are that fades away after a hit, maybe those are the strikes.

https://www.blitzortung.org/Webpages/index.php?lang=en

No kidding, that's an odd sensation... It's raining where I am and not lightning, but with each click...thunder. Oh, I love you, brain.

That's friggin' awesome though.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 23, 2014, 07:38:29 AM
(https://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ndts.gif)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on June 27, 2014, 03:59:42 AM
In connection to my other post, here's a similar thing but follows hack attacks around the world. Pretty entertaining to watch.

Live hacking map (https://map.ipviking.com/?_ga=1.98376799.153405815.1403529861#)

Source (https://www.engadget.com/2014/06/24/live-hacking-map/)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on July 03, 2014, 12:21:59 PM
I love that there is an area of classical physics that is still so poorly understood.  Also, I am pleasantly surprised to find a lengthy article on the subject on a relatively popular website.  The subject is fluid dynamics, specifically turbulence and its measure, the Reynolds number.

https://nautil.us/issue/15/turbulence/to-predict-turbulence-just-count-the-puffs
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on July 03, 2014, 11:55:00 PM
I think 'poorly understood' is a bad way to put it, it's understood very well. It's just very difficult to find analytical solutions because the equations are so complicated.

This is a great watch BTW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51-6QCJTAjU&feature=youtu.be&t=13m18s
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on July 04, 2014, 10:31:12 AM
Great video, thanks for sharing.  Reminds me of an article I read several years ago called Life at Low Reyolds Number, which I'm sure you've already heard of.

https://jilawww.colorado.edu/perkinsgroup/Purcell_life_at_low_reynolds_number.pdf
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on July 04, 2014, 12:38:22 PM
I hadn't read that yet! Strange article but it's very interesting, I'lll read the second half later.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on July 04, 2014, 03:23:06 PM
Yeah, it is a bit bizzare at times, but reading it finally gave me an intuitive feel for what Reynolds number was besides some abstract measure of turbulence.

At the end, there is a reference to a publication by Reynolds called The Sub-mechanics of the Universe. The author/speaker says "[Reynolds] published a very long paper on the details of the sub mechanical universe , and he had a complete theory which involved small particles of diameter 10^{-18} cm. It gets very nutty from there on."

It's also available on amazon.  https://www.amazon.com/sub-mechanics-universe-Osborne-Reynolds-Society/dp/1418181897
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on July 17, 2014, 06:38:43 AM
I think this belongs here.  More art and technology than science and nature, but all are related.  This animated gif tells the whole story, i think.

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--D8SU0mZe--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/zlqstuyinjahh15oxnrw.gif)
https://gizmodo.com/this-digital-sundial-tracks-the-sun-through-a-laser-cut-1545753402
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Viking of the Sagas on July 17, 2014, 10:15:01 AM
https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.222002

High Energy Physics News: LHCb analysis confirms four-quarks bound state Z(4430). The Standard Model only presently accounts for two-quarks (mesons) and three-quarks (baryons, of which we are entirely made of) states.

That's pretty big news.

Meanwhile somewhere in Russia, a guy decided it's a good idea to cool your house down with frozen carbon dioxide.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: soundgarden on July 19, 2014, 11:47:43 AM
Worlds darkest material created by UK scientists.  It only reflects 0.04% of light negating the ability to discern contours.  The man in the video states that if a woman wears a black dress of this material she would like a 2D cutout. Pretty cool.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/business/worlds-darkest-marterial/?sr=fb071814darkestmaterial4pVODtopLink

Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on July 19, 2014, 12:01:29 PM
:metal

There are a ton of applications I can think of for that. But now my shirts don't seem dark enough anymore.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 28, 2014, 11:38:38 AM
https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/walking-fish-sheds-light-evolution-vertebrate-limbs

Very cool. Fish with lungs were being raised on land, and not only did their ability to move on land improve, but the muscle and bone structure exhibited the same changes we see in the fossil record.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 28, 2014, 11:42:37 AM
https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/walking-fish-sheds-light-evolution-vertebrate-limbs

Very cool. Fish with lungs were being raised on land, and not only did their ability to move on land improve, but the muscle and bone structure exhibited the same changes we see in the fossil record.

I posted a story similar to this on Free Republic and got banned for trolling.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 28, 2014, 02:20:30 PM
I had only vaguely heard of that site, and just checked it out. Why on earth would anyone post on that site?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 28, 2014, 02:24:08 PM
Well I did to see how long it would take me to be banned. Only took 28 posts, and that was with me pretending to be a god-loving, church going, white republican gun lover. I even made my username "H8Libs". I got banned the second I spoke in favor of evolution.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 28, 2014, 02:27:28 PM
Even only a cursory scan of that site made it rather clear that nothing about it is "free". it's pretty obvious the only thing allowed to be posted is super hardcore rightwing.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on August 28, 2014, 02:35:43 PM
Reminds me of some other place I know.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 29, 2014, 09:46:28 AM
:lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on August 29, 2014, 11:55:51 PM
 :rollin

Yep. I scanned it for about two seconds before my moron senses were tingling, and then my head exploded so nnnnnnna;sleiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Viking of the Sagas on September 01, 2014, 09:48:08 AM
Looks like a full house: stupid, full of crap and completely nuts.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 05, 2014, 11:57:21 AM
(https://giant.gfycat.com/PotableUnkemptBobolink.gif)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on September 05, 2014, 12:06:12 PM
AWESOME!  :metal That is so badass. I can't tell what that is though, I'm guessing a snake?

Man, I wouldn't wanna fall into those mofos... I fell into a pretty big bed of fire ants when I was little and nearly died but if I fell into those...shit...I'd have literally been eaten alive.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 05, 2014, 12:14:52 PM
AWESOME!  :metal That is so badass. I can't tell what that is though, I'm guessing a snake?

Man, I wouldn't wanna fall into those mofos... I fell into a pretty big bed of fire ants when I was little and nearly died but if I fell into those...shit...I'd have literally been eaten alive.

It's a millipede.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on September 05, 2014, 12:27:36 PM
Ahhh nice, I see now. Damn that's rad.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on September 05, 2014, 01:00:09 PM
I hate ants! I've had nightmares falling into anthills with tied hands but this is pretty cool.....still hate 'em though.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Zook on September 05, 2014, 06:53:42 PM
(https://giant.gfycat.com/PotableUnkemptBobolink.gif)

That's pretty damn amazing.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on September 05, 2014, 11:39:47 PM
That reminds me of an AMAZING episode of Macgyver, called "Trumbo's World", where Macgyver has to fight an army of killer ants that can kill and eat people very quickly. The episode is basically stock footage of ants mixed with people screaming. I'd highly recommend it. :lol

You know, for science.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on September 06, 2014, 02:09:37 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUREX8aFbMs
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on September 06, 2014, 02:37:06 AM
Woa that's quite some force, mother nature never sees to amaze!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on September 06, 2014, 05:27:00 AM
Crazy how those boulders are probably the size of large houses!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 06, 2014, 05:58:38 AM
I actually found most interesting the sound it made. I would expect an eruption sound to be a prolonged rumble, but I never expected this sharp SMACK! sound.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: King Postwhore on September 06, 2014, 06:01:36 AM
All these years of seeing the granite cut of the highway here in NH, I finally saw the process and it is amazing how they break down the rock to make a flat wall and you're right about the sound.  It's a large smack when they break the rocks into smaller pieces.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on September 06, 2014, 01:53:17 PM
I actually found most interesting the sound it made. I would expect an eruption sound to be a prolonged rumble, but I never expected this sharp SMACK! sound.
I think not all eruptions make that sound. This particular one did because it was an actual explosion, because the magma had nowhere to go.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Zook on September 06, 2014, 01:58:03 PM
That reminds me of an AMAZING episode of Macgyver, called "Trumbo's World", where Macgyver has to fight an army of killer ants that can kill and eat people very quickly. The episode is basically stock footage of ants mixed with people screaming. I'd highly recommend it. :lol

You know, for science.

I think that's that last episode of MacGyver I ever saw, and the only one I remember.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on September 08, 2014, 01:31:21 PM
https://www.nowykurier.com/toys/gravity/gravity.html

This is so much fun.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 08, 2014, 01:56:47 PM
https://www.nowykurier.com/toys/gravity/gravity.html

This is so much fun.

That's sick
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on September 08, 2014, 02:24:35 PM
https://www.nowykurier.com/toys/gravity/gravity.html

This is so much fun.

That's sick

I'm trying to make a sun-earth-moon system, but my moon keeps flying into the sun, or off into space.

Edit: It would be nice to enter numerical values for speed, rather than just vector lengths.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Scorpion on September 08, 2014, 03:21:24 PM
That is sweet.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on September 08, 2014, 07:57:30 PM
Square orbit!

(https://s30.postimg.org/a3sos6nn5/New_Bitmap_Image.png)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on September 11, 2014, 12:47:28 PM
"Woman of 24 found to have no cerebellum in her brain"

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329861.900-woman-of-24-found-to-have-no-cerebellum-in-her-brain.html#.VBHtxvldUeW
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 11, 2014, 12:56:24 PM
Wow. That's freaking wild.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on September 11, 2014, 01:01:48 PM
^ That. Pretty amazing stuff. Slightly unnerving and creepy too, looking at that picture.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on September 11, 2014, 10:00:47 PM
^ That. Pretty amazing stuff. Slightly unnerving and creepy too, looking at that picture.

Creepy was my first thought. I didn't even know it was possible for someone to be born and survive without a cerebellum, however rare, let alone go this long without realizing.
The human body is a weird and wonderful and weird thing. Yes, weird was needed twice.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on September 12, 2014, 12:47:00 AM
This teared me up:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226647/Nickolas-Coke-Boy-born-brain-dies-3-year-miracle-life.html
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on September 12, 2014, 01:36:25 AM
God fuckin' damn it..  :'( :'( :'( :'(

That's amazing though, I thought the first picture of him was the most recent and when I read that he lived three entire years without a brain, I was stunned. It's heart crushing though.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on September 12, 2014, 07:57:02 AM
That's crazy. I have a question though. The article said "Without a brain, Nickolas couldn’t speak, eat or walk and frequently suffered from debilitating seizures.". How does one have seizures if all they have is a brain stem?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TempusVox on September 12, 2014, 12:47:10 PM
https://www.nowykurier.com/toys/gravity/gravity.html

This is so much fun.

I got six tiny spheres into an elliptical orbit around an OMG sphere for about 10 minutes before they were finally absorbed. One was on a really huge orbit that went off-screen, and it kept disrupting the others just enough to keep them circling on each of it's returns. Pretty cool.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 17, 2014, 08:25:38 PM
https://www.nowykurier.com/toys/gravity/gravity.html

This is so much fun.

I got six tiny spheres into an elliptical orbit around an OMG sphere for about 10 minutes before they were finally absorbed. One was on a really huge orbit that went off-screen, and it kept disrupting the others just enough to keep them circling on each of it's returns. Pretty cool.

That could have been the most fun I've had wasting a half hour ever!! What a blast....I stuck with one OMFG sphere as the main source and had at one time a mix of 11 spheres orbiting but I couldn't keep all 11 going for long...they just interfered with each other.  I liked the tracking feature that traced the orbit...that was pretty cool.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 24, 2014, 02:50:52 PM
There are no such things as black holes. (https://www.universetoday.com/114802/there-are-no-such-things-as-black-holes/)

Sweet.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on September 24, 2014, 03:09:13 PM
"That's pre-post-ero-us":
(https://www.jimonlight.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/stephen-hawking-chicks.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 24, 2014, 04:45:39 PM
There are no such things as black holes. (https://www.universetoday.com/114802/there-are-no-such-things-as-black-holes/)

Sweet.

Just read another article about this, and another researcher didn't exactly mince words about the paper. Apparently papers claiming that black holes don't exist have a long history, and they all misunderstand Hawking radiation.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 24, 2014, 07:44:20 PM
I dunno WTF that is.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on September 25, 2014, 04:23:23 AM
There are no such things as black holes. (https://www.universetoday.com/114802/there-are-no-such-things-as-black-holes/)

Sweet.

Just read another article about this, and another researcher didn't exactly mince words about the paper. Apparently papers claiming that black holes don't exist have a long history, and they all misunderstand Hawking radiation.
The paper the article is about says that when doing a particular simulation taking into account both QM and GR, when a massive star comes to its end the remains after the supernova or whatever will never have a radius larger than the Swarzschild radius (which is needed for the star to become a black hole).
So either black holes don't exist, or this particular way of combining QM and GR does not work. I'll go for the latter.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on September 30, 2014, 07:30:03 PM
Super cool: Alcohol droplet finds its way through a maze.

https://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/researchers-make-self-moving-alcohol-droplets

Great example of how a simple physical process achieves what on the surface requires intelligence.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on October 01, 2014, 02:36:05 AM
That's pretty cool indeed!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on October 02, 2014, 08:50:16 AM
It seems like the salt gradient would be too localized; not large enough in the vicinity of the alcohol drop.  Does the salt (or any other substance) begin spreading out quickly, and in enough concentrations to create a "noticeable" gradient at large distances?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 02, 2014, 08:54:31 AM
Well, if you put detergent into water, the change in surface tension travels super fast. So, I could see it traveling reasonably fast too.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on October 02, 2014, 11:43:53 AM
Well, if you put detergent into water, the change in surface tension travels super fast. So, I could see it traveling reasonably fast too.
But surface tension is a property of the water that's changing, not the actual transport of a substance, right?  This seems like the latter.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on October 02, 2014, 11:49:27 AM
Well, if you put detergent into water, the change in surface tension travels super fast. So, I could see it traveling reasonably fast too.
But surface tension is a property of the water that's changing, not the actual transport of a substance, right?  This seems like the latter.

But I think the surface tension would dictate the rate at which the substance travels. The more the surface tension is disrupted, the easier it is to travel through it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 02, 2014, 02:27:17 PM
Well, if you put detergent into water, the change in surface tension travels super fast. So, I could see it traveling reasonably fast too.
But surface tension is a property of the water that's changing, not the actual transport of a substance, right?  This seems like the latter.

To my understanding, the traveling drop simply simply absorbs salt, and so it gets pulled into the direction of greater salt concentration in the water. The question is simply how fast the salt gradient can travel through water.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on October 02, 2014, 02:52:18 PM
I guess this is related to how a shark can smell a single drop of blood from 2 miles (or something similar).  I always wondered how that was possible, and how long it would take to diffuse through a 2 mile radius sphere of water.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on October 03, 2014, 04:57:04 AM
Well, if you put detergent into water, the change in surface tension travels super fast. So, I could see it traveling reasonably fast too.
But surface tension is a property of the water that's changing, not the actual transport of a substance, right?  This seems like the latter.

But I think the surface tension would dictate the rate at which the substance travels. The more the surface tension is disrupted, the easier it is to travel through it.
??? That's not true I think. Rumborak just means that the chance in surface tension caused by detergent travels super fast, so maybe this salt can diffuse fast enough as well.
I don't think the speed at which the diffusion happens matters very much. The concentration will always be lower the further you are from the salt droplet (within a reasonable time range of course, far longer than the alcohol droplets needs to travel to the salt droplet). The video is also definitely sped up.

I guess this is related to how a shark can smell a single drop of blood from 2 miles (or something similar).  I always wondered how that was possible, and how long it would take to diffuse through a 2 mile radius sphere of water.
This used to confuse me as well. I think it just means that sharks can detect extremely low concentrations of blood, it would surprise me if they actually instantaneously knew what direction it was coming from as well. They just smell it and keep swimming around until the smell gets stronger.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on October 03, 2014, 06:33:28 AM
I guess this is related to how a shark can smell a single drop of blood from 2 miles (or something similar).  I always wondered how that was possible, and how long it would take to diffuse through a 2 mile radius sphere of water.
This used to confuse me as well. I think it just means that sharks can detect extremely low concentrations of blood, it would surprise me if they actually instantaneously knew what direction it was coming from as well. They just smell it and keep swimming around until the smell gets stronger.
Well, if they can follow the gradient, then they would know what direction it was coming from. 

In a more general sense, the same goes for any other hyper-sensitive sensing, biological or otherwise: I can understand being sensitive enough to pick up signals that low, but at that point how can the signal be much different and be distinguished from background noise?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on October 04, 2014, 02:46:43 AM
I guess this is related to how a shark can smell a single drop of blood from 2 miles (or something similar).  I always wondered how that was possible, and how long it would take to diffuse through a 2 mile radius sphere of water.
This used to confuse me as well. I think it just means that sharks can detect extremely low concentrations of blood, it would surprise me if they actually instantaneously knew what direction it was coming from as well. They just smell it and keep swimming around until the smell gets stronger.
Well, if they can follow the gradient, then they would know what direction it was coming from. 

In a more general sense, the same goes for any other hyper-sensitive sensing, biological or otherwise: I can understand being sensitive enough to pick up signals that low, but at that point how can the signal be much different and be distinguished from background noise?
I meant that when they pick up trace amounts of blood, instead of just swimming on like they would, they will swim around the area in random directions until by chance the smell gets stronger (and they can follow the gradient to actually get there).

I don't know about biology, but with electronics there are some "tricks" you can use to look for extremely tiny signals. For example a Lock-in amplifier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-in_amplifier) can detect signals of a given frequency with extremely tiny amplitudes relative to the noise.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 04, 2014, 08:38:13 AM
Frankly, I think that statement about sharks is myth. In fact, I have a vague recollection of Mythbusters testing it, and it's nowhere near true.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kári on October 04, 2014, 03:16:09 PM
I don't know, I remember hearing about it in some shark video when I was 10 or so and I never bothered to look it up. So it being a myth is very plausible. I don't know how reliable this webpage (https://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/sharks_rays/rfl_myth/myth_page5.html) is, but it does tone it down a great deal at least.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 28, 2014, 08:24:43 PM
Whoa.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/pope-francis-takes-stand-evolution-against-magic-wands

Gotta say, the guy is quite likeable.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on October 29, 2014, 03:11:52 AM
Yeah, I saw that. That's quite cool.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: wasteland on October 29, 2014, 04:00:00 AM
Whoa.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/pope-francis-takes-stand-evolution-against-magic-wands

Gotta say, the guy is quite likeable.

I was under the impression that Pius XII and JP2 had said pretty much the same in their times.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 29, 2014, 11:52:18 AM
They did, but Benedict contradicted it again. They also never said it so directly I think.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on October 29, 2014, 12:00:41 PM
Whoa.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/pope-francis-takes-stand-evolution-against-magic-wands

Gotta say, the guy is quite likeable.

My problem with this is that it still gives religion too much wiggle room. I've noticed across the internet that many religious folks have taken a liking to the idea that adaption exists, but not evolution. A lizard can adapt into different kind of lizards, naturally, but it will always be a lizard. It can never evolve into anything other than a lizard. I blame Ken Ham and his fucking "kinds" bullshit for that one.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 29, 2014, 12:10:38 PM
Frankly, people who don't want something to be true will always take the next best bogus thing to latch on. 50 years ago people were ranting about the "missing link", and the same types of people now yell that major speciation isn't possible.
I still think it's significant. It's important to see that at least one major Western religion is moving forward, especially among the extremist clamor of Islamists and evangelical Christians.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on October 29, 2014, 02:56:18 PM
I'll take it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on October 29, 2014, 03:15:08 PM
That's pretty mind blowing to me, but then again I didn't know it's been (at least somewhat) supported for a while as I don't keep up with politics or religion (I suppose the Pope is religion's politics...). Interesting though, that the man highest in the religious community would actually have an open-mind about such matters. I'm not getting my hopes up for anything more than this stirring the pot a smidgen.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on October 29, 2014, 04:13:50 PM
That's pretty mind blowing to me, but then again I didn't know it's been (at least somewhat) supported for a while as I don't keep up with politics or religion (I suppose the Pope is religion's politics...). Interesting though, that the man highest in the religious community would actually have an open-mind about such matters. I'm not getting my hopes up for anything more than this stirring the pot a smidgen.

There is only so long you can keep up the charade before becoming a joke.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Implode on October 29, 2014, 07:36:32 PM
The thing is, the only significant group of people that still follow the Pope's word are Catholics, and the official Catholic teaching has been evolution for some time now. The other denominations or believers that discount evolution probably don't think much of the Pope anyway. Still great to hear it though.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on October 29, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
The US is mostly Protestant so it might be easy to discount the Pope, but 1.2 billion people in this world are nominally catholic, and that means something.
I am reasonably sure that quite a few people around the world will have said "I have heard about evolution as scientific fact, but if my pope supports it, that means something to me."
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Implode on October 29, 2014, 08:45:54 PM
Your right. I suppose my post mostly applies to the US.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on October 30, 2014, 07:44:48 AM
(https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/evolution2.jpg)
(https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/evolution3.jpg)

Quote
One in three Americans doesn't believe in evolution, according to new survey results from the Pew Research Center.

The results, released Monday in report on views about human evolution, show that 33 percent of Americans think "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/evolution-survey_n_4519441.html





I would call that pretty fucking terrifying.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on November 23, 2014, 04:11:38 AM
How to see air move:

https://youtu.be/mLp_rSBzteI

Cool stuff!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on December 06, 2014, 04:24:43 PM
If you haven't seen it I highly recommend watching The Great Debate. It's very entertaining and interesting, especially part 2.

Part 1:
https://youtu.be/xI8JAnweXtA

Part 2:
https://youtu.be/oj1rAp4shvI

Featuring:
Bill Nye (science educator)
Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist)
Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist)
Brian Greene (theoretical physicist)
Ira Flatow (Radio host on Science Friday)
Neal Stephenson (science fiction writer)
Tracy Day (executive director of the World Science Festival)
Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist and cosmologist)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jammindude on December 07, 2014, 06:45:13 PM
I'm not sure if this deserves its own thread, but it is science...so I thought I'd ask some of the science nerds here.   It has to do with the Cascadia fault just 40 miles off the coast of Washington (running from southern BC down to northern California actually)

My wife and I *DREAM* of moving to the ocean.   And I'm not talking about being up on a bluff.  There's a small town just 20-40 feet above sea level that we've absolutely fallen in love with.    We keep thinking that if there was an earthquake, we would have time to evacuate.  (there is higher ground literally 5 minutes away...maybe less) 

But let me cut right to the chase.   IMO, there are two ways to read this article, and I want to make sure I'm not being thrown into a lot of worry over "panic media click bait".    Because if you read the headline, it would have you believing that "the big one" is imminent.   But if you actually read the article *AND THE ACTUAL STUDY* that is linked....it seems to be hinting that the fault could actually just be fully healing from the megashift 315 years ago...which would mean that the pressure will just be distributed elsewhere.

Anyone here who is into seismology who can interpret this article https://www.kplu.org/post/study-offshore-fault-where-big-one-originates-eerily-quiet and correlate it to this actual study:  https://www.bssaonline.org/content/early/2014/11/13/0120140095.abstract
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on December 19, 2014, 11:30:50 AM
https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/bizarre-ghost-animal-new-record-deepest-living-fish

Crazy. A fish at 8,000 meters.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on December 19, 2014, 06:57:50 PM
I can't even imagine the pressure at that depth. Funky looking thing too.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on December 22, 2014, 02:30:18 AM
^^That's awesome! That reminded me that I read somewhere about organic life forms on mars. Yes here it is:

https://www.cnet.com/news/curiosity-has-discovered-organic-matter-on-mars/


On another note:
Quote from: FROM WIKI
Annual viewings

The Thing is annually viewed by members of the winter crew at the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station during the first evening of winter. Another traditional feature is The Shining. It is also viewed by scientific personnel at the Summit Camp on the apex of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
What a glorious thing to read!  :metal
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on January 16, 2015, 05:57:06 AM
Interesting read about AI:

https://www.popsci.com/open-letter-everyone-tricked-fearing-ai
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on January 21, 2015, 07:26:46 AM
These Fibonaci sculptures animate under strobe lights!

https://www.littlethings.com/fibonaci-scuplture/
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on February 20, 2015, 04:28:24 PM
The origin of the Indo-European languages traced back to the Russian steppes 6000 years back:

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/indo-european-languages-may-have-originated-6000-years-ago-russian-grasslands
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on May 27, 2015, 06:31:57 AM
The Backwards Brain Bicycle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0)

Interesting stuff!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on May 27, 2015, 10:05:42 AM
Quote
You're looking at the world with a bias.  Whether you think you are or not

Fantastic
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 05, 2015, 11:35:36 AM
I was heating a small mount of water (maybe 0.75 inch) in a 4 quart sauce pan to remove some stuff stuck on the bottom.  There was no visible vapor coming off the surface, and it wasn't yet near boiling when I turned off the heat.  At that point, vapor started coming off the surface until I turned the heat back on which stopped the vapor.  I repeated this several times and each time, the addition of heat stopped the vapor.

Anyone care to explain?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 05, 2015, 11:46:42 AM
Electric or gas stove?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 05, 2015, 03:07:30 PM
gas
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 05, 2015, 04:28:31 PM
Apparently it's simply the steam becoming visible as it's temperature decreases.  True superheated stream is not visible, though partially condensed steam is.

I had to find a more brief description to search for an answer.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on June 09, 2015, 09:06:41 AM
Saw a bunch of videos from the DARPA Robotics Challenge. It's really fascinating once you understand how complicated it is to write software for robots performing everyday tasks. We humans do alot of small adjustments subconsciously when we for example open a door so for a programmer it's a nightmare. It's hilarious to watch when they fail though.

These robots for example, with the task of opening a door and walk through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVxd6lZFKJ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSK5yy9v9ik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yercjXbUOK8 My favourite  :lol

Love this one trying to do an obstacle course but utterly fails on the first step.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD2yBjT1NnU
 :lol

They do succeed also like this creepy thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_bvh6ckIM


Compilation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A_QPGcjrh0

Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on June 09, 2015, 09:11:07 AM
I've only seen the video mocking the falling over, but I want to check out those full vids later. I find that stuff so fascinating, knowing how difficult it must be to program a machine to do tasks with such wide parameters and variables in the real world. I saw the history of Honda's robots recently on Youtube (who made ASIMO), which is a great watch.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 09, 2015, 09:17:18 AM
I've been following the Darpa competition since the first race. Really fascinating stuff. I wish there was a TV show or something that followed the desgin teams up until competition.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 15, 2015, 11:14:47 AM
https://money.cnn.com/2015/06/15/technology/hyperloop-competition/index.html?iid=SF_LN

Quote
To help spur that innovation, SpaceX said it will build a one-mile test track near its headquarters in Hawthorne, California. And it's calling on engineering teams and universities to develop the pods that will shuttle people. An update on the company's website says a few competitors have already signed on.

I can't wait to see what the teams come up with.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 16, 2015, 01:00:26 PM
Maybe not science or nature, instead computer science:

https://gizmodo.com/thirty-year-old-commodore-amiga-still-controls-heat-and-1711257091

I had an Amiga back in the day. Awesome machine.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 16, 2015, 02:02:06 PM
Along the same lines:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/249951/if_it_aint_broke_dont_fix_it_ancient_computers_in_use_today.html
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on June 16, 2015, 11:36:26 PM
Maybe not science or nature, instead computer science:

https://gizmodo.com/thirty-year-old-commodore-amiga-still-controls-heat-and-1711257091

I had an Amiga back in the day. Awesome machine.

We had one way after it's heyday. They were ahead of their time, and great for gaming. Ours would probably still work just fine if I could locate all of the parts.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 17, 2015, 06:24:48 AM
Evolution is bullshit, guys.

"Nothing evolved there has not been sufficient time even at 4 billion years.  Google the number of atoms in a 170 kg man.  Then divide that number by 4 billion.  Then by 365, then by 24, then by 60 and again by 60 and you will find the number of atoms per second that must collide and stick together to form a human being.  It stands to reason that an equal number collisions would occur not forming a man or anything.  Look around you do you see hunks of meat falling out of the sky every second.  Thats how large the number of atoms per second is.  evolution is bunk."


"I find it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in creation. Life is far to complex to have ever evolved as so many species are interdependent on one another for survival. Parallel evolution of species to accommodate for this makes any chance of evolution being valid and impossibility. "


"interestingly enough genesis in the bible said the serpent was cursed to crawl around on its belly. what other kinds of things am i going to learn that correlate to what the bible already says. people that fabricate evolution with the intent of destroying the bible do so at their own peril as all of us are terminal in this world are going to meet the creator. "


"Well, well, well.  Science finally proves the Genesis Account of Creation once and for all and refuses to admit it!"


"They said they used a "computational method" to build a phylogenetic tree and call that proof of "Evolution".... by using that same method you can use the Card Catalog in your local library and show how all the Books in the Library "Evolved" into their current written texts and titles... Even go to Talk Origins and about the only benefits they list to the Theory of Evolution is how it has helped to organise books. Biologists used to be about 85% Atheist... now according to the latest poll results, they are only 17% of Biologist Scientists... seems once they looked at the actual data, they are abandoning and questioning their beliefs faster than rats leaving a sinking ship."


"Well duh!!! Where have you all been? Don't you read your Bible? In Genises satan appered to Eve as a snake and when God cursed the sake He said, "you wil now crawl on your belly." What does that sound like? They had feet!!! Amazing to me that science is just now catching up to the truth we have had all along. Evolution is a major hoax!!! God's word is absolute truth and if you read the Bible you will see that what science is proving now we have known as truth all along."


"Of the 6 basic concepts of evolution, only #6 Micro-Evolution (changes in kinds) has been observed and can be called science. The other five including Macro-evolution (cell to man) have never been seen and are believed by 'scientists' to exist. Sounds a lot like faith to me. The only observed, quantitative aspect of evolution proves no species changes into another. Period."


"So now the "scientists" agree with the Bible that the snake originally had feet."


- Fox News Comment Section
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Bolsters on June 17, 2015, 06:29:44 AM
I can't make sense of that at all. I must be sane.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 17, 2015, 06:30:21 AM
That's one fat man.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 17, 2015, 06:40:36 AM
Why would anyone read the fox news comment section.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Zook on June 17, 2015, 07:08:04 PM
Is it OK to call that person a crackpot creationist?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 18, 2015, 07:54:55 AM
Not sure whether this is the right thread for this, but you guys been following that the Pope will release an "encyclica" on global warming?
I don't agree with a lot of things in the Catholic Church, but this guy is at least trying to do the right thing.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Scorpion on June 18, 2015, 01:52:45 PM
Yeah, I read about the Vatican being angry that it leaked.

It's released tomorrow, right?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 18, 2015, 01:57:35 PM
Pretty sure it was today actually.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Genowyn on June 19, 2015, 09:05:25 AM
Everything I read about or from Pope Francis makes me like him more, and I really hope his papacy signals a new direction for the Catholic Church. I really hope his followers, other Christians, even people of other faith and atheists like myself take his words on climate change to heart.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Dublagent66 on June 19, 2015, 09:32:40 AM
Evolution is bullshit, guys.

Right, because the theory of creation has a much higher degree of probability.   :rollin
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: orcus116 on June 19, 2015, 11:15:11 AM
I'm having a hard time thinking of a word that is misused/misinterpreted more than the word 'theory' when it comes to railing against evolution.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Implode on June 19, 2015, 11:19:27 AM
Yup. Evolution vs Creation arguments never get anywhere, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that they don't have the same definitions for some very important words, like a scientific theory.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 19, 2015, 12:29:57 PM
Evolution is bullshit, guys.

- Fox News Comment Section

Not saying I'm arguing for creationism or against evolution (I'm a Roman Catholic Libertarian who votes conservative and believes in evolution) but what are you hoping to prove?   That 15 people have their own take on things?   One, why should that surprise you, and two, why isn't the fact that you (and others) are ridiculing them for drawing their own conclusions as "terrifying" as you previously called those ideas that you don't agree with? 

I can just as easily go to Moveon.org or some other liberal website and find as many comments that make absolutely zero factual sense in any permutation.  So what? 

Believe what you believe, teach your children to follow the facts and the best ideas will win out.  They always do (just not always on your timetable).   


Same sort of comment on the Pope.  I'm not sure what you (collective, not just Chino) expect him to do.  He has the ears and the minds of his faithful.  He is working on changing those minds.  It doesn't happen overnight, sometimes it doesn't even happen within a generation.  But every Pope Francis makes it harder and harder for the next Benedict to assert his will.   But we can't forget that he is a man of God and got to his position at least in part because of his unwavering faith.   So this may not seem like much to the 4% or so of world atheists, but it is a damn big deal for the 18% or so of world Catholics. 

I would also keep a little salt in my hand with some of the poll numbers.   Of course, if the goal is to ridicule those that don't share our ideas, the poll looks "terrifying", but I readily confess to hedging my answers on both evolution and global warming, not because I don't believe the science, or I am seeking to ignore the science, but because the science is being used politically.  I have no beef with the notion of global warming.   I personally think it is less than 100% manmade, but that's a quibble.  What I object to, and what is happening too regularly, and almost de facto, is that by conceding the science (there is an element of global warming that is man made) we also concede the politics (tax big corporations punitively, arbitrarily limit fossil fuels usage as opposed to advancing technology, and materially disadvantaging us on the global market).   There was a recent speech on the Senate floor (quoted here, I think) by one of the esteemed Senators from Rhode Island.  And in his speech - it was about 20 minutes - 3 minutes went to introduction, 5 minutes went to the science, and 12 minutes went right to all the controls, and taxes and tariffs and regulations and restrictions that had to go in place and anyone who said otherwise was a "denier" with their "heads in the sand".  That's equally "terrifying".   
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 19, 2015, 12:31:04 PM
Yup. Evolution vs Creation arguments never get anywhere, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that they don't have the same definitions for some very important words, like a scientific theory.

I disagree. I think that is more a symptom than a cause. I don't think the detractors of evolution really care to understand any of it (as evidenced that you still get the knee-jerk answer "where's the missing link?!!", which was an issue in the early 20th century). So, jumping on the "theory" part really just means "ah, now I can stop thinking about it."
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 19, 2015, 12:36:52 PM
Yup. Evolution vs Creation arguments never get anywhere, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that they don't have the same definitions for some very important words, like a scientific theory.

I disagree. I think that is more a symptom than a cause. I don't think the detractors of evolution really care to understand any of it (as evidenced that you still get the knee-jerk answer "where's the missing link?!!", which was an issue in the early 20th century). So, jumping on the "theory" part really just means "ah, now I can stop thinking about it."

See my post above.  It's far more fun to make fun of the intelligence of the people we disagree with, but while calling on them to better understand your definition of "theory" (which I agree with, by the way) it might help to also call on ourselves to understand that we might have more traction if we separate the politics/religion from the science.  I think the Chinese call it gei mianzi (show respect for others "face") and liu mianzi (give others an opportunity to save their "face").   
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 19, 2015, 12:49:16 PM

Not saying I'm arguing for creationism or against evolution (I'm a Roman Catholic Libertarian who votes conservative and believes in evolution) but what are you hoping to prove?   That 15 people have their own take on things?   One, why should that surprise you, and two, why isn't the fact that you (and others) are ridiculing them for drawing their own conclusions as "terrifying" as you previously called those ideas that you don't agree with? 



I'm sorry, but when someone says;

"Nothing evolved there has not been sufficient time even at 4 billion years.  Google the number of atoms in a 170 kg man.  Then divide that number by 4 billion.  Then by 365, then by 24, then by 60 and again by 60 and you will find the number of atoms per second that must collide and stick together to form a human being.  It stands to reason that an equal number collisions would occur not forming a man or anything.  Look around you do you see hunks of meat falling out of the sky every second.  Thats how large the number of atoms per second is.  evolution is bunk."

... that is truly terrifying. This person votes. This person will potentially have children (might already have them) one day. First off, can you even consider his little number game math? I'm not even sure what point he's trying to make, but I think he meant to use multiplication istead of division. Also, the genius doesn't have the slightest clue how atoms work or how they come together to form complex objects. He appears to believe that everything in the universe somehow magically comes into existance by the random colliding of atoms. They clearly have no idea what cell division is and think that atoms can randomly combine to form limbs in the sky. It pisses me off that people this stupid actually exist. We live in a period of time in which we have limitless access to knowledge and information. We can tap into the greatest minds in history with the click of a button. There is no evidence or research that is not obtainable and backed up time and time again. Yet, for whatever reason, people like this still dominate the polls in some states. People like this get pandered to and have their stupidity exploited by politicians and people like Alex Jones. Their view of reality is completely wrong. They think they are the informed ones and can proudly say they are not a sheep. They are stuck in this delusional fantasy where they get to approve the elements of science that make them feel good (and not die) while dismissing anything (in this case evolution) that may challenge their hopes for death not being the end.

I'm not trying to prove anything. We have a science and nature thread, and I posted something related to certain people's views of science and nature. This goes beyond me disagreeing with someone's ideas. We have so many brilliant people in this nation. People who dedicate their lives to solving problems and making sense of everything around us. People that get written off and can't have their voices heard because they are getting drowned out by the politicians and media folk who appease these retards for the sake of campaign contributiuons and ad revenue generation. It's disgusting.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Ħ on June 19, 2015, 01:45:57 PM
People on both sides don't realize that evolution is a huge research progamme involving focal and auxiliary hypotheses supporting a global thesis (which cannot be directly supported by evidence). Problems occur when people think the global thesis is true because one of the focal elements is true (e.g. the peppered moth proves evolution!!), when people reject the global thesis because they reject one of its focal elements (e.g. theistic evolutionists who reject abiogenesis and thereby reject evolution), or when people think that affirming the global thesis requires accepting all of its focal elements (e.g. again, thinking evolution requires abiogenesis). One can "believe in evolution" generally yet disbelieve several chapters of the Grand Evolutionary Story.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Dublagent66 on June 19, 2015, 03:54:25 PM
I'm having a hard time thinking of a word that is misused/misinterpreted more than the word 'theory' when it comes to railing against evolution.

Well, it goes both ways, not just evolution.  But the meaning of that word is fairly simple and straight forward.  Where does the hard part come in regarding misuse and misinterpretation?  Science and nature exist.  That is fact.  How things came into existence can only be theorized and not fully proven beyond a shadow of doubt.  At least not at this point.  In that context, the word "theory" is very appropriate.  Just a theory... :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: orcus116 on June 19, 2015, 04:30:37 PM
The issue is that some people use it to mean "made up" to discredit something whereas, if I remember correctly, a theory is the highest you can label something in science outside of being proven completely true. There may be a range of how close to reality a theory is but I'm pretty sure nothing gets that label without some serious hard evidence that backs it up.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 19, 2015, 06:24:13 PM
People believe the words "theory" and "hypothesis" are synonyms.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Zook on June 19, 2015, 10:22:52 PM

Not saying I'm arguing for creationism or against evolution (I'm a Roman Catholic Libertarian who votes conservative and believes in evolution) but what are you hoping to prove?   That 15 people have their own take on things?   One, why should that surprise you, and two, why isn't the fact that you (and others) are ridiculing them for drawing their own conclusions as "terrifying" as you previously called those ideas that you don't agree with? 



I'm sorry, but when someone says;

"Nothing evolved there has not been sufficient time even at 4 billion years.  Google the number of atoms in a 170 kg man.  Then divide that number by 4 billion.  Then by 365, then by 24, then by 60 and again by 60 and you will find the number of atoms per second that must collide and stick together to form a human being.  It stands to reason that an equal number collisions would occur not forming a man or anything.  Look around you do you see hunks of meat falling out of the sky every second.  Thats how large the number of atoms per second is.  evolution is bunk."

... that is truly terrifying. This person votes. This person will potentially have children (might already have them) one day. First off, can you even consider his little number game math? I'm not even sure what point he's trying to make, but I think he meant to use multiplication istead of division. Also, the genius doesn't have the slightest clue how atoms work or how they come together to form complex objects. He appears to believe that everything in the universe somehow magically comes into existance by the random colliding of atoms. They clearly have no idea what cell division is and think that atoms can randomly combine to form limbs in the sky. It pisses me off that people this stupid actually exist. We live in a period of time in which we have limitless access to knowledge and information. We can tap into the greatest minds in history with the click of a button. There is no evidence or research that is not obtainable and backed up time and time again. Yet, for whatever reason, people like this still dominate the polls in some states. People like this get pandered to and have their stupidity exploited by politicians and people like Alex Jones. Their view of reality is completely wrong. They think they are the informed ones and can proudly say they are not a sheep. They are stuck in this delusional fantasy where they get to approve the elements of science that make them feel good (and not die) while dismissing anything (in this case evolution) that may challenge their hopes for death not being the end.

I'm not trying to prove anything. We have a science and nature thread, and I posted something related to certain people's views of science and nature. This goes beyond me disagreeing with someone's ideas. We have so many brilliant people in this nation. People who dedicate their lives to solving problems and making sense of everything around us. People that get written off and can't have their voices heard because they are getting drowned out by the politicians and media folk who appease these retards for the sake of campaign contributiuons and ad revenue generation. It's disgusting.


POTY
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 20, 2015, 08:40:24 AM
People on both sides don't realize that evolution is a huge research progamme involving focal and auxiliary hypotheses supporting a global thesis (which cannot be directly supported by evidence). Problems occur when people think the global thesis is true because one of the focal elements is true (e.g. the peppered moth proves evolution!!), when people reject the global thesis because they reject one of its focal elements (e.g. theistic evolutionists who reject abiogenesis and thereby reject evolution), or when people think that affirming the global thesis requires accepting all of its focal elements (e.g. again, thinking evolution requires abiogenesis). One can "believe in evolution" generally yet disbelieve several chapters of the Grand Evolutionary Story.

H, i think you're kidding yourself on that part.  What you describe there as "Evolution" sounds like a disparate collection of small hypotheses that get stuck together into this somewhat artificial grand hypotheses. That way of viewing evolution may make it easy for you to plug in your favorite counter-theory, but as i said, that's not how evolution, or science, works. The two can not be separated, because at this point, barring minor points of discussions at the fringes, all branches of science are heavily interlocked. They all agree on that "grand story", and they all do with completely different evidence. So, by saying "I don't believe in the grand story", yoiu are rejecting physics, biology, chemistry, paleontology etc, all in one swoop.
Just to give an example here,  there are animals across the world that are quite similar in genetic code (a finding from biology). You can estimate backwards based on the average number of mutations per millennium how long ago they shared the same ancestor. Well, however that doesn't answer how those animals could even share the same code, given how they are separated by vast bodies of water.
Separately you got the physical finding that the tectonic plates are slowly moving. And also the finding that the rocks on the Eastern coast of the US are the same makeup as the ones on the West African coast.
Well, now you calculate back when those two continents were connected. And lo anbd behold, it is the same timeframe that the genetics calculation gave. Which now corroborates, from two totally separate arms oif investigation, that at some point the tectonic plates formed one big object, and the animals roamed freely on it.
Comes in geology and paleontology (fossils), who with even more different evidence come to the same conclusion.
So, when you reject Evolution, you reject all science essentially.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Implode on June 20, 2015, 10:10:45 AM
Yup. Evolution vs Creation arguments never get anywhere, and one of the biggest reasons for that is that they don't have the same definitions for some very important words, like a scientific theory.

I disagree. I think that is more a symptom than a cause. I don't think the detractors of evolution really care to understand any of it (as evidenced that you still get the knee-jerk answer "where's the missing link?!!", which was an issue in the early 20th century). So, jumping on the "theory" part really just means "ah, now I can stop thinking about it."

I suppose that can be true too. If there's a cause to something that involves lack of effort (not necessarily implying laziness but that's a different theory of mine ey) by humans, it's probably likely.

I'm going to post that quote from NDT about the Big Bang Theory he said when he spoke at my college a couple years ago. I love how he explained how scientific paradigms worked.

Asker: Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

Tyson: There's no "belief". Science is not about "belief". Okay? Is there evidence, or is there not evidence? If there's evidence, then the evidence does the talking. That's really how this works. So, you look at the evidence in support of the universe having once been hotter, occupying a smaller volume of space yesterday than today, run the clock back, finding out that all the motion in the universe points back to a single time and a single place, and that was 13.8 billion years ago. All of our evidence points to that. That's the Big Bang. If there's a new theory that comes out that replaces the Big Bang, it WILL have the Big Bang as an element of it. It'll just be a deeper understanding of what's going on. That's how science works. That's how it's always worked since the modern methods and tools of science were brought to bare on questions of the natual world, which is basically the last 400 years.

So in other words, we can say that Newton was wrong, once Einstein's Relativity came on the scene, but that's not the right way to think about it. What happened is that Newton's laws of motion and laws of gravity were replaced by Special Relativity and General Relativity. They are more accurate descriptions of reality, especially at high speeds and high scources of gravity--things that Newton had no exposure to. A fast running horse, that's as fast as they ever go, all right? So, what you find is that if you put low gravity and low speeds in Einstein's equations, they become Newton's equations. It is the slow speed limit of Einstein's equation. So we didn't want to have some idea, and now we're all over here, "That's not that anymore; it's this!" No. No. This was true. It was experimentally verified to be true. Then when more conditions were tested, it failed under those other conditions but still works under the conditions it was previously tested. So here's the sphere of Newton's influence. Einstein's influence is a bigger sphere enclosing Newton.

So. So much evidence is in support of the Big Bang, like I said, any theory that replaces it will just be a bigger understand of reality, of which the Big Bang would be a part--such as the multiverse. The Big Bang is like an afterthought in the multiverse. The multiverse is pumping universes in and out of existence daily, and we would just be one of those bubbles. So there are people working on that as a consequence of the quantum fluctuations of the fabric of space and time in the universe. So it's not a matter of belief.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on June 20, 2015, 10:31:20 AM
Tyson: There's no "belief". Science is not about "belief". Okay? Is there evidence, or is there not evidence? If there's evidence, then the evidence does the talking.

There is an effort to make it about one belief versus another.  It is just not that way.  It's not creationism versus evolution.  It's belief versus evidence.

Edit:This thread may seem to be going into PR territory, but I think this tangent is very much about defining what science is, and what it is not.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 21, 2015, 11:56:22 AM
I still think an important point is being missed; well, a couple important points.

- one, the great thing about a "democracy" (such that it is here in the States) is that people CAN be delusional.  They get that right.  Someone can vote for the candidate that rejects evolutionary science just like someone can vote for a President on the grounds that he will make all gasoline free (Google it; I saw that interview with my own two eyes when it aired) or any number of other things that are less controversial but no less in keeping with the "facts".

- As much as I like NDT, in my opinion he's a little tone deaf on this issue.  Beating people over the head with the "science" - and by result, asking them to rethink and recalibrate the very core of their being and their world view - then ridiculing them for not seeing the facts he sees and incorporating them in the same way he has is asking a lot.   I get it; I have taken too many graduate level science and theology classes to count, and I understand the science as well as someone who doesn't work in the field, and doesn't have a ton of interest in it can.   Yet it was an EXTREMELY intense process to incorporate that with my faith.   I think I've come to some balance, and as a general premise, there is room in my faith to accommodate "all that science I don't understand" (thank, Bernie) but I think there ought to be a little more understanding for those for whom the science is beyond them and yet have the same struggles with mortality and spirituality and existence that everyone else does. 

Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 21, 2015, 03:02:08 PM
I think NDT's somewhat aggressive stance is really an outcome of how science has been over the last few decades relegated to "just another opinion, as valid as what I read in Us magazine about biology". Science had become a playball for politicians, to be manipulated and used to their liking. I think NDT is good in the sense that he gives science some teeth.
Regarding some people's battles over how to integrate scientific knowledge into their current worldview, is that really science's issue? I don't see why science should be apologetic or accommodating to concepts that, from a scientific point of view, are simply wrong. I liked what the Dalai Lama said not so long ago: "If science shows Buddhism to be wrong, then Buddhism needs to change".
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: orcus116 on June 21, 2015, 06:46:19 PM
Regarding the Dali Lama that's really interesting to hear. Are there any other religious leaders that feel the same?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 21, 2015, 08:11:26 PM
I think NDT's somewhat aggressive stance is really an outcome of how science has been over the last few decades relegated to "just another opinion, as valid as what I read in Us magazine about biology". Science had become a playball for politicians, to be manipulated and used to their liking. I think NDT is good in the sense that he gives science some teeth.
Regarding some people's battles over how to integrate scientific knowledge into their current worldview, is that really science's issue? I don't see why science should be apologetic or accommodating to concepts that, from a scientific point of view, are simply wrong. I liked what the Dalai Lama said not so long ago: "If science shows Buddhism to be wrong, then Buddhism needs to change".

Or it's about the fact that relatively speaking, NDT is considered something of a "rock star" for his position. 

It's not science's issue.  Science should continue to be science.  But science doesn't happen on the front page of magazines, or on television in prime time.  In that sense, it isn't "science" we're talking about, but advocacy.    Hell I AGREE with Tyson, but even I'm like, dude, give me the science, save me the lecture.   Bill Nye is another one.  Used to LOVE LOVE LOVE that guy.   Now, not so much.  Posting Facebook posts with a map of Tropical Storm Bill and saying - snarkily - something to the effect of "what was that about Global Warming again"?  Reprehensible, because it's "science" and we're supposed to accept his point and reject all others, but there's actually little data that shows "extreme weather" events are a) more extreme or b) more frequent that in past decades.   So if they're so right and so sure, why the need to fuzz the data?  I thought this was about FACTS and SCIENCE?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 21, 2015, 08:22:17 PM
BTW, I'm not too big a fan of NDT either. I wish he could convince more through charisma like Carl Sagan did, but I also realize that scientists with TV charisma don't grow on trees. So, I take NDT for what he is, and am happy that there is a push to get science more active exposure.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 24, 2015, 10:06:51 AM
This is an incredibly well-done infographic by Bloomberg on global warming:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Worth sharing.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Genowyn on June 24, 2015, 10:19:47 AM
That was really interesting to see.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 24, 2015, 10:35:34 AM
They conviniently left rise in gay marriages out of the graph.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 24, 2015, 11:02:08 AM
It's interesting, but anyone who didn't know where it was going after the first graph is an idiot.  And of course, since even NASA can't stay out of the political discussion, what was the last line?  You got it:  "The only real question now is, what are we going to do about it." 

Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 24, 2015, 11:06:05 AM
I think it's really lamentable how NASA's *scientific* conclusions are now considered "political" because certain politicians have decided to ignore any science and just make up stuff they know will please their constituency and sponsors.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 24, 2015, 11:08:23 AM
  "The only real question now is, what are we going to do about it."

We could start by voting for people that care more about the planet than the coal and oil industries. We could also focus funds on growing meat in labs rather than having to raise billions of animals per year that require water and feed while producing copious amounts of methane.

And why shouldn't NASA be in the discussion? They are the ones building and launching the instruments to help finally shut up the politicians who constantly say things like "I'm not a scientist" and "The science isn't settled on climate change".
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 24, 2015, 11:11:05 AM
The real issue is the amount of deception going on. I mean, I understand that a lot of people aren't going to read Nature or Science to stay abreast of climatology.
At this point, people (politicians) saying those things don't simply have "another opinion", they plain deceive their constituency. It's as simple as that.
It would be nice if both sides of the aisle took the same scientific conclusions and from *that on* came up with different ways of tackling the issue. That is indeed how every other country in this world is going about it. They acknowledge the existing of man-made global warming, but may differ on the approaches to tackle it.
Here in the US however a large portion of the public is simply deceived by the people they listen to. And that is sad (and dangerous). You have a guy showing up with a snowball in congress (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-jim-inhofe-climate-change-is-not-real-because-here-is-a-snowball/), declaring global warming isn't happening. That is banana republic level of discourse.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 24, 2015, 11:37:33 AM
  "The only real question now is, what are we going to do about it."

We could start by voting for people that care more about the planet than the coal and oil industries. We could also focus funds on growing meat in labs rather than having to raise billions of animals per year that require water and feed while producing copious amounts of methane.

And why shouldn't NASA be in the discussion? They are the ones building and launching the instruments to help finally shut up the politicians who constantly say things like "I'm not a scientist" and "The science isn't settled on climate change".

What happens to all the people that then can't afford to heat their homes because the cost of energy goes through the roof?  Or who can't convert their homes from oil to some other alternate (and more expensive) form of energy?  Let them die?  That would, of course, reduce the CO2 emissions, but I don't think that was where you were going.  What about all the people now out of work because of the economic impacts of the changes that sound so easy but have real world consequences. 

It's not "coal and oil industries".  That's the easy, clichéd, and fashionable (but logically fallable) answer.   It's humans.  The tragedy of the commons. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 24, 2015, 11:57:36 AM
For fucks sake. I'm not saying flip a switch over night. I'm not that stupid. We probably need 50-100 years to get this nation's infrastructure where it needs to be.

Can't afford to heat their homes because the cost of energy goes through the roof? Why are we automatically assuming prices are going to skyrocket? Current prices fluctuate because of supply and demand. The sun is going to remain constant.

Can't convert your house? Fine. It will eventually be knocked down and replaced by a modern house. Life really did suck for all those natives that couldn't convert their wigwams to structures that would meet today's building codes.




What about all the people now out of work because of the economic impacts of the changes......

What's going to happen to all those steam engine makers once the internal cumbustion engine becomes mainstream?
What's going to happen to all the log companies once people start using gas and electric heat rather than their fire place?
What's going to happen to all the people in top hat factories once people stop wearing top hats?
What's going to happen to all the telephone operators once we no longer need to manually connect every call?
What's going to happen to all Vinyl companies once more compact storage options are available?
What's going to happen to the phone book companies now that numbers can be googled?
What's going to happen to the people that make tubes for TVs once DLP and plasma take off?
What's going to happen to all of the accountants when computer software can take their place?
What's going to happen to all of those plant workers once robots start building the cars?
What's going to happen to all the people that work at Kodak once digital cameras become the norm?
What's going to happen to the post office once email is in every home?
What's going to happen to all of those file clerks once harddrives are invented?
What's going to happen to all of those sewing machine operators once automated sewing machines come out?
What's going to happen to all the internal cumpustion engine makers once electric motors become dominant?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 24, 2015, 11:58:59 AM
What happens to all the people that then can't afford to heat their homes because the cost of energy goes through the roof?  Or who can't convert their homes from oil to some other alternate (and more expensive) form of energy?  Let them die?  That would, of course, reduce the CO2 emissions, but I don't think that was where you were going.  What about all the people now out of work because of the economic impacts of the changes that sound so easy but have real world consequences. 

It's not "coal and oil industries".  That's the easy, clichéd, and fashionable (but logically fallable) answer.   It's humans.  The tragedy of the commons. 

Stadler, note however how your position is *very* different from what's happening on a national level. You want to have the discussion about how to combine saving the planet with saving human lives. That is where the discussion *should* be. However, the discussion is whether global warming happens in the first place!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 24, 2015, 11:59:19 AM
The real issue is the amount of deception going on. I mean, I understand that a lot of people aren't going to read Nature or Science to stay abreast of climatology.
At this point, people (politicians) saying those things don't simply have "another opinion", they plain deceive their constituency. It's as simple as that.
It would be nice if both sides of the aisle took the same scientific conclusions and from *that on* came up with different ways of tackling the issue. That is indeed how every other country in this world is going about it. They acknowledge the existing of man-made global warming, but may differ on the approaches to tackle it.
Here in the US however a large portion of the public is simply deceived by the people they listen to. And that is sad (and dangerous). You have a guy showing up with a snowball in congress (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-jim-inhofe-climate-change-is-not-real-because-here-is-a-snowball/), declaring global warming isn't happening. That is banana republic level of discourse.

I'm repeating myself, but at least here in the States, the people who want everyone to admit that we're at 2 minutes to midnight on global warming, and that it is 126% caused by man would have a much better shot if it wasn't for comments like above ("let's tax the crap out of "BIG ENERGY").  It's easy for a country of population 11 million and $430 billion GDP (Belgium; US is 330 million and $2.3 TRILLION) to call for economic responses.  It's another thing entirely to bully them into accepting politically unpalatable solutions (which aren't unique, by the way) by calling them stupid.

I am under no standard, objective or subjective, "stupid", and yet even I bristle at the ham-handed attempts of people like Al Gore and Bill Nye to use "science" as a hammer to force their political opinions down our throats. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 24, 2015, 12:00:22 PM
Too much ninja-ing going on right now. I'll just repost what I had posted above:

Stadler, note however how your position is *very* different from what's happening on a national level. You want to have the discussion about how to combine saving the planet with saving human lives. That is where the discussion *should* be. However, the discussion is whether global warming happens in the first place!

EDIT: For example, looking at the current conservative candidate lineup, where is the candidate for your stance? To my knowledge they are all climate/evolution deniers. I remember there was Jon Huntsman 4 years ago who acknowledged global warming, but he was immediately axed.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 24, 2015, 12:27:49 PM
What's going to happen to all those steam engine makers once the internal cumbustion engine becomes mainstream?
What's going to happen to all the log companies once people start using gas and electric heat rather than their fire place?
What's going to happen to all the people in top hat factories once people stop wearing top hats?
What's going to happen to all the telephone operators once we no longer need to manually connect every call?
What's going to happen to all Vinyl companies once more compact storage options are available?
What's going to happen to the phone book companies now that numbers can be googled?
What's going to happen to the people that make tubes for TVs once DLP and plasma take off?
What's going to happen to all of the accountants when computer software can take their place?
What's going to happen to all of those plant workers once robots start building the cars?
What's going to happen to all the people that work at Kodak once digital cameras become the norm?
What's going to happen to the post office once email is in every home?
What's going to happen to all of those file clerks once harddrives are invented?
What's going to happen to all of those sewing machine operators once automated sewing machines come out?
What's going to happen to all the internal cumpustion engine makers once electric motors become dominant?

...an argument I've made a thousand times.   

Except, the argument isn't commutative.  All of those were (or had) efficiencies that offset any temporary downsides.  All of those were (or are) inevitable replacements of old technology at the time the market allowed.   Wind and solar will be in that list in due time.   Sewing maching operators were replaced not because of government mandate and subject to penalty.  Finally, no one died when email replaced snail mail. 

Where many people have beef is not with the inevitable march of technology; where many people have beef is having the same politicians you rag on for having their head in the sand now determining what the impact will be to our economy and our place in the world economy.  It was bad enough on Obamacare (which had limited international impact).   What did Nancy Pelosi say on that?   "We have to pass this bill to find out what is in it!".  Mofo, please.   
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 24, 2015, 12:36:33 PM
Too much ninja-ing going on right now. I'll just repost what I had posted above:

Stadler, note however how your position is *very* different from what's happening on a national level. You want to have the discussion about how to combine saving the planet with saving human lives. That is where the discussion *should* be. However, the discussion is whether global warming happens in the first place!

EDIT: For example, looking at the current conservative candidate lineup, where is the candidate for your stance? To my knowledge they are all climate/evolution deniers. I remember there was Jon Huntsman 4 years ago who acknowledged global warming, but he was immediately axed.

But I've said this here, and elsewhere.  I don't know any of those candidates personally.  I don't know what they say behind closed doors.  So I am not talking about them specifically.   But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue") not because I am a "denier", but because to concede that point is to AUTOMATICALLY concede the responses.   What's happening on the national level is that saying "yes, global warming exists", is to de facto say "yes, I agree with carbon taxation, and increased penalties against energy producers".  And I don't.  And I feel strongly enough about that that I am willing for someone to think I am a "denier" if that's what it takes.   Kyoto is a fantastic example of this.  That treaty was a TRADE treaty, nothing more.  And I am vociferously against that.  If that means you think I am a "denier", so be it. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 24, 2015, 12:44:49 PM
But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence? Most projections say we likely can't even keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. That will raise the sea level (I'm assuming you don't disagree with that specific conclusion), and that will displace millions of people.

What *does* count as an imminent, catastrophic issue? I mean, you must acknowledge that, just because something operates on the level of decades, doesn't mean you can just sit on your hands indefinitely, right?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 24, 2015, 12:47:30 PM
But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence?

Doesn't matter. Economic success is more important than the wellbeing of our species.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 24, 2015, 01:00:56 PM
Chino, I don't know whether this cynicism is helping anybody. Stadler is a totally reasonable guy, and cynicism like that is only alienating people.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 25, 2015, 06:42:54 AM
But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence? Most projections say we likely can't even keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. That will raise the sea level (I'm assuming you don't disagree with that specific conclusion), and that will displace millions of people.

What *does* count as an imminent, catastrophic issue? I mean, you must acknowledge that, just because something operates on the level of decades, doesn't mean you can just sit on your hands indefinitely, right?

I've been very clear why:   because despite Chino's sarcasm (which is exactly what I'm talking about, but doesn't bother me on a personal level) shows clearly that people - even the adherents to "SCIENCE" (in Charlton Heston booming voice) can't separate the science from the politics.    Mock economics all you want (it's almost de rigueur these days) but look at how many people were severely and perhaps permanently damaged with the mortgage crisis.  Even people who didn't have mortgages!  Now imagine that kind of correction with the third largest industry in the United States and one of the largest industries in the world.   

This notion that we can ignore economics (i.e. reality) because of "science" (and no, "catastrophic" is NOT settled science, even if the trending is) is limousine liberalism of the ultimate kind.  There are entire COUNTRIES whose people will survive or die based on the price of oil.   The advocates are screaming "science!" and "logic!" then utterly ignoring at least the "logic" part entirely when it suits them.   Yeah, a lot of Ma Bell employees had to find new work when cell phones came out, that's progress, but that had nowt effect on Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, etc.

I also find it ironic that many of the people screaming loudest about "GLOBAL WARMING" politics (not science) would be some of the first to say (albeit wrongly) that Bush - leader of the most advanced country in world and with the largest economy in the world - invaded Iraq solely for oil.  So it's "important" when it suits you, but it's poo-pooable when it doesn't?

This is why I say that.     
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 25, 2015, 06:51:08 AM
But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence?

Doesn't matter. Economic success is more important than the wellbeing of our species.

No, economic success IS the wellbeing of our species for many of us.   We're fat dumb and happy here in nice cozy little Connecticut (I live here too; I'm not attacking you personally).   But what about those countries whose GDP is in large part dependent on oil?  Let 'em starve?  Most people don't know that is even a possibility, but some do, and some just say "Fuck it, why not", as long as we are sticking it to "BIG ENERGY".   In just the last couple months, with the pressure on oil prices JUST FROM PRODUCTION FLUCTUATIONS, some country's currencies fluctuated as much as 25% (Turkmenistan, 23%, and Kazakistan, 18% if you must know).   Imagine, while you're sitting in your warm home (probably heated or cooled, at least in part, by the very thing we're talking about) if your savings and checking accounts decreased in value 25% overnight.  Would it affect you?     

This is why I demand thought and insight before we act and not sarcasm, ridicule and snarkiness.  For all their moral and intellectual superiority, I don't hear Bill Nye or Al Gore talking about THAT on Jon Stewart's show.  Rolling Confirmation Bias - I mean, Rolling Stone - never seems to mention that either when preaching their agenda.   NDT either, for that matter (though I rather suspect he knows that; his arguments about science aren't as denigrating and insulting as Nye's, Gore's or RS's).
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 25, 2015, 07:57:00 AM
But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence?

Doesn't matter. Economic success is more important than the wellbeing of our species.

No, economic success IS the wellbeing of our species for many of us.   We're fat dumb and happy here in nice cozy little Connecticut (I live here too; I'm not attacking you personally).   But what about those countries whose GDP is in large part dependent on oil?  Let 'em starve?  Most people don't know that is even a possibility, but some do, and some just say "Fuck it, why not", as long as we are sticking it to "BIG ENERGY".   In just the last couple months, with the pressure on oil prices JUST FROM PRODUCTION FLUCTUATIONS, some country's currencies fluctuated as much as 25% (Turkmenistan, 23%, and Kazakistan, 18% if you must know).   Imagine, while you're sitting in your warm home (probably heated or cooled, at least in part, by the very thing we're talking about) if your savings and checking accounts decreased in value 25% overnight.  Would it affect you?     

This is why I demand thought and insight before we act and not sarcasm, ridicule and snarkiness.  For all their moral and intellectual superiority, I don't hear Bill Nye or Al Gore talking about THAT on Jon Stewart's show.  Rolling Confirmation Bias - I mean, Rolling Stone - never seems to mention that either when preaching their agenda.   NDT either, for that matter (though I rather suspect he knows that; his arguments about science aren't as denigrating and insulting as Nye's, Gore's or RS's).

Here's my problem with your line of thinking on this. All the points you are making are completely valid and are legitimate concerns. These changes will without a doubt fuck some shit up along the way. It will be very shitty. That being said, your arguments today will be the exact same arguments a century from now, and a century after that. This issue can be prolonged indefinitely, literally until we run out of oil to pump from the ground.

These nations whose economies rely on oil, what'd they rely on before they started selling it? I'm seriously asking. If it was a good or service that disappeared, they found oil to fill the niche. It probably sucked as they were transitioning from one to the other, but they figured it out. They'll have to figure it out this time as well. If they had a good thing going and switched to oil just because of the money it could generate, then they could temporarily revert back to whatever it was that was making them money prior to selling the oil while they figure out something more lucrative. Also, it's not our fault that these countries found one thing to make them money and put all of their eggs in one basket. There have been warning signs for decades that oil with one day be phased out. If not due to lack of demand, it will be because we run out. What do these people do then?

What good will it be postponing worldwide green infrastructure if the countries we were trying to save economically can no longer survive because of hostile living conditions or displacement?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on June 25, 2015, 09:45:48 AM
But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence? Most projections say we likely can't even keep the temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius. That will raise the sea level (I'm assuming you don't disagree with that specific conclusion), and that will displace millions of people.

What *does* count as an imminent, catastrophic issue? I mean, you must acknowledge that, just because something operates on the level of decades, doesn't mean you can just sit on your hands indefinitely, right?

I've been very clear why:   because despite Chino's sarcasm (which is exactly what I'm talking about, but doesn't bother me on a personal level) shows clearly that people - even the adherents to "SCIENCE" (in Charlton Heston booming voice) can't separate the science from the politics.    Mock economics all you want (it's almost de rigueur these days) but look at how many people were severely and perhaps permanently damaged with the mortgage crisis.  Even people who didn't have mortgages!  Now imagine that kind of correction with the third largest industry in the United States and one of the largest industries in the world.   

This notion that we can ignore economics (i.e. reality) because of "science" (and no, "catastrophic" is NOT settled science, even if the trending is) is limousine liberalism of the ultimate kind.  There are entire COUNTRIES whose people will survive or die based on the price of oil.   The advocates are screaming "science!" and "logic!" then utterly ignoring at least the "logic" part entirely when it suits them.   Yeah, a lot of Ma Bell employees had to find new work when cell phones came out, that's progress, but that had nowt effect on Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, etc.

I also find it ironic that many of the people screaming loudest about "GLOBAL WARMING" politics (not science) would be some of the first to say (albeit wrongly) that Bush - leader of the most advanced country in world and with the largest economy in the world - invaded Iraq solely for oil.  So it's "important" when it suits you, but it's poo-pooable when it doesn't?

This is why I say that.   

You have completely evaded answering what counts as an imminent threat to you, and whether you disagree that the current scientific assessment of the situation would count as such.
If anything, *you* are the one dragging a, what should be objective, assessment into political territory. Whether there is a danger or not has *zero* to do with markets or Bushes.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on June 25, 2015, 01:15:51 PM
But I've admitted here that I have taken that position ("global warming is not an imminent, catastrophic issue")

But how can you say that, given the scientific evidence?

Doesn't matter. Economic success is more important than the wellbeing of our species.

No, economic success IS the wellbeing of our species for many of us.   We're fat dumb and happy here in nice cozy little Connecticut (I live here too; I'm not attacking you personally).   But what about those countries whose GDP is in large part dependent on oil?  Let 'em starve?  Most people don't know that is even a possibility, but some do, and some just say "Fuck it, why not", as long as we are sticking it to "BIG ENERGY".   In just the last couple months, with the pressure on oil prices JUST FROM PRODUCTION FLUCTUATIONS, some country's currencies fluctuated as much as 25% (Turkmenistan, 23%, and Kazakistan, 18% if you must know).   Imagine, while you're sitting in your warm home (probably heated or cooled, at least in part, by the very thing we're talking about) if your savings and checking accounts decreased in value 25% overnight.  Would it affect you?     

This is why I demand thought and insight before we act and not sarcasm, ridicule and snarkiness.  For all their moral and intellectual superiority, I don't hear Bill Nye or Al Gore talking about THAT on Jon Stewart's show.  Rolling Confirmation Bias - I mean, Rolling Stone - never seems to mention that either when preaching their agenda.   NDT either, for that matter (though I rather suspect he knows that; his arguments about science aren't as denigrating and insulting as Nye's, Gore's or RS's).

Here's my problem with your line of thinking on this. All the points you are making are completely valid and are legitimate concerns. These changes will without a doubt fuck some shit up along the way. It will be very shitty. That being said, your arguments today will be the exact same arguments a century from now, and a century after that. This issue can be prolonged indefinitely, literally until we run out of oil to pump from the ground.

Fair point, Chino, and for many you are right.  For me, though, not really.  I have no vested interest in oil or gas or fossil fuel or whatever else.  I really don't.  And there are many others who don't.   I can't (and won't) speak for Exxon, but I can tell you there are companies out there (Siemens, GE) that don't either.  I guarantee you (and I have insight into this) that Siemens and GE couldn't care less about fossil fuel.  The second - and I mean, literally, the very second - that it becomes cheaper and more efficient to operate a freight train using something other than fossil fuel and they will be there with bells on. It's going to happen.  It's happening already.  Punishing industries that we (read, you) don't think share our "moral imperative" (which is silly, because corporations are only tools to be used) isn't the way to go.  I can write a treatise about how the environmental movement tried "punishment" and it didn't work; it was only when regulators realized that it wasn't sinful to allow people to actually make money on contaminated properties that they started to be cleaned up.  Now, your local Dunkin Donuts was probably an environmentally regulated property 15 years ago. 

Quote
These nations whose economy rely on oil, what'd they rely on before they started selling it? I'm seriously asking. If it was a good or service that disappeared, they found oil to fill the niche. It probably sucked as they were transitioning from one to the other, but they figured it out. If they had a good thing going and switched to oil just because of the money it could generate, then they could temporarily revert back to whatever it was that was making them money prior to selling the oil. Also, it is not our fault that these companies found one thing to make them money and put all of their eggs in one basket. There have been warning signs for decades that oil with one day be phased out. If not due to lack of demand, it will be because we run out. What do these people do then?

Some, nothing.   Some, survived on the largess of others, but were simply pawns in a global game of "Risk".  First the Roman empire, then Prussia, then the Soviet Union.  Or perhaps China.  I'm not sure it's relevant; but we're not talking about incremental change here, we're talking transformational change.   The railroads being supplanted by the airlines didn't change the fact that most of the Soviet Union still to this day relies on rail for commercial transport (as does the US).

Also what you're missing is that the "oil" companies will rebrand as "energy" companies.  A couple have tried, and the proof is in the pudding:  it's still a better business model to sell fossil fuel than have alternate energy products that look great, answer the global warming bell (conceptually) but sit on the shelf because they do not allow others - not BIG ENERGY - to continue to do business.  But none of those companies are going to sit there and say "Oh well, it was a good run.  Turn out the lights, we're done.". 

Quote
What good will it be postponing worldwide green infrastructure if the countries we were trying to save economically can no longer survive because of hostile living conditions or displacement?

But I'm not suggesting "postponing" anything.  I'm suggesting we don't ram it down people's throats because it "sounds good" to one slice of the demographic without considering all the variables.   I don't disagree with any of your conceptual points; I disagree with the arbitrary and self-serving valuation of ONE variable at the expense of all others (and the exclusion of several outright).    I get that Bush is not the guy to be referenced in a discussion like this, but he did one thing right:  back in 2004, the EPA implemented emissions standards, in tiers.   Tier III was achievable, but it was a stretch, and it was expensive.  At the time, Tier IV was a pipe dream.  The technology didn't exist, and there was no line of sight to it.    But - at least in the rail industry - the major manufacturers tackled it.  And lo and behold, one major player rolled out their first Tier IV locomotive not long ago, in advance of the deadline.  And they have a healthy market, they'll make decent money on that, and they have changed the industry by raising the bar, and global warming gets a small bite taken out of it. 

I like you, Chino, I think you're smart and you're willing to consider points of view different than yours.  I respect that. But many don't; it's as much a chance to take another swipe at "BIG [Insert industry]" as it is any altruistic endeavor to save the planet.  There are two developments in modern politics that I abhor:  'red state/blue state' and "BIG [Insert industry]"  Neither one helps the situation, and neither one leads to solutions, only to more divisiveness. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: bosk1 on June 25, 2015, 05:27:46 PM
Pretty cool discovery of a new crab species that lives in a VERY limited environment:  https://www.grindtv.com/wildlife/new-species-of-yeti-crab-has-odd-living-arrangements/#SXoUwb8gScyfGkAC.97
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Zook on June 25, 2015, 06:19:32 PM
Pretty cool discovery of a new crab species that lives in a VERY limited environment:  https://www.grindtv.com/wildlife/new-species-of-yeti-crab-has-odd-living-arrangements/#SXoUwb8gScyfGkAC.97

Looks like a tick.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: bosk1 on June 25, 2015, 06:25:39 PM
Actually...yeah, kinda.  The most fascinating thing to me is the environment they live in.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on July 14, 2015, 12:13:45 PM
Well...this article seems like a big "Debbie Downer"


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on July 14, 2015, 12:19:18 PM
The comments are hurting my brain.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on July 14, 2015, 12:21:10 PM
The comments are hurting my brain.

I didn't read those.....now I'm curious
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 14, 2015, 12:29:47 PM
Well...this article seems like a big "Debbie Downer"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Wild claim pretty much. I'll wait to see what the other scientists make of the paper.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on July 14, 2015, 12:33:35 PM
Well...this article seems like a big "Debbie Downer"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/winter-is-coming-scientis_b_7787664.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Wild claim pretty much. I'll wait to see what the other scientists make of the paper.

I was thinking if this were indeed the case it'd have made a little more noise?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on July 14, 2015, 12:35:56 PM
The comments are hurting my brain.

I didn't read those.....now I'm curious

A climate related article, I'm sure you can guess.

I am curious to see what the wider scientific community makes of this theory.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Nick on July 14, 2015, 01:20:26 PM
The comments are hurting my brain.

I didn't read those.....now I'm curious

A climate related article, I'm sure you can guess.

I am curious to see what the wider scientific community makes of this theory.

You know what would be the worst part about this being true?

A bunch of climate change deniers chanting, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU" , when it gets colder due to a completely unrelated event.

Not the years of horrible winters, but that.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 14, 2015, 01:25:43 PM


You know what would be the worst part about this being true?

A bunch of climate change deniers chanting, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU" , when it gets colder due to a completely unrelated event.

Not the years of horrible winters, but that.

No, but as someone who isn't a denier, but is adamantly against the sort of "knee jerk, let's-do-anything-possible just because it sounds good" reaction that most climate change conversations devolve to, it does suggest that perhaps the world is a) more complex, and b) more resilient than some of the people who are using "climate change" for political gain would have you believe.   

Man is good, man is smart, but man is fallible. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 14, 2015, 01:50:04 PM
I agree and disagree. I don't consider much of what we are seeing in terms of government intervention as a knee jerk reaction. A knee jerk reaction would be if tomorrow the state of NY announced they were building a 40 foot high wall around Manhattan regardless of cost.

The government calling for things like stricter restrictions on carbon emissions, more sustainable energy sources, and all around going greener isn't a bad thing, nor do I think it's a knee jerk reaction. Let's say every computer model and 97% of scientists supporting climate change is wrong, the planet will still be much better off. It kind of sucks that we need to attach the whole global warming thing to these changes when our health and well being should be enough. That being said, this is still an urgent matter. Even if the models are incorrect, there should be a real sense of urgency to prove them wrong. That way we could move on.

Here's where I have real issue.

Let's look at Lamar Smith. He's a republican representative from Texas. This man is on the House Science Committee. He has repeatedly talked about how the science isn't settled on climate change and has said "Climate change is an issue that needs to be discussed thoughtfully and objectively". Okay fine. There is a guy on the science committe that believes in discussing issues in a mature fashion and personal biases should not factor into one's decisions (aka, do science). So, in the most logical fashion, Mr. Smith decides to introduce a bill that cuts $300million from NASA's Earth science budget. SO on one hand the guy talks like he's willing to settle the science on climate change once and for all, and on the other hand, he defunds the one of the only agencies that's capable of doing that.

I understand not wanting to jump the gun and spend money we don't have, but how long are we going to do this dance? In 1980, Carl Sagan said "The principal energy sources of our present industrial civilization are the so-called fossil fuels. We burn wood and oil, coal and natural gas, and, in the process, release waste gases, principally CO2 into the air. Consequently, the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere is increasing dramatically. The possiblity of a runaway greenhouse effect suggests that we have to be careful; Even a one- or two-degree rise in the global temperature can have catastrophic consequences". So this ins't a new concept. For nearly 40 years now, the oil and gas industry has been spent billions of dollars preventing any changes to legislation that could effect their bottom line.

 It's not like the idea of global warming was proposed three years ago and now the whole world is freaking out. We are going on nearly a half century of scientists warning us of the reprocussions of a runaway greenhouse effect. When is enough science going to be enough science?

Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 14, 2015, 02:20:11 PM
If we're talking about money, it is also *very* good business and economic sense to be at the forefront of renewables etc. Everybody knows that the days of fossil fuels are numbered, only the most sheltered representative will claim otherwise. You can sit and watch countries like China and Germany take all the business that comes with it, or you can be part of it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 14, 2015, 05:48:52 PM
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 14, 2015, 06:10:57 PM
But both Rumborak and Chino have elements of truth, but are missing the connector.   

Having US companies unilaterally required to spend billions of dollars to meet stricter emissions because it "sounds good" and "might - just might! - make a dent" is stupid.  It doesn't effect the changes the zealots say it will and it economically disadvantages US businesses.  The impact? They'll leave in droves, compounding the problem.  This was the problem with Kyoto; it was effectively an economic treaty that was great for China and Russia, BAD for the US and a select group of western countries, and neutral for the rest of the world. 

I wish I could tell you the timing, but I am not the Great Kreskin, so I can't.  But there will be a breakthrough, like the steam engine, flight, transistors, or atomic power, and we WILL have solar and wind that is cheaper and more easily transmitted than energy produced by fossil fuels, and companies like Exxon and Shell will step all over their dicks to be "energy companies" not "fuel" or "oil" companies.   They will not go out of business on principle.  Some companies, GE is one, are even now straddling the line.  It will change, and without penalizing "BIG [Insert industry]" and without anti-market economic restrictions masquerading as "feel good green initiatives". 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: CDrice on July 14, 2015, 06:47:57 PM
I'm not too knowledgeable on the climate debate, so maybe what I'm going to say is already something that is being done. We could try something that is more like positive reinforcement. Like maybe instead of sanctionning the ''Big oil companies'' we could instead reward the people and companies that are working on cleaner energy. That may actually motivate those big companies to move away from fossil fuel on their own and start working on the next energy breakthrough.

I have no idea if it would actually work, but it seems like it could be a decent middle ground between those wanting to destroy the ''Big industries'' and those who want to keep the status quo.



Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 14, 2015, 08:18:48 PM
I'm not too knowledgeable on the climate debate, so maybe what I'm going to say is already something that is being done. We could try something that is more like positive reinforcement. Like maybe instead of sanctionning the ''Big oil companies'' we could instead reward the people and companies that are working on cleaner energy. That may actually motivate those big companies to move away from fossil fuel on their own and start working on the next energy breakthrough.

I assume you heard of tax breaks for electric and hybrid vehicles, right? That's exactly what that is.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 15, 2015, 02:31:35 PM
I'm not too knowledgeable on the climate debate, so maybe what I'm going to say is already something that is being done. We could try something that is more like positive reinforcement. Like maybe instead of sanctionning the ''Big oil companies'' we could instead reward the people and companies that are working on cleaner energy. That may actually motivate those big companies to move away from fossil fuel on their own and start working on the next energy breakthrough.

I assume you heard of tax breaks for electric and hybrid vehicles, right? That's exactly what that is.

But those are for the consumers (though those vehicles are already pretty heavily subsidized).  With that, you have to have a product already to incent the people to buy. 

I have no idea if it would actually work, but it seems like it could be a decent middle ground between those wanting to destroy the ''Big industries'' and those who want to keep the status quo.


I think for me, it is imperative we break the paradigms of "destroy" and "status quo".  I want neither.  I don't want "status quo" any more than I want to drive energy prices through the roof by putting the oil companies out of business.  That's the old way - or rather, the advocacy way - of thinking.   I am more than happy to buy my (future) solar panels from Exxon.  Or buy my mini-packaged nuclear reactor from Shell.    Sure, some companies will only go kicking and screaming, and that's on them.  But the smart ones are going to go in the direction where it makes the most sense to make the most money for the longest period of time.  It's that simple.  Corporations are like puppies; they are predictable and they are compliant, IF you know the right way of motivating their behavior.  Continually "attacking" them and "browbeating" them on moral terms is not the way to do it.  Never was, and never will be.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: CDrice on July 15, 2015, 05:08:24 PM
I have no idea if it would actually work, but it seems like it could be a decent middle ground between those wanting to destroy the ''Big industries'' and those who want to keep the status quo.

I think for me, it is imperative we break the paradigms of "destroy" and "status quo".  I want neither.  I don't want "status quo" any more than I want to drive energy prices through the roof by putting the oil companies out of business.  That's the old way - or rather, the advocacy way - of thinking.   I am more than happy to buy my (future) solar panels from Exxon.  Or buy my mini-packaged nuclear reactor from Shell.    Sure, some companies will only go kicking and screaming, and that's on them.  But the smart ones are going to go in the direction where it makes the most sense to make the most money for the longest period of time.  It's that simple.  Corporations are like puppies; they are predictable and they are compliant, IF you know the right way of motivating their behavior.  Continually "attacking" them and "browbeating" them on moral terms is not the way to do it.  Never was, and never will be.

Yeah, that's pretty much the idea I was trying to get across. Thank you for putting it out more clearly that I could ever have  :)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 16, 2015, 09:38:28 AM
I am more than happy to buy my (future) solar panels from Exxon.

I find this a weird notion to entertain. To my understanding, Exxon has no ambitions in terms of renewables, and even if they did, they'd be decades behind the curve of China etc.
if you want solar panels, it's 99% certain it'll have the label "Made in China" on it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 16, 2015, 09:54:51 AM
I am more than happy to buy my (future) solar panels from Exxon.

I find this a weird notion to entertain. To my understanding, Exxon has no ambitions in terms of renewables, and even if they did, they'd be decades behind the curve of China etc.
if you want solar panels, it's 99% certain it'll have the label "Made in China" on it.

They have no ambitions because right now, ROI is not anywhere where it should be for a company that entertains the level of risk an Exxon does.  But these things aren't static.   You won't be able to sell panels in the States to any government agency or under any government funded program that are wholly "Made In China" (it's called "Buy America"), so there will be a market once the market matures enough to support it.  Exxon is not going to just close it's doors and say "oh well, we had a good run!" if and when the total lifecycle cost of renewables (including R&D) drop low enough.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 16, 2015, 10:09:36 AM
That's all super pie in the sky. It's much more likely that Exxon will slowly fade away, with foreign renewables producers undercutting their revenue. And from personal experience with the gov't, it is a total myth that the gov't can't buy foreign products. It just takes more paperwork. Or, (which I've seen firsthand), the gov't buys from a domestic reseller who marks it up.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 16, 2015, 11:22:52 AM
That's all super pie in the sky. It's much more likely that Exxon will slowly fade away, with foreign renewables producers undercutting their revenue. And from personal experience with the gov't, it is a total myth that the gov't can't buy foreign products. It just takes more paperwork. Or, (which I've seen firsthand), the gov't buys from a domestic reseller who marks it up.


I'm well aware of the process for doing business with the government.  I'm counsel for a billion dollar business that sells almost exclusively to the US government under various rail programs (this includes regional transit authorities using grant money from the US government), and before that I was counsel for a company that did environmental construction projects for the DoD and EPA.  There are plenty of ways to do it, but they all cost money, not all of it recoupable through margin.  But even with that, who do you think that "domestic reseller" is going to be?

The bottom line is, and I will bet you on it, is that Exxon is not "fading away".  If nothing else, they have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders, and if the US government is smart (I know, I know, that IS pie in the sky) they won't be able to continue what little fossil fuel business they do have if they don't participate in broader energy programs.  They may not literally sell solar panels in five years, but they are not going anywhere.  "AT&T".  "IBM".   Two companies that have survived (and thrived) after similar transcendent shifts in the nature of the economy.  You will be adding Exxon to that list before too long. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on July 22, 2015, 06:39:29 AM
How might you convey the age of the earth to a 4 year old?  They barely know what 100 is, so I guess it would be pretty difficult.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 22, 2015, 07:12:47 AM
How might you convey the age of the earth to a 4 year old?  They barely know what 100 is, so I guess it would be pretty difficult.

Well, I found visual means were best with my daughter.  I would probably try to do something like "Hey, here are four jelly beans, that's YOUR age, and here are 10,000 jelly beans, that's the EARTH'S age". 


Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: CDrice on July 22, 2015, 07:13:49 AM
How might you convey the age of the earth to a 4 year old?  They barely know what 100 is, so I guess it would be pretty difficult.

Even now in my twenties I have a hard time wrapping my head around how old the earth is. So yeah, good luck with that  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 22, 2015, 07:14:24 AM
How might you convey the age of the earth to a 4 year old?  They barely know what 100 is, so I guess it would be pretty difficult.

Well, I found visual means were best with my daughter.  I would probably try to do something like "Hey, here are four jelly beans, that's YOUR age, and here are 10,000 jelly beans, that's the EARTH'S age".

You'd need 4.6 billion jelly beans.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: CDrice on July 22, 2015, 07:21:44 AM
How might you convey the age of the earth to a 4 year old?  They barely know what 100 is, so I guess it would be pretty difficult.

Well, I found visual means were best with my daughter.  I would probably try to do something like "Hey, here are four jelly beans, that's YOUR age, and here are 10,000 jelly beans, that's the EARTH'S age".

You'd need 4.6 billion jelly beans.

October 31 Breaking news:
''Yesterday multiple candy shops around the country have been robbed. However the thieves didn't touch the money. All they seemed to be interested in was the jellybeans. We estimate the total amount of stolen candies to be around 4.6 billions. The police have no suspect for now, but we will keep you informed as more details come in.''
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on July 22, 2015, 07:41:15 AM
Jelly beans aren't a bad idea.  If they are about 1 cc in volume, 4.6 billion of them would fill about 7 or 8 houses.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 22, 2015, 08:01:46 AM
Jelly beans aren't a bad idea.  If they are about 1 cc in volume, 4.6 billion of them would fill about 7 or 8 houses.

You aren't accounting for the weight of the jelly beans. I did some research and 240 jelly beans weigh one pound.

4.6 billion jelly beans = 19,166,667 pounds

Assuming 8 houses, each house would have 2,395,833 pounds worth of jelly beans in them.

In the interest of safety, you will need more houses.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on July 22, 2015, 06:05:32 PM
Nice little video about diffrent types of fuel and if they're flameable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nL10C7FSbE&ab_channel=JustThink

Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 22, 2015, 09:51:57 PM
How might you convey the age of the earth to a 4 year old?  They barely know what 100 is, so I guess it would be pretty difficult.

Well, I found visual means were best with my daughter.  I would probably try to do something like "Hey, here are four jelly beans, that's YOUR age, and here are 10,000 jelly beans, that's the EARTH'S age".

Secretly hoping that it wasn't a young-Earth post, your analogy still leaves the child with the problem that 10,000 is way beyond comprehension for a 4-year old.

Maybe a better way of going about it is "if you squeezed your life into one second, then Earth was created 30 years ago". Both a second and a year is something a child understands.

EDIT: Alternatively, show her the Carl Sagan episode where he talks about the calendar of the universe.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 23, 2015, 05:40:46 AM
It was a joke cast out into a thread where there is zero sense of humor. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 23, 2015, 05:55:32 AM
It was a joke cast out into a thread where there is zero sense of humor.

We have a sense of humor. I'll demonstrate.

Two atoms are walking along. One of them says:
“Oh, no, I think I lost an electron.”
“Are you sure?”
“Yes, I’m positive.


Why can’t atheists solve exponential equations? Because they don’t believe in higher powers.


Schrodinger’s cat walks into a bar. And doesn’t.



Thank you. I'll be here all week.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on July 23, 2015, 07:04:18 AM
Maybe a better way of going about it is "if you squeezed your life into one second, then Earth was created 30 years ago". Both a second and a year is something a child understands.

EDIT: Alternatively, show her the Carl Sagan episode where he talks about the calendar of the universe.
I think even those two things might be too much of an abstraction for a 4 year old.  Physically seeing a quantity of something might be better:

Here's you: 4 jelly beans.
Here's me: 32 jelly beans.
Here's earth: 8 houses full of jelly beans.

Someone who knows something about kids should chime in here.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 23, 2015, 10:38:24 AM
Physical exertion. "One step is your life time. Now run the Earth's age, I'll tell you when to stop."
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 23, 2015, 12:20:19 PM
Maybe a better way of going about it is "if you squeezed your life into one second, then Earth was created 30 years ago". Both a second and a year is something a child understands.

EDIT: Alternatively, show her the Carl Sagan episode where he talks about the calendar of the universe.
I think even those two things might be too much of an abstraction for a 4 year old.  Physically seeing a quantity of something might be better:

Here's you: 4 jelly beans.
Here's me: 32 jelly beans.
Here's earth: 8 houses full of jelly beans.

Someone who knows something about kids should chime in here.

Seeing as I offered up the jelly bean metaphor to start with, I think you nailed it.   Unfortunately, I need 47 beans (at that isn't "Young Earth" thinking. ;0 ).
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 23, 2015, 12:21:27 PM
Physical exertion. "One step is your life time. Now run the Earth's age, I'll tell you when to stop."

 :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jammindude on July 23, 2015, 01:33:39 PM
I'm glad I live close to the Pacific Science Center.   They have illustrations made just for kids to show this kindof stuff.   

At one point, they had a very long line laid out on the floor showing the age of the universe.   The earth's history was laid out in a small band at the end, and human history had an arrow pointing to a line the width of a human hair.    Kids get the point pretty quickly.     I used to take my kids to the science center nearly every month when they were young.   
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 23, 2015, 01:41:45 PM
I'm glad I live close to the Pacific Science Center.   They have illustrations made just for kids to show this kindof stuff.   

At one point, they had a very long line laid out on the floor showing the age of the universe.   The earth's history was laid out in a small band at the end, and human history had an arrow pointing to a line the width of a human hair.    Kids get the point pretty quickly.     I used to take my kids to the science center nearly every month when they were young.

I work within walking distance of the Connecticut Science Center. I get free entry with my work ID. I got there on lunch breaks some times.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 23, 2015, 09:18:22 PM
Boston's Museum of Science has a a model of the sun in its center. What's really cool is, the other planets are strewn, to scale, around the Greater Boston area.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: orcus116 on July 25, 2015, 05:56:44 PM
That's really cool. Is there a map or where the planets are?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: XJDenton on July 25, 2015, 06:25:41 PM
Boston's Museum of Science has a a model of the sun in its center. What's really cool is, the other planets are strewn, to scale, around the Greater Boston area.

Sweden has an awesome model like that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Solar_System
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 28, 2015, 08:38:17 AM
https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/genetic/gmo-rice-methane-0523564/

Quote
Following a three-year-long trial in the rice of fields of China, scientists report a new genetically modified strain that promises to dramatically reduce the otherwise huge carbon footprint of rice farming. The new GMO crop emits only 1% of the methane – a highly potent greenhouse gas – that an unaltered rice paddies leaches out into the atmosphere

Read more: https://www.zmescience.com/medicine/genetic/gmo-rice-methane-0523564/#ixzz3hCHQWple
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kaos2900 on July 28, 2015, 10:20:15 AM
Not sure if this is the right place for this or not, but this literally made me sick to my stomach with anger. What the fuck is wrong with people and why do they feel the urge to go and kill shit for no reason other than to satisfy their egos?  I hope he gets what he deserves. Seriously humans piss me off. Oh, and if anyone is interested a quick google search can get you his email...

https://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/07/28/american-dentist-said-to-have-paid-55000-to-kill-cecil-lion/
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on July 28, 2015, 10:26:51 AM
I don't see what that has to do with science (but the link has the word science in it, so I'm questioning them, not you).
Oh wait, this is apparently for nature too.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 28, 2015, 10:37:44 AM
This is cool.

https://www.popsci.com/you-can-soon-buy-rings-cufflinks-made-smog


Quote
Once you suck smog out of the air, what should you do with it? Pollution particles are mostly made up of carbon, so Dutch Artist Daan Roosegaarde decided to compress them into jewelry in a nod to diamond, carbon's sparkliest allotrope.

(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/2005-6195-image_copy.jpg?itok=DPhqkwoh)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on July 28, 2015, 11:21:18 AM
Travel at light-speed from the Sun to Jupiter (https://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150728-travel-from-the-sun-to-jupiter?ocid=fbert)

I actually watched the whole thing. Spoiler alert: Make a sandwich and get a drink.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 28, 2015, 12:57:45 PM
Not sure if this is the right place for this or not, but this literally made me sick to my stomach with anger. What the fuck is wrong with people and why do they feel the urge to go and kill shit for no reason other than to satisfy their egos?  I hope he gets what he deserves. Seriously humans piss me off. Oh, and if anyone is interested a quick google search can get you his email...

https://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/07/28/american-dentist-said-to-have-paid-55000-to-kill-cecil-lion/

The guy's website is down and his business is getting hammered on Yelp

https://www.yelp.com/biz/palmer-walter-j-dntst-minneapolis
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Big Hath on July 28, 2015, 01:22:36 PM
that yelp link may have some NSFW material in some of the "reviews".  I saw something that looked questionable and immediately closed the window.  Click at your own risk.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: yorost on July 28, 2015, 01:39:56 PM
Travel at light-speed from the Sun to Jupiter (https://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150728-travel-from-the-sun-to-jupiter?ocid=fbert)

I actually watched the whole thing. Spoiler alert: Make a sandwich and get a drink.
While cool for scale, I thought it was going to show us the visual affects of special relativity. :(

...ok, I found something. Read about it, but never thought to look for a demonstration before.

https://www.snotr.com/video/8149/Optical_effects_of_travelling_close_to_the_speed_of_light
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 28, 2015, 05:32:11 PM
Not sure if this is the right place for this or not, but this literally made me sick to my stomach with anger. What the fuck is wrong with people and why do they feel the urge to go and kill shit for no reason other than to satisfy their egos?  I hope he gets what he deserves. Seriously humans piss me off. Oh, and if anyone is interested a quick google search can get you his email...

https://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/07/28/american-dentist-said-to-have-paid-55000-to-kill-cecil-lion/

The guy's website is down and his business is getting hammered on Yelp

https://www.yelp.com/biz/palmer-walter-j-dntst-minneapolis

And I'm sure many feel that's a good thing.   If he did something illegal, let the courts decide.  Until they do, this is mob rules.   :tdwn
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 28, 2015, 06:04:55 PM
Why are you giving the thumbs down to people voicing their discontent on a site specifically meant for that purpose?
How is it different from people writing a review saying "guy was a jerk when I was there, will never go there again"? Here it is "guy is morally despicable, will never go there again".
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on July 28, 2015, 11:57:58 PM
I'll pay a dollar to hunt him. All I gotta do is shake my badonkadonk and I can bait him ANYWHERE.






ANYWHERE!

But seriously, I can see this going PR very soon. I'll reign in my comments and just say "I wish I could bait Palmer into Cecil's pride". Also Cecil is an awesome name. Poor guy.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on July 29, 2015, 12:05:43 AM
I've hunted before. I've killed a Turkey...probably two,or three dozen squirrel and three Deer. I ate all the meat and/or it was shared with family/friends who ate it. The group of guys I hunt wi and my Dad follow the rules and we harvest what Missouri's Department of conservation asks us to. What this guy did/does is not hunting and its deplorable that it's allowed.

I liken this guy to the "hunters" who tree Mountain Lions and Bears with a pack of dogs then walk up to the tree and shoot the defenseless animal. That's not hunting. Dump the dogs and try to actually 'hunt' those animals if you have the balls and want to brag about killing one of those bad a$$es.

Anyway....this is sad. It's still hard to believe you can actually pay to kill a Lion or any of those magnificent African creatures.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on July 29, 2015, 06:27:26 AM
Travel at light-speed from the Sun to Jupiter (https://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150728-travel-from-the-sun-to-jupiter?ocid=fbert)

I actually watched the whole thing. Spoiler alert: Make a sandwich and get a drink.
While cool for scale, I thought it was going to show us the visual affects of special relativity. :(

...ok, I found something. Read about it, but never thought to look for a demonstration before.

https://www.snotr.com/video/8149/Optical_effects_of_travelling_close_to_the_speed_of_light
That's cool!

Random thing but the game Space Engineer is using double-precision 64-bit floating point instead of 32-bit in their game engine meaning their game world can be insanely big. Currently their world has a barrier at 1,000,000,000 km, which equals to 6.6 AU. 6.6 AU is slightly more than the distance from the Sun to Jupiter.

If you decide to use your ship to travel from one side of the game world to the opposite, and you will fly on maximum speed (115 m/s), it will take you 552 years.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kaos2900 on July 29, 2015, 06:39:52 AM
Stadler, you know I'm not a mob rules guy (unless your talking about the song :metal) but I still think that paying to skin and behead an animal for no personal benefit other than saying you killed a lion or for a new rug is morally abhorrent. I know that doesn't mean much when applying the law, and maybe there is a chance that his guide screwed up and misled him. I'm not anti hunting by any means. I grew up hunting pheasants with by dad but we ate every thing we killed. I picture this guy as the asshole hunter from The Lost World who just went to kill a T-Rex.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on July 29, 2015, 07:12:14 AM
As far as I know, the justification for these types of hunts is that the proceeds are used to protect against poaching.  Thus, allowing the killing of one animal in a controlled manner may prevent the uncontrolled killing of many more by poachers.  I don't know much beyond that, or if this system is actually effective.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kaos2900 on July 29, 2015, 07:20:09 AM
As far as I know, the justification for these types of hunts is that the proceeds are used to protect against poaching.  Thus, allowing the killing of one animal in a controlled manner may prevent the uncontrolled killing of many more by poachers.  I don't know much beyond that, or if this system is actually effective.

That is an argument used by some hunters and I think it really depends on the situation. For instance the guy who paid $300,000+ to kill a rhino claimed that the rhino he killed was so old that he couldn't mate anymore and was a threat to younger males. There is some logic in that. However, it looks like in most cases it's not an effective method. Considering this lion had some new cubs, it can't be used in this case.

It does look like there is more coming out on this story. Sounds like the guy is claiming he didn't realize what he was doing. Sounds like a bunch of shit to me. It also looks like this wouldn't be his first run in with the law for illegal hunting as he got in trouble for killing a black bear illegally.  My question is if he is such a great hunter, why did it take him hours to track him down and put him out of his misery unless he didn't want to be seen?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 29, 2015, 07:30:33 AM
It's really up to the poachers. There are scenarios where I am okay with this. For example, there are rhino species that are very endangered. Poachers want their horns and their numbers are dwindling fast. We have preserves housing dozens of these beasts. Often times, when an alpha male begins to age and be less attractive, the younger males begin to take its females. This does not sit well with the male, who may longer not even be fertile, and he begins to kill any young male that threatens his dominance. The death of offspring is the absolute last thing that these preservations need. 

They need to prevent the killing of valuable offspring by getting the aging alpha male out of the picture. For the sake of preserving the species, this is vital. They could just open the gates and let the thing go free, but in its elderly state combined with being alone, he'll be a pride's main course in no time. Knowing that there are people who will pay big money, the preserves arrange a hunt to kill an animal that's more or less doomed anyway. They figure they might as well raise $50,000 that could go toward fences, security, and anything else that could prevent poaching. The meat is often times donated to people in the surrounding communities as well.

While I don't love the idea of it, I can't necessarily hate the logic behind it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 29, 2015, 08:58:30 AM
Why are you giving the thumbs down to people voicing their discontent on a site specifically meant for that purpose?
How is it different from people writing a review saying "guy was a jerk when I was there, will never go there again"? Here it is "guy is morally despicable, will never go there again".


If that's the case, why is his website down?   And it's more than just "voicing discontent".   As of now, the guy is guilty of nothing.  He made a different choice than some of us might make, and at this point we don't know whether that choice was legal or not, because a court didn't decide it yet.   Hell, if I read correctly, someone here wants to kill HIM.  For what?

How is this any different than someone going on Yelp and saying "voicing their discontent" with a dentist's homosexuality?  Or views on abortion?  Or views on healthcare?  Do I get to "hunt someone for a dollar" because they voted for Obama? 

It's mob rules. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 29, 2015, 09:05:04 AM
Stadler, you know I'm not a mob rules guy (unless your talking about the song :metal) but I still think that paying to skin and behead an animal for no personal benefit other than saying you killed a lion or for a new rug is morally abhorrent. I know that doesn't mean much when applying the law, and maybe there is a chance that his guide screwed up and misled him. I'm not anti hunting by any means. I grew up hunting pheasants with by dad but we ate every thing we killed. I picture this guy as the asshole hunter from The Lost World who just went to kill a T-Rex.

And while I probably agree with you (only "probably", because I don't know all the facts, and would have little problem if the other posters are correct in the "management" aspect of this hunt) on the moral aspect of this, "morality" doesn't make any action right.  If I'm morally against homosexuality, or drug use, or gender modification, do I get to blow up someone's website and clog Yelp with my "moral" views?   Don't we lambaste the Westboro Baptist Church for this same activity, albeit because we don't like their message?  Who gets to decide what the "right" message is?  I'll tell you:  THE MOB.    And as we all know, the mob rules when you listen to fools.

What's good for the goose...

(And Kaos2900, we're good; this isn't meant to target you personally, but merely to make a point off an idea that may or may not have been tossed up by you). 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 29, 2015, 12:01:40 PM
BOOOOOOOO to Jimmy Kimmel.  I'm boycotting him and blowing up Yelp! about him.   Does he make his jokes and cast his judgments and opinions on stage so that his douchbag friends can sit around and tell him how great he is?    I support people having opinions, but for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would deny another human the right to make their own decisions - as long as they are within the law - without judgment or rancor.   

Sanctimonious bastard.

https://xfinitytv.comcast.net/watch/Jimmy-Kimmel-Live/6832528209303675112/493174851727/Jimmy-Kimmel-Live-7-28/videos?skipTo=286&cmpid=FCST_xfinitytvmediamod_jimmykimmellive
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 29, 2015, 12:18:58 PM
BOOOOOOOO to Jimmy Kimmel.  I'm boycotting him and blowing up Yelp! about him.   Does he make his jokes and cast his judgments and opinions on stage so that his douchbag friends can sit around and tell him how great he is?    I support people having opinions, but for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would deny another human the right to make their own decisions - as long as they are within the law - without judgment or rancor.   


In this case, he wasn't. If I kill someone drunk driving, I can't use the excuse "I had no idea that I was that drunk and didn't think a teen would be crossing the street at 3am. I relied on my pocket breathalyzer and the opinions of my friends to ensure I was within the legal limit.”
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kaos2900 on July 29, 2015, 01:24:36 PM
We're good Stads!

I don't really have a problem with what Kimmel said. It's appears he was pretty genuine. And I agree that the guy is a douche and I would  admit my bias if I was being selected from a jury pool.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 29, 2015, 01:42:00 PM
Regarding the "it was perfectly legal", there's a lot of places in this world where you can legally do morally reprehensible actions. There's a lot places where you can get away with having sex with a 10-year old, and places where people will shrug their shoulders when you hunted an albino man, or shot a homosexual.
Saying "well, it was legal wherever he did it" is just naive. If the guy wants to move to those places and do it there, well, that's his choice. Coming back to the US and boasting about the reprehensible deed: expect to feel the wrath of the public.

EDIT: Death threats are of course unacceptable. But Yelp reviews, hey, what do you expect. And the web page, I think the much more mundane explanation is that he either took it down himself, or it couldn't handle the load of people going to it.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 29, 2015, 01:50:14 PM
Regarding the "it was perfectly legal", there's a lot of places in this world where you can legally do morally reprehensible actions. There's a lot places where you can get away with having sex with a 10-year old, and places where people will shrug their shoulders when you hunted an albino man, or shot a homosexual.
Saying "well, it was legal wherever he did it" is just naive. If the guy wants to move to those places and do it there, well, that's his choice. Coming back to the US and boasting about the reprehensible deed: expect to feel the wrath of the public.

That's a great point. If I went to Niger, married and knocked up a 14 year old, and then brought her back to the states, I'd expect to be murdered in the days to follow.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on July 29, 2015, 02:00:13 PM
Regarding the "it was perfectly legal", there's a lot of places in this world where you can legally do morally reprehensible actions. There's a lot places where you can get away with having sex with a 10-year old, and places where people will shrug their shoulders when you hunted an albino man, or shot a homosexual.
Saying "well, it was legal wherever he did it" is just naive. If the guy wants to move to those places and do it there, well, that's his choice. Coming back to the US and boasting about the reprehensible deed: expect to feel the wrath of the public.

EDIT: Death threats are of course unacceptable. But Yelp reviews, hey, what do you expect.

Death threats are abso-fucking-lutely acceptable. Let him stir and wallow in the paranoia. ACTUALLY killing him is unacceptable. Threats though? Shit. Send those Natural-Born-Killers-letters ALL DAY. Pretty sure if you're enough of a cunt to pay that much money to kill an animal halfway around the world, you can stir in a little bit of paranoia and think about it just a little.

Ed: Damn it, I've been sucked into it. Let's post some more Plutonium porn, guys. I dunno what that is, but I KNOW one of you mofos around here does.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 29, 2015, 03:27:05 PM
BOOOOOOOO to Jimmy Kimmel.  I'm boycotting him and blowing up Yelp! about him.   Does he make his jokes and cast his judgments and opinions on stage so that his douchbag friends can sit around and tell him how great he is?    I support people having opinions, but for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would deny another human the right to make their own decisions - as long as they are within the law - without judgment or rancor.   


In this case, he wasn't. If I kill someone drunk driving, I can't use the excuse "I had no idea that I was that drunk and didn't think a teen would be crossing the street at 3am. I relied on my pocket breathalyzer and the opinions of my friends to ensure I was within the legal limit.”

We don't, as of this moment, know that he DID anything illegal.  This is all because of moral outrage, not a reaction to a convicted felon.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 29, 2015, 03:35:09 PM
Since when has Zimbabwean law become the moral standard, Stadler?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 29, 2015, 03:35:45 PM
Regarding the "it was perfectly legal", there's a lot of places in this world where you can legally do morally reprehensible actions. There's a lot places where you can get away with having sex with a 10-year old, and places where people will shrug their shoulders when you hunted an albino man, or shot a homosexual.
Saying "well, it was legal wherever he did it" is just naive. If the guy wants to move to those places and do it there, well, that's his choice. Coming back to the US and boasting about the reprehensible deed: expect to feel the wrath of the public.

EDIT: Death threats are of course unacceptable. But Yelp reviews, hey, what do you expect.

Death threats are abso-fucking-lutely acceptable. Let him stir and wallow in the paranoia. ACTUALLY killing him is unacceptable. Threats though? Shit. Send those Natural-Born-Killers-letters ALL DAY. Pretty sure if you're enough of a cunt to pay that much money to kill an animal halfway around the world, you can stir in a little bit of paranoia and think about it just a little.

I hope your joking, because your reaction is EXACTLY what I'm railing against.  Who are you to decide what merits "death threats"?  Do I get to provide "death threats" - are they "perfectly acceptable"? - to doctors performing abortions?  Because I find abortions morally reprehensible.  (I'm actually not kidding, though I am pro-choice).   

Object to this guy all you want, but don't forget that at some point you're going to be on the other side of the equation. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on July 29, 2015, 03:42:53 PM
I don't even understand why killing a lion is legal anywhere.  Regardless, this guy has a prior conviction of illegally killing a black bear and also lied about where he killed it to cover up (and got caught on that lie).  He has a history of lying about his kills so there is suspicion enough that he did something illegal and knew it.  And morally, it just seems so wrong to do as something for fun.  I am all for hunting if you are actually going to do something with your kill (food, clothes, whatever it may be) to make the kill have real life value and meaning.  Traveling around the world to kill big animals for fun is just so wrong regardless of whether it is legal or not.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 29, 2015, 03:44:35 PM
Exactly, and I don't need some kangaroo court to tell us whether it was legal or not.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Onno on July 29, 2015, 03:47:44 PM
Agreed.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Shattered Glass on July 29, 2015, 09:58:44 PM
Full disclosure  - my personal reaction to his is grief, and I hadn’t even heard of Cecil until he passed.  I do recognise him as a frequently photographed lion, and for that reason find it hard to believe that the dentist (who sure seemed to go hunting a lot) did not know who he was.  But there’s grief, because lions in general are amazing, and I believe that this shooting is symptomatic of our society’s relationship with animals. 

From my limited understanding of law, the legal and animal rights views should agree that this action is not lawful (but for different reasons).  Legally - I’m guessing here -  Cecil was the property of the Zimbabwean people.  He was a tourist draw, and arguably worth a great deal to their economy.  So, isn’t this is the destruction of a valuable asset, similar to if someone bombed a building?  And for the dentist to claim ignorance of who the lion was, isn’t this still gross negligence for which he is responsible?  Legally, I can see it as different to the public dismemberment of Mariusz the giraffe, because Mariusz was the property of the zoo in question.

Viewed from an animals rights perspective, then of course this is a horrible occurrence.  I am concerned though because I think any scapegoating is not appropriate.  There is a lot of societal anger which is strange in the context of it being something  that is happening all the time (i.e. animal deaths at the hands of humans) on a horribly large scale – but Cecil’s passing is like a celebrity death.  Animal advocates seem to be aware of this, and are fanning the outrage to put the larger framework of animal rights in the public eye.  This has meant that now the dentist himself is in possible danger. This seems to me an injustice to Cecil, and the pride that relied on him.  Animals have shown in experiments and in their actions that they are capable of forgiveness and compassion and are not interested in the concept of revenge but rather, survival -  in my mind, any action that threatens the dentist does not honor Cecil, but is really just done for people’s sake.

I am really hoping that there are consequences for this action – I hope that the dentist meets proper justice.  Cecil’s pride now has to face an uphill battle to survive his death without him to protect him, and there is already one less lion in the world.  The Zimbabwean people have lost a symbol of pride.  Prayers up for Cecil. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 30, 2015, 07:20:01 AM
Exactly, and I don't need some kangaroo court to tell us whether it was legal or not.

God, is that a reprehensible position.  You realize that just makes YOU the kangaroo court.   I'll remember this the next time a cop says "well, I knew that black guy was a criminal; I didn't have to ask him or search him or follow any due process".   
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 30, 2015, 11:16:02 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/nUrMgab.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on July 30, 2015, 12:14:19 PM
Pervert lol

As much as I very much am against what this guy did whether it was legel or not, death threats and messing with his house is not right.  Two wrongs don't make a right. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 30, 2015, 12:32:51 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/nUrMgab.jpg)

See, I think that's lame.   I see no difference between that and painting a swastika on someone's front door.  It's hate, regardless of the source.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 30, 2015, 12:49:24 PM
I have no problem with leaving stuffed animals and stuff. The signs, especially the hateful ones, are completely unnecessary. If his practice ever sent out advertisements via emailing lists or snail mail, I certainly don't have a problem with it  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 30, 2015, 01:32:40 PM
Exactly, and I don't need some kangaroo court to tell us whether it was legal or not.

God, is that a reprehensible position.  You realize that just makes YOU the kangaroo court.   I'll remember this the next time a cop says "well, I knew that black guy was a criminal; I didn't have to ask him or search him or follow any due process".

What? Dude, there is simply no question that he killed that lion, he has fucking pictures of it with him in it. He has a history of fines for illegally killing other animals (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cecil-lion-killer-walter-james-palmer-has-bear-related-felony-n400226). I feel no reason to go all "in dubio pro reo" on this guy.

And you seriously want to rest your moral judgment on a country's court system that allows child army brigades?
It strikes me you're dug your heels in so far at this point that your stance makes little sense at this point.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 30, 2015, 03:37:08 PM
Exactly, and I don't need some kangaroo court to tell us whether it was legal or not.

God, is that a reprehensible position.  You realize that just makes YOU the kangaroo court.   I'll remember this the next time a cop says "well, I knew that black guy was a criminal; I didn't have to ask him or search him or follow any due process".

What? Dude, there is simply no question that he killed that lion, he has fucking pictures of it with him in it. He has a history of fines for illegally killing other animals (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cecil-lion-killer-walter-james-palmer-has-bear-related-felony-n400226). I feel no reason to go all "in dubio pro reo" on this guy.

And you seriously want to rest your moral judgment on a country's court system that allows child army brigades?
It strikes me you're dug your heels in so far at this point that your stance makes little sense at this point.

It makes no sense because you don't agree with it.  I'm not "dug in", I'm consistent.  Allowing any reaction on moral (or legal grounds) means you allow it in all cases where someone has the same moral (or legal) reaction.   You have moral qualms with the killing of lions.  I don't, in certain circumstances.  Whether the guy is lying or not is a fair question, and I am not making a judgement on that (if I had to guess, I'd opt for "lie", but that is an unsubstantiated opinion).   

What I object to is the notion that "well, since I - and a couple other people - agree this is bad, then all bets are off, we can do what we want".  That's the attitude that only works when you have numbers.  There was a time when "a couple people" thought being black or being Jewish justified the kind of reaction you're defending.  We as a western society are striving for better.  That's why we have courts to decide these things, not martial law or street justice.   Personally, I think that kind of game hunting is immoral, so I don't do it.  Same with abortion.  But I would defend with every legal skill I have to let another person have an abortion if that's the decision she reaches, because that's how a democracy, a free society works.   "A strong democracy is how it deals with the most unsavory of ideas". 

Let's say some child pornographer spoofs your IP address and starts sending out pictures of pre-pubescent boys and girls getting buggered, and the FBI releases your name as being "under investigation".  You may or may not have ACTUALLY done anything wrong, but you are accused.  Are you ready to have that kind of assault on you, your family, and your reputation until you've had a chance to prove your case?  (I'm using a recent news thing on a director of the US TV show "Law and Order" whose IP address was found as a source for child porn). 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on July 30, 2015, 09:07:13 PM
I agree with Stadler's basic point here. I don't support what this guy did regardless of the circumstances, but I disagree more strongly with the public reaction. Stupid internet social media mob mentality blowing things out of proportion, badgering and attacking anyone you disagree with while claiming to be open and understanding, jumping on the latest bandwagon.

This is generally speaking. I'm not defending the guy one bit, but it's a dark path with too much potential for wrong.

And also I think this should have its own thread at this point, because I think it's getting way off what this thread should be about.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 30, 2015, 09:35:01 PM
BTW, I am not a big fan of people posting those things in front of his practice either. And I absolutely abhor any kind of threats of violence. What I *do* think is fair game is to vent your disgust on a site that is meant for rating a public place like his dentist office. This is nothing like mobs bullying gay people, who have done nothing wrong to anybody. This man is killing endangered animals across the world.
I think asking the general public to somehow not react to his behavior, under some fake idea of "well, maybe some aliens abducted him while some imposter killed those animals; we'll have to wait until the Zimbabwean courts decide on it" is ludicrous.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on July 30, 2015, 09:43:20 PM
It's not about not reacting, it's about what outlet they use. Spreading it on the internet, generally discussing it, or rating on a website is one thing (although I have mixed feelings about that one), but harassing the guy in real life with death threats and signs and generally ruining someone's life is going too far.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: yorost on July 30, 2015, 09:45:16 PM
And also I think this should have its own thread at this point, because I think it's getting way off what this thread should be about.
Please make it stop! :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 30, 2015, 09:46:13 PM
It's not about not reacting, it's about what outlet they use. Spreading it on the internet, generally discussing it, or rating on a website is one thing (although I have mixed feelings about that one), but harassing the guy in real life with death threats and signs and generally ruining someone's life is going too far.

I think, with maybe the exception of TioJorge, everybody agrees with that.

Overall, as long as it stays peaceful, an outrage to this abhorrent practice is IMHO a good thing. To me this is like the anti-fur movement in the 80s.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on July 30, 2015, 10:10:39 PM
It's not about not reacting, it's about what outlet they use. Spreading it on the internet, generally discussing it, or rating on a website is one thing (although I have mixed feelings about that one), but harassing the guy in real life with death threats and signs and generally ruining someone's life is going too far.

I think, with maybe the exception of TioJorge, everybody agrees with that.

Overall, as long as it stays peaceful, an outrage to this abhorrent practice is IMHO a good thing. To me this is like the anti-fur movement in the 80s.

I'm all for peaceful outrage, and spreading awareness, and him getting the deserved punishment for it, it's the part where people are getting personal and ruining this guy's life where I object to it. He's still a human being, despite being a crappy one, and he's far from the only one in the world.

And the guy is a sack of crap, that's not even being questioned by me, but I don't the idea of social media mob rules. As Stadler said, in other cases what if someone was wrongly accused, or people didn't have all the details, and people took it upon themselves to do this to someone relatively innocent (innocent enough to not have their life ruined at least)? The public shouldn't be the jury who decides this on a case by case basis, and while each person may feel they're being fair individually, the cumulative effect of all of these people can be way out of proportion to the crime and is hard to regulate. Social media can obviously be used for good here, but it's also being used for bad.

I get Stadler's point. The problem isn't so much about this case specifically, it's about where this kind of public behaviour is leading society.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 30, 2015, 10:13:06 PM
Of course, and I totally agree with that this case already brought out some nasty stuff by some people, maybe even nastier than what the guy himself has done.
What I object to, and I may have perceived Stadler's point wrongly here, is that the public should not form an opinion at all here, but rather wait for some foreign court to be bribed enough (and let's be honest here, Zimbabwean courts: yeah, right) to make some judgment.

My take on what should happen is: If you go to Zimbabwe and kill a protected animal, you should face a Zimbabwean court. With probably all that entails. It's the same thing that happens when moron Westerners smuggle or consume drugs in Indonesia. You put yourself into grave danger by testing local law, and you might very well land in some rotten jail for 10 years.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on July 30, 2015, 10:40:37 PM
Of course, and I totally agree with that this case already brought out some nasty stuff by some people, maybe even nastier than what the guy himself has done.
What I object to, and I may have perceived Stadler's point wrongly here, is that the public should not form an opinion at all here, but rather wait for some foreign court to be bribed enough (and let's be honest here, Zimbabwean courts: yeah, right) to make some judgment.

I think people should be discussing and forming opinions, and pushing for justice to be properly served, it's the point where opinions become actions where things get a bit more grey and murky for me. The public is not the jury, and opinions are not a legal verdict, even in cases like this where it may be more clear cut.

And by that, I'm not saying (and I don't think Stadler is saying it either) that the public can't or shouldn't make their own judgement, or sit on their asses and let the issue disappear assuming the legal system will do its job perfectly every time, but we should be striving for a civilized society where we use the power of numbers for good, not working outside of the law and dealing out punishment on our own.

And if the court gets it wrong in the public's opinion, people should continue to use social media and raise hell the right way, not send death threats or burn his house down.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 31, 2015, 04:47:20 AM
BTW, I am not a big fan of people posting those things in front of his practice either. And I absolutely abhor any kind of threats of violence. What I *do* think is fair game is to vent your disgust on a site that is meant for rating a public place like his dentist office. This is nothing like mobs bullying gay people, who have done nothing wrong to anybody. This man is killing endangered animals across the world.
I think asking the general public to somehow not react to his behavior, under some fake idea of "well, maybe some aliens abducted him while some imposter killed those animals; we'll have to wait until the Zimbabwean courts decide on it" is ludicrous.

What does his shooting a lion have to do with his skill in filling a cavity or his chair-side manner when checking after a cleaning? 

And you know full well I'm not saying the latter.  Your assertion that I am anywhere near that is "ludicrous".  What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.  That's the crux of my point, not "aliens". 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 31, 2015, 04:52:51 AM
Of course, and I totally agree with that this case already brought out some nasty stuff by some people, maybe even nastier than what the guy himself has done.
What I object to, and I may have perceived Stadler's point wrongly here, is that the public should not form an opinion at all here, but rather wait for some foreign court to be bribed enough (and let's be honest here, Zimbabwean courts: yeah, right) to make some judgment.

My take on what should happen is: If you go to Zimbabwe and kill a protected animal, you should face a Zimbabwean court. With probably all that entails. It's the same thing that happens when moron Westerners smuggle or consume drugs in Indonesia. You put yourself into grave danger by testing local law, and you might very well land in some rotten jail for 10 years.

As an aside, extradition has begun.

But you have wrongly perceived my point. I don't believe people shouldn't have opinions, I just believe people should have more discipline in expressing them in an appropriate way and an appropriate forum, given all the facts (or not) of the case.   Who knows, but from what I read, the man is possibly in a lot of trouble.  I'm not defending him one bit.  I'm attacking those that seem to want to forget, in their moral outrage, that there is a thing called "due process" (and here I'm not limiting that to a court room) and there is the right to have dissenting and unpopular views.   "Social media" makes it too easy for a bunch of anonymous people in their mom's basements to cast judgement, but I daresay they'd be the first to cry foul if that judgment were cast against them. 

We as a society here in the States do a lot of things well, but "putting ourselves in another man's shoes" isn't one of them, and social media doesn't make that any better.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on July 31, 2015, 05:56:15 AM
Lots of good points.

I think Rumborak's comments against Stadler's seem to be that "due process" is good and we should all respect that and not rush to social media to condem someone before we know the facts or to even physically threat or harm someone, however, it's very skeptical if there will even be "due process" in a third world country so we may not get down to the bottom of this and when/if they come to a conclusion, can we even trust that it was done right? 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 31, 2015, 08:52:44 AM
Lots of good points.

I think Rumborak's comments against Stadler's seem to be that "due process" is good and we should all respect that and not rush to social media to condem someone before we know the facts or to even physically threat or harm someone, however, it's very skeptical if there will even be "due process" in a third world country so we may not get down to the bottom of this and when/if they come to a conclusion, can we even trust that it was done right?

Fair points, but that doesn't mean we get to kill him, or slander/libel him, nor do we get to foist our morality on someone else.   Life isn't fair sometimes (ask the Goldmans and the Browns) but it is what it is.   If he is not tried and convicted, we as a society don't get to assume that responsibility. 

Again, it is helpful to substitute things on the other side of the ledger to see if we are acting appropriately. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 31, 2015, 09:05:29 AM
What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.


Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 31, 2015, 09:05:53 AM
I really don't care what any government thinks of this act. In zimbabwe, it is a criminal act for two members of the same sex to hold hands or hug. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether or not they consider this act legal.

There are 4 northern white rhinos left on the planet. Elephants are being slaughtered in front of their offsrping and having their faces hacked apart for their ivory, driving them closer to extinction. African lion populations are down 60% over the last three decades. Whale populations have been demolished. Say what you want about pushing morality on others all you want, but this isn't a matter of someone doing something I morally disagree with. This is about someone using their wealth to deliberately take part in the destruction of an ecosystem that's already hanging on by a thread. Despite everything we know. Despite all the animals we've already hunted to extinction. Despite all the warning signs. This fuck gets his rocks off by murdering a beautiful creature that should be being protected.

I could give a shit how this guy killed the thing. He could have snuck up on it in his sleep and put a bullet in his head and I'd still be just as pissed about it.

"The question is, are we happy to suppose that our grandchildren may never be able to see an elephant except in a picture book?" - David Attenborough
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 31, 2015, 09:21:29 AM




What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.


Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.

To you.  You're just rationalizing YOUR indignation.   Moral indignation is moral indignation.  They are animals.  They die every day at the hands of their own species or others.   All of life ends in only one way. 

Which is, of course, my whole point.  You don't get to put parameters around YOUR morals to make them "right" and refuse to do so for others'.   


I really don't care what any government thinks of this act. In zimbabwe, it is a criminal act for two members of the same sex to hold hands or hug. I couldn't give a flying fuck whether or not they consider this act legal.

There are 4 northern white rhinos left on the planet. Elephants are being slaughtered in front of their offsrping and having their faces hacked apart for their ivory, driving them closer to extinction. African lion populations are down 60% over the last three decades. Whale populations have been demolished. Say what you want about pushing morality on others all you want, but this isn't a matter of someone doing something I morally disagree with. This is about someone using their wealth to deliberately take part in the destruction of an ecosystem that's already hanging on by a thread. Despite everything we know. Despite all the animals we've already hunted to extinction. Despite all the warning signs. This fuck gets his rocks off by murdering a beautiful creature that should be being protected.

I could give a shit how this guy killed the thing. He could have snuck up on it in his sleep and put a bullet in his head and I'd still be just as pissed about it.

"The question is, are we happy to suppose that our grandchildren may never be able to see an elephant except in a picture book?" - David Attenborough

Sort of the same answer.  Glad you don't care, glad you're able to wrap your arms around the rationalization why you're right and others are wrong.   But that's all it is:  a rationalization.  You don't like it, but this is what laws are for.  It's called the "tragedy of the commons".  So you don't "give a fuck" if it's legal or not?  That's essentially Walter Palmer's argument, isn't it?  We respect other nations' laws as they respect ours.  It's called "sovereign immunity".  Personally, I'm with you that it is immoral, and personally I would love to see some punishment be meted out.  But unless and until it does, all this moral indignation just makes you... Walter Palmer but on the other side of the arrow. 

Let's hope someone doesn't go and make death threats against you and Rumborak for your moral position.  Or maybe the advocates of the current system can ruin your job for you.  Or scare your family into hiding.   That would be fair, no?   I'm sure they have a rationalization that is every bit as logically sound as yours. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 31, 2015, 09:26:58 AM
What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.


Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.

They are animals.  They die every day at the hands of their own species or others.   All of life ends in only one way. 

I can't even begin to describe how much this attitude makes my blood boil. You can't possibly be implying that because animals kill each other and everything eventually dies, that it's no big deal when humans kill for no reason other than bragging rights or ivory. Fuck.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DcedLIgGKJM/Um0AhQduIfI/AAAAAAAAASM/ApDtZYygjLY/s1600/6097-1.jpg)
(https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kplu/files/styles/x_large/public/201506/unnamed-elephant_-poaching.jpg)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on July 31, 2015, 09:38:35 AM
I dont think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on July 31, 2015, 10:25:19 AM
I could give a shit how this guy killed the thing. He could have snuck up on it in his sleep and put a bullet in his head and I'd still be just as pissed about it.

This type of "trophy" hunting is ridiculous. I mean, it's near literally unbelievable that it's still allowed in this day and age. And this is coming from someone who has hunted. Difference being I hunt animals (deer/Turkey/Squirrel) that due to the manner in which humans have altered the natural order of things NEED to be harvested to maintain a healthy herd and population. Plus, I eat/share the meat. Hunting these animals is a far cry different than the trophy hunting industry that essentially corrals an animal so a really rich person can walk up to it and end it's life.

If you really want to get your blood boiling seek out some video of these "hunters" who use packs of dogs to tree Mountain Lions and Bear. It's inhumane in it's own right and I can't believe it's even allowed.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Nick on July 31, 2015, 11:52:54 AM
I don't think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

*discussing animals being hunted for sport or vanity*

*picture of result of said hunting*

*bad form*

I fail to see the jump from #2 to #3, cram.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 31, 2015, 12:00:21 PM
I dont think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

What tactics? I'm showing images related to the exact topic we are discussing with literally no other agenda behind them. I'm not as good as Mr. Stadler is with words. I'm simply trying to refute the claim that "All of life ends in only one way". Those images do a better job describing the point I'm trying to convey than anything I could ever write.

Also, if this was any other thread, I'd maybe be inclined to agree that maybe these images are too much, but this is the science and nature thread. Nature is brutal.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on July 31, 2015, 12:05:39 PM
Those images do a better job describing the point I'm trying to convey than anything I could ever write.

I agree. Very powerful image....
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 31, 2015, 12:37:31 PM
What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.


Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.

They are animals.  They die every day at the hands of their own species or others.   All of life ends in only one way. 

I can't even begin to describe how much this attitude makes my blood boil. You can't possibly be implying that because animals kill each other and everything eventually dies, that it's no big deal when humans kill for no reason other than bragging rights or ivory. Fuck.


Don't take what I said out of context, and don't insert your facts ("ivory") to make your case.   I understand your point, generally agree with it, and don't need gruesome photos to see your point of view.

What you're missing is that your (our) point of view is not the ONLY point of view.   That you and I agree (we do actually) or even a majority do, doesn't mean someone can't have an alternate point of view.   We get our opinions, we don't get to snuff out others who disagree with us.  Every time you have this conversation, every time you thing of this concept, insert "abortion" in place of "hunting" and see if you'd come out the same way (or any other moral position that is subject to intense debate).

I'm not defending the hunting, nor am I defending abuse or circumvention of laws, nor am I defending the injustice of any laws.  I'm only defending the hunter from having a different moral "north" than you.   I don't need pictures of mutilated animals to change that.   In fact, by posting that picture you clearly indicate that you have no idea what I'm saying. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on July 31, 2015, 12:43:10 PM
I dont think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

What tactics? I'm showing images related to the exact topic we are discussing with literally no other agenda behind them. I'm not as good as Mr. Stadler is with words. I'm simply trying to refute the claim that "All of life ends in only one way". Those images do a better job describing the point I'm trying to convey than anything I could ever write.

Chino, it was not a literal statement to argue the merits of ivory poaching or sport hunting.   It was an articulation of a point of view different to yours to, hopefully but apparently not successfully, show that others may have a different point of view than you, and if we're going to preach "tolerance" when it's convenient for us, we need to be able to live it when it is inconvenient. 


Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on July 31, 2015, 12:51:52 PM
So guys, how about that hadron collider? Any hadrons been colliding lately?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on July 31, 2015, 12:56:39 PM
What's also "ludicrous" is somehow claiming your moral indignation on the killing of animals is "different" than someone else's moral indignation about same-sex love.   Indignation is indignation.   You don't get to decide when yours is just and someone else's isn't.


Iiiiii am sorry, but moral indignation due to a person killing endangered species' animals is something VERY different from moral indignation about a person's sexual preferences. Just to spell it out more: One involves killing of sentient beings. The other, well, doesn't.

They are animals.  They die every day at the hands of their own species or others.   All of life ends in only one way. 

I can't even begin to describe how much this attitude makes my blood boil. You can't possibly be implying that because animals kill each other and everything eventually dies, that it's no big deal when humans kill for no reason other than bragging rights or ivory. Fuck.

What you're missing is that your (our) point of view is not the ONLY point of view.   That you and I agree (we do actually) or even a majority do, doesn't mean someone can't have an alternate point of view.   

No. You're wrong. There is only one point of view. We are exterminating these species at an alarming rate. This is fact and not up for debate. We have the data to prove this. We've seen it many times in our history. A hunter might have a alternate point of view than I do in regards to whether or not killing a white rhino for fun is an acceptable practice, but regardless of the point of view, there are only four left.

Quote
We get our opinions, we don't get to snuff out others who disagree with us.

No. Screw that. I don't care how strong your opinion is on something. Data is data. I'm sure there are people in Japan who share the opinion that whale populations have remained unchanged over the last century. That doesn't mean we should entertain the idea of allowing them to commercially whale at will.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: faizoff on July 31, 2015, 12:59:14 PM
With regards to the technology side of this thread, I'm sure it's been mentioned before here or elsewhere but reading about the technologies created for the New Horizons probe that flew by Pluto is astounding. The amount of brain power and skillful execution of those inventions sometimes just baffles me.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on July 31, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
With regards to the technology side of this thread, I'm sure it's been mentioned before here or elsewhere but reading about the technologies created for the New Horizons probe that flew by Pluto is astounding. The amount of brain power and skillful execution of those inventions sometimes just baffles me.

Ain't that the truth. There's some pretty incredible stuff going on, and I love that something else similar is also happening, as it's about damn time to at least try: (it might've even been posted here or elsewhere on the forum at some point)

ALIEN SEARCH. BEGIN! (https://www.space.com/29999-stephen-hawking-intelligent-alien-life-danger.html)

Now, this isn't the original post on the topic, there was another that I don't have the time to look for that said a man (whose name escapes me) is going to fund this for years and years on end and with both the immensely ever expanding mind of the great Hawking...I really am both terrified and excited that something may happen by the time my generation is walkin' around with walkers/canes. It's enticing, but the prospect of finding something is just totally beyond me at this point.

Ed: Totally forgot we have a space thread... I'm just trying to get past this argument that will never end on the topic of hunting. But I will be a hypocrite and chime only because I'd like to celebrate this momentous occasion which has never happened before: I agree with Bryan. That's all I'll say though...pretty clear that this discussion is going to go nowhere or in circles. :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on July 31, 2015, 02:17:09 PM
I don't think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

*discussing animals being hunted for sport or vanity*

*picture of result of said hunting*

*bad form*

I fail to see the jump from #2 to #3, cram.

Not everyone likes to look at picture of decapitated animals.  Especially someone who isnt even arguing against someone in this conversation.

I dont think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

What tactics? I'm showing images related to the exact topic we are discussing with literally no other agenda behind them. I'm not as good as Mr. Stadler is with words. I'm simply trying to refute the claim that "All of life ends in only one way". Those images do a better job describing the point I'm trying to convey than anything I could ever write.

Also, if this was any other thread, I'd maybe be inclined to agree that maybe these images are too much, but this is the science and nature thread. Nature is brutal.

Its a tactic because you are showing something to make a point.  As GMD stated, its a powerful image.  I am not saying it isn't, it's just not needed and like I said, some people don't come into a science and nature threat to see that even if it is being discussed (I am obviously one of them).
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Nick on July 31, 2015, 02:27:11 PM
I don't think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

*discussing animals being hunted for sport or vanity*

*picture of result of said hunting*

*bad form*

I fail to see the jump from #2 to #3, cram.

Not everyone likes to look at picture of decapitated animals.  Especially someone who isnt even arguing against someone in this conversation.


Not everyone likes that it is happening either. I consider the fact it is indeed happening, however, to be 23450948523409 times more inappropriate or offensive or off putting than the posted picture is.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 31, 2015, 02:29:57 PM
So guys, how about that hadron collider? Any hadrons been colliding lately?

Yeah, how far are they into this now? It's been ramping up for some months now, hasn't it?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on July 31, 2015, 02:34:41 PM
I don't think we need to see pictures of an elephant like that to get the point.  Please don't use those tactics.

*discussing animals being hunted for sport or vanity*

*picture of result of said hunting*

*bad form*

I fail to see the jump from #2 to #3, cram.

Not everyone likes to look at picture of decapitated animals.  Especially someone who isnt even arguing against someone in this conversation.


Not everyone likes that it is happening either. I consider the fact it is indeed happening, however, to be 23450948523409 times more inappropriate or offensive or off putting than the posted picture is.

That's fairly obvious, but not at all my point.  Im not even offended by it, I just have a hard time looking at blood and guts.  I thought this was a good discussion and was very much turned off by that picture because it makes me sick.  I did not think it was necessary to go that far.  If this thread, because it's science and nature, means that it's fine to show those pictures then I have been warned and I won't participate here and that's fine and all.  This may just be a personal problem of mine, I know I am weird with blood and guts.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Podaar on July 31, 2015, 03:53:55 PM
  This may just be a personal problem of mine, I know I am weird with blood and guts.

Could be true. Some of my family pictures have been more graphically nauseating.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on July 31, 2015, 04:46:06 PM
Some of my family pictures have been more graphically nauseating.

Did someone snap a pic of you in a speedo?  :biggrin:
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on July 31, 2015, 05:03:35 PM
Back to actual nature and science, here's how a Tapir scratches itself on the back:

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-tapir-scratches-itch
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: CDrice on July 31, 2015, 05:24:51 PM
Back to actual nature and science, here's how a Tapir scratches itself on the back:

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-tapir-scratches-itch

 :omg: ... forget the pictures of mutilated animals, that's the most disturbing thing I saw today.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on July 31, 2015, 11:21:30 PM
Back to actual nature and science, here's how a Tapir scratches itself on the back:

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/how-tapir-scratches-itch

You scratch my back, and I............ never mind.

If I was hung like that, I wouldn't be wasting it on scratching myself. I'd be having a Japanese rotisserie.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on August 01, 2015, 08:09:34 AM
No. You're wrong. There is only one point of view. We are exterminating these species at an alarming rate. This is fact and not up for debate. We have the data to prove this. We've seen it many times in our history. A hunter might have a alternate point of view than I do in regards to whether or not killing a white rhino for fun is an acceptable practice, but regardless of the point of view, there are only four left.

Not arguing the fact.  It's what we do with it.  Sorry, but I'm not wrong.   People CAN disagree with you, and they do.   If you want tolerance when it works for you, you have to give it when it doesn't.   Anything else is hypocrisy, and that's what I'm calling out here.   Save the four rhinos the legal way, not by ruining this guy's life and bullying others into your world view. 


Quote
Quote
We get our opinions, we don't get to snuff out others who disagree with us.

No. Screw that. I don't care how strong your opinion is on something. Data is data. I'm sure there are people in Japan who share the opinion that whale populations have remained unchanged over the last century. That doesn't mean we should entertain the idea of allowing them to commercially whale at will.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not arguing data.  But data is just information to be plugged in to an equation.  You are completely talking about something else entirely here, I think.   

The Japanese cannot violate the law.  If they can whale without doing so, you can certainly make your position known, you can lobby for a change in the laws to prevent them, but you can't threaten to kill whalers, you can't defame them, you can't marginalize them and their families.   Your underlying premise that "animals are important, and the higher the number the better" isn't universal.  I'm sorry that it isn't, but it isn't.  And that's a fact too, that YOU have to live with.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on August 01, 2015, 11:56:17 AM
Can we try to not get this thread locked too? The "Let me blow your mind" thread already went to the shitter, would be nice if this one could survive.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on August 01, 2015, 02:03:02 PM
"Prehensile penis" is now my new favorite phrase. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Genowyn on August 08, 2015, 09:21:31 AM
Some information about the significance Cecil held in the scientific community:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ha--JzqMvg

This Youtube channel is definitely worth subscribing to for anyone interested in science news as well.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on August 08, 2015, 10:39:08 AM
I always knew the only thing keeping back this place from perfection was animal phalluses.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on December 09, 2015, 05:53:04 AM
So... Dolphins might be able to send pictures to each other.

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/human-intelligence-versus-whales-and-dolphins/.

Quote
Communication is so great in cetaceans that there is a strong possibility they are able to project (yes … literally project) an “auditory image” that replicates a sonar message they may receive. The process is a bit confusing, but MSU describes it in this circumstance: “So a dolphin wishing to convey the image of a fish to another dolphin can literally send the image of a fish to the other animal. The equivalent of this in humans would be the ability to create instantaneous holographic pictures to convey images to other people.”

If they are in fact able to do this, there would have to be a natural tendency to break down stylized and abstracted images into words. Meaning, cetaceans, like people, use a series of signifiers to discern the exact objects they want to communicate about. We might say “tree” and think of a picture of a tree in our minds, but cetaceans can skip this step by simply projecting the image to other cetaceans.

Not fascinating enough? Well did you know that, with several sound producing organs, cetaceans are capable of conveying and receiving “20 times the amount of information as we can with our hearing”? This surpasses the amount of information we can perceive based on vision (a human’s primary sense).
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: eric42434224 on December 09, 2015, 06:12:24 AM
So... Dolphins might be able to send pictures to each other.

https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/human-intelligence-versus-whales-and-dolphins/.

Quote
Communication is so great in cetaceans that there is a strong possibility they are able to project (yes … literally project) an “auditory image” that replicates a sonar message they may receive. The process is a bit confusing, but MSU describes it in this circumstance: “So a dolphin wishing to convey the image of a fish to another dolphin can literally send the image of a fish to the other animal. The equivalent of this in humans would be the ability to create instantaneous holographic pictures to convey images to other people.”

If they are in fact able to do this, there would have to be a natural tendency to break down stylized and abstracted images into words. Meaning, cetaceans, like people, use a series of signifiers to discern the exact objects they want to communicate about. We might say “tree” and think of a picture of a tree in our minds, but cetaceans can skip this step by simply projecting the image to other cetaceans.

Not fascinating enough? Well did you know that, with several sound producing organs, cetaceans are capable of conveying and receiving “20 times the amount of information as we can with our hearing”? This surpasses the amount of information we can perceive based on vision (a human’s primary sense).

Think they send other dolphins pics of their junk?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Implode on December 09, 2015, 06:54:54 AM
Knowing dolphins?

Yeah, probably.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on December 09, 2015, 07:06:41 AM
I've seen a dolphin turn a fish corpse into a flesh light. I don't think sending a dick pic is too hard to imagine.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on December 09, 2015, 07:48:12 AM
I've seen a dolphin turn a fish corpse into a flesh light. I don't think sending a dick pic is too hard to imagine.

 :rollin
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on January 18, 2016, 10:13:59 AM
https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-legged-giant-finds-secret-hideaway-hides-for-80-years?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160117

Bad-ass island, cool bug and awesome story about these little/giant bugs.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on January 18, 2016, 04:28:39 PM
Daaayyuuuum that island looks ominous and fantastical as all hell. Oh and fuck that really cool looking insect. FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF-

That's awesome.

Oh and this is probably the best quote I've ever read and ever will read ever again:

Quote
Where, they wondered, did that poop come from?

 :lol :lol
I do say, where!?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on January 19, 2016, 06:40:21 AM
Yeah, I thought the most interesting thing about that article was the island itself.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on January 19, 2016, 07:00:54 AM
That's a cool story (not in like the cool story bro kind of way, the legit way).
Not sure how I feel about preserving a monstrously huge bug. :lol But it's a wonderful success story, and they should use those bugs as extras in a scifi movie on an alien planet or something.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on January 19, 2016, 07:04:39 AM
That's a cool story (not in like the cool story bro kind of way, the legit way).
Not sure how I feel about preserving a monstrously huge bug. :lol But it's a wonderful success story, and they should use those bugs as extras in a scifi movie on an alien planet or something.

You should see the insects that walked/flew on this Earth when the oxygen content of our atmosphere was much greater!

https://listverse.com/2013/01/14/10-prehistoric-bugs-that-could-seriously-mess-you-up/
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on January 19, 2016, 07:15:04 AM
That's a cool story (not in like the cool story bro kind of way, the legit way).
Not sure how I feel about preserving a monstrously huge bug. :lol But it's a wonderful success story, and they should use those bugs as extras in a scifi movie on an alien planet or something.

You should see the insects that walked/flew on this Earth when the oxygen content of our atmosphere was much greater!

https://listverse.com/2013/01/14/10-prehistoric-bugs-that-could-seriously-mess-you-up/

You don't need to tell me, I've seen Godzilla vs Destroyah.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 17, 2016, 09:41:28 AM
Thought the below story was fascinating.....


https://www.yahoo.com/tech/five-dimensional-glass-discs-store-183747050.html
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on February 17, 2016, 09:45:52 AM
Thought the below story was fascinating.....


https://www.yahoo.com/tech/five-dimensional-glass-discs-store-183747050.html

Pretty cool. I remember reading about a company, maybe a decade or so ago, that was trying to do this this quartz and diamonds.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 17, 2016, 09:49:03 AM
Thought the below story was fascinating.....


https://www.yahoo.com/tech/five-dimensional-glass-discs-store-183747050.html

Pretty cool. I remember reading about a company, maybe a decade or so ago, that was trying to do this this quartz and diamonds.

I'd totally be down for making (however Many) of these things choc full of every bit of human history/data that we had and just launch them off into multiple directions into the universe. Aim at some selected galaxy's planets that are high percentage 'possible' life and set them on a course.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on February 17, 2016, 10:06:40 AM
This reminds me of the Sliders episode. :blob:
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: rumborak on February 19, 2016, 06:40:49 AM
Not to be too cynical, but the "vast amounts of data, stored to eternity!" was exactly what they said about CDs back in the day :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jasc15 on February 19, 2016, 06:48:45 AM
Also, isn't digitally archived data useless without the ability to decode it?  If this is found in millions of years, the decoding algorithms must also be preserved that long with human-readable instructions.  Is this right?

I think this is a problem with archivists.  Truly archived data must be human-readable without aid of a machine.  Though if this is the case, it would be true of analog media, like magnetic tape for example.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: kaos2900 on February 19, 2016, 06:51:38 AM
Thought the below story was fascinating.....


https://www.yahoo.com/tech/five-dimensional-glass-discs-store-183747050.html

Pretty cool. I remember reading about a company, maybe a decade or so ago, that was trying to do this this quartz and diamonds.

I'd totally be down for making (however Many) of these things choc full of every bit of human history/data that we had and just launch them off into multiple directions into the universe. Aim at some selected galaxy's planets that are high percentage 'possible' life and set them on a course.

I'm cool with that. In fact that may be a cool premise for Independence Day 3.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 19, 2016, 07:26:09 AM
Not to be too cynical, but the "vast amounts of data, stored to eternity!" was exactly what they said about CDs back in the day :lol

the amount of data isn't what fascinated me about these....it was the lifespan. CD's deteriorate 'quickly', this is being advertised like it essentially will last forever.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: BlobVanDam on February 19, 2016, 09:07:20 PM
I think this is a problem with archivists.  Truly archived data must be human-readable without aid of a machine.  Though if this is the case, it would be true of analog media, like magnetic tape for example.

This is the beauty of film. It would take all of 10 seconds for a future generation to hold it up to light and see what it is, and then reverse engineer something to roughly use it.
Digital in particular requires many more layers to figure out, because even if you figure out it's some kind of base 2 storage format, you're still only a tiny fraction of the way there. The more you abstract the data, the less likely it is to be understood.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Hyperplex on February 20, 2016, 07:19:16 AM
You all didn't talk about this at all?!!
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on February 24, 2016, 02:04:26 AM
^^Yea we did talk about it in the space thread.

Boston Dynamics at it again:

https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY

One day that robot will push back and that'll be the end of Boston Dynamics!  :lol
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TioJorge on February 24, 2016, 02:18:05 AM
Okay, despite the fact that right now and probably for another decade or so, even if "something"' did happen, it'd still be child's play to shut things like that down, watching that did make me feel a wee bit uneasy about what will be walking around in 40 years. I'm gonna be gettin' up there by then, if some twat robot decides to go all gangster on me by then, I'm not so confident I'll be able to take him down.  :lol  :|

Right now all his cords are exposed and he's not militarized. Tech advances, military gets involved...fuck that shit. I'll have this nice young feller made of flesh help me out with moving my boxes, thank you very fucking much. Now get off my lawn, you hunk of adamantium.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on November 27, 2016, 02:58:30 AM
The Double Slit Experiment: https://youtu.be/A9tKncAdlHQ

The reason on why this happens is propably above my limited understanding about quantum mechanics or science in general.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on November 28, 2016, 11:32:10 AM
Boston Dynamics at it again:

https://youtu.be/rVlhMGQgDkY

One day that robot will push back and that'll be the end of Boston Dynamics!  :lol

I kept finding myself feeling sorry for that robot when it was being tested on the dropped package and being pushed  :'(      :lol


That is fascinating but the whole 'Terminator' thing is always right there in the back of my mind....it "could" really happen....
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Phoenix87x on November 28, 2016, 11:59:31 AM
On one hand its cool to see tech advance, but this is a slippery slope. The idea of Skynet is cliche at this point, but that doesn't mean there's any less chance of it happening. Its only gonna get crazier as the years go by
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on November 28, 2016, 12:04:34 PM
On one hand its cool to see tech advance, but this is a slippery slope. The idea of Skynet is cliche at this point, but that doesn't mean there's any less chance of it happening. Its only gonna get crazier as the years go by

Yeah....and the constant theme is that 'we' are our own threat to extinction....so the machines take it upon themselves to either 'help' us or to just get it over with quicker.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on August 13, 2017, 01:40:50 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica

So if i'm understading it correctly, they become active after the ice melts and not a result of the ice melting.

I'm wondering if they could melt the ice without seismic activity?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Dublagent66 on August 17, 2017, 11:37:15 AM
Not sure what your asking.  The volcanos can become active regardless of what the ice is doing.  What happens to ice (beyond the global warming effect) is dependent on the volcanic activity.  Not the other way around.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on August 17, 2017, 12:37:44 PM
Not sure what your asking.  The volcanos can become active regardless of what the ice is doing.  What happens to ice (beyond the global warming effect) is dependent on the volcanic activity.  Not the other way around.
Honestly, i'm not entirely sure either  :lol but I guess i'm trying to understand if a Volcano can be active without an eruption and if so can maybe melt the ice sheet that's on top.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Phoenix87x on August 27, 2017, 04:30:41 PM
Nasa wants to drill yellowstone to aliviate pressure so that the super massive volcano doesn't explode and kill everybody

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/254665-nasas-3-5-billion-plan-keep-yellowstone-ever-erupting

I'm down
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Zook on August 27, 2017, 05:22:42 PM
What if drilling it causes it to erupt?

Too bad the human race can't get along though. Other countries might help fund this plan to ensure survival.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 27, 2017, 06:33:35 PM
Nasa wants to drill yellowstone to aliviate pressure so that the super massive volcano doesn't explode and kill everybody

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/254665-nasas-3-5-billion-plan-keep-yellowstone-ever-erupting

I'm down

Mark me down on the side of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. sure it's "due" to erupt but it could be tomorrow or in another three thousand years. There's no way messing around with that does anything but either speed it up, make it erupt immediately or some other unknown factor. This actually seems more dangerous than anything.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on August 28, 2017, 12:42:05 PM
I'm interested in the way they say this will create power, that sounds really cool and useful of nature... if possible.  Something about this screams potential for massive failure.  What if we create the eruption?  Maybe some smart people know how to prevent that.  Certainly would be cool if we could harness the powers of the inner Earth.  I just fear the drawback or the potential for a mistake.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on August 28, 2017, 12:47:15 PM
The areas of pressure aren't where the lava flows are though. Imagine taking a tea kettle (water sources underground) and putting it over a gas burner (magma within the earth) and getting it to whistle (what yellowstone does). You could drill a dozen holes in the top of that kettle and the worst thing that's going to come out is steam/water.

The risk we run right now is that pressure beneath eventually building up enough (think cork in a champagne bottle) to blow a hole in the Earth big enough to penetrate the areas where magma is flowing. If we slowly bleed that pressure and don't destroy the layer between the magma and that pressure source in the process, we have nothing to worry about.

I actually don't think it's too bad of an idea. And if we can direct that pressure release through turbines or something to generate electricity, it's a win win.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Stadler on August 28, 2017, 12:56:02 PM
Just throwing it out there... but why should we stop that?  We have yet to do something on that scale without there being unintended consequences that are as bad or worse than the perceived ill; if the perceived ill kills millions, do we really want to chance worse?
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on August 28, 2017, 01:32:20 PM
The areas of pressure aren't where the lava flows are though. Imagine taking a tea kettle (water sources underground) and putting it over a gas burner (magma within the earth) and getting it to whistle (what yellowstone does). You could drill a dozen holes in the top of that kettle and the worst thing that's going to come out is steam/water.

The risk we run right now is that pressure beneath eventually building up enough (think cork in a champagne bottle) to blow a hole in the Earth big enough to penetrate the areas where magma is flowing. If we slowly bleed that pressure and don't destroy the layer between the magma and that pressure source in the process, we have nothing to worry about.

What about the risk of an implosion?  I am all for studying this more and getting more brains to learn and find a way to do something cool like this (more so on the idea harnessing the energy than eruption prevention though).  But I do kind of feel like Stadler, that there are some big forces at play here and unintended consequences could be worse than the initial problem.  I'd leave that to the experts though.  I'm cozy here in NJ out of the ash zone.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jammindude on August 28, 2017, 07:04:50 PM
Here's an interesting thought.  Though....not a new one....

One of the reasons the first Jaws movie was so fantastic is because it touches on an aspect of group mentality concerning a disaster...  "This isn't really happening....we can go about our business."   Or, "the idea of this possibly catastrophe being real is something that threatens our very survival, so we look for altering theories (a boating accident) to convince us that this isn't really happening."

So with Yellowstone, and I believe this is a very fair question...do you personally believe that if there was a very real threat of Yellowstone exploding, and the fallout was going to basically kill half the US, and there was no way anyone had the resources for an evacuation of that magnitude...   Is it wiser to NOT tell people?   Not cause a panic?   Not put every west coast major metropolis into complete anarchy? 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 28, 2017, 07:26:48 PM
...do you personally believe that if there was a very real threat of Yellowstone exploding

I absolutely believe it will erupt with the force the experts predict. It'll be massive. But I also think it will happen long after humans cease to exist. Just because it's averaged out to erupt every 600,000 years and it's been 600,000 years since it erupted....doesn't mean it's blowing in the next few years. More like the next two or three thousand years at the earliest.

The fact that 'we' think we can go and tame something of this magnitude is just another example of mankind's general arrogance. There's no doubt in my mind that if they actually try to enact this plan that it will blow up in our faces......no pun intended.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: XJDenton on August 29, 2017, 08:36:16 AM
On an unrelated topic, in just over 2 weeks, Cassini will be throwing itself into Saturn after a 20 year long mission.

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/grand-finale/overview/
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: El Barto on September 14, 2017, 11:03:23 PM
On an unrelated topic, in just over 2 weeks, Cassini will be throwing itself into Saturn after a 20 year long mission.

https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/grand-finale/overview/
And the countdown has begun. There's a woman, Linda Spilker, who's been a big part of this thing for 29 years now. I wonder what it's like when your entire professional life's work just ends. At this point she might actually be the world's leading expert on Saturn, so it's not like she's suddenly worthless, but it still has to be a fundamentally life altering event when what you've spent half your life doing is no more. 
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: cramx3 on July 28, 2020, 12:38:31 PM
Bumping the nature thread...

https://twitter.com/DrTimBoone/status/1288166729982644226 (https://twitter.com/DrTimBoone/status/1288166729982644226)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EeB8zFpWAAINfDm?format=jpg&name=small)

Quote
A lioness and cub were crossing the Savannah. The heat was excessive and the cub was in great difficulty. An elephant carried him in his trunk to a pool of water walking beside his mother.
It's a great lesson for mankind who are fighting and dying for no reason.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on November 29, 2020, 12:28:21 PM
Spinning an Apple until it Explodes at 28,500fps - The Slow Mo Guys (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nedusgCUZC4&ab_channel=TheSlowMoGuys)

I never knew you could spin an apple in that kind of angel/axel, looks so weird but really cool.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on December 31, 2020, 12:39:10 PM
Sry for double post but this is probably the coolset illusion i've seen:

The Illusion You Need To See (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBap_Lp-0oc&ab_channel=Veritasium)
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: jingle.boy on January 01, 2021, 07:49:55 AM
Sry for double post but this is probably the coolset illusion i've seen:

The Illusion You Need To See (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBap_Lp-0oc&ab_channel=Veritasium)

That was fascinating!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: TAC on January 01, 2021, 08:46:38 AM
WOW!!
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on January 01, 2021, 09:28:47 AM
It's amazing how much our brain can deceive us. It's facinating when you think of all the kinds of ways illusionists can use and have used that to create amazing tricks.
Title: Re: The science and nature thread v. We tried this before
Post by: Chino on June 06, 2022, 05:54:42 AM
Pretty neat article:
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-scientists-breakthrough-life-earthand-mars.html
 

Scientists announce a breakthrough in determining life's origin on Earth—and maybe Mars

Scientists at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution announced today that ribonucleic acid (RNA), an analog of DNA that was likely the first genetic material for life, spontaneously forms on basalt lava glass. Such glass was abundant on Earth 4.35 billion years ago. Similar basalts of this antiquity survive on Mars today.

......

the Foundation study takes a simpler approach. Led by Elisa Biondi, the study shows that long RNA molecules, 100-200 nucleotides in length, form when nucleoside triphosphates do nothing more than percolate through basaltic glass.

"Basaltic glass was everywhere on Earth at the time," remarked Stephen Mojzsis, an Earth scientist who also participated in the study. "For several hundred million years after the Moon formed, frequent impacts coupled with abundant volcanism on the young planet formed molten basaltic lava, the source of the basalt glass. Impacts also evaporated water to give dry land, providing aquifers where RNA could have formed."

The same impacts also delivered nickel, which the team showed gives nucleoside triphosphates from nucleosides and activated phosphate, also found in lava glass. Borate (as in borax), also from the basalt, controls the formation of those triphosphates.


.......

The same rocks resolve the other paradoxes in making RNA in a path that moves all of the way from simple organic molecules to the first RNA. "For example, borate manages the formation of ribose, the 'R' in RNA," Benner added. This path starts from simple carbohydrates that could "not not" have formed in the atmosphere above primitive Earth. These were stabilized by volcanic sulfur dioxide, and then rained to the surface to create reservoirs of organic minerals.

Thus, this work completes a path that creates RNA from small organic molecules that were almost certainly present on the early Earth. A single geological model moves from one and two carbon molecules to give RNA molecules long enough to support Darwinian evolution.

"Important questions remain," cautions Benner. "We still do not know how all of the RNA building blocks came to have the same general shape, a relationship known as homochirality." Likewise, the linkages between the nucleotides can be variable in the material synthesized on basaltic glass. The import of this is not known.

Mars is relevant to this announcement because the same minerals, glasses, and impacts were also present on Mars of that antiquity. However, Mars has not suffered continental drift and plate tectonics that buried most rocks from Earth older than 4 billion years. Thus, rocks from the relevant time remain on the surface of Mars. Recent missions to Mars have found all of the needed rocks, including borate.

"If life emerged on Earth via this simple path, then it also likely emerged on Mars," said Benner. "This makes it even more important to seek life on Mars as soon as we can."