Diche Bach

Canada is a wonderful country; peaceful, democratic, just, well-educated, ethical. I'd be delighted if you guys managed to put some folks on the moon. A l'Unifolié would look quite fetching with that gray lunar backdrop. But again, I still have to ask, why . . . although perhaps somewhat meekly . . .

Absolute zero and absolute hot boggle my mind. I also have a hard time understanding how "length" is a true ratio scale that has a true absolute zero point. Temperature, sure something can exist and have zero temperature (though getting to that point has proven to be rather challenging it seems); also seems to be that reality can have zero electrical charge or mass (photons). But length, duration and 'energy' I'm not clear on how anything can truly exemplify an absolute zero point for any of these dimensions. Something with zero length doesn't exist does it? Or perhaps it is safe to say that photons or "a" photon has zero length? Has there ever been anything in existence that was "zero duration?" Lastly 'energy;' if something exists then it must either have mass or energy or both, right?

I appreciate the merits of metric and I try to use it whenever possible. Certainly in the papers I have published where units of measurement are involved I've used metric. But in defense of the old Imperial system . . . I think for length at least, feet and inches are more 'intuitive' for the 'hands on' contexts where non-scientists (but including craftsman, workmen, and just plain homeowners) tend to use them. Compare: My ceilings are 8ft ceilings vs. 2.438 meters ceilings

Okay, so can some of you Britons explain why she was/is so popular among Britons? I mean sure, she was very pretty and all . . . but on the same list with some of the greatest scientists, statesmen and artists ever?! Not only that but #3!? It honestly almost makes the list seem like it was vandalized to me!

Been on a bit of a wiki / Youtube surf session this morning, and my linkage from Siouxsie and the Banshees through various old familiar 80's music led to Freddie Mercury. Pretty astounding fellow. Incredible bravery and strength at the end. Anyway, what prompted me to start this thread that I hope might just be a general 'pop culture and history' discussion thread was that I noticed in Mercury's wiki page This led me to the wiki page for the BBC's 100 Greatest Britons, in which we are graced with the determination that Diana Princess of Wales is the 3rd greatest Briton of all time, ranking higher than Darwin, Newton, Shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth I!?!?

Very interesting that the confusion is really so deeply ingrained in popular terminology. I coulda swore that a kg was a unit weight, but now I know better!

Flags crumbling to dust . . . that calls for a musical interlude . . .

Wow that was so much simpler than that garble on the first wiki page! So basically, for macroscopic objects on Earth and not in freefall, mass and weight are synonymous?

This is like physicists practicing to lawyer-talk . . . Can one of you guys clarify what is really the difference here? Actually this page on Mass versus weight is a bit better but I'd still like to hear what you guys say. What I'm getting is: mass is what an object has when it is in freefall, i.e., how much inertia it has when gravity is not acting on it?

Carl Sagan was a lovely man; inspiring, brilliant and delightful. But like everyone, he had his silliness.

True, a centrifuge is not producing 'gravity.' Mainly I meant the sedimentary force, which apparently works much the same way whether the attractive force is gravity, centrifugation, or magnetism; denser materials will settle farther through a fluid medium (like molten rock) and as a result, materials will tend to become stratified by density with the heaviest on bottom and graded toward least dense on top.

Not a professional geologist, but here goes . . . when the Earth first formed, stuff separated like in a centrifuge. The heaviest stuff went lower. This means (evidently) that most of the Earth's gold, lead, iron and the like is actually in or near the core = completely inaccessible. At least as far as gold goes, and apparently molybdenum too, the majority of what we have access to in the upper layers of the crust came from outer space objects impacting/landing on Earth after it was more or less fully formed. Again, not a geologist . . . but, I wouldn't be surprised if this held true for a wide range of the precious metals that we find valuable. With this in mind, the asteroids and planetoids of the solar system, which have never undergone volcanism and do not have an inaccessible crust could in some sense prove to be far more 'valuable' than a given Earthly mineral deposit - discounting of course the obstacles to getting to and from the asteroid and extracting the ore(s). It is my understanding that for most previous metals, tonnes of ore have to be extracted and processed to yield just a kilo or so of the more abundant minerals and mere grams of the more rare stuff. Thus, if any given asteroid is say 50% of useful stuff (probably a mixture as are most ores on Earth) it may be that they are incredibly 'rich' sources of metals.

I would suggest you try to put the lander and crew sections inline with the takeoff boosters. The connectors probably calculate if the force being applied is perpendicular or not.

Yes, that is exactly the point of Harlow's famous experiments. You have to keep in mind that, while they are famous, and serve as easy examples of how dependent intelligent primates (including humans) are on parental bonding, they are but one rather 'primitive' example of a vast body of research on what is broadly termed "attachment theory." I can tell you as a social scientist that the implications of this area of theory are immense, both for addressing the problems of human life as they exist right now, and for projecting hypothetical futures for human space expansion. If we ever achieve something like what they portray in Blade Runner, i.e., the capacity to create artificially grown people who nonetheless appear superficially 'normal' within the frame of the given culture in which they are 'programmed' I will be amazed.

Some of the technical guys who are regulars on here have commented in previous threads that, our run-of-the-mill radio and TV, etc., transmissions are not likely to ever be picked up by an extra-terrestrial unless they were very specifically and actively looking at Earth and making a considerable effort using very high-tech apparatus. I think the consensus is, there is surprising lack of any signals of advanced extraterrestrial life out there. But I gather that, life in general or life that was only about as advanced as us, could readily go undetected even if it were within a 'fairly' short distance of the Sol system. Here we have to put into perspective that "fairly short" means, much farther away that we will likely ever visit (or at least until we have space programs that are many orders of magnitude more progressed than at present). The nearest star system to Earth are Proxima and Alpha centauri at about 4.8 and 6.5 light years. It has been a while since I did the math, but . . . at the best speeds we have currently attained, that is about 50,000 years travel away. Using nuclear pulse propulsion, it could be as short as 40 or 50 years travel, and that is one technology that is 'technically' feasible though it would be exceptionally expensive. Moreover, there may well be nothing of any merit or interest at either of the two centuari systems. Here is a thread where I got several of these guys to comment on some of the themes related to this stuff: Maximum Velocity Currently Attainable? The Future? As to why interstellar traveling aliens have (apparently) yet to pay us a visit . . . one possible answer to the Fermi Paradox, that you may not be familiar with is the Rare Earth Hypothesis, which I personally find very intriguging and difficult to discount. The idea of advanced extra-terrestrials is fascinating, but it just may be that we are truly alone in the Milky Way.

OMG I love this! Physics, Biology, virtually everything, including Philosophy are after all just a subfield of Linguistics!! I LOVE IT! This is actually making me want to finish that Web Designer online certificate I've left fallow for so long.

I think this calls for an Indie-Go-Go fundraiser. This is an important empirical question that needs to be answered before it is "too late"! Would $50,000 be enough to cover your part of the project? I'll settle for a $50,000 . . . ADDIT: What thugh!? . . . Did you just make that yourself!?

Article ->Wikipedia:What is an article? -> Encyclopedia -> Reference work -> Index (publishing) -> Back-of-the-book index -> Alphabet (ah now we're goners for sure . . .) -> Letter (alphabet) -> Grapheme -> Writing -> Communication -> Information -> Sequence . . . and yep, right back into the Philosphy "black hole" Wikipedia -> Collaborative editing (wow, lots of unlinked text at the beginning of that one) -> Source code -> Computer science -> Science (oh yeah, right back into the loop once again . . .) -> Knowledge, etc., etc. So, is this in any way intentional or just an emergent property? It raises the question to me of: what is the MAXIMUM number of steps before one winds up back at Philosophy?

Are you playing Capt Obvious or are you alluding to something more nefarious? The OP's point was that this loop back to Philosophy seems to be true for each and every Article in Wikipedia. Actually though, that makes me think of some additional tests with which to waste some time . . .

ADDIT: sorry for the OT post, but you guys just remind me of Spock

Oh wow. I've been meaning to ask a question along the lines of "What will the first true 'space warfare / weapon's systems' look like" and I see that this page pretty much answers any such questions. thanks!

Assuming that you could place said telescope out there that far away immediately, as in "right now." If it had to travel there, say for example at the speed of light, then once it got there (70 million years from now), it would be seeing the Earth of today. Another way of saying this: when aliens in a galaxy 70 million light years from Earth point their high-tech instruments at Earth to see what it looks like "right now" (meaning August 2013 in human terms) what they see is Earth as it was 70 million light years ago, i.e., no humans nor even very many mammals, but lots of big reptiles and a very hot tropical planet with very deep oceans and not much polar ice. Because light travels at the speed of light and no faster, this same principle of "looking into the past" is true across the board. A take home from this is that: when we look at objects 70 million light years distant, we are not observing their actual characteristics "right now" nor even (if I understand it fully) their positions and trajectories "right now." We are rather looking at their characteristics as they were 70 million years ago.

As usual Nibb31 has hit the nail squarely on the head. Sadly, even if NASA had the most ingeniuous, visionary, charismatic leader ever, the inherent constraints of operating as a govt. bureaucracy and political poker chip mean that options are quite limited. With that said, I think that the single most important thing for NASA to be doing is as follows: 1. Synthesize expectations of the challenges and opportunities humanity will face in the next 100 years 2. Outline the role that space exploration and space travel can play in overcoming those challenges and taking advantage of those opportunities. (a) define how NASA fits into that larger sphere of "space work," ( define what essential features NASA offers which cannot be replicated in any other way at present. 3. Define a 10, 20, 50 and 100 year plan(s) (all of which should offer "cheap," "moderate" and "expensive" variants) with detailed information on costs, feasibility, significance, opportunity. Attempt to realistically and objectively show how greater investment does or does not lead to more impactful mid- and short-term value re: #2 above. 4. Develop a Youtube channel (or similar means for mass distribution) that methodically presents all the above to the public. Invite congress to watch too. Use the best of modern web design to link said Youtube channel as broadly as possible, and in particular with a focus on potential corporate donors, state lobbyists and the like. 5. Sit back and wait for the calls from the President / Congress. Cutesie videos of a handsome mustachioed astronaut playing David Bowie in orbit are charming and delightful. They may be somewhat successful at gaining _some_ public approval. However, by virtue of being cutesy, they may also run the risk of _alienating_ a substantial portion of public opinion. I can for example, readily imagine some curmudgeon rich taxpayer saying "What the heck are those astronauts doing up there! I thought they were up there to do serious and important scientific work!?" Selling the importance of NASA to the public is important. But it needs to be done in a professional way, meaning NASA should probably be hiring some of the best mid- to high-level marketing professionals. Poach a few of the folks from firms which have had great recent success at using marketing to turn around failing organizations, else to solidify and expand already solid ones. ADDIT: LOL! Anything Nibb31 didn't cover Czokletmuss has just nailed! ADDIT^3: LMAO! You forgot to "take off and nuke it from orbit!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88Z7YOh_us

Wag my tail stand on my hindlegs and "smile" for pets.

What coordinates?