The Canadian Guitar Forum banner

Interesting Science Stuff...

16K views 248 replies 35 participants last post by  cheezyridr 
#1 ·
Here's a well done little video on the most common chemical elements related to life.

 
#4 ·
I didn't even bother watching because reason dictates, "How in the world would anyone be able to know that?"
 
#8 ·
That's a cool, though-provoking link. I love how science hardly ever throws anything out, they just keep building on what they know, gradually moving towards a better model. No one would ever say "what we wrote 200 years ago is correct and all this new crap is just noise and confusion". Even Einstein eventually had to admit that Quantum physics did not correlate with Newtonian physics, it wasn't just a smaller version of it - as much as he wanted to believe that super-enities 'didn't play dice with the universe'.

I really enjoy deGrasse Tyson, too. One of the best physics presenters on TV.


______________________
What steadly understands about science and the scientific method could be written on the head of a pin with a thick-tipped felt pen. The shear tonnage of what he doesn't know about this kind of thing would stun a 20 team of oxen in their tracks. And he admittedly prefers faith over education, so it is as it always will be.
 
#16 ·
Whether science is always right on or not, you may find the following information intersesting.

 
#20 ·
Whether science is always right on or not, you may find the following information interesting.
Steadfastly, there is nothing surprising or shocking about this. Nor are you illuminating us by telling the tale of your childhood when you were learning about the planets. Science is not religious dogma. To use your very own words, you are not being "shrewd," you actually appear to be living in the Dark Ages. And there is nothing "naive" about science. It is not blind faith that is put into concepts such as gravity or evolution. Science advances in many ways, for instance by adjusting observational techniques and equipment (the errors in data collection in your latest example) and redefining its objects of study based on recent discoveries (how exactly do we NOW define a "planet"?). I regret even having to get into this discussion, but it's annoying that you chose to respond to a very interesting post by the OP with such a lazy and dismissive remark, rejecting immediately the legitimacy of the science behind it, simultaneously acknowledging you have no desire to even look into it.

It's a shame that Canada offers free education to everyone and it's so wasted. Millions of people around the world would risk their lives to be in our situation. And here we are entering a debate that for all I know may end up with Steadfastly claiming that the world is flat.
 
#23 ·
Steadfastly, there is nothing surprising or shocking about this. Nor are you illuminating us by telling the tale of your childhood when you were learning about the planets. Science is not religious dogma. To use your very own words, you are not being "shrewd," you actually appear to be living in the Dark Ages. And there is nothing "naive" about science. It is not blind faith that is put into concepts such as gravity or evolution. Science advances in many ways, for instance by adjusting observational techniques and equipment (the errors in data collection in your latest example) and redefining its objects of study based on recent discoveries (how exactly do we NOW define a "planet"?). I regret even having to get into this discussion, but it's annoying that you chose to respond to a very interesting post by the OP with such a lazy and dismissive remark, rejecting immediately the legitimacy of the science behind it, simultaneously acknowledging you have no desire to even look into it.

It's a shame that Canada offers free education to everyone and it's so wasted. Millions of people around the world would risk their lives to be in our situation. And here we are entering a debate that for all I know may end up with Steadfastly claiming that the world is flat.
Yep, as I said somewhere else, it's like trying to beat logic into a rock. He still thinks science is like religious dogma - that it can't be changed and what they said a hundred years ago has to still be held as true.

To the rest of us that understand science and the scientific method, we know that is exactly the opposite of science. It is constantly revising and refining itself in search for the truth - as I said in post on page 1. But, alas, some people want to frame the argument from their 2% understanding / 98% misunderstanding of the actual topic at hand.

Always the same agenda, never any facts or truth or research or reality. Just the same old dogma. Like trying to beat logic into a rock.
 
#31 ·
Show me something that went wrong that wasn't a direct result of someone telling someone else to go ahead with (what would at least now be) a bad idea.
How about at least few thousand things that I have done throughout my life that I did of my own accord.
 
#37 · (Edited)
You can use the forum ignore facility. You can't access the facility from Tapatalk, you have to turn it on from web interface in his profile view. But after it's on, Tapatalk mostly (wish it was more fully) hides him.

Update: there is a way to set ignore from Tapatalk. Go to user profile (click on user) and tap three dots ... in the upper right corner.
 
G
#41 ·
a snippet from the National Post

Stephen Hawking just moved up humanity’s deadline for escaping our ‘increasingly precarious’ Earth

In November, Stephen Hawking and his bulging computer brain gave humanity what we thought was
an intimidating deadline for finding a new planet to call home: 1,000 years.

Now Hawking, the renowned theoretical physicist turned apocalypse warning system, is back with a
revised deadline. In “Expedition New Earth” – a documentary that debuts this summer as part of the
BBC’s “Tomorrow’s World” science season – Hawking claims that Mother Earth would greatly appreciate
it if we could gather our belongings and get out – not in 1,000 years, but in the next century or so.

“Professor Stephen Hawking thinks the human species will have to populate a new planet within 100
years if it is to survive,” the BBC said with a notable absence of punctuation marks in a statement
posted online. “With climate change, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our
own planet is increasingly precarious.”

Some of Hawking’s most explicit warnings have revolved around the potential threat posed by artificial
intelligence. That means – in Hawking’s analysis – humanity’s daunting challenge is twofold: develop
the technology that will enable us to leave the planet and start a colony elsewhere, while avoiding
the frightening perils that may be unleashed by said technology.

“Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an
ever-increasing rate,” Hawking warned in recent months. “Humans, who are limited by slow biological
evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded.”

 
#43 ·
CRISPR-Cas9


It wont be long before we can select genes to have 7' super athletes or mega brained egg-heads.

They're already using the technology to bring back the wolly mammoth in hope of repopulating the Siberian Tundra in hopes to slow down permafrost melt to prevent co2 release. Apparently the tundra is the largest co2 sink on the planet and as it melts will be the straw that breaks the camels back, so to say.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top