Page 17 of 27 FirstFirst ... 71213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 525

Thread: Fuck yeah, Science!

  1. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by DeacHead View Post
    Here's something really worthy of a "FUCK YEAH SCIENCE!"

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36025706

    The objective - interstellar travel. Stephen Hawking says it might happen within a generation!!! Who are you to say he's wrong?
    I have vague memories of reading a scifi story about something like this. Story about an interplanetary race with capsules attached to huge sails to capture solar wind and move the capsule. Race course was like earth orbit beyond moon, out to Mars, around the planet and back to earth, whereupon the sails were dumped and the capsule re-entered. It could only be run every so often when the planet orbits aligned correctly.

    added:

    Found what I was looking for in Wikipedia.

    "Sunjammer" is a science fiction short story by Arthur C. Clarke, originally published in 1963,
    Last edited by Deaconblue; 04-13-2016 at 12:30 PM. Reason: Added source of actual story

  2. #322

  3. #323
    Stabilized to the Milky Way Galaxy showing the rotation of the Earth...



  4. #324
    https://www.inverse.com/article/1650...two-dimensions

    I guess this should go here. 2 dimensional hologram world?? 2D Black Holes??

  5. #325
    -------------------------
    DeaconSlim2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    RoCo
    Posts
    9,593
    I'm a question asking fatass. Let it go

  6. #326
    NASA ends year-long Mars simulation on Hawaii

    A team of six people have completed a Mars simulation in Hawaii, where they lived in near isolation for a year.

    Since 29 August 2015, the group lived in close quarters in a dome, without fresh air, fresh food or privacy.

  7. #327
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Did they make porn tapes to help finance the project? "Sex on Mars" would be a big hit.

  8. #328

  9. #329
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,133
    6,000 years old, you mean

  10. #330
    If you put your faith in JC-dating, sure.

  11. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by HailToTheDeacons View Post
    If you put your faith in JC-dating, sure.
    JC dating > RC dating. I mean, who listens to radios anymore?

  12. #332
    This EM Drive is something that looks to be worth keeping an eye on. It purports to be a true game changer that seemingly doesn't adhere to Newton's 3rd Law, which you're familiar with via the phrase "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-te...e-news-rumors/

  13. #333
    There are subtle references to Intelligent Design throughout the article:

    Life on a young Earth could imply that life is a routine development in the universe, and could be, as Nobel laureate Christian de Duve put it, a "cosmic imperative."
    Cosmic imperative, and not random chance and billions of years?

    No one knows how life began on Earth. Charles Darwin hypothesized that life emerged in a “warm little pond,” but other researchers imagine that it emerged around a deep-sea hydrothermal vent, or even came to Earth from space, perhaps after sparking into existence on Mars, or even in some other, distant planetary system.

  14. #334
    Quote Originally Posted by awaken View Post
    There are subtle references to Intelligent Design throughout the article:
    Seriously? LOL. Those statements reflect the current state of the science. We simply don't know how life started. It's all theoretical.

  15. #335
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,133
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

  16. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by pourdeac View Post
    Seriously? LOL. Those statements reflect the current state of the science. We simply don't know how life started. It's all theoretical.
    I realize it is conjecture, but that is my point. Nature abhors a vacuum, and that includes the human mind. When the science stops, something has to fill the empty space left. In this case it is "cosmic imperative," whatever that is but it sounds like an outside force, and aliens. Just wanted to note that this need is part of human nature, and in this case the space fillers are intelligent.

  17. #337
    Quote Originally Posted by awaken View Post
    I realize it is conjecture, but that is my point. Nature abhors a vacuum, and that includes the human mind. When the science stops, something has to fill the empty space left. In this case it is "cosmic imperative," whatever that is but it sounds like an outside force, and aliens. Just wanted to note that this need is part of human nature, and in this case the space fillers are intelligent.
    Cosmic imperative is the notion that there is something fundamental that forced the creation of life as it has occurred here....and if life occurs elsewhere it will eventually have traits that resemble ours because the conserved mutations (over billions of years) have occurred for fundamental reasons.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.o...t/369/1936/620

  18. #338
    Scott "Rufio" Feather Junebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Open to suggestions
    Posts
    5,456
    A scientist opining that life is the product of "Cosmic Imperative" isn't doing science anymore. He's doing philosophy, and he should be judged accordingly.

  19. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    A scientist opining that life is the product of "Cosmic Imperative" isn't doing science anymore. He's doing philosophy, and he should be judged accordingly.
    That's not true at all. Scientists can't explain why symmetry exists in nature, they rationalize it as some sort of essential property of the universe...a cosmic imperative. There is something in nature that seems to favor symmetry over non-symmetry. That belief was used by physicists including my avatar to build the theory of subatomic particles for example. Charles Jackels at Wake spent a lot of time trying to build a theory for why amino acids might all be one chirality in nature (except for intentionally flipped ones)...believing there was something fundamental in nature that favored one over the other.

    That's one of the biggest issues as far as finding life elsewhere. In theory, amino acids generated from primordial goo would have random chirality. Why one occurs is a complete mystery. But if the same processes that occurred here are favored, then life should occur elsewhere similar to what exists here.

  20. #340
    Scott "Rufio" Feather Junebug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Open to suggestions
    Posts
    5,456
    Quote Originally Posted by pourdeac View Post
    That's not true at all. Scientists can't explain why symmetry exists in nature, they rationalize it as some sort of essential property of the universe...a cosmic imperative. There is something in nature that seems to favor symmetry over non-symmetry. That belief was used by physicists including my avatar to build the theory of subatomic particles for example. Charles Jackels at Wake spent a lot of time trying to build a theory for why amino acids might all be one chirality in nature (except for intentionally flipped ones)...believing there was something fundamental in nature that favored one over the other.

    That's one of the biggest issues as far as finding life elsewhere. In theory, amino acids generated from primordial goo would have random chirality. Why one occurs is a complete mystery. But if the same processes that occurred here are favored, then life should occur elsewhere similar to what exists here.
    There's a big difference in claiming, based on mountains empirical data, that symmetry is a cosmic imperative and claiming that life, for which we have one example, is a cosmic imperative.

    If someone wants to believe the latter proposition, that's fine, but the belief should be called out for what it is -- philosophy, faith, religion, or whatever, but not science.
    Last edited by Junebug; 09-08-2016 at 06:44 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •