Page 7 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111217 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 525

Thread: Fuck yeah, Science!

  1. #121
    cookout = blabbermouth?
    wfudkn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    truxton circle
    Posts
    16,780
    Is There a Parallel Universe That's Moving Backwards in Time?

    http://www.iflscience.com/physics/th...backwards-time

    Pretty cool stuff.

  2. #122
    #GoDeacs #GoPanthers

  3. #123
    cookout = blabbermouth?
    wfudkn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    truxton circle
    Posts
    16,780
    British aerospace firm Reaction Engines has been working on an aircraft it believes would be able to take passengers anywhere in the world in just four hours. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/re...system-2014-12

  4. #124


    to cut out traffic jams at lights... why are we not funding this
    #GoDeacs #GoPanthers

  5. #125
    cookout = blabbermouth?
    wfudkn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    truxton circle
    Posts
    16,780
    NASA Wants To Establish A Floating Cloud City To Study Venus: http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa...ty-study-venus


  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by dstanleywfu View Post


    to cut out traffic jams at lights... why are we not funding this
    This is a different geometry for the current "cloverleaf" style interchange used with many interstate intersections. In the full cloverleaf, all the turns, including left turns, go from right lanes, rather than having the left turns from the left lane. This design works well with a low flow of vehicles. However, think what would happen if the people in the left turn lane at this intersection wanted to go straight at the next intersection. They have to move over a lane. And if that lane is already occupied by a steady flow of vehicles going straight ahead, then...traffic jam???? or ???
    Last edited by Deaconblue; 12-23-2014 at 02:52 AM.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by wfudkn View Post
    NASA Wants To Establish A Floating Cloud City To Study Venus: http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa...ty-study-venus

    And I know just the man to run it!


  8. #128
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Deaconblue View Post
    This is a different geometry for the current "cloverleaf" style interchange used with many interstate intersections. In the full cloverleaf, all the turns, including left turns, go from right lanes, rather than having the left turns from the left lane. This design works well with a low flow of vehicles. However, think what would happen if the people in the left turn lane at this intersection wanted to go straight at the next intersection. They have to move over a lane. And if that lane is already occupied by a steady flow of vehicles going straight ahead, then...traffic jam???? or ???

  9. #129
    OGBoards Chaplain
    RevDeac06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salisbury, NC
    Posts
    2,601
    What do you dweebs think of this? http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-met...god-1419544568

  10. #130
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,119
    i think the guy wrote VeggieTales and that I disagree with this essay.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by TownieDeac View Post
    Wild read on how caterpillars turn into butterflies - http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sis-explainer/
    For the aural learners, something similar.

  12. #132
    THE quintessential dwarf dartsndeacs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    paradise
    Posts
    46,214
    Quote Originally Posted by RevDeac06 View Post
    Can copy article for those without a wsj subscription?
    just drivin' round in John Voight's car

  13. #133
    OGBoards Chaplain
    RevDeac06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salisbury, NC
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by palmab03 View Post
    Can copy article for those without a wsj subscription?
    I don't have a subscription, but it shows up for me.

    By ERIC METAXAS

    Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

    In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

    Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

    With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

    What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

    Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

    As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

    Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

    Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

    There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

    Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

    Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

    Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

    The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

  14. #134
    Resident Astrophysicist
    TWDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    22,067
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by RevDeac06 View Post
    I don't have a subscription, but it shows up for me.

    By ERIC METAXAS

    Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

    In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

    Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

    With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

    What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

    Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

    As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

    Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

    Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

    There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

    Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

    Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

    Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

    The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.
    Article has some issues, IMO. First, it presupposes that all life will require what humanity needs to survive. It might not be Carbon based, or it might breathe methane, or pure hydrogen, or any number of other things.

    Second, just because we haven't discovered life, or been contacted, doesn't mean it isn't out there. We've only been searching for 60 years. There are only ~2000 stars in a 50 light year radius from Earth and there are 100+ billion in the Milky Way. Of course, that doesn't account for messages that could have been sent before we started listening, but are we listening for the right thing? Who knows? Imagine Christopher Columbus, sitting on the shores of a beach in Portugal using an ear trumpet to try to hear someone yelling at him from the Americas.

    We are currently entirely bound by our Solar System. Questions like these, while interesting, are entirely premature until we get out among the stars.

  15. #135
    OGBoards Chaplain
    RevDeac06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salisbury, NC
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by TWDeac View Post
    Article has some issues, IMO. First, it presupposes that all life will require what humanity needs to survive. It might not be Carbon based, or it might breathe methane, or pure hydrogen, or any number of other things.

    Second, just because we haven't discovered life, or been contacted, doesn't mean it isn't out there. We've only been searching for 60 years. There are only ~2000 stars in a 50 light year radius from Earth and there are 100+ billion in the Milky Way. Of course, that doesn't account for messages that could have been sent before we started listening, but are we listening for the right thing? Who knows? Imagine Christopher Columbus, sitting on the shores of a beach in Portugal using an ear trumpet to try to hear someone yelling at him from the Americas.

    We are currently entirely bound by our Solar System. Questions like these, while interesting, are entirely premature until we get out among the stars.
    Yea, I'm not a scientist, but figured there was some cherry-picking of facts in that story. But I think the point remains, even if there are several planets with life on them, the odds are still defied and at least makes a Creator seem plausible. Though, as has been discussed on many a thread over the years, there is no competition (imo) between the narratives of science and religion.

  16. #136
    Resident Astrophysicist
    TWDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    22,067
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by RevDeac06 View Post
    Yea, I'm not a scientist, but figured there was some cherry-picking of facts in that story. But I think the point remains, even if there are several planets with life on them, the odds are still defied and at least makes a Creator seem plausible. Though, as has been discussed on many a thread over the years, there is no competition (imo) between the narratives of science and religion.
    More on this from Larry Krauss, one of my favorite scientists.

    To the editor:

    I was rather surprised to read the unfortunate oped piece “Science Increasingly makes the case for God”, written not by a scientist but a religious writer with an agenda. The piece was rife with inappropriate scientific misrepresentations. For example:

    We currently DO NOT know the factors that allow the evolution of life in the Universe. We know the many factors that were important here on Earth, but we do not know what set of other factors might allow a different evolutionary history elsewhere. The mistake made by the author is akin to saying that if one looks at all the factors in my life that led directly to my sitting at my computer to write this, one would obtain a probability so small as to conclude that it is impossible that anyone else could ever sit down to compose a letter to the WSJ.

    We have discovered many more planets around stars in our galaxy than we previously imagined, and many more forms of life existing in extreme environments in our planet than were known when early estimates of the frequency of life in the universe were first made. If anything, the odds have increased, not decreased.

    The Universe would certainly continue to exist even if the strength of the four known forces was different. It is true that if the forces had vastly different strengths (nowhere near as tiny as the fine-scale variation asserted by the writer) then life as we know it would probably not evolved. This is more likely an example of life being fine-tuned for the universe in which it evolved, rather than the other way around.

    My ASU colleague Paul Davies may have said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming”, but his statement should not be misinterpreted. The appearance of design of life on Earth is also overwhelming, but we now understand, thanks to Charles Darwin that the appearance of design is not the same as design, it is in fact a remnant of the remarkable efficiency of natural selection.

    Religious arguments for the existence of God thinly veiled as scientific arguments do a disservice to both science and religion, and by allowing a Christian apologist to masquerade as a scientist WSJ did a disservice to its readers.


    Lawrence M. Krauss is Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and Directors of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, and the author most recently A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing.

  17. #137
    I hate arguments that attempt to calculate retrofitted odds that we exist and then make a huge deal about how phenomenally tiny the odds are. The fact is we do exist. The likelihood is 100% that we exist.

    It would be like throwing a penny off of the Empire State Building and marveling with wonder at where it landed because the odds it would land exactly there are 1 in a bajillion. And then pointing out that if the wind were 1 quintillionth different or the throwing speed were just a fraction off, the penny could not have possibly landed in its spot. One could point out that it's essentially mathematically impossible for the penny to have landed there. But it did.

    That's why I hate reading remarks like "if the forces were off by 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000 then no starts would have formed." For all we know, there could have been 100,000,000,000,000,000 big bangs befor one stuck.

    For the record, I believe in God.

  18. #138

  19. #139
    Steve Lepore GoDeacsGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    1,205
    ^^^ we bitch slapped QQ47 out of our face !
    I heart Hartman

  20. #140
    Steve Lepore GoDeacsGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by dstanleywfu View Post


    to cut out traffic jams at lights... why are we not funding this
    For one thing you have 4 lanes of traffic but only one that goes straight through.
    I heart Hartman

Posting Permissions

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