1. Fossil of most primitive 4-legged creature found

Comment #199661 by mesomodel on June 26, 2008 at 6:58 am

If anyone wants a PDF of this paper, PM me for a link.

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #198282 by mesomodel on June 23, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Steve,

I like your new approach, and I agree that confronting folks like Txpiper about their scientific superiority is a good angle.

The sciences are so interconnected. If one were to reject the science that Txpiper, in his infinite wisdom, seems to think is so wrong, it would all come crumbling down. Not just evolution and radioisotope dating. We wouldn't have cell phones, microwave ovens, standard time clocks, GPS, cars, refrigerators, modern medicine, computers, airplanes, rockets, nuclear power, electricity, and on and on.

For example, you can't just say "evolution is not real" and then keep medicine, vaccines and agricultural. If Txpiper doesn't believe in the process of radioactive decay needed to date rocks, then he shouldn't be using smoke detectors, nuclear energy, a variety of cancer treatments, technology that requires accurate time keeping (atomic clock), or radon gas mitigation to prevent lung cancer. You can't reject the physics of radioactive decay and simultaneously get to keep all the good stuff.

One day, I'd like to take all the claims about science made by Txpiper and others of his ilk to their logical conclusion. I'm guessing that if we throw out all the technology, information and wisdom that is based on or traceable to the science they reject, we'd be right back to about the bronze age, if not the stone age.

Frankly, I'm sure all the science he rejects is probably connected in some way to computers and the internet. So, he ought to put his money where his mouth is and log off. For good.

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195419 by mesomodel on June 18, 2008 at 7:36 am

Steve,

I don't accept that complexity, or even simplicity, necessarily implies a designer, but a great deal of folks do. I'm just trying to see where that thought process leads. A dead end, I'm sure.

I believe by the requirement that ultimate designers must have evolved.

This is an extremely important point. If we set aside evolution as Brian did, and we further accept a designer, we still have the issue of who designed the designer. If life is so complex that it couldn't have spontaneously appeared, and we've rejected evolution, and we've accepted a designer that surely must be more complex than the life it has created, then the designer could not have just appeared either, it must have had a designer. Our local creationist is still backed into a corner by his own perverted logic even if we were to accept his designer.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195406 by mesomodel on June 18, 2008 at 7:11 am

8033. Comment #195388 by Steve Zara

We need always to bear in mind that an intelligent designer can be a sensible suggestion, but only under the following circumstances:

1. The thing that you are trying to explain is not a replicator which replicates with variation, or part of such a thing.
2. You accept that the designer is a kind of replicator with variation, or a vehicle for such replicators.

Steve, is it your intent that item #2 also prevents the infinite recursion of who designed the designer? If one accepts the premise that there exists a level of complexity which implies a designer and excludes all other possibilities, then this premise must also apply to the designer. Who designed the designer? How do you avoid infinite recursion?

5. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #195390 by mesomodel on June 18, 2008 at 6:46 am

Rational G,

I think you'd have to rule out other mechanisms that could produce the chemical disequilibrium, but a planet with an oxygen rich atmosphere certainly would be an extremely good candidate to search for life as we know it.

We've already had a taste of how this might work with Mars. Some researchers have reported methane abunances of over 100 ppb. This is well beyond what is expected, primarily due to rapid photodestruction and possible rapid electrochemical destruction in dust devils and other disturbances. The unexpected large concentration led to some wild speculation early on, with at least one well known scientists claiming it was strong evidence for methane-producing microbes on Mars. Turns out there are some abiogenic processes that might account for the abundance. Also, there are now multiple spectroscopic measurements of methane abundance, and they're all over the place with ~1 ppb on the low end to greather than 100 ppb on the high end. Jury is still out until we get more accurate measurements. Mars Science Lab will do this.

Still, looking for life via chemical disequilibrium (O2, CH4, etc) is one weapon in what should be a growing arsenal in the search for life elsewhere. Like many things, convincing ourselves of life on other bodies will probably result from a convergence of independent evidence rather than just a single, conclusive measurement.

Imagine being on another planet looking remotely at Earth. You do the sepctroscopy and find an atmosphere with over 20% Oxygen and high levels of methane and other organics that should be oxidized. You realize this is odd and deem that it is worth more investigation. So you point your radio telescope toward Earth. Unfortunately, you don't hear anything, because Earthlings have only been broadcasting for a hundred years or so, and you're 1,000 light years away. But, you're great, great, great, great, great,...,great Grandmother decides to try again 1,300 years later and picks up the last half of the Star Trek episode "The trouble with Tribbles", thus confirming the presence of life on another planet.

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #195009 by mesomodel on June 17, 2008 at 2:23 pm

A crystal looks perfectly designed. Neat and orderely rows of molecules all connected in a pleasing geomtrical configuration. Some crystals, like diamonds, sparkle in the sunlight, as if they were created to please our eye. But, just because it looks designed, doesn't mean it is. Post- or pre-Darwin, that something looks designed is insufficient to imply a designer. Evidence is necessary. I think you can set aside evolution, as Brian did, and this still requires evidence of a designer. Appearance of design is not evidence.

7. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194910 by mesomodel on June 17, 2008 at 11:55 am

Comment #194814 by squinky

We're in speculative territory here but here it goes:
1) I have no doubt that we'll find many Earth-like planets in our neighborhood. Finding evidence that they have life on board seems like a pretty intractable problem unless they send us a signal.

Intentionally sending us a signal makes it easier for sure. We could also pick up on unintentional signals (e.g., radio). However, it might also be possible one day (and perhaps in the not too distant future), to image some of these systems in enough detail to pick out spurious light-emitting or energy-emitting cities (if such a thing exists) or other structures. In the very far future, humans (or whatever we evolve into in a billion years or so) will undoubtedly venture outward from Earth to other worlds. Eventually, we will probably go beyond the solar system to nearby star systems. We'll have to if we want to survive. We've only got a few good billion years left in Sol.

Finding primitive life isn't that hard to do in our own solar system. We have the technology to do it now, if we choose to spend the money on it.

So, while it would be nice to recieve a signal, it's by no means the only way to get evidence.

)
I mean ANY self-replicating system.

Really? That's easy. Life on Earth.

3) Bottom line: there may well be life out there but we'll never observe evidence of it unless it's intelligent life.

This is just nonsense. We're looking on Mars (although I doubt we'll find life). If it's there, and we look in the right place in the right way, we'll find it. We have yet to look on Europa, Titan and Enceladus, all of which have biological potential. Even the clouds of Venus might support life.

Also, work is just now underway to even understand how to detect life. It's quite daring to say that we will never find evidence for life if we don't yet fully understand what such evidence might be. Chemical disequilibrium resulting from biology and biological markers are interesting research areas that could prove fruitful in the future.

Life could be quietly replicating now 73 light years away in a beautiful swamp bog on an Earth-like planet but we'll never know.

I'm assuming by "we'll" you mean Earthlings rather than you and I. Never is a long time. You also thought that 60 years was enough time to give up on RNA and DNA.
I have no idea where civilization will be in 1000, 10,000 or 1,000,000,000 years. But, assuming we don't annihilate ourselves or revert to Planet of the Apes, I think it's a good bet that our current technology will look like crudely fashioned stone tools to the beings 1 billion years in the future. 73 light years isn't that far away; less than a lifetime. Saying that we'll never get there has no basis. Saying that we won't have the technology to remotely sense for life at those distances has even less basis.

In any case, my main point was that just because we may not be able to detect life elsewhere in the universe has no bearing at all on whether it is there.

8. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194784 by mesomodel on June 17, 2008 at 9:12 am

Comment #194767 by squinky

I say this based on several speculations:
1) we've been hammering on prebiotic chemistry for 60 years and haven't even come close to figuring out how RNA self-assembles or what the first replicators were. This in the era that we can make organism-sized genomes with DNA and RNA in our sleep.

60 years is nothing. We've been looking through telescopes for 500 years, and only now we're finding extrasolar planets. Give science a few more hundred years and I'll bet we'll have made pretty good progress on RNA and DNA.

2) We haven't found a self-replicating chemical system on Earth and we've looked in a lot of niches.

You mean other than life? Are you suggesting inorganic self-replicating chemical systems?

3) The hardest step of evolution is step 1: genesis.

So? Small odds plus an incredible number of potential environments for life equals a non-zero probability.

Assuming the rare Earth scenario, I think we will always be alone on the Earth for three reasons:
1) we've only been sending radio waves into space for 60 out of 4,600,000,000 years. Life, while it may exist, doesn't transmit it's existence.

And, in 100 years, we'll have been sending (leaking) radio waves for 160 years. In 1000 years, it will be for 1600 years. In 1,000,000 years it will be 1,000,060. And, clearly, at least some intelligent life does transmit it's existence. We do, both intentionally and unintentionally.

2) Space is so vast, we won't "hear" radio waves from intelligent extra-terrestrials from outside our galaxy. That limits SETI to the Milky Way--not the quadrillions of others solar systems out there.

If we can see other galaxies, we can "hear" them too. It's called radio astronomy. Perhaps we can't "hear" very well with current technology. And, what does this have to do with whether we are alone? If we can't hear ET, then they don't exist?

3) SETI has failed to find any evidence yet.

So? Why does this mean we will always be "alone"?

9. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194671 by mesomodel on June 17, 2008 at 6:58 am

TPF will happen, eventually. NASA has too many things they've been mandated to do (mostly on the manned side) and not enough money. I'm fairly confident it will happen within my (expected) lifetime.

10. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194665 by mesomodel on June 17, 2008 at 6:44 am

Comment #194590 by Quetzalcoatl

We can't detect planets the size of Earth yet.

Coming soon to a NASA near you:

http://kepler.nasa.gov/
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/TPF/tpf_what_is.cfm

11. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194425 by mesomodel on June 16, 2008 at 7:07 pm

Comment #194205 by Koreman

Planets in rapid orbits are close to their host star. Tidal locks will be fairly common with such planets, like the moons' spin is locked to its orbit around earth. In respect to the planets detected it's rather safe to say their spins have slowed down.

That's why I said "not necessarily". There could be tidal locking. Or not. Just look at our own solar system and you'll see no relationship between proximity to the sun and rotation rate.

EDIT: See http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=0204225 for a discussion of conditions required for tidal locking. Some extra solar planets will and some will not. There's no hard and fast rule that says rotation rate is a function of solar distance. In many cases, the time scale for locking is at or greater than the lifetime of the parent star.

12. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194254 by mesomodel on June 16, 2008 at 2:53 pm

I have faced death and very recently. Laying in the emergency room hospital bed, one of the staff began asking me medical and other questions related to living wills, power of attorney, and all the other stuff you might ask someone that might not make it. One of the questions was, "Do you have a religious preference?" My answer was, "Yes. I prefer to be as far away from religion as possible." Remarkably, I survived.

13. Astronomers find batch of 'super-Earths'

Comment #194013 by mesomodel on June 16, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #193981 by passutoba

sorry if this a dumb question, but would the short orbit time mean they also rotate faster on their axis?

No, not necessarily. Different phenomena.

14. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193941 by mesomodel on June 16, 2008 at 8:25 am

What strikes me most about Txpiper, is that he counters a great deal of scientific findings with personal incredulity; he finds it so hard to believe that such a large amount of sediment could be emplaced over billions of years. Yet, he has no problem accepting a global flood with "ice shield" involvement. Only a religiously infected mind would find sedimentology and evolutionary biologiy incredulous while simultaneously swallowing global floods, ice shields, and creationism.

If only we could "see" what's going on in Txpiper's mind..."1/2 a mile of sediment couldn't possibly have been produced over billions years. That just doesn't seem right. This seems more plausible: a global flood caused by the melting of a giant ice shield. Yeah, that's it! And, before the flood, Noah loaded up every species of animal on his ark, including dinosaurs. And, all of these animals were created, and have never evolved or speciated. This is the more likely scenario. How could the scientists be so stupid so as not to see this truth?"

15. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #193871 by mesomodel on June 16, 2008 at 7:17 am

I've got the article in PDF. If you want a copy, PM me and I'll send a link.

rod-the-farmer: I've already PM'd you.

16. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190633 by mesomodel on June 9, 2008 at 9:59 am

Information should drive policy, but bureaucrats have to make information support policy. Cherry pick and embellish if it supports your cause. Hinder and hide if it doesn't. Kind of like Xtians need to make science match biblical records (e.g., Txpiper). It never works, but they (bureaucrats and Xtians) keep trying.

EDIT: for typos

17. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190614 by mesomodel on June 9, 2008 at 9:43 am

Al-rawandi,

Although I don't know anyone in the FBI or CIA, I suspect the folks on the ground are pretty good at what they do, and that they take their jobs seriously. It's what happens to that information after it's been acquired is where I have my beef.
Pretty simple equation so far:
Bush/Cheney plus Oil plus $$$ plus DoD plus corrupted intelligence plus bullshit war on "terror"=a f*cking mess that will last decades.

I'm not convinced that the war on terrorism will start after the next attack. We screwed it up after the Trade Center, and history seems to repeat itself. Arguably, things started off OK with OBL in Afghanistan, but then we took our eyes (and money, and troops) off the ball. Now we've got a quagmire shitstorm.

18. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190585 by mesomodel on June 9, 2008 at 9:18 am

Well, if you're going to help out with the "The War on Terror", please start with those scary movies. They really terrify my kids. I vote for illegal rendition and waterboarding of the movie directors and the corporate executives that fund this terror propaganda. You might be able to pander to the fundies for support of this initiative. After that, maybe you could get the government to actually start a "War on Terrorism" or a "War Against Terrorists".

19. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190566 by mesomodel on June 9, 2008 at 8:58 am

Al-rawandi:

I am looking into jobs with various government agencies that may be interested in a person with my "skill set".

As in the agencies that provide dubious intelligence that is further twisted by the executive branch to sell a war to the easily-duped public?

20. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190521 by mesomodel on June 9, 2008 at 8:20 am

www.alrawandiforpresident.org
Domain name is still available.

21. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190471 by mesomodel on June 9, 2008 at 7:00 am

Comment #190459 by AtheistJon

In a two party system, you've got pretty slim pickings. Two. Of course, you can opt not to vote at all, or you could you throw away a vote on minor party candidates, most of whom are whackos. With the conservative (Republican) party pandering to sky fairyism, that doesn't leave much of a choice for the conservative or even neutral atheist. Not sure the parliamentary system is better, but it does provide more options.

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187458 by mesomodel on June 2, 2008 at 7:00 am

Txpiper is so worried about how 1/2 a mile of sediment could be created over billions of years, yet apparently has no problem envisioning the sudden appearance of water several miles deep covering the planet. Then, after said water produces said sediment, it suddenly disappears. Seems reasonable to me.

23. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #185977 by mesomodel on May 29, 2008 at 9:39 am

Comment #185565 by mmurray Are there any robot missions planned to bring back samples or are we just going to wait until people get there?

Up until about 3 months ago, the answer was yes, there were plans. Alan Stern, the former adminstrator of the NASA Science Mission Directorate placed a Mars sample return mission on the books as the next Mars flagship (i.e., multibillion dollar) mission that would launch in the 2018-ish time frame following either the Titan or Europa flagship mission in 2015-ish.

However, cost overruns in the MSL program to the tune of ~$200M started a chain reaction that ultimately and unfortunately led to Alan's resignation. Rumor had it that Alan's boss, the head of NASA, wanted him to solve the MSL problem by chopping away at other missions and science research programs. Alan probably resigned over this, as he was committed to the idea that bad mission management on one project shouldn't bring everything else to its knees.

There is still a Mars sample return in the overall Mars mission architecture plans, but it has now been pushed out to 2020 or beyond. No money is directly allocated to begin work on this mission at this time.

I actually think it is probably better to spend money getting humans to Mars and letting them pick and choose what samples to bring back. Instead of spending $10B on a robotic Mars sample return, sink the money into a manned mission. It might take an extra 10-15 years, but the return will be well worth it. Once we do have people on Mars, the scientific value of the samples brought back by an earlier robotic mission will be usurped by those brought back by humans.

24. Car dealership advert tells atheists to 'shut up'

Comment #185935 by mesomodel on May 29, 2008 at 6:54 am

Mojave...

As a kid, during a stop on road trip, I put my sandwich down on a rock in Mojave. Turned it into a grilled cheese sandwich in about 3 minutes.

I have to say that although it's been a while, I do like hiking the desert (but not in the summer). Mojave is a convenient stop after crossing over the Tehachapis, which have fantastic spring wildflower displays.

25. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #185403 by mesomodel on May 27, 2008 at 6:16 pm

@Toratornis

Just pulling your (chicken) leg. I agree.

26. That's it. Texas really is doomed.

Comment #185354 by mesomodel on May 27, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Teratornis:

The U.S. should hang onto Texas, which is already the largest wind-power generating state

And soon to become the leader in decapitated and injured raptors and song birds.

There is no such thing as clean energy. But, I will grant you that wind power is probably cleaner energy than oil.

27. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #185353 by mesomodel on May 27, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Comment #185349 by RationalistHomeTchr

And, imagine what I had to work with when the small fraction of these California students made it to my science classroom at the University. It was pathetic, and ultimately made me so disenfranchised that I left the teaching profession altogether. Sadly, many of these students go on to become teachers, where they butcher the science and pass along the distaste for science along with a lack of critical thinking skills. It's a bad meme. Just like religion.

28. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #185234 by mesomodel on May 27, 2008 at 8:30 am

MaxD,

There's lots of factors that force things to unfold the way they do. Most of it comes down to inertia, politics, and money.

The design of a spacecraft and EDL system takes at least five years. That typically means that the next spacecraft is being designed and built before the previous one lifts off. For example, the EDL system for the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) was under development while the Mars Exploration Rovers were still on Earth. We had no idea what the MERs would find (e.g., evidence for standing water), so nearly all the MSL development had to be done without the benefit of knowledge from the predecessor mission. This is necessarily the situation when you want to launch at every Mars opportunity (roughly every two years) and the development cycle is 5 .

Engineers realized that MSL was too heavy for the airbag system, so they went to the drawing board and started over. Scientists provided a rough idea of what the scientific payload would be, but there was no input as to where the new rover should go. This is partly because, at the time, we didn't have all the great orbital observations that we do now. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey Orbiter have found what appears to be deposits of phylosilicates, salts, and other features of geologic interest. We didn't know about these five years ago. Now we want to go there, but the MSL EDL system may not be able to go there.

We could have waited for the major science return from previous missions to be realized before beginning development of MSL. Although it would have been a bit painful in the short term, I think it makes sense to stand down for one or two Mars opportunities, and really think about where and how to send a highly targeted Mars mission. The long term benefits should more than outweigh the short term science loss if we do it right. But, there are many forces that oppose this idea.

Standing down isn't really a viable option. JPL has a very powerful lobby in congress. The representatives make sure that JPL has work to do. The Mars missions are a sort of jobs program for JPL. If JPL were to lose a Mars mission for even one cycle, the funding consequences for the lab would be dire. Naturally, this would probably also result in a brain drain. Not good. So, simple inertia also tends to keep things moving the way they do. Also, keep in mind that the money for science payload is typically 5%-10% of the total cost of the mission. So, most of the money is on the engineering side, and where's there's money, there's politics.


There's also a large block of scientists that are afraid of what might happen if we slow down or pass on a launch opportunity. From a funding standpoint, Mars has been flying high for over a decade. Honestly, Mars has taken a disproportionate share of funds for planetary exploration, and there's lots of other potentially good science that has suffered. If outer planet missions started to get some funding (e.g., Titan or Europa), some good science would almost certainly start to pour in, and this might shift funding momentum out of Mars. As a bunch, scientists can be very territorial, and they can flex a lot of political muscle to get their way via their congressional representatives.

In many cases, the aerospace industry, which builds a lot of the Mars hardware, is politically aligned with JPL and with the scientists. They want to see a Mars program continue as well. (Although, you'd think that they wouldn't care whether it was Mars or Titan or whatever, as long as they've got the contract.)

I've yet to see a team of engineers that really understand the Mars environment and the constraints that it forces on the EDL system. Don't get me wrong, the JPL engineers are top notch and some of the best and most intelligent the U.S. has to offer. But, they've trained their whole life in the engineering field. They are not scientists, and they aren't knowledgeable about, for example, the weather and turbulent circulations on Mars. The engineers thought that they designed a very robust system for MSL. It probably is better than the MERs (if it actually works). But, for example, when the system was selected, the engineers didn't realize that there were storm systems in the middle latitudes of the winter hemisphere, or that there were very strong turbulent circulations in the tropics.

On the flip side, I've also rarely seen a group of scientists that know enough about engineering. If scientists were asked where to go and what instrument to bring, they'd come up with a list so long and complicated that no amount of engineering would get it done.

Finally, the public has come to expect instant gratification. If we wait six years between Mars missions, the public support may wane, or their interest may be captured by something else. In short, for a change in Mars mission culture, the scientists and engineers are going to need to sit down and really think things through, many years in advance, with sufficient funding to keep things viable even if one or more launch windows are passed. That's a tough sell to NASA, scientists, aerospace, congress, and the public, especially when budgets are done on a year-to-year basis and the administration changes every four years. If it was only about science, it would be a no brainer. But, science is just one facet of the complex system that goes into mission development. There's lots of nuance in all this I left out, but this is the big picture.

29. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #185198 by mesomodel on May 27, 2008 at 7:23 am

Comment #185116 by DamnDirtyApe

I do wish they would send one of the probes to one of the major geological points of interest.

It's going to be a while before that happens. The way sites are selected are as follows:
1) NASA/JPL designs an entry, descent, and landing system.
2) Scientists suggest locations of scientific interest.
3) Engineers and scientists identify those interesting sites that are also within engineering tolerance of the landing system.

Places like Valles Marineris were ruled out for the Mars Exploration Rovers because of winds. The Tharsis Montes, and even much of the southern hemisphere is too high, and there is not enough atmosphere to provide the necessary deceleration.
Other sites are typically eliminated because of steep slopes, rock abundance, rock size, and thermal constraints.

The Mars Science Laboratory has perhaps the most robust landing system, and sites like Mawrth Valles are still on the list. Final site downselect will take place this fall. We'll have to see what's left standing.

I've been arguing for sometime that the development cycle is backwards. Scientists should decide where to go, THEN the engineers should figure out how to get the spacecraft to that particular location. But, when politics come when into play, sometimes logic goes out the window.

30. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184929 by mesomodel on May 26, 2008 at 1:01 pm

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter captured an image of Phoenix during descent. Pretty cool.

http://tinyurl.com/6323km

31. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184772 by mesomodel on May 26, 2008 at 6:27 am

Comment #184666 by kev_s

Polygonal structure comparison for Earth and Mars:

http://tinyurl.com/66ktl6

32. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184622 by mesomodel on May 25, 2008 at 9:09 pm

I prefer the more correct phrasing: "It is a terrible thing to waste a mind." But, of course, some minds are terrible and should be wasted.

33. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184621 by mesomodel on May 25, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Comment #184619 by mordacious1

Maybe if he'd come out of his compound a little more often, he'd know that global warming is caused by the decreasing number of pirates. Duh.

34. Animal Science Without Evolution

Comment #184618 by mesomodel on May 25, 2008 at 9:02 pm

One parent from Maine, commenting on a previous book in the series, wrote, '[This book is] written at a level that kids can understand. Mrs. Fulbright tackles the science of God's creation in such an inviting way that some days it's hard to stop reading.

Yes, let's see. A level that kids can understand. Hmmmm.....

GODDIDIT!

It seems to me that ONLY a child would "understand" this. Any half-thinking adult with common sense would see it for what it is: BS.

35. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184613 by mesomodel on May 25, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Wish I could see these 3-D images properly. I've got a bad eye, so all I ever see is a blurry image tinted to whatever lens color happens to be over my good, left eye. *sigh*

EDIT: The eye. Intelligent design. Not.

36. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184607 by mesomodel on May 25, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Phoenix has a stereo imager. They were probably looking at the stereo image pairs in 3-D.

37. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184605 by mesomodel on May 25, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Rational_G,

Oh yeah. Excited and relieved. I jumped up and down with my arms in the air when landing was confirmed. It's been a good day.

38. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184597 by mesomodel on May 25, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Mordacious1,

The temperature is a function of many things, including the atmosphere composition, density structure, and spacecraft velocity. Different thermal protection system materials behave differently, and generally provide protection by a combination of ablation, insulation, and radiation.
The entry system heat shield system is designed to remove nearly all the kinetic energy of the spacecraft (through conversion to heat) and must do so in about 5 minutes.

39. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183989 by mesomodel on May 23, 2008 at 11:16 am

Comment #183960 by al-rawandi

I don't have a problem with unions, if they act in the interest of the greater society as well as their constituents. But once they became organizations dedicated to securing employment for the stupid and incompetent, they lost their value.

Have to agree with you here, particularly when it comes to the Calif. Teachers Assoc., to which I belonged as an affiliate via the Calif. Faculty Assoc. when I was a prof at San Jose State. The union did serve a purpose, which was to push back against obscene bloat in administrative cost and squandering of public money. It also worked towards having important policy safeguards. I think these are worthy goals. However, it also worked to implement policy that safeguarded the dead wood and insured that the process required to remove a bad apple become prohibitively complex and costly. Furthermore, many of policies that the union forwarded were simply to protect the institution (and the salaries) of the union itself. That is, self-interest and self-preservation become paramount, and the welfare of the university system became secondary.
Big unions are big business.

40. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183907 by mesomodel on May 23, 2008 at 6:53 am

Comment #183796 by Don_Quix

The bow termination [Edit to correct what I typed to what I meant to type] shock is the first signpost on the way to the edge of the solar system. Beyond the termination shock, the solar wind is slowed significantly until you reach the heliopause. At the heliopause, the solar wind effectively goes to zero. All the boundaries are somewhat variable in space and time, because of the time variable and asymmetrical nature of the solar wind. Of course, the heliopause is just one way to define the "end" of the solar system. Presumeably, there also exists an outermost chunk of ice in the Kuiper belt beyond which nothing orbits the Sun. This could, perhaps, also be considered the boundary. There could also be a gravitational definition, where if you step on one side of the line you are pulled toward the sun (albeit ever so slowly), and on the other side you are pulled toward some other star or massive distant object. This would be analogous to defining a watershed or continental divide. I'm sure there's other definitions that could be dreamed up.

41. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183792 by mesomodel on May 22, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Voyager 1 and 2: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar.html

42. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183688 by mesomodel on May 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm

National Geographic Channel.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/naked-science/3351/Overview

43. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183659 by mesomodel on May 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm

There's another nice thing about Wikipedia: It's a living document. A printed book is not (at least until the next revision). Things in Wikipedia can be changed, added, and deleted as new information comes to light. Most, if not all, of the printed encyclopedias have articles that are written by experts in their respective field. But, and this is a big but, the amount of peer review that goes on for their contributions is very limited. Fact checking is done, but even experts disagree on things. In general, I've found Wikipedia to be quite excellent, often better than printed encyclopedias, especially with regards to scientific issues. B.S. contributions are quickly caught by the user community, much like true peer review. Furthermore, there is no page limit, like in printed volumes, so details can be explained. Also, I like having links that can be quickly followed for more information. Finally, multimedia presentations are often more effective than text and figures alone.

I've seen some dodo entries in Wikipedia, but I've seen the same in Brittanica. The former can be fixed, while the latter is frozen.

44. Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life

Comment #183649 by mesomodel on May 22, 2008 at 12:16 pm

I apologize in advance for the self-promotion, but at least it's tangentially related to this thread. I'll be on the "Mars Waterworld" episode of the National Geographic television series "Naked Science" this Sunday at 21:00 EDT. The airing coincides with the landing of the Phoenix Scout Mission. Just look for the dorky scientist resembling my avatar.

45. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180428 by mesomodel on May 14, 2008 at 10:13 pm

Rational_G

Gravity does not increase for a given mass as it gets denser. A sphere of mass M has the same gravitational force no matter the size of the sphere. If the mass is the same, the force only depends on your distance from the center of the sphere.

So the white dwarf doesn't attract mass any greater than before if the mass didn't change.

Again, I think you need to define what you mean by gravity. If you mean surface gravity, then it does increase, because the star has shrunk, and the distance r is smaller. Thus, any mass that falls on the surface from a companion star will experience a stronger gravitational force than when the star was larger.

I agree that it won't gravitationally attract mass any differently than before, but since the neutron star is smaller in size, it will hold onto the mass it does attract due to stronger surface gravity.

46. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180394 by mesomodel on May 14, 2008 at 7:29 pm

"does gravity increase for a given mass as that mass gets denser?"

Yes it does, the same amount of mass of higher density (taking up less 'space') has a greater effect on the curvature of space time, gravity is relative to the geometry of space.

You need to define what you mean by gravity. Gravitational attraction is strictly a function of mass not density, as given by the universal law of gravitation:

Force = GmM/r^2, where G is the universal gravitation constant, m and M are the two masses with mutual attraction, and r is the distance between them.

The gravitation of a neutron star is the same as the star prior to collapse as long as the mass remains the same. The neutron star is much more dense, having more mass packed into a smaller space, and will generally have slightly less mass due to blow-off during collapse.

However, since you can get close to a neutron star (before going into it), the distance r can be smaller than for a regular star. This causes the gravitational force at the surface to be larger for the neutron star. Usually "gravity" refers to the gravitational force at the surface.

47. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179714 by mesomodel on May 13, 2008 at 2:45 pm

AtheistJon,

Yes, of course. Plutonium needs to be manufactured. Duh.

Maybe I should just stop posting for the day. My brain is obviously fried.

48. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179710 by mesomodel on May 13, 2008 at 2:36 pm

AtheistJon,

But, if we had 10000 nuclear fission reactors, we'd only have enough uranium to run those reactors for 10 years.

This is why nukes can only be a bridge to fusion reactors. As I said, not only is it a supply problem, but I really don't think we want to be shipping money to many of the countries that have uranium (or plutonium) deposits.

Solar is fine, as long as you don't mind paving the world with panels. It's also a rather dirty industry with regard to production. Aside from the nasty chemicals, I don't see a good reason not to fit many buildings and already developed areas with solar cells.

49. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179703 by mesomodel on May 13, 2008 at 2:23 pm

AtheistJon,

The solution is simple. Swift figured it out long ago. Burn your young. Don't worry. They'll make more.

50. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179691 by mesomodel on May 13, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Anna,

I agree with you, and stated as such in my previous post. Regardless of our energy source, conservation should be high priority. I really get a chuckle out of folks whining about gas prices while driving gas-sucking V8 SUVs around town. I filled up my little 4 cyl. beater yesterday for about $25. That will suffice for the next three weeks or so. Gas could double in price and it won't hurt my feelings or my pocket book too much. The thing is, the person that filled up before me spent about $80. I bet they'll be back next week for fill up, too. Oh well.