Science addicts here?....

[JRT6]

Science is the devil!

[ElrondHubbard]

Give the devil his due... Pluto looks a lot like a planet to me!

[whatevergirl]

Heard about this recently, and it makes you wonder....

http://www.weather.com/news/news/san...fornia-tsunami

[ElrondHubbard]

Wonder about what?

[whatevergirl]

If a massive earthquake hit the west coast, if it would in fact have devastating effects as the article suggests, on the rest of the country. My mind can't wrap around that, I guess. lol

[JRT6]

My favorite youtube channels are Dnews and ASAPscience. My kids love Brain Games on National Geographic.

[ElrondHubbard]

If a massive earthquake hit the west coast, if it would in fact have devastating effects as the article suggests, on the rest of the country. My mind can't wrap around that, I guess. lol

No, it wouldn't. There might be a few places where energy gets concentrated further off from the epicenter than you'd expect, but for the most part the energy of an earthquake drops of exponentially with distance. A big quake on the San Andreas fault would actually propagate less effectively than one in the Pacific Northwest, as San Andreas quakes tend to be shallower than those of subduction zones. There'd be widespread local devastation, but it wouldn't spread out far beyond the fault.

On the other hand, a big deep quake under the Cascades could pulverize several cities if the location and depth are just right. Or wrong.

[whatevergirl]

No, it wouldn't. There might be a few places where energy gets concentrated further off from the epicenter than you'd expect, but for the most part the energy of an earthquake drops of exponentially with distance. A big quake on the San Andreas fault would actually propagate less effectively than one in the Pacific Northwest, as San Andreas quakes tend to be shallower than those of subduction zones. There'd be widespread local devastation, but it wouldn't spread out far beyond the fault.

On the other hand, a big deep quake under the Cascades could pulverize several cities if the location and depth are just right. Or wrong.

The earth has survived despite the odds, but discussions like these, I'm reminded of how fragile it is, too.

[ElrondHubbard]

The Earth is pretty robust. It's human civilization that's fragile.

[JRT6]

Good point and that's what the climate change deniers don't get: the world will indeed survive but it won't be a place we can survive in. Unless you consider one of those dystopian waste lands we see in movies living.

[Karl_Hungus]

Good point and that's what the climate change deniers don't get: the world will indeed survive but it won't be a place we can survive in. Unless you consider one of those dystopian waste lands we see in movies living.

Your point makes no sense: Contrary to what you suggest above, I am quite sure everyone understands that a hotter climate causes bad things. That isn't, nor has it ever been the issue. What the so-called "deniers" question is whether variations in warming patterns are a) anything beyond natural cyclical fluctuations, and b) whether human activity is causing it.

Now, before you call me a "denier", I will state that I have no real opinion on whether global warming/climate change is occurring or what the underlying causes are....and quite frankly, unless you have poured through the hundreds of individual papers yourself, examined the methodology/mathematical analyses and interpretations, then you are just relying on a bunch of non-scientists in the media to feed your opinions to you. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, you do yourself no favors by misrepresenting the ideas of the other side as you did in your silly post above.

Nice attempt to turn a science thread into a political one

[DuracellBunny]

Your point makes no sense: Contrary to what you suggest above, I am quite sure everyone understands that a hotter climate causes bad things. That isn't, nor has it ever been the issue. What the so-called "deniers" question is whether variations in warming patterns are a) anything beyond natural cyclical fluctuations, and b) whether human activity is causing it.

Now, before you call me a "denier", I will state that I have no real opinion on whether global warming/climate change is occurring or what the underlying causes are....and quite frankly, unless you have poured through the hundreds of individual papers yourself, examined the methodology/mathematical analyses and interpretations, then you are just relying on a bunch of non-scientists in the media to feed your opinions to you. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, you do yourself no favors by misrepresenting the ideas of the other side as you did in your silly post above.

Nice attempt to turn a science thread into a political one

Both sides of the climate debate are more ideological than evidence driven. Whether man made climate change is taking place or not, the models used are so flawed that nobody knows.

There has been a bad habit of using manufactured data. If there are let's say 10k data points being used, it is not unusual for only 3k of those data points to be from actual measurements and the other 7k to be projections from the 3k that were measured. Those 10k data points are then fed in to a model and predictions are made. The lunacy of such behaviour astounds me.

To pretend that anybody really knows what is going on is scientifically dishonest. Science works by constructing a model of observable reality and using that model to predict results. If observable results match predicted results, you stick with the model, if they don't, you throw the model away and make a new one. Observed data and predicted data are hugely divergent, but people refuse to throw away the model that they are ideologically wedded to.

[Wayne Evans]

What the so-called "deniers" question is whether variations in warming patterns are a) anything beyond natural cyclical fluctuations, and b) whether human activity is causing it. Nice attempt to turn a science thread into a political one

....hey Karl. (on spread)

Back to it....(yes...I have an opinion but it's not for this thread)

[whatevergirl]

Well, at least no one has brought up creationism...yet. (())

[Wayne Evans]

Well, at least no one has brought up creationism...yet. (())

Hmmm....a paradoxical comment in a science thread....guess that works in a relative sort of way

Carry on....

[JediRN]

so this was fun. Thanks OP



not sure if it's a colon or a gerbil toy.

Inb4 is there a difference.

[JRT6]

My term "denier" was a general one but I stand behind it. How rational human beings can sit here and ignore the impact that 7.2 billion people are having on this planet just because some neocon talking head found some scientist to refute the overwhelming scientific community concensus is mind boggling. But hey if the tree huggers are ultimately proved to be correct we can just fix it right?

I am talking science and not politics which is the point actually; if your politics determine your science then you're not really into science. You're into finding facts to support your conclusion.

[steffo99]

Thought this was very interesting - just wondering if you and I will live long enough to reap benefits of research like this.
Wouldn't mind functioning as a 30 yr old at 100.

[Wayne Evans]

just wondering if you and I will live long enough to reap benefits of research like this. .

Hey steff099....

Yes....interesting concept.
But NO....I don't think I'll be above dirt on orb Earth to reap any of the benefit.

Thanks for chiming in.

(General astronomy interest: http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/space_time/astronomy/)

[Chowboy]

What's up you ol geezers? Haven't posted here in awhile, sometimes you just need a long break.


Anyway. Question? What can you see when you can photograph with a shutter speed of one trillionth of second?


How about light bursting through a coke bottle...in slow mo. Awesome stuff.

[mcbourque]

Well, this happened while you were gone
As of Jan 2 2016, the periodic table is now complete!!!!


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...ents-are-added

[Chowboy]

Yeah, I heard about that. Seems the more we learn, the more we find out how little we do know.

[Wayne Evans]

Yeah, I heard about that. Seems the more we learn, the more we find out how little we do know.

Yep....isn't that the truth....the mysteries keep me obsessed with it all.

mcbourque....that chart is sure purty.

And....the search goes on for a 9th orb from sol:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0120114539.htm

A good day to all....carry on.

[whatevergirl]

Pretty cool

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/...irst-time.html

[ElrondHubbard]

Pretty cool

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/...irst-time.html

That's a good start! Looking forward to greenhouse gardens on Mars!

[whatevergirl]

That's a good start! Looking forward to greenhouse gardens on Mars!

lol yep

I've read articles that life didn't really start on earth, well, it's a theory. Not a mainstream theory, but a theory.

[Wayne Evans]

That's a good start! Looking forward to greenhouse gardens on Mars!

Yep.....which eludes to the concept of terra forming possibilities 100 years from now.

Mcbourque....IMO....
I think there's probably much one celled life in our gorgeous Milky Way and even in the great beyond.
But...little likelihood of bi-laterally symmetrical beings like ourselves for various reasons.

Feliz Viernes weed hoppers....back to it.

[ElrondHubbard]

lol yep

I've read articles that life didn't really start on earth, well, it's a theory. Not a mainstream theory, but a theory.

Chances are life on Earth did start on Earth. Otherwise, we'd be seeing a lot more evidence of life-like chemicals in meteorites, instead of the very primitive organics we do now. I read an interesting hypothesis just today that life may actually originate fairly often on other planets, but unless certain traits evolve early on, it goes extinct quickly as the parent star changes its output and conditions on the planet deteriorate. So on Earth, we got lucky right off the bat.

[whatevergirl]

Chances are life on Earth did start on Earth. Otherwise, we'd be seeing a lot more evidence of life-like chemicals in meteorites, instead of the very primitive organics we do now. I read an interesting hypothesis just today that life may actually originate fairly often on other planets, but unless certain traits evolve early on, it goes extinct quickly as the parent star changes its output and conditions on the planet deteriorate. So on Earth, we got lucky right off the bat.

This is an interesting video, scientists don't entirely know...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150...egin-on-earth/

[DuracellBunny]

Chances are life on Earth did start on Earth. Otherwise, we'd be seeing a lot more evidence of life-like chemicals in meteorites, instead of the very primitive organics we do now. I read an interesting hypothesis just today that life may actually originate fairly often on other planets, but unless certain traits evolve early on, it goes extinct quickly as the parent star changes its output and conditions on the planet deteriorate. So on Earth, we got lucky right off the bat.

This is an interesting video, scientists don't entirely know...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150...egin-on-earth/

If you're not already familiar with it, google the Miller Urey experiment.