Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, limpid said:

I'm confused. The only science in that video is saying that it's impossible. Who don't you think we should trust?

I think Popular Science Magazine, who published an article on the Waterseer, should have checked the science behind it before seeming to endorse it.

It would be regrettable if someone read their article and as a result sent money to the kick-starter.

It certainly must be embarrassing to the Berkeley bods.

 

Edited by MakemineVanilla
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I think Popular Science Magazine, who published an article on the Waterseer, should have checked the science behind it before seeming to endorse it.

It would be regrettable if someone read their article and as a result sent money to the kick-starter.

It certainly must be embarrassing to the Berkeley bods.

Ah I see. Yes I agree. It might have been an idea to mention that in the first place.

It's best to trust the scientific method and not journalists writing a magazine. You've followed the correct practice by looking for the peer review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooops....looks like there are no ghosts!

Quote

Ghosts definitely aren't real because the biggest science experiment in the world would have found them by now, according to Brian Cox.

People have wondered for perhaps as long as life itself whether people's spirits can live on in the world once their body dies. But the TV professor says that they definitely don't, since CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) would have stumbled across one.

The LHC is the biggest particle accelerator ever built. It is includes a huge ring of superconducting magnets and accelerators that fling particles around, sending them into each other at such speed that they can be used to understand some of the most fundamental properties of the universe. In doing so, scientists can find out how elementary particles interact and behave, and understand how they work to compose the world that we see around us.

The project has seen a number of things, identifying how particles decay and picking up hints that there could be new and unknown particles. But it hasn't yet found even a sliver of proof that there is anything that could make up a ghost.

If ghosts existed, then they would need to be made purely of energy, since by their very definition they can't be made of matter. But if they were made only of energy, they would quickly dissipate, because the second law of thermodynamics proposes that energy is always lost to heat.


The only way that they would be able to avoid that would be to have an incoming source of their own spooky energy. But there is nothing to account for that in the standard model of physics or anything we've seen in the particle accelerator.

"If we want some sort of pattern that carries information about our living cells to persist then we must specify precisely what medium carries that pattern and how it interacts with the matter particles out of which our bodies are made," he said in a special edition of his podcast The Infinite Monkey Cage that focused on the paranormal. "We must, in other words, invent an extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped detection at the Large Hadron Collider. That’s almost inconceivable at the energy scales typical of the particle interactions in our bodies."

Guest Neil deGrasse Tyson checked whether Professor Cox was really claiming that the particle accelerator had actually disproved the existence of supernatural spirits.

“If I understand what you just declared, you just asserted that CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research, disproved the existence of ghosts,” he asked. "Yes," replied Professor Cox.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ghosts-brian-cox-large-hadron-collider-cern-real-truth-standard-model-physics-a7598026.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Did anyone happen to see the news in regard of "Graphene" ?

They have successfully tested in a lab the removing of salt from water.  Using the material as a sort of sieve they can remove the salt from sea water in the future,  hopefully.

This surely is a world changing moment?  There is not that much fresh clean water about,  imagine been able to make it ? For country's where water is scarce or unreliable there could be a solution one day.  I wonder if they could use it on other planets as well down the line ? Like some sort of planet water / Atmosphere scrubber type thing. 

Apparently Manchester University had a lot to do with it in the early 2000's.

Pretty cool stuff and out of the blue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Octopuses and squid have confirmed their reputation as Earth-bound “aliens” with the discovery that they can edit their own genetic instructions.

Unlike other animals, cephalopods – the family that includes octopuses, squid and cuttlefish – do not obey the commands of their DNA to the letter.

Instead, they sometimes interfere with the code as it is being carried by a molecular “messenger”. This has the effect of diversifying the proteins their cells can produce, leading to some interesting variations.

 

New Scientist

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 19:27, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

This surely is a world changing moment?  

It's only world changing if it's pratical in the real world, which this discovery isn't at the moment. Similarly it's possible to achieve nuclear fusion for an extremely short period or time but unless it's practical and sustainable it's not useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/04/2017 at 19:27, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Did anyone happen to see the news in regard of "Graphene" ?

They have successfully tested in a lab the removing of salt from water.  Using the material as a sort of sieve they can remove the salt from sea water in the future,  hopefully.

This surely is a world changing moment?  There is not that much fresh clean water about,  imagine been able to make it ? For country's where water is scarce or unreliable there could be a solution one day.  I wonder if they could use it on other planets as well down the line ? Like some sort of planet water / Atmosphere scrubber type thing. 

Apparently Manchester University had a lot to do with it in the early 2000's.

Pretty cool stuff and out of the blue.

 

I'm a bit confused about graphene. It was announced to massive fanfare a decade or so ago, and basically everyone seemed to be queuing up to say how incredible it was and it would revolutionise this, that and the other, and then it all seems to have gone quiet. Or is that a deeply stupid sentence?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm a bit confused about graphene. It was announced to massive fanfare a decade or so ago, and basically everyone seemed to be queuing up to say how incredible it was and it would revolutionise this, that and the other, and then it all seems to have gone quiet. Or is that a deeply stupid sentence?

Nope,  not at all.  I get a bit overexcited as well about this stuff.  As Mr.89 says above,  it's got to be real world useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm a bit confused about graphene. It was announced to massive fanfare a decade or so ago, and basically everyone seemed to be queuing up to say how incredible it was and it would revolutionise this, that and the other, and then it all seems to have gone quiet. Or is that a deeply stupid sentence?

The science is amazing. The technology it will drive isn't developed yet. The manufacturing will come after that. If you read articles which made you think otherwise, then that was either imaginative writing or a lack of scepticism by the reader :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, limpid said:

The science is amazing. The technology it will drive isn't developed yet. The manufacturing will come after that. If you read articles which made you think otherwise, then that was either imaginative writing or a lack of scepticism by the reader :)

Quite probably both to be honest :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems some scientists are pissed off with the Global outbreak of stupid.

Quote

 

The March for Science is the first step of a global movement to defend the vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments.

Why

Science, scientists, and evidence-based policymaking are under attack. Budget cuts, censorship of researchers, disappearing datasets, and threats to dismantle government agencies harm us all, putting our health, food, air, water, climate, and jobs at risk. It is time for people who support science to take a public stand and be counted.

What

The March for Science is the first step of a global movement to defend the vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments.

How

We are building a broad, nonpartisan, and diverse coalition of organizations and individuals who stand up for science. We are advocating for evidence-based policymaking, science education, research funding, and inclusive and accessible science. All with your support!*

Who

People who value science. Science advocates, science educators, scientists, and concerned citizens. More than 170 partner organizations and counting. And you!

Where

The National Mall in Washington, DC and 425+ satellite marches around the world. For DC, event details here, and info on buses here.

When

April 22nd, 2017. But that’s only the beginning…

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Science is that there's little exposure of it compared to the decades leading up to 2000.  We don't see rockets launching or anything.  We just get new gadgets to consume.  No thought on how they are created.

You can't show an interest in something in which you have no exposure.  We'd seemingly rather watch how relationships form and fall apart from wealthy, young Londoners or northerners.

I'd say the closest we get to it now is when Tim Peake was on the ISS, or Brian Cox.  To a lesser degree David Attenborough.

Phones, tablets, PC's allow kids to get what they want, when they want.  Do you think the majority are going to sit and watch something informative?  I'd say they are more likely to find entertainment/games etc.  Of course, there are/will be exceptions, but schools etc main aims now should be to get kids INTERESTED in finding out about things. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â