Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Sometimes in the interests of condensing the meaning is lost. A while ago I tried to introduce the element of medicine in science. Check out the following quote. A little background - Barbaro is a horse that broke down during a race in Baltimore. Since then (April), everyone seems to be interested in the horse's well being. Here's an excerpt from the main doctor's take on how the horse is doing...

"Dean Richardson of the University of Pennsylvania's New Bolton Center also is positive about the colt's recovery. The chief surgeon just doesn't see it as anything more than good medicine.

'It's not a miracle. It's anything but that' he said. 'Some of the Barbaro fans aren't going to like that, perhaps. I'm a scientist. I'm a doctor. I'm not a faith healer or a religious person. I believe in the application of science, and I think nothing that's happened to him is particularly miraculous.'"

For all of the pragmatic, b/w thinkers like myself, that's a perfect quote.

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

The scientist who yields anything to theology, however slight, is yielding to ignorance and false pretenses, and as certainly as if he granted that a horse-hair put into a bottle of water will turn into a snake. -- H. L. Mencken

A great quote which tied into Rick's post about religion and science ... and a horse.

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

A horse....where's Dekhands when you need him?

Mencken - from Baltimore . From what I gather he sat around making up quotes. What a life.....

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Horsing around somewhere in Freehold I'd wager!

I have to ask him if he wants to buy my lil' sister's horse farm in Aiken, SC.
It's modestly priced at $1.2M.


It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it!

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

McNaught Comet

http://www.spaceweather.com/

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

On January 26, join us for a rare conversation between two people on the
edges of human exploration, as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
and NASA hold the first call from the deep ocean to the edge of space.

Students, educators, and science lovers can learn more and participate
by visiting
http://www.whoi.edu/sites/SeafloorToStation.

He is two miles under water; she is 200 miles up in the atmosphere. He
works in a small, confined space, looking out onto a vast, unpopulated
expanse--and so does she. He is out of the reach of sunlight, buried in
a blanket of constant darkness, she sees the Sun rise 15 times a
day...if she has any time to look for it. Both are explorers of the last
frontiers.

Marine biologist Tim Shank, diving in the Alvin submersible, will
compare notes on life, science, and exploration with astronaut Sunita
“Suni” Williams as she orbits on the International Space Station.

You can be a part of that conversation: Students, educators, and science
lovers can submit questions for Tim and Suni to answer on the air. Visit
the “Ask a question” page at
http://www.whoi.edu/sites/SeafloorToStation

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Hubble: The most amazing space photographs in the universe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/gal...n_page_id=1055

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Where will you be in 2036?

http://www.space.com/news/051103_asteroid_apophis.html

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Wow! Visible in 2029 as it passes. That would be something to observe but I doubt I'll still be kicking when it happens.

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Here's a link to a BBC documentary on M-Theory (it's a "Theory Of Everything", but obviously still a work in progress). A friend sent me this link about a month ago and I thought it was pretty interesting so I figured I'd pass it along in this thread, enjoy if you're so inclined...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=BBC+M-theory

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

And just in case the link to the documentary on M-theory in my previous post isn't mind-blowing enough to some of you and you want something more related to your everyday existence to elate/worry you, I offer:

http://www.kurzweilai.net

Plenty of articles on there to make yer head spin ;), I read one tonight which touched on Guth's idea that we might be able to create universes and hence I figured I'd post this also as sort of a "ok how 'bout this!". I've read RK's "The Singularity Is Near" as well as Drexler's "Engines of Creation" some of whose ideas RK uses (although I read EOC about 15-20 years ago) and I think they are essentially correct about what will eventually happen with our technology provided we don't destroy ourselves first (but as I've said before, I'm an optimist). I'm less sanguine about their time-lines due to our seemingly less prolific ability to create reliable software (although RK does present some interesting historical graphs to demonstrate the doubly exponential rate of our technology development). IIRC Drexler's EOC has already been shown by time to be overly optimistic time-wise in some instances, but it's still an interesting read IMHO, and can be read here for free if one is so inclined:

http://www.e-drexler.com/d/06/00/EOC/EOC_Cover.html

Drexler has also written a recent letter reproduced on Kurzweil's site where he talks about the scientific/political ramifications of EOC that have occurred since its publication. This futuristic stuff is obviously less science and more speculation, but it is based on the science we know now (and more scientific evaluations of the ideas in EOC can be found in Drexler's Nanosystems, but it is a much harder read) and perhaps even less far out than M-theory believe it or not, and I found it interesting, perhaps you will as well. Although I imagine many will find it incredulous :).

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

If you would like to learn, where science on earth begun, have a look to this fantastic documentary

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/11/story-of-one.html

learning us in a wonderful way, how numbers originated in the different cultures on earth. But take you time, it is a 1 hour documentary presented by Terry Jones from Monty Python's

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

I won't comment on this since I know nothing about it, in fact this article is the first I ever heard of it, and this article is from 2001. But the first few pages about "artificial atoms" I found interesting, maybe you will as well...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.10/atoms.html

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Here is a link to an article in this month Scientific American.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...sa006&colID=13

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

thanks Qjo,
i luv that mag...i should subscribe thanks for the link.
poda

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Here's some science we can all lift a glass and toast to:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...F67D6&colID=15

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

RELEASE: 07-212

DAWN SPACECRAFT SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHED

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - NASA's Dawn spacecraft began its
1.7-billion-mile journey through the inner solar system to study a
pair of asteroids Thursday at 7:34 a.m. EDT.

The Delta 2 rocket, fitted with nine strap-on solid-fuel boosters,
safely climbed away from the Florida coastline and Launch Pad 17B at
the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. "We have our time machine up
and flying," said Dawn Principal Investigator Christopher Russell of
the University of California, Los Angeles.

Dawn is scheduled to begin its exploration of Vesta in 2011 and Ceres
in 2015. The two icons of the asteroid belt are located in orbit
between Mars and Jupiter and have been witness to so much of our
solar system's history.

By using the same set of instruments at two separate destinations,
scientists can more accurately formulate comparisons and contrasts.
Dawn's science instrument suite will measure shape, surface
topography and tectonic history, elemental and mineral composition,
as well as seek out water-bearing minerals.

A critical milestone for the spacecraft comes in acquiring its signal.
The launch team expects that to occur in approximately two to three
hours.

For the latest information about Dawn and its mission, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/dawn

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Dangerous Science?

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience...s+Science.html

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Huh, I just saw that episode on PBS. I feel sorry for all the geeky kids nowadays, I had a chemistry set as a kid, complete with all kinds of noxious chemicals that could make things go boom and nasty smells and corrosives and such, my geologist neighbor down the street even had a bunch of sodium we used to play with, it was great fun, but then I made it through with my eyes and all my fingers intact, so perhaps I have a biased view... ;)

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Space Race Part Two?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15604095

Who will be mining Helium-3 on the moon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Women command in space. STS-120 & ISS

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sh...ain/index.html

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

[quote=QuantumJo;28566]Space Race Part Two?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=15604095
Here's the chinese booster rocket: http://www.selstarfireworks.co.uk/im...gnalrocket.jpg

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

The Beatles are about to become radio stars in a whole new way.

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

in the latest issue (6/08) of Tekniikan Maailma (a finnish technics magazine) I noticed an interesting article dealing with common myths and beliefs. These seven medical beliefs were originally presented in British Medical Journal. What you see below is my rough translation/referate of the article written by Erkki Kauhanen.

Seven mortal sins

If science knew the concept of mortal sin, it would definitely refer to myths and beliefs that persistently live although there is no evidence to support them. The seven statements listed below are not true, however even most of the doctors believe in them.

1. We only use ten percent of our brian
Research does not support this belief. This myth was probably born in the beginning of the 20th century when phoneys wanted to convince people that they were not using their full braincapacity and offered courses that would fix the problem

2. It is good to drink at least eight glasses of water in a day
"No research supports belief, that a healthy human being would need so much water in normal conditions." says doctor Rachel Vreemann from the university of Indiana. This myth probably comes from the recommendation given by the Nutrition Council of USA in 1945. It said that a human being should get daily a dosage of liquid that equals eight glasses of water. However this also includes all the liquid that one gets from food (vegetables and meat for example contain lots of liquid) and of course the water contained in coffee, tee and other beverages.

3. Nails and hair grow even after death
They dont. It might seem like they do when death skin first withdraws a bit as it dries.

4. Shaved hair grows faster, stronger and darker
Plenty of researches show that this is not the case. A hair might feel stiffer when it is short. Some tones of hair might lighten in sun and a new hair might look darker for a while. The amount of pigment does not increase with shaving.

Reading in dim damages eyes
It does not. Dim light does strain eyes but it is only temporary.

6. Eating turkey makes one sleepy (probably best known in the USA)
Turkey indeed contains a certain amino acid (tryptofaani in finnish) that makes one sleepy in large doses, but all other meats contain it too and for example parmesan cheese has lots more of it.

Cellphones disturb machines in hospital
No evidence has been found for this urban legend.

-Lellu

Ps. I tried to do my best but the text probably still contains masses of grammar bugs. I hope you enjoyed (the text not grammar bugs).

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

1. Some use 50 percent - it's the the 2 percent that brings the curve down!

2. Agreed. But most doctors I know don't subscribe to this.

5. If reading in dim light temporarily strains eyes, then there is a certain amount of cumulative effect. But agreed, no real effect on the eyes.

6. It does make you sleepy. But as you say some other foods do too. That doesn't mean turkey doesn't.That one's mostly from people trying to justify eating too much :)

7. Cell phones may or may not be a hazard in that setting. however, they CAN interfere with critical care equipment. But the signs you see mainly deal with consideration. So while you may be correct that it probably won't interfere with the functions of most equipment, there is enough evidence to state that it can.

Lellu, I was listening to some Kingston Wall on the way into work - speaking of Finland :)

Thanks for the interesting post, now I must work the rest of the day...

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Mobile phones operating the the following frequency slots as per FCC allocation: 800MHz, 900MHz, 1.8GHz and 1.9GHz. Cell phones are limited to a maximum radiative power of 600mW and are typically much less. Jim can probably add more to this part of the discussion.

The biggest contributor to possible radio interference with medical equipment would be computers and wireless networking. The bands in use for wireless technology are 2.4GHz and, newer (802.11N), 5GHz. To put this into perspective, the frequency of the magnetron in the microwave oven is 2.45GHz. Wireless access points operate with radiative power of 100-500mW. Radiation at these frequencies is far more destructive than a cell phone. In large buildings, the FCC permits, under license, amplifiers of 1W, 3W and 5W to be used on WAPs.

That said, the EMI from these devices is moot. It is a teardrop in the ocean of the EMI emitted by a single fluorescent bulb. I've walked through many hospitals and doctor offices and I have never seen a warning that says do not turn on the lights because they can interfere with medical equipment. Ever wonder why CAT-5 and CAT-6 cable is UTP (unshielded twisted pair)? Office space fluorescent lighting emits so much EMI that it would interfere with straight (untwisted) cable. The twisting causes phase reversals all along the length of the cabling which effectively cancels inductive egress in the cable that would interfere with the signals. Even with UTP, I've had one or two sites where I've had to install STP (shielded twisted pair which comes at a higher price) to address EMI egress in the network runs. Typically, the problem was building code induce requiring me to put the network cables in existing runnels carrying other cabling which ran along side many fluorescent lighting fixtures.

See any old 'video tube' monitors in these facilities? These require the use of high voltage (in the range of 30KV) which is provided by a flyback transformer. The modern multi-sync monitor can have flyback frequencies from 30KHz to 150KHz. Even with shielding, such EMI is excessive.

Use of laptops prohibited? Complete rubbish! There is more computer electronics in the modern medical device that could interfere with itself than some laptop even sitting atop the medical device. The newer laptops are even better too. They run at much lower voltages giving them better battery life. Lower power consumption yields less power emitted as EMI. Units like my Powerbook, (all aluminium) use metal casing which doubles as the CPU's heat sink. From Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics:

divB = 0 :: {i∂/∂x + j∂/∂y + k∂/∂z} • B = 0 :: Gauss's law

These laptops shield the small GHz frequency EMI quit effectively.

These warnings, IMHO, come from mythconception and ignorance in the community.

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Interesting post...there is a lot of computer equip in the units...and I noticed they hooked York up with a computer when I was in -

Is Degauss the opposite of Gauss? :rolleyes:

and "mythconception"...I'd never heard that before - looked it up and it's different than misconception - cool term I'll have to work it in to the vocabulary :yougo

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

Yeah, M's video EEG was hooked up to a recorder and monitored on a video-tube monitor. Equipment meant to sense micro/nano-volts of brain wave activity would certainly be susceptible to the EMI from a video tube.



Named after the German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauß (Gauss), the Gauss is a unit of magnetic flux. The term degauss came to mean a method applied to removing magnetic flux inherited in a material. The old TV repairman used to use a "degaussing" coil to remove inherited flux from the video mask of old TV picture tubes. Later designs employed a loop around the tube itself which would carry a diminishing (a 1/RLC time circuit) alternating current to degauss the tube's mask when the set was turned on.
FWIW, this too transmits a significant bit of EMI.



It's not yet found in the Oxford Concise OED but it's become a common lexicon that has been incorporated in the more common dictionaries.

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

I would like to highlight that these are not in anyway my conclusions/opinions. I said that it was a translation/referate but I guess the right term would have been translation/summary. (I couldn't find "referate" from dictionary so it was probably pig's Latin :D)

About the turkey thing... The rest of the thing goes:
Instead, many researches have shown that eating lots of carbohydrates (sugars for example) increases the amounts of substances ("serotoniini" and "melatoniini" in finnish) that make one sleepy. Especially vegetable products contain lots of carbohydrates.
So the correct statement should be something like: "Eating food makes one sleepy"

This shows how important the context is... I apologise.

Ps. I don't have any Kingston Wall... yet. :(

Re: Sciences on Moon
 

No need for that! Was good reading.....

Kingston Wall....pretty heavy, Hendrix-style rock...some on the Moon...