ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 113 of 210
« First < 1363103109110111112113 114115116117123163 > Last »
The Lounge>Science is Cool....
Fish 09:43 PM 05-21-2012
This is a repository for all cool scientific discussion and fascination. Scientific facts, theories, and overall cool scientific stuff that you'd like to share with others. Stuff that makes you smile and wonder at the amazing shit going on around us, that most people don't notice.

Post pictures, vidoes, stories, or links. Ask questions. Share science.

This is in support of the Penny 4 NASA project. If you enjoy anything you learned from this thread, consider making a donation and signing the petition.

http://www.penny4nasa.org/

Why should I care?:


[Reply]
tiptap 03:39 PM 03-11-2014
I understand that Giordano was a prick. Even to his supporters and friends and probably had some martyr complex or why be a monk. So I can understand how one can make an argument that he really isn't the most sympathetic person to bring to stage. But that is why he is important to defend, as a prick, because his approach was modern compared to the understanding of truth that he was judged by at his point in history.

The swirl in the blog world is just the echo chambers of those like yourself who want to claim the success of science but don't want to perverse your religious treading. And that is sort of ok except we get the huge push by religious dogma even today in the teaching within public schools. And it is in that light that this controversy is front and center today.
[Reply]
AustinChief 04:08 PM 03-11-2014
Originally Posted by tiptap:
I understand that Giordano was a prick. Even to his supporters and friends and probably had some martyr complex or why be a monk. So I can understand how one can make an argument that he really isn't the most sympathetic person to bring to stage. But that is why he is important to defend, as a prick, because his approach was modern compared to the understanding of truth that he was judged by at his point in history.
Again, you are basing your opinion on the complete fiction that was shown in Cosmos. His approach was NOT modern. If the representation of Bruno was accurate I'd be right with you on why it makes sense to show him. I'm all for science over religion. I am not here to defend the Church in any way... I am here to defend FACTUAL HISTORY. Bruno didn't look at Copernicus and say "wow, that's great, let me build on the science".. he said "oh wow, I can use this to justify my magical theories about reality." That is no different than the "science" espoused by Creationists.

Bruno was a pure supernaturalist who tried to co opt some science to prop up his crazy ideas. Please explain to us how this is in any way good for science? Again, that is no different than a tarot card reader who tries to use quantum theory to legitimize their nonsense.
[Reply]
alnorth 05:36 PM 03-11-2014
Originally Posted by AustinChief:
Dude, come on. You KNOW it was a complete fuck up. It wasn't just a little "off" it was an almost complete fabrication. That's fine for Bible Studies but that shit does NOT cut it when it comes to SCIENCE. It wasn't a parable or an allegory or a metaphor.. it was a LIE. There was absolutely no reason for it.

(and his beliefs on cosmology had nothing, ZERO, to do with him being tried for heresy.)

(and and... the idea that this vast number of scientific martyrs died at the hands of the Church is also make believe... there were certainly a few cases of persecution but for the most part that idea is fantasy land)
Well, that is not true since it was one of the charges made against him. Some have probably gone too far by painting him as a scientific martyr (it would be more accurate to call him a "free speech martyr"), but you seem to be taking the other incorrect extreme of saying his belief in many worlds had nothing to do with being tried. It was primarily religious, but not completely. The animated inquisition scene also made it pretty clear that it was mostly religious, but they didn't really have a reason to focus on that.

Your outrage on this is pretty overblown, too. The larger point on this is that the free exchange of ideas is necessary. The nit-picky point you are arguing could easily be addressed in the film by changing a couple minor lines.
[Reply]
AustinChief 05:44 PM 03-11-2014
Originally Posted by alnorth:
Well, that is not true since it was one of the charges made against him. Some have probably gone too far by painting him as a scientific martyr (it would be more accurate to call him a "free speech martyr"), but you seem to be taking the other incorrect extreme of saying his belief in many worlds had nothing to do with being tried.

Your outrage on this is pretty overblown, too. The larger point on this is that the free exchange of ideas is necessary. The nit-picky point point you are arguing could easily be edited into the film by removing a couple lines.
Again, you are falling into the trap of assuming certain things about Bruno that simply aren't true. You are correct that he was a free speech martyr... you are incorrect in thinking it had anything to do with real science. This would be like claiming that Ken Ham is persecuted by the media because of his scientific beliefs.

My outrage is not AT ALL overblown. Science is about FACTS and when you "fudge" on those facts you destroy your credibility. The entire segment on Bruno was fantasy... not just a few "lines" here and there.

Again, anyone who bothers to do the least bit of research can see this plain as day.
[Reply]
tiptap 05:44 PM 03-11-2014
Originally Posted by AustinChief:
Again, you are basing your opinion on the complete fiction that was shown in Cosmos. His approach was NOT modern. If the representation of Bruno was accurate I'd be right with you on why it makes sense to show him. I'm all for science over religion. I am not here to defend the Church in any way... I am here to defend FACTUAL HISTORY. Bruno didn't look at Copernicus and say "wow, that's great, let me build on the science".. he said "oh wow, I can use this to justify my magical theories about reality." That is no different than the "science" espoused by Creationists.

Bruno was a pure supernaturalist who tried to co opt some science to prop up his crazy ideas. Please explain to us how this is in any way good for science? Again, that is no different than a tarot card reader who tries to use quantum theory to legitimize their nonsense.

Wow talk about your picking points. Galileo didn't think planets traveled in ellipses. Newton believed in transmutation of elements. There is plenty wrong with a lot of what early scientific thinkers brought forward in some of their ideas.

Bruno had bad ideas just like Newton. But he argued from a consistent acting natural process that was uniform (and for the time included evil spirits, demons and the notion of souls and who didn't at that time). He didn't accept something like Historical Science in which the past acted differently than the present that Mr. Hamm insists on. No the present informed the whole of existence. That is the essence of what science is about. It is looking to consistency not exceptions to inform our understanding. So you can nit pick about what he got wrong but that doesn't change the fact that the philosophy of Revealed Understanding is at odds with a Discoverable Understanding. And that is what I am defending.
[Reply]
alnorth 05:50 PM 03-11-2014
Originally Posted by AustinChief:
Again, you are falling into the trap of assuming certain things about Bruno that simply aren't true. You are correct that he was a free speech martyr... you are incorrect in thinking it had anything to do with real science. This would be like claiming that Ken Ham is persecuted by the media because of his scientific beliefs.

My outrage is not AT ALL overblown. Science is about FACTS and when you "fudge" on those facts you destroy your credibility. The entire segment on Bruno was fantasy... not just a few "lines" here and there.

Again, anyone who bothers to do the least bit of research can see this plain as day.
I didn't claim that. Cosmos did not claim he was a scientist, either, I guess you inferred that through that whole martyr throwaway line that probably should not have been in there. Cosmos flat-out stated that he was not a scientist.

He was a spiritual guy who believed in things for no reason, and one of those things happened to be correct, and later condemned by the church. Their later actions on Galileo a few years later also help to confirm that they weren't ambivalent about astronomy.

Again, your outrage is really overblown here. You may have thought you heard things that weren't stated.
[Reply]
AustinChief 05:55 PM 03-11-2014
Originally Posted by tiptap:
Wow talk about your picking points. Galileo didn't think planets traveled in ellipses. Newton believed in transmutation of elements. There is plenty wrong with a lot of what early scientific thinkers brought forward in some of their ideas.

Bruno had bad ideas just like Newton. But he argued from a consistent acting natural process that was uniform (and for the time included evil spirits, demons and the notion of souls and who didn't at the time). He didn't accept something like Historical Science in which the past acted differently than the present that Mr. Hamm insists on. No the present informed the whole of existence. That is the essence of what science is about. It is looking to consistency not exceptions to inform our understanding. So you can nit pick about what he got wrong but that doesn't change the fact that the philosophy of Revealed Understanding is at odds with a Discoverable Understanding. And that is what I am defending.
Dude now you're just being an idiot. We are not talking about Bruno getting things wrong. We are talking about his entire methodology. You are obviously completely clueless on the subject matter yet you ramble on as if your baseless opinion of Bruno will somehow magically change historical facts. You actually sound quite a bit like Bruno himself!

Bruno fantasized about the nature of the universe then would pick and choose aspects of science or math that he felt propped up his beliefs. Bruno's belief system was NOT AT ALL based on discoverable understanding. You can say it over and over but why don;t you actually try reading up and you'll see he was just as much about "revealed" truths as the Church was... he just had a different set of beliefs than they did and he (just like the Church) was willing to pick and choose aspects of science to justify them.
[Reply]
AustinChief 05:58 PM 03-11-2014
Originally Posted by alnorth:
I didn't claim that. Cosmos did not claim he was a scientist, either, I guess you inferred that through that whole martyr throwaway line that probably should not have been in there. Cosmos flat-out stated that he was not a scientist.

He was a spiritual guy who believed in things for no reason, and one of those things happened to be correct, and later condemned by the church. Their later actions on Galileo a few years later also help to confirm that they weren't ambivalent about astronomy.

Again, your outrage is really overblown here. You may have thought you heard things that weren't stated.
No, I watched the show and sat amazed while a complete fantasy was shown. Yes, they claim he wasn't a scientist but they very clearly make him out to be a scientific martyr. They also lie about the circumstances of his life... and conveniently left out the context in which he promoted the few "guesses" he got right. It was a useless fantastical account that served no purpose but to undermine the credible of the show.
[Reply]
alnorth 06:04 PM 03-11-2014
Originally Posted by AustinChief:
No, I watched the show and sat amazed while a complete fantasy was shown. Yes, they claim he wasn't a scientist but they very clearly make him out to be a scientific martyr. They also lie about the circumstances of his life... and conveniently left out the context in which he promoted the few "guesses" he got right. It was a useless fantastical account that served no purpose but to undermine the credible of the show.
I will grant you that they tried hard as hell to make the audience reach the conclusion that he was a wise guy who was burned for his scientific beliefs, though they chose their words very carefully so that nothing was actually untrue.

I knew a bit about Bruno and was surprised they'd use him, so I paid pretty close attention to what they were doing, and noted that they carefully made sure everything they stated was not false.

I have two problems with the scene. First, they should have called him a martyr to free speech, or left that line off altogether. Its one line though, nothing to get excited over.

My second problem is that their point would have been made far more effectively if they axed that whole Bruno scene and recounted the life of Galileo. I guess showing someone getting burned is more exciting than just mere house arrest, or perhaps they just wanted everyone to learn about Bruno.
[Reply]
AustinChief 06:11 PM 03-11-2014
Originally Posted by alnorth:
I will grant you that they tried hard as hell to make the audience reach the conclusion that he was a wise guy who was burned for his scientific beliefs, though they chose their words very carefully so that nothing was actually untrue.

I knew a bit about Bruno and was surprised they'd use him, so I paid pretty close attention to what they were doing, and noted that they carefully made sure everything they stated was not false.

I have two problems with the scene. First, they should have called him a martyr to free speech, or left that line off altogether. Its one line though, nothing to get excited over.

My second problem is that their point would have been made far more effectively if they axed that whole Bruno scene and recounted the life of Galileo. I guess showing someone getting burned is more exciting than just mere house arrest, or perhaps they just wanted everyone to learn about Bruno.
I can agree with most of this.
[Reply]
AustinChief 06:28 PM 03-11-2014
It just amazes me that people feel the need to defend a show for a piece of fantasy about a guy that was basically a Scientologist of his day.
[Reply]
-King- 07:03 PM 03-16-2014
Cosmos narrated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson on FOX right now.
[Reply]
Fish 02:56 PM 03-17-2014
Happy St. Patty's day! Here's a nice drinking song to teach you how alcohol works.....



Lyrics:
In the year of our lord eighteen hundred and eleven
On March the seventeenth day
I will raise up a beer and I'll raise up a cheer
For Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Here's to brewers yeast, that humblest of all beasts
Producing carbon gas reducing acetaldehyde
But my friends that isn't all -- it makes ethyl alcohol
That is what the yeast excretes and that's what we imbibe

Anaerobic isolation
Alcoholic fermentation
NADH oxidation
Give me a beer

[CHORUS]

My intestinal wall absorbs that ethanol
And soon it passes through my blood-brain barrier
There's a girl in the next seat who I didn't think that sweet
But after a few drinks I want to marry her
I guess it's not surprising, my dopamine is rising
And my glutamate receptors are all shot
I'd surely be bemoaning all the extra serotonin
But my judgment is impaired and my confidence is not

Allosteric modulation
No Long Term Potentiation
Hastens my inebriation
Give me a beer

[CHORUS]

When ethanol is in me, some shows up in my kidneys
And inhibits vasopressin by degrees
A decrease in aquaporins hinders water re-absorption
And pretty soon I really have to pee
Well my liver breaks it down so my body can rebound
By my store of glycogen is soon depleted
And tomorrow when I'm sober I will also be hungover
Cause I flushed electrolytes that my nerves and muscles needed

Diuretic activation
Urination urination
Urination dehydration
Give me a beer

[CHORUS]

CHORDS

Intro:
D DAG / bm A
D D A G / bm A G D
G D A G / G D G A
G D A bm / G D A D

Pre - chorus:
G D A bm / G D A

Chorus (Li-Diddly-I):
G D A bm A
G D A D

Verse:
D DAG / Bm A
D D A G / Bm A G D
G D A G / bm A
G D A bm / G D A D
[Reply]
hometeam 03:00 PM 03-17-2014
Cant believe this thread hasn't been updated with this yet, its all over the place, top of reddit etc.
Originally Posted by :
Major Discovery: 'Smoking Gun' for Universe's Incredible Big Bang Expansion Found
http://www.space.com/25078-universe-...discovery.html
[Reply]
alnorth 05:38 PM 03-17-2014
The ratings for Cosmos have been pretty unusual. Overall, the old people just aren't watching it, Cosmos finished last out of the big 4. Resurrection won all across the board, but the Good Wife and Believe finished ahead of Cosmos among all viewers.

However, the young people (age 18-49) who the advertisers care about are watching, and it finished comfortably 2nd among that highly-prized demographic. The Cosmos folks are basically counting that as a success and cheering, since advertisers don't really care very much about the older group.
[Reply]
Page 113 of 210
« First < 1363103109110111112113 114115116117123163 > Last »
Up