Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
#76

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
Michio Kaku never met a camera he didn't like.
The following 2 users Like Inkubus's post:
  • Vera, Bucky Ball
Reply
#77

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
(05-02-2021, 06:03 AM)Inkubus Wrote: Michio Kaku never met a camera he didn't like.

I agree with Michio Kaku that answers to questions are probably simpler than we think.  Every century or so, some person has an insight that is obvious in retrospect or test.  

Kepler:  Equal time through equal planetary orbit areas.

Newton:  The equation for universal gravitation.

Einstein:  E = mc2

Who is next? Because there has to be some simplification coming.
I am tying notes to balloons and tumble-weeds and sending them out to the world. Where they are found, I do not know...
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • Kim
Reply
#78

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
(05-02-2021, 06:46 AM)Cavebear Wrote:
(05-02-2021, 06:03 AM)Inkubus Wrote: Michio Kaku never met a camera he didn't like.

I agree with Michio Kaku that answers to questions are probably simpler than we think.  Every century or so, some person has an insight that is obvious in retrospect or test.  

Kepler:  Equal time through equal planetary orbit areas.

Newton:  The equation for universal gravitation.

Einstein:  E = mc2

Who is next?  Because there has to be some simplification coming.

The "simplification" has relied on better mathematics, in the cases of Newton (invented calculus to get the job done) and Einstein, who used tensor calculus and Riemannian geometry.
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
The following 2 users Like Fireball's post:
  • Vera, Kim
Reply
#79

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
A giant leap foreword using gene-editing, (CRISPR).
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...stopped-it
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107454
I fart in your general direction.  Angel
http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
The following 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post:
  • brunumb, Inkubus, Vera, Kim, tomilay
Reply
#80

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
Dark wings supercharge seabird flight

"Most birds that swoop over ocean waters have one thing in common: dark wings. Now scientists think they know why. Dark feathers absorb more heat, which improves flight efficiency, allowing these birds to fly faster and longer than those with lighter-colored wings."


We had a nasty storm about a week ago and when I went biking the next day I saw that one of the (many) stork's nests in a nearby village had fallen  Sadcryface I did contact the responsible authorities (though this isn't our strong suit) and maybe the people who live there did too... Anyway, when I went there several days later, there was a mini-nest - I guess someone must have straightened the nesting platform* (as it was vertical after the storm) and maybe built a bit of a nest. So this made me feel a bit better... but there's been only one stork in the nestlet ever since... I'm afraid the rest of his/her family might have died. I didn't see any dead storks but the people living there might have taken them away... they might have been taken to a clinic for treatment but I think it would have made the local news and I haven't read anything...

All I know is, I'm really sad... hopefully the nest will get rebuilt for next year...

We're bound to be getting more nasty storms this summer, with this infernal heat... and now I'll be worried for the rest of the storks Sadcryface

* A lot of the lampposts have those platforms specifically for the storks to build their nests on:

[Image: shtarkel-v-gnezdo-na-platforma.jpg]
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 4 users Like Vera's post:
  • Alan V, Kim, Deesse23, Inkubus
Reply
#81

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
[Image: billionaires-in-space.jpg]

(Whereas Musk would send a submarine *and* call the comet a pedophile Deadpan Coffee Drinker )
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 1 user Likes Vera's post:
  • Inkubus
Reply
#82

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
(07-13-2021, 11:43 AM)Vera Wrote: [Image: billionaires-in-space.jpg]

(Whereas Musk would send a submarine *and* call the comet a pedophile Deadpan Coffee Drinker )

Love it. Smile
The final frame; I thought Bezos would encourage Branson to crash into it. Big Grin

How long was Branson in space for? Depending on who you ask, either a matter of minutes or no time at all.

Big Grin
The following 1 user Likes Inkubus's post:
  • Vera
Reply
#83

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
Quote:In a medical first, researchers harnessed the brainwaves of a paralyzed man unable to speak and turned what he intended to say into sentences on a computer screen.

It will take years of additional research but the study, reported Wednesday, marks an important step toward one day restoring more natural communication for people who can’t talk because of injury or illness.



Chang’s team built on that work to develop a “speech neuroprosthetic” – a device that decodes the brainwaves that normally control the vocal tract, the tiny muscle movements of the lips, jaw, tongue and larynx that form each consonant and vowel.

The man who volunteered to test the device was in his late 30s. Fifteen years ago he suffered a brain-stem stroke that caused widespread paralysis and robbed him of speech. The researchers implanted electrodes on the surface of the man’s brain, over the area that controls speech.

A computer analyzed the patterns when he attempted to say common words such as “water” or “good”, eventually learning to differentiate between 50 words that could generate more than 1,000 sentences.

Prompted with such questions as “How are you today?” or “Are you thirsty” the device allowed the man to answer “I am very good” or “No I am not thirsty” – not voicing the words but translating them into text, the team reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

It takes about three to four seconds for the word to appear on the screen after the man tries to say it, said lead author David Moses, an engineer in Chang’s lab. That’s not nearly as fast as speaking, but quicker than tapping out a response.

(The Guardian)
[Image: spy%2B02.jpg]
The following 6 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Inkubus, Kim, SYZ, Alan V, brunumb, skyking
Reply
#84

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
I heard about this on BBC yesterday - fascinating! The man must feel so relieved to be able to communicate again. He must have felt so trapped. Shy
________________________________________________
A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
The following 2 users Like Kim's post:
  • Alan V, skyking
Reply
#85

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
Quote:New Scientist:

The oldest volcanic rock we have ever discovered may help us understand the building blocks of planets. The meteorite, which was discovered in the Sahara desert in 2020, dates from just 2 million years after the formation of the solar system – making it more than a million years older than the previous record-holder.

“I have been working on meteorites for more than 20 years now, and this is possibly the most fantastic new meteorite I have ever seen,” says Jean-Alix Barrat at the University of Western Brittany in France. When he and his colleagues analysed the meteorite, called Erg Chech 002 or EC 002, they found that it was unlike any other meteorite we have ever located.

It is a type of rock called andesite that, on Earth, is found mostly in subduction zones – areas where tectonic plates have collided and one has been pushed beneath the other – and rarely in meteorites. Most of the meteorites discovered on Earth are made of another kind of volcanic rock called basalt. Analysis of the chemical make-up of the new meteorite showed that it was once molten, and solidified nearly 4.6 billion years ago.

This means it was probably part of the crust of an ancient protoplanet that broke up early in the solar system’s past. No known asteroid looks like EC 002, which indicates that almost none of these relics still exist: nearly all of them have either crashed together to form planets or been smashed to bits.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Inkubus, SYZ
Reply
#86

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
Why do they say 'volcanic rock' and not magma. It's the same thing I know but volcanic rock shoots out of, well, volcanos and there were no volcanos at that point in solar system evolution.
The following 1 user Likes Inkubus's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#87

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
(08-09-2021, 03:11 PM)Inkubus Wrote: Why do they say 'volcanic rock' and not magma. It's the same thing I know but volcanic rock shoots out of, well, volcanos and there were no volcanos at that point in solar system evolution.

They call it volcanic rock because magma refers specifically to that rock in a liquid or semi-liquid form.

Calling it volcanic is still a bit of a misnomer since, as you pointed out, there weren't any volcanoes yet. But, there were plenty of ways to melt the rocks and I'm not sure we really have a good term for 'igneous rocks that used to be molten' other than volcanic.
[Image: Bastard-Signature.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes TheGentlemanBastard's post:
  • Inkubus
Reply
#88

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
I'd assume it's described as "volcanic" rock because the meteorite's
origin was possibly from a volcano on another planetary body in the
solar system?   Maybe Venus, Io, Triton, or Enceladus?

—Dunno really     Confused
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#89

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
This is a little exciting, who knows what will come of it ?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...114031.htm
"The algae actually produced so much oxygen that they could bring the nerve cells back to life, if you will,"
I fart in your general direction.  Angel
http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s
Reply
#90

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
Aye that is curious I wonder what the algae are metabolising to produce the oxygen, it doesn't say.
Reply
#91

The Elegant Nature of Science 2.0
^ That would be CO2 from metabolic waste.
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
The following 1 user Likes Fireball's post:
  • Inkubus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)