Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Science thread - anything interesting?
-
- CommentAuthorFalkirkBairn
- CommentTimeSep 12th 2009
If anyone feels like hunting for the ISS tonight then head for this site:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/
Choose your country down the left-hand side and select a town/city from the choices. This will tell you whether there's a chance to see the space station pass overhead tonight - or another night.
Here in North Wales it should be visible for ~5 minutes sometime between 8:10-8:20 tonight (same in Bristol).
Let me know if you catch it.The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeSep 12th 2009 edited
I will go outside and have a look in about 10 minutes or so. Thanks for the info Alan.
On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeSep 12th 2009
Just saw it going over at 20.16.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorFalkirkBairn
- CommentTimeSep 13th 2009
Timmer wrote
Just saw it going over at 20.16.
Saw it too. I had the whole family out the back garden watching it go over.
Bright and somehow travelling faster than I would have imagined. Lasted quite a while (4+ minutes).The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
Oldest human skeleton offers new clues to evolution.
(CNN) -- The oldest-known hominid skeleton was a 4-foot-tall female who walked upright more than 4 million years ago and offers new clues to how humans may have evolved, scientists say.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/scienc … index.htmlLove Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorThor
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
Christodoulides wrote
Oldest human skeleton offers new clues to evolution.
(CNN) -- The oldest-known hominid skeleton was a 4-foot-tall female who walked upright more than 4 million years ago and offers new clues to how humans may have evolved, scientists say.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/scienc … index.html
4 million? I thought humans were only, like, 100.000 years old?I am extremely serious. -
- CommentAuthorDemonStar
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009 edited
It says hominoid - that should mean it's one of the intermediate stages of transition from ape-like mammals to early humans (eg: Australiopethecus and Neanderthal), so it's even older. -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
DemonStar wrote
It says hominoid - that should mean it's one of the intermediate stages of transition from ape-like mammals to early humans (eg: Australiopethecus and Neanderthal), so it's even older.
Australopithecus goes wayyyyyyyy back. Neanderthal's actually co-existed for a time with humans.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
Would you Adam and Eve it!
Sorry. -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
If it was Adam and Steve none of us would be here
On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
..eh? -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorDemonStar
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
Timmer wrote
DemonStar wrote
It says hominoid - that should mean it's one of the intermediate stages of transition from ape-like mammals to early humans (eg: Australopethecus and Neanderthal), so it's even older.
Australopithecus goes wayyyyyyyy back. Neanderthal's actually co-existed for a time with humans.
Oh yes, Australopethecus is regarded the first ever ancient man. Cro-Magnon is the most recent one whose fossil is almost indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens, except for a few features, the prominent being a larger cranial capacity. -
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
Steven wrote
..eh?
Oh wait. Goddammit. I'm being extremely dense.
I read that as "Eve and Steve".
I was gonna say, thems was fightin' words.
-
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
Thor wrote
4 million? I thought humans were only, like, 100.000 years old?
When laymen say "human" they are usually talking about the species Homo sapiens. When scientists say "human" they are usually talking about species belonging to the Homo genus. When scientists are talking about the species Homo sapiens they usually use the words "Modern humans".
There have been several different human species. I think Homo habilis was the earliest one, appearing about 2 million years ago. Modern humans, i.e. Homo sapiens arose about a couple of hundred thousand years ago.
Of course CNN screws it up royally, when they erroneously call this find a "human skeleton" in their headline. The press drives me insane sometimes with their catchy headlines, trying to grab attention instead of accurately reflecting the content of the articles.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeOct 2nd 2009
Like calling the Higgs particle the "God particle", or the WMAP data as "looking at the face of God". That pisses me off no end. -
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeOct 3rd 2009
Steven wrote
Like calling the Higgs particle the "God particle", or the WMAP data as "looking at the face of God". That pisses me off no end.
Hehe. Funny thing is that most of these scientists are actually atheists, just trying to be diplomatic and folksy.
On one hand, it annoys me too, but on the other I kinda understand it. Shrugging my shoulders works nicely.
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorSteven
- CommentTimeOct 3rd 2009
I find complaining about it on an internet forum is far more satisfying. -
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeOct 8th 2009
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=086_1254935636
This cloud scared the hell out of me!Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeOct 8th 2009
Very cool.....very CE3K or ID4'ifiedOn Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorplindboe
- CommentTimeOct 8th 2009
Cool and scary indeed. It might be a fallstreak hole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallstreak_hole
http://images.google.dk/images?hl=da&am … amp;tab=wi
Peter
-
- CommentAuthorDemetris
- CommentTimeOct 9th 2009
Ok, let's bomb the moon!
http://news.aol.com/article/nasa-to-bom … ter/707310Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders. -
- CommentAuthorsdtom
- CommentTimeOct 26th 2009
I've decided that the SD media has become so reasonable why not just store the pictures on the card. I only paid $5.00 for a 2 gig card and it can store over 1400 high quality pictures.
Thomaslisten to more classical music! -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 26th 2009
Christodoulides wrote
Ok, let's bomb the moon!
About frigging time.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorTimmer
- CommentTimeOct 26th 2009
Since time immemorial man has yearned to blow up....
Oh, wait a minute, that was the sun.On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt -
- CommentAuthorBregje
- CommentTimeOct 27th 2009 edited
Steven wrote
Like calling the Higgs particle the "God particle", or the WMAP data as "looking at the face of God". That pisses me off no end.
plindboe wrote:
Hehe. Funny thing is that most of these scientists are actually atheists, just trying to be diplomatic and folksy.
Even atheist scientists reach a point where they can't explain things any further. I think it's more like a metaphore for the mystery of life or the unexplainable spark of life or whatever.
But I agree, using those words make people take it literally. Besides, there are many theist scientists too, who take it quite literally themself I guess.
Anyway, I'm not a theist either for your information, although Steven sometimes thinks otherwise?
-
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 27th 2009
Bregje wrote
Even atheist scientists reach a point where they can't explain things any further. I think it's more like a metaphore for the mystery of life or the unexplainable spark of life or whatever.
The big difference with faith is that at that point any scientist will say:"we don't know...YET", leaving open the possibility that at some point in the future we actually will know.
Faith accepts that there are points of knowledge we are not "meant" to find.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorBregje
- CommentTimeOct 27th 2009
Martijn wrote
The big difference with faith is that at that point any scientist will say:"we don't know...YET", leaving open the possibility that at some point in the future we actually will know.
Faith accepts that there are points of knowledge we are not "meant" to find.
Really? I thought in faith it won't matter what we will find out in the end, because whatever it is, it's work of God anyway! -
- CommentAuthorMartijn
- CommentTimeOct 27th 2009
I'm by no means a religious expert, but as far as I am aware ALL major faiths accept there are certain Truths men will and can not know (like, for example, the will of God, the end of Endless and the nature of Creation).
But you put that interestingly, and in fact in a way I would feel perfectly comfortable with.
"Whatever we find out in the end, it is the work of God".
This lovely premise does not preclude a quest for knowledge in the slightest, but does acknowledge a divine essence in whatever it is we set out to find.
My issue is in fact with the actual converse of that statement: "we do not even need to look, because it's all the work and will of God anyway, so why pretend we should be able to do anything about it?".'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorBregje
- CommentTimeOct 27th 2009 edited
A lovely premise? I think it's horrible. I was talking from the faith point of view.
I think it's an easy way out. They can always get away with everything we are going to find out in the future. That's why I don't understand the fear of science of some. Or, as you say, why they think some things are not meant to be understood. But I thought you were talking about science, not questions about life of religious questions. I don't understand people well who don't want to know everything. I can imagine why they don't feel the need and feel comfortable as it is, but I can't live with that myself. Now, if I would replace 'work of God' with 'nature' then I could live with it.
