LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The Cool Science Stuff Thread

1/16/18

An international team of researchers made beams from a special kind of plasma (a gas where the charged particles are separated and not confined to atoms), called an electron-positron plasma. These beams seem to be creating strong, long-lasting magnetic fields. Perhaps these fields could help the researchers understand similar behaviors in much more violent systems, like the gamma ray bursts in deep space.


The team used the intense Gemini laser at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in the UK, with a special setup for studying what’s called an “electron-positron plasma beam,” or EPB. They created this beam by passing an intense laser pulse through a chamber filled with helium, which creates a beam of electrons. These electrons hit a lead target, and out comes the EPB, a plasma that has equal amounts of electrons and positrons, their antimatter partners. If you’ll remember,

see Physical Review Letters

These phenomena can help explain how those gamma ray bursts form in astrophysical systems like black holes. Sarri explains that black holes create beams of these electron-positron pairs, which make their own magnetic fields, creating gamma ray bursts—similar to what they’ve done in the lab.


Obviously a limitation of this work is that the lab is not a real black hole. But perhaps the experimental setup could help researchers better understand gamma ray bursts so they know whether a signal they spot in space comes from a stellar or alien source. Sarri writes: “Our study helps towards understanding black hole and pulsar emissions, so that, whenever we detect anything similar, we know that it is not coming from an alien civilisation.”

https://gizmodo.com/scientists-create-miniature-gamma-ray-bursts-to-study-b-1822115741
 
They claimed they found remnants of ancient soft tissue, and promised a chicken-sized dinosaur. Still waiting.


(Was it merely hype, to keep interest alive in the Jurassic Park franchise ? I am always happy to watch the latest edition. Perhaps there will be another installment-featuring mammoths, giant sloths, and some of the more frightening proto-creatures.)
 
gotsnowgotslush said:
They claimed they found remnants of ancient soft tissue, and promised a chicken-sized dinosaur. Still waiting.


(Was it merely hype, to keep interest alive in the Jurassic Park franchise ? I am always happy to watch the latest edition. Perhaps there will be another installment-featuring mammoths, giant sloths, and some of the more frightening proto-creatures.)
Click to expand...

Chickens ARE dinosaurs.
 
Polar bears and camels can go without fresh water for many days

Surprise, fat metabolism!
Discuss
 


Far and away the best explanation I've ever seen of why "climate science" isn't science.





"What separates astronomy from astrology? They both use data and make predictions. They track the stars and astral bodies. But what is the real difference? The difference is that one is falsifiable. Astronomy says planet X should be in position Y at time Z. It is either there or not. Astrology says I will be a warm and loving person this month and will feel lucky.

Like science, pseudoscience bases ideas on observation, but, unlike science, they advance propositions that are not open to the possibility of disproof. It doesn't mean the propositions are wrong, just that they are, by definition, not testable, provable, and therefore, not science. Science often involves revisions to theory, even profound embarrassment.

A pseudoscience, by contrast, is never in danger of embarrassment. Its propositions are designed to have the patina of science, but be immune to all contradictory evidence, because every imaginable state of affairs can somehow be reconciled with them. Climate change, unfortunately, has fallen into this pseudoscience trap. What possible data, what possible result, is not consistent with climate change theory? Warm weather? Cold weather? More rain? Less rain? When both flooding and drought are consistent with your climate theory, perhaps your theory is a little too loose to be called "science", and perhaps, a little humility is in order when discussing possible futures and responses.

And, I must admit, this frustrates me deeply, because, I think the pseudoscience element of climate change is attractive to people because they see being non-falsifiable as a feature, not a bug."​



-"Geoengineer"
(an internet nom de plume [obviously])​


​
 
trysail said:


Far and away the best explanation I've ever seen of why "climate science" isn't science.





"What separates astronomy from astrology? They both use data and make predictions. They track the stars and astral bodies. But what is the real difference? The difference is that one is falsifiable. Astronomy says planet X should be in position Y at time Z. It is either there or not. Astrology says I will be a warm and loving person this month and will feel lucky.

Like science, pseudoscience bases ideas on observation, but, unlike science, they advance propositions that are not open to the possibility of disproof. It doesn't mean the propositions are wrong, just that they are, by definition, not testable, provable, and therefore, not science. Science often involves revisions to theory, even profound embarrassment.

A pseudoscience, by contrast, is never in danger of embarrassment. Its propositions are designed to have the patina of science, but be immune to all contradictory evidence, because every imaginable state of affairs can somehow be reconciled with them. Climate change, unfortunately, has fallen into this pseudoscience trap. What possible data, what possible result, is not consistent with climate change theory? Warm weather? Cold weather? More rain? Less rain? When both flooding and drought are consistent with your climate theory, perhaps your theory is a little too loose to be called "science", and perhaps, a little humility is in order when discussing possible futures and responses.

And, I must admit, this frustrates me deeply, because, I think the pseudoscience element of climate change is attractive to people because they see being non-falsifiable as a feature, not a bug."​



-"Geoengineer"
(an internet nom de plume [obviously])​


​
Click to expand...

Why the fuck did you repost that in the cool stuff science thread, ya nimrod. :rolleyes:
 


Far and away the best explanation I've ever seen of why "climate science" isn't science.





"What separates astronomy from astrology? They both use data and make predictions. They track the stars and astral bodies. But what is the real difference? The difference is that one is falsifiable. Astronomy says planet X should be in position Y at time Z. It is either there or not. Astrology says I will be a warm and loving person this month and will feel lucky.

Like science, pseudoscience bases ideas on observation, but, unlike science, they advance propositions that are not open to the possibility of disproof. It doesn't mean the propositions are wrong, just that they are, by definition, not testable, provable, and therefore, not science. Science often involves revisions to theory, even profound embarrassment.

A pseudoscience, by contrast, is never in danger of embarrassment. Its propositions are designed to have the patina of science, but be immune to all contradictory evidence, because every imaginable state of affairs can somehow be reconciled with them. Climate change, unfortunately, has fallen into this pseudoscience trap. What possible data, what possible result, is not consistent with climate change theory? Warm weather? Cold weather? More rain? Less rain? When both flooding and drought are consistent with your climate theory, perhaps your theory is a little too loose to be called "science", and perhaps, a little humility is in order when discussing possible futures and responses.

And, I must admit, this frustrates me deeply, because, I think the pseudoscience element of climate change is attractive to people because they see being non-falsifiable as a feature, not a bug."​



-"Geoengineer"
(an internet nom de plume [obviously])​


​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dr_mabeuse
The March of Science: Female Orgasms
Replies
7
Views
1K
AllardChardon
AllardChardon
The Heretic
Did you have a chemistry set when you were a kid?? They're illegal now!
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Cap’n AMatrixca
Cap’n AMatrixca
KookyDooky
The Doors Of Perception
Replies
13
Views
811
PlanetaryNebula
PlanetaryNebula
Back
Top