Happy Atheist Forum

General => Science => Topic started by: Dave on March 04, 2017, 10:20:59 AM

Title: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on March 04, 2017, 10:20:59 AM
Just in case you need to convert something in a sciencey article to something you might understand the Engineering Toolbox (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com) has useful tables and formulae.

Use this thread for anything you might think a useful adjunct to understanding science.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 10:54:08 AM
Thanks, Gloucester, that is really very useful. I could not help myself, I just had to test it by looking for electronegativities of elements. Sure enough, I found a table within one minute! I will give this link to my students.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on March 04, 2017, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 10:54:08 AM
Thanks, Gloucester, that is really very useful. I could not help myself, I just had to test it by looking for electronegativities of elements. Sure enough, I found a table within one minute! I will give this link to my students.
Glad you liked it, Hermes! Thought it was worth bookmarking myself.

Didn't even know elements had electronegativities, so now I have something to look up myself!

Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on March 04, 2017, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 10:54:08 AM
Thanks, Gloucester, that is really very useful. I could not help myself, I just had to test it by looking for electronegativities of elements. Sure enough, I found a table within one minute! I will give this link to my students.
Glad you liked it, Hermes! Thought it was worth bookmarking myself.

Didn't even know elements had electronegativities, so now I have something to look up myself!

You can think of electronegativity as a measure of how much an atom loves electrons, in other words, how strongly it attracts electrons. This can induce a dipole in a molecule that causes it to be polar, and this has a great effect on the properties of the molecule.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on March 04, 2017, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on March 04, 2017, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 10:54:08 AM
Thanks, Gloucester, that is really very useful. I could not help myself, I just had to test it by looking for electronegativities of elements. Sure enough, I found a table within one minute! I will give this link to my students.
Glad you liked it, Hermes! Thought it was worth bookmarking myself.

Didn't even know elements had electronegativities, so now I have something to look up myself!

You can think of electronegativity as a measure of how much an atom loves electrons, in other words, how strongly it attracts electrons. This can induce a dipole in a molecule that causes it to be polar, and this has a great effect on the properties of the molecule.
Read the Wiki entry - well, as far as the maths anyway! I presume that is a charge dipole rather than a magnetic one?
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Tank on March 04, 2017, 02:12:05 PM
Excellent link Gloucester.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 02:18:29 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on March 04, 2017, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on March 04, 2017, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 10:54:08 AM
Thanks, Gloucester, that is really very useful. I could not help myself, I just had to test it by looking for electronegativities of elements. Sure enough, I found a table within one minute! I will give this link to my students.
Glad you liked it, Hermes! Thought it was worth bookmarking myself.

Didn't even know elements had electronegativities, so now I have something to look up myself!

You can think of electronegativity as a measure of how much an atom loves electrons, in other words, how strongly it attracts electrons. This can induce a dipole in a molecule that causes it to be polar, and this has a great effect on the properties of the molecule.
Read the Wiki entry - well, as far as the maths anyway! I presume that is a charge dipole rather than a magnetic one?

You've got it. The electrons spend more time at one end of the molecule, causing a charge dipole.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: joeactor on March 04, 2017, 02:49:07 PM
Cool...

If you have a WordPress site, there's a nifty converter plug-in called "Oppso":
https://tah.wordpress.org/plugins-wp/oppso-unit-converter/ (https://tah.wordpress.org/plugins-wp/oppso-unit-converter/)

You can even configure it to convert anything you'd like - I used it for Rubber Chickens (scroll down):
http://www.joesdump.com/2014/04/28/chicken-measuring/ (http://www.joesdump.com/2014/04/28/chicken-measuring/)
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on March 04, 2017, 03:45:18 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 02:18:29 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on March 04, 2017, 02:08:22 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 12:59:06 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on March 04, 2017, 12:07:24 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 10:54:08 AM
Thanks, Gloucester, that is really very useful. I could not help myself, I just had to test it by looking for electronegativities of elements. Sure enough, I found a table within one minute! I will give this link to my students.
Glad you liked it, Hermes! Thought it was worth bookmarking myself.

Didn't even know elements had electronegativities, so now I have something to look up myself!

You can think of electronegativity as a measure of how much an atom loves electrons, in other words, how strongly it attracts electrons. This can induce a dipole in a molecule that causes it to be polar, and this has a great effect on the properties of the molecule.
Read the Wiki entry - well, as far as the maths anyway! I presume that is a charge dipole rather than a magnetic one?

You've got it. The electrons spend more time at one end of the molecule, causing a charge dipole.

Can it be used for any analytical purposes?  Bit like NMR spectroscopy but different?
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 04:52:56 PM
Yes, one analytical technique where we use different polarities is high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Separation of a mixture into its components can be achieved by fine tuning the polarities of eluting solvents and changing them over time as a gradient.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on March 04, 2017, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 04, 2017, 04:52:56 PM
Yes, one analytical technique where we use different polarities is high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Separation of a mixture into its components can be achieved by fine tuning the polarities of eluting solvents and changing them over time as a gradient.

Ah, interesting. Need to look more at HPLC but got the idea - guessing it "smears" the various compounds into a sequence. Need to know wgat's in that shiny tube shown in the Wiki article.

Enough for the monent though, thanks Hermes.

Ah, found http://www.waters.com/waters/en_GB/How-Does-High-Performance-Liquid-Chromatography-Work%3F/nav.htm?cid=10049055&locale=en_GB
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on January 19, 2018, 04:05:02 AM
Article of possible interest to xSP  https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/18/578355877/repeated-head-hits-not-concussions-may-be-behind-a-type-of-chronic-brain-damage?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20180118&utm_campaign=breakingnews&utm_term=nprnews
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: xSilverPhinx on January 20, 2018, 01:16:33 PM
Quote from: Icarus on January 19, 2018, 04:05:02 AM
Article of possible interest to xSP  https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/18/578355877/repeated-head-hits-not-concussions-may-be-behind-a-type-of-chronic-brain-damage?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20180118&utm_campaign=breakingnews&utm_term=nprnews

That is interesting, in a morbid kind of way. People are more susceptible to such brain injury than previously thought.

Since we don't have any pain receptors in the brain we can't know there's something wrong (the brain doesn't feel its own pain) unless there are other symptoms to suggest it.

QuoteThe researchers analyzed human brains — from teenagers and young adults who had been exposed to mild head impact but died from another cause soon after. They found early evidence of brain pathology consistent with what is seen in CTE, including abnormal accumulation of tau protein. CTE is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by that kind of abnormal accumulation around small blood vessels in the brain. The disease can cause brain cell death, cognitive deficits and dementia.

The accumulation of tau protein is also prevalent in Alzheimer's. I wonder how that and CTE differ. :notsure:

Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on February 12, 2018, 11:24:48 PM
Wood as strong as steel ???  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stronger-than-steel-able-to-stop-a-speeding-bullet-mdash-it-rsquo-s-super-wood/
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: joeactor on February 13, 2018, 03:40:11 PM
Quote from: Icarus on February 12, 2018, 11:24:48 PM
Wood as strong as steel ???  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stronger-than-steel-able-to-stop-a-speeding-bullet-mdash-it-rsquo-s-super-wood/

very cool... had to look up the clear wood - it's here:
http://elkodaily.com/lifestyles/professor-hanington-s-speaking-of-science-see-through-wood-is/article_fd8db018-028d-5819-9da2-b821988198ea.html (http://elkodaily.com/lifestyles/professor-hanington-s-speaking-of-science-see-through-wood-is/article_fd8db018-028d-5819-9da2-b821988198ea.html)
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on March 05, 2018, 05:37:16 AM
Crafty creature..................https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/against-the-octopus-the-overrated-cephalopod.html
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Tank on March 05, 2018, 06:17:00 AM
Facsinating little ceatures.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on March 21, 2018, 06:24:31 PM
If you can get the National Geographic channel on you TV, then here is a series that will be interesting to many of us.

"Take a thrilling tour of one of the universe's most peculiar places-Earth- in a ten part event series One Strange Rock, airing Mondays at 9 EST starting March 26"

The March edition of  NatGeo magazine has the teaser articles.  The articles have interviews with NASA astronauts including Peggy Whitson who has spent 665 days in space. Gutsy woman.  Additional articles are about what we learn from space.....complete with the typically elaborate maps and graphics.

The series will not be suitable for creationists or flat earthers.



Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on April 04, 2018, 11:18:24 PM
Birds navigate with a magnetic eye capacity?.......................https://www.sciencenews.org/article/birds-get-their-internal-compass-newly-id-eye-protein?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=latest-newsletter-v2
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on April 05, 2018, 07:56:22 AM
Quote from: Icarus on April 04, 2018, 11:18:24 PM
Birds navigate with a magnetic eye capacity?.......................https://www.sciencenews.org/article/birds-get-their-internal-compass-newly-id-eye-protein?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=latest-newsletter-v2

Interedting, some sort of magnetic sense has been postulated for about as long as I have been interested in science I tuink. Even soecks of magnetite in the brain.

Wonder if they will ever construct an encephalograph for bird brains to see if there is any sort of reaction to msgnetic fields?
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on April 06, 2018, 02:18:48 AM
Coincidentally I have been reading a new book whose title is: The Spinning Magnet which is a reference to our earth and other cosmic features. Magnetism is another way of thinking of gravity and how it influences the whole world that we live in and the other worlds that we only see in the night sky.....and beyond.

The earth's magnetic poles are in a constant state of displacement which appears to be in different orientations depending on where we are on the face of the planet.  Our friend Bluenose, a navigator person, will know a lot about that problem for mariners. Might be a bit of a problem for birds too.  Damned magnetite is scattered all over the place, on land and in the deep sea, which messes up compass bearings.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on April 06, 2018, 06:50:45 AM
Ah, how well I remember being taught about magnetic variation and deviation in "Navigation and Map Reading" in the Air Training Corps back in the 50s.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: hermes2015 on April 06, 2018, 08:13:27 AM
Quote from: Icarus on April 06, 2018, 02:18:48 AM
Coincidentally I have been reading a new book whose title is: The Spinning Magnet which is a reference to our earth and other cosmic features. Magnetism is another way of thinking of gravity and how it influences the whole world that we live in and the other worlds that we only see in the night sky.....and beyond.

That is a very unorthodox view of magnetism and gravity. In conventional physics we consider them to be completely unrelated forces. Is the author a physicist?
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on April 13, 2018, 01:19:51 AM
What do my illustrious peers think of this concept? https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/this-is-how-to-become-mentally-strong-3-secrets-from-neuroscience

Not kidding about the adjective; illustrious. There are some real thinkers here. That's one of the several reasons that I am so committed to this place.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: hermes2015 on April 13, 2018, 05:09:47 AM
Quote from: Icarus on April 13, 2018, 01:19:51 AM
What do my illustrious peers think of this concept? https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/this-is-how-to-become-mentally-strong-3-secrets-from-neuroscience

Not kidding about the adjective; illustrious. There are some real thinkers here. That's one of the several reasons that I am so committed to this place.

It sounds reasonable to me as an amateur in these matters, but there are other members far more qualified to make a judgement on the article. When I have a task I don't relish, my technique is to break it up into small steps, starting as early as possible. If the deadline is in a few days, I do a bit every day, and it feels easier than waiting until the end to work in a mad panic like some people I know. The same applies to studying for an exam or writing a thesis.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on April 13, 2018, 06:46:26 AM
Know this principle from RAF training and climbing/winrer mountain walking.

QuoteDr. Barry Bitman writing on laughter in the face of adversity says that change causes humans a lot of stress and the people who adapt are also the ones who succeed.  So we can panic or get depressed; or choose to laugh and make the best of the challenging situation.

He says humour gives a unique opening to move forward on a positive note. Laughter is even scientifically proven to reverse the negative biological effects of stress. Choosing humour in the face of adversity brings us a much-needed sense of control, which facilitates healing.

https://knowrisk.com.au/insight/articles/humour-in-the-face-of-adversity

(https://imgur.com/on0RIH7.jpg)
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: xSilverPhinx on April 13, 2018, 05:22:27 PM
Quote from: Icarus on April 13, 2018, 01:19:51 AM
What do my illustrious peers think of this concept? https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/this-is-how-to-become-mentally-strong-3-secrets-from-neuroscience

Not kidding about the adjective; illustrious. There are some real thinkers here. That's one of the several reasons that I am so committed to this place.

My two cents:

Quote1) Cheer up

Want to be mentally tougher? Want the challenges ahead to seem easier? Try this esoteric technique called "smiling."

:notsure: I don't have a formed opinion on this one. I didn't read any of the studies to see their methodology and how well they eliminated biases, such as were the subjects lead in any way to believe they would feel happier if they forced a smile? Did they see other people (or pictures of people) smiling? Did they smile in a brain scanner so that the neural correlates were examined and/or were they given questionnaires before and after smiling? Etc., etc.

I'm a little skeptical...

QuoteSubstantial evidence exists for the effectiveness of humor as a coping mechanism. Studies involving combat veterans (Hendin & Haas, 1984), cancer patients (Carver, 1993), and surgical patients (Culver et al., 2002) have found that when humor is used to reduce the threatening nature of stressful situations, it is associated with resilience and the capacity to tolerate stress (Martin, 2003).

https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080407/full/news.2008.741.html (https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080407/full/news.2008.741.html)

Definitely agree there!

I find stress a fascinating subject. :smilenod: There's this one book on stress that I've been dying to buy and read: Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Zebras-Dont-Ulcers-Third/dp/0805073698) by Stanford neuroscientist and professor Robert Sapolsky. Maybe a suggestion for the HAF Book Club?  :P

There are loads of interesting effects stress hormones have on memory, both positive and negative. Maybe one of these days I will write a wall of text on the subject. :lol:

Quote2) Train your brain

[...] And if you want more brain stamina, you need to systematically increase how long you make it work.

I don't know if you'd get more "brain stamina" if you increase how long you focus on a topic you're studying, for instance, but maybe you'll cause it to use energy more efficiently with hours of practice. With a lot of practice and accumulated expertise the brain as a whole can become more specialised, and in some cases less regions are activated and therefore less energy is used.

In other cases the area associated with learning a new skill gets larger, with more connections having been made, and uses more energy.

Quote3) Perception beats reality

Perceptions beats reality: Reduce the signals that make you think things are tiring and they won't be as tiring. Make it a game instead of a chore.

QuoteCaffeine gives you more energy, right? Wrong. Caffeine doesn't give you more of anything.

Wrong?  :scratch: If it has calories, even if few, it will also give you energy, even though that's not the main thing it does.

QuoteAdenosine is a chemical in your body that tells your brain you're tired. And caffeine blocks adenosine. The tired message never reaches the governor, and so the governor doesn't hit the brakes. Caffeine works via that same principle we talked about above — it reduces perception of effort.

Technically, caffeine blocks the site on an adenosine receptor in which the adenosine molecule binds, not adenosine itself. Therefore the molecule which signals that you're tired -- adenosine -- won't be able to activate the receptor. That's why we call caffeine an adenosine antagonist. :smilenod: 

-~-

Have to go now, but in general, I think the article is a bit too simplistic for my liking. :P 
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on April 13, 2018, 05:46:53 PM
Quote. . .but in general, I think the article is a bit too simplistic for my liking. :P

Says the neuroscientist-in-training who is used to all those esoteric jargon infested/peer reviewed/cited textbooks!  :grin:

For us lay mortals we only have pop-science and anecdote. My MI and subsequent life threatening things induced me to ask a, possibly life saving, question - will getting all stressed about such conditions improve their/my outcome?  No, then don't stress out over them. One consultant still remembered, and mentioned some years later, that on coming round from the fourth defibfrillating  shock from my implant in 24 hours I immediately cracked a joke. We are supposed to be quivering bundles of fear after such.

But, maybe old Sneezer was right, "That which does not kill you can still tickle your funny bone."  And I suppose I learned a very long time ago that there is no profit in giving way to fear. Unless you can run faster than it can . . .
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: xSilverPhinx on April 13, 2018, 10:21:59 PM
Quote from: Dave on April 13, 2018, 05:46:53 PM
Quote. . .but in general, I think the article is a bit too simplistic for my liking. :P

Says the neuroscientist-in-training who is used to all those esoteric jargon infested/peer reviewed/cited textbooks!  :grin:

Nothing like a good review of the scientific literature! :grin: Saves a lot of time for people with little mental stamina, like me. ;)

I meant to say that it all seems too reductionist to me. The part about smiling makes you happier, for instance. Does it in all situations, for all personality types? If you're extremely competitive and force a smile after you come in second,  will you feel happier? I don't know, but I tend to think you won't. :notsure:

Even if there are technical terms jargon words in them, those may seem like some alien language at first, but they may actually simplify entire concepts into a few words which helps understanding, not hinders it. At least I think so.

Take the plasticity TED Talk you posted in the other thread, for instance. It's a good video and all, but I personally felt she should have gone into what Long-Term Potentiation (LTP) and Long-Term Depression (LTD) are and how they relate to synaptic plasticity, which underlies learning and memory. Here are short videos explaining both, if you're interested:

LTP



LTD



There's a lot more to both of course, and a lot of scientific experiments and projects involve tinkering with this mechanism to confirm a hypothesis or not. It's a lot of fun. :grin:

QuoteFor us lay mortals we only have pop-science and anecdote. My MI and subsequent life threatening things induced me to ask a, possibly life saving, question - will getting all stressed about such conditions improve their/my outcome?  No, then don't stress out over them. One consultant still remembered, and mentioned some years later, that on coming round from the fourth defibfrillating  shock from my implant in 24 hours I immediately cracked a joke. We are supposed to be quivering bundles of fear after such.

I think it's not worth stressing over things if you can help it.

QuoteBut, maybe old Sneezer was right, "That which does not kill you can still tickle your funny bone."  And I suppose I learned a very long time ago that there is no profit in giving way to fear. Unless you can run faster than it can . . .

Fear is in the mind, and can be regulated by the mind/brain.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on April 14, 2018, 07:24:16 AM
 :grin:

I know the purpose of jargon and its almost essential use in textbooks - be half as long again in oure lay-tslk! But it can ge obscure and fonfusing, like "myocardial infarct" "instead of "death of heart muscle" of "heart attack" (the latter is not very specific, several conditions can "attsck" the heart). My favourite is "heart failure" - don't take it too literally, medically it is relative rather than absolute! But also shorter than "cardiac output function insufficiency" or even "systolic impairment" and, anyway, those are the result rather than the cause.

But in some fields the jargon is overblown and, unnecesssrily, takes up more space than "lay speak" - managed to write an almost jargon free sociology paper ('cos I knew I did not need a pass in that) in my pre-uni college finals. Passed anyway. Often eonder if the medical profession chose Greek and Latin to keep their esoteric knowledge priviledged.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: xSilverPhinx on April 14, 2018, 03:24:43 PM
Quote from: Dave on April 14, 2018, 07:24:16 AM
:grin:

I know the purpose of jargon and its almost essential use in textbooks - be half as long again in oure lay-tslk! But it can ge obscure and fonfusing, like "myocardial infarct" "instead of "death of heart muscle" of "heart attack" (the latter is not very specific, several conditions can "attsck" the heart). My favourite is "heart failure" - don't take it too literally, medically it is relative rather than absolute! But also shorter than "cardiac output function insufficiency" or even "systolic impairment" and, anyway, those are the result rather than the cause.

But in some fields the jargon is overblown and, unnecesssrily, takes up more space than "lay speak" - managed to write an almost jargon free sociology paper ('cos I knew I did not need a pass in that) in my pre-uni college finals. Passed anyway. Often eonder if the medical profession chose Greek and Latin to keep their esoteric knowledge priviledged.

I think the fact that they borrowed heavily from Latin and Greek makes it easier! :grin: Biology did this too. :smilenod: You only have to memorise the meanings of the prefixes and suffixes and when you come across a new word there's a good chance you'll have an idea as to what it means. Either that or try and draw associations.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on May 25, 2018, 09:53:11 PM
A snippet about one of our long gone heroes..........https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/05/23/pythagoras-olympic-games/
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on May 26, 2018, 04:57:09 AM
Quote from: Icarus on May 25, 2018, 09:53:11 PM
A snippet about one of our long gone heroes..........https://www.brainpickings.org/2018/05/23/pythagoras-olympic-games/

Yeah, great guy! Add his more throretical and philosophical approach to the more practical one of Archimedes (who mudt hsve been influenced by Pythagoras) and ancient Greeks were obviously clever people. They went on to create the golden ages of Indian and then Islamic sciences and maths - long before us Europeans stopped counting on our fingers and toes. Though things like Stonehenge took a lot of that kind of thinking and planning. . .

If you want to watch the BBC Horizon video on  the solving of Fermatt's Last Theorem:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x223gx8
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on May 27, 2018, 01:32:55 AM
I have a whole book that explores Fermats' theorem somewhere around my stack of books.  Fermat was either a math genius or a Hustler who meant to mess with our heads. He may also have been an arrogant bastard who was certain that there is no equality solution to....A^n + B^n =  C^n......Cool dude nevertheless.  ................... N>2

Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on July 04, 2018, 11:38:11 PM
Not sure where to put this or whether to post it at all.  AI is beginning to have some far out applications.  https://medium.com/forbes/in-case-you-are-wondering-sex-with-robots-may-not-be-healthy-b591d84b60f2
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on July 05, 2018, 04:27:48 AM
Quote from: Icarus on July 04, 2018, 11:38:11 PM
Not sure where to put this or whether to post it at all.  AI is beginning to have some far out applications.  https://medium.com/forbes/in-case-you-are-wondering-sex-with-robots-may-not-be-healthy-b591d84b60f2
I have seen other items on the potential psychological problems if sexbots, especially the "normalisation" of abuse, and child abuse in particular. This adds a new dimension to pornography, and its effects, that even blow-up dolls does not achieve.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Bad Penny II on July 05, 2018, 02:08:59 PM
Quote from: Icarus on July 04, 2018, 11:38:11 PM
Not sure where to put this or whether to post it at all.  AI is beginning to have some far out applications.  https://medium.com/forbes/in-case-you-are-wondering-sex-with-robots-may-not-be-healthy-b591d84b60f2

I couldn't read it as I'm not a Medium member, whatever increment those are.
You could perhaps quote the gist of it.

I wonder how it will/could/would play out, having acceptable artificial woman.
I think maybe, much of the hate the woman haters have is 'cause of denial of access, thwarted desire.
Now we have NEW WOMEN, indistinguishable from real butter woman.
Will there be less hating?
Some of the haters might have weird mothers.
Ye I suppose.
Or got caught looking at its sister through the bathroom window.
Ye well he won't have to do that anymore, he'll get a bot on his 12th birthday.

Woman can have bots of their own, they are by nature eminent programmers, now they'll have better material to work with.

Birth rates will plummet, it's win win.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on July 09, 2018, 07:39:59 PM
Here is a subject to ponder.  What is nothing?  https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/7/5/17500782/zero-number-math-explained
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on July 11, 2018, 10:37:08 PM
Steel tariffs are in the news these days.  For anyone who might be interested, here is the history of steel in a lengthy article.  From King Tuts dagger to stainless steel refrigerators and more.  A useful article if history of a critical material is of interest to you.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a20722505/history-of-steel/
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on September 06, 2018, 12:25:21 PM
Random numbers are critical in many fields, particularly in Internet security. Trouble is it seems computers are lousy at generating true rsndom numbers and "analogue" systems are used.

ERNIE, the British national lottery bond system, 'Electronic Random Number Indicator Equipment', used a gas diode and the individual, rsndom, hits of electrons on the anode to generate numbers.


Genersting and selling almost pure random numbers is big business and about 10% of numbers may involve using lavalamps as generators!  Several lavalsmps are monitored by cameras and their random blobs turned into digital values. It seems one company uses them as a feature in its decorations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavarand

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bgrw3y

QuoteThe Random Request
Two random questions in this episode. "Is anything truly random, or is everything predetermined?" asks Darren Spalding from Market Harborough.

Hannah and Adam go in search of random events, from dice throws to lava lamps. Can we predict the outcome of any event? And "how do computers manage to pick random numbers?", asks Jim Rennie from Mackinaw in Illinois.

Joining them are a random selection of experts: mathematician Colva Roney-Dougal, technology journalist Bill Thompson, Science Museum Curator Tilly Blyth and quantum physicist Jim AlKhalili.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dave on October 03, 2018, 05:43:28 PM
Sort in a set with mindfullness, something that kids can be taught to tge advantage of all.

QuoteConfucius said "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall." Some people, however, are just better at getting back up when the most challenging life events knock them down. Today there is a growing body of research into mental resilience; where it comes from, why it matters and how it can be nurtured.

Journalist Sian Williams explores the science of resilience; she meets Dr Michael Pluess from Queen Mary University of London who is testing for the resilience gene, and Professor Toni Bifulco who, along with her colleague Dr David Westley at Middlesex University, has developed an online test for those at risk of resilience failure.

Nobel laureate Professor Daniel Kahneman and science journalist and psychologist Daniel Goleman offer expert insight into resilience. Professor Martin Seligman who founded the Penn Resiliency Program, and David Clark, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Oxford, describe the psychological background to mental strength and how it can be developed. Professor Lord Richard Layard from the LSE explains the economic benefits of building resilience into society. Sian visits Icknield Community College in Watlington in Oxfordshire where resilience is on the curriculum and watches a lesson in which children are taught to bounce back. She meets students, Headmaster Mat Hunter, teacher Claire Foster, and Lucy Bailey and Emma Judge from the resilience-building organisation How To Thrive.

The documentary is informed by Sian's own MSc research into post-traumatic growth and also from personal testimony: while drafting her thesis for academic publication, she experiences a sudden and very personal trauma which changes her view of resilience.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/b07cvhrs
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on February 11, 2019, 11:27:03 PM
This is part science and part philosophy with some religion thrown in to make an interesting stew.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/what-the-crow-knows/580726/
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on February 13, 2019, 02:01:22 AM
Awwright boys and girls, it seems that I am the most prolific...or pestering.... contributor to this thread.   

So here is another of the posts about things that you do not need to know.............are you ready?

Select any number that strikes your fancy......Divide the number by 2.  If it is not evenly dividable, use another method and multiply the number by 3 and then add one.  No matter what number you originally choose, the eventual result will be ONE.

Example: choose the number 5.  It does not divide evenly by two....SO multiply by three and add one......3 x 5 + 1 = 16....now we can divide by two and get eight which is dividable by two and then 8 divided by two is 4....and 4 divided by 2  is 2 and two divided by 2 is one

Yeah, I am at least vaguely aware that I might be a crazy old man who thinks that numbers are fun.  :shrug:

Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: joeactor on February 13, 2019, 08:00:51 PM
Quote from: Icarus on February 13, 2019, 02:01:22 AM
Awwright boys and girls, it seems that I am the most prolific...or pestering.... contributor to this thread.   

So here is another of the posts about things that you do not need to know.............are you ready?

Select any number that strikes your fancy......Divide the number by 2.  If it is not evenly dividable, use another method and multiply the number by 3 and then add one.  No matter what number you originally choose, the eventual result will be ONE.

Example: choose the number 5.  It does not divide evenly by two....SO multiply by three and add one......3 x 5 + 1 = 16....now we can divide by two and get eight which is dividable by two and then 8 divided by two is 4....and 4 divided by 2  is 2 and two divided by 2 is one

Yeah, I am at least vaguely aware that I might be a crazy old man who thinks that numbers are fun.  :shrug:

Numerology?
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Essie Mae on February 13, 2019, 09:45:25 PM
My number was 23

23 x 3 = 69

+ 1 = 70

/2 = 35

x 3 = 105

+ 1 = 106

/2 = 53

X 3 = 159

+ 1 = 160

/2 = 80     /2 = 40      /2 = 20   /2 = 10    /2 = 5

X 3 = 15

+ 1 = 16

/2 = 8      /2 = 4   /2 = 2   /2 = 1     Yaaaay it worked!
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on February 14, 2019, 01:17:32 AM
Thanks for playing the game Essie Mae.  You are my hero.

All those other number derelicts will have to wonder what the hell game we were playing.........

Here's another..........Have a non believer ( math non enthusiast) use his/her calculator to do this little game....Have them choose any three numbers that comes to mind  now repeat the number  ...such as  123 123...........Have them divide the number by 13, now have them divide that quotient number by 11, finally divide by 7 and the original number will be the result.   Try it ....247247/13 = 19019  divide by 11 to get 1729 and then divide by 7 to get the original number 247.    Fun with numbers......You could short circuit all that division by dividing the number by the product of 13, 11, 7 which is 10001......247247/1001 = 247  .....elementary.

I suspect that our glorious guru and math whiz,  The Asmo,  can think of some more fun stuff with numbers....or may choose not to.

Has this become painfully boring yet?   Hey,  we gotta keep this forum active even if we have to resort to mental games
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Essie Mae on February 16, 2019, 07:48:29 AM
931 931

931931/1001 = 931

Off out but did do the long way too!

All keeps the little grey cells going.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: joeactor on February 16, 2019, 04:19:19 PM
Numbers... Maps... Things.

All are Moleeds?

Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on February 26, 2019, 12:24:46 AM
Is Etomology a science?  Here is a big ass bee that hides out in remote places....https://www.npr.org/2019/02/21/696626918/worlds-largest-bee-is-spotted-for-first-time-in-decades
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Recusant on February 26, 2019, 02:02:31 AM
I think that many etymologists consider their work to be at least based on scientific principles. On the other hand entomology certainly is a science. Etomology though . . .  ;)

I read about that Indonesian bee. Great to hear that it's still with us--it sounds like an amazing animal.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on March 03, 2019, 04:43:14 AM
This a biological and petrochemical account of the unimagined difficulties that  our little planet  is enduring.....https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/deepest-ocean-trenches-animals-eat-plastic/583657/
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: joeactor on March 27, 2019, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: Icarus on March 03, 2019, 04:43:14 AM
This a biological and petrochemical account of the unimagined difficulties that  our little planet  is enduring.....https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/deepest-ocean-trenches-animals-eat-plastic/583657/

Scary how much we've changed this little planet. Hope something survives.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on April 02, 2019, 08:18:53 PM
Here is the tale of a survival experiment that eventually included Steve Bannon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/sunday-review/biosphere-2-climate-change.html
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: joeactor on April 03, 2019, 12:32:44 AM
Quote from: Icarus on April 02, 2019, 08:18:53 PM
Here is the tale of a survival experiment that eventually included Steve Bannon.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/sunday-review/biosphere-2-climate-change.html

I remember the fanfare, but never heard the whole story. Good one, Icarus.
Title: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/763545811/how-thRe: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on September 29, 2019, 09:10:14 PM
This place has been quiet for a while.  I will give it a little boost. 

Here is a different kind of science that is both evil and good.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/763545811/how-the-u-s-hacked-isis?utm_source=pocket-newtab

We can imagine The Asmo being involved in this business.  :-X
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on February 19, 2020, 01:30:28 AM
Within short walking distane of my house is Lake Hollingsworth.  The perimeter of the lake is 1.75 miles.  There is a wide walking path that surrounds the lake and thousands of people walk the path daily, some with their dogs, others with their children in strollers.  On the north side of the lake is Florida Southern College, a liberal arts school of very long standing among the elite.  It has the largest array of Frank Lloyd Wright architecture in the world.  At the Northeast corner of the lake there is a traffic roundabout and the banks of the lake have numerous trees.

Those trees are the annual site of a lot of fucking snakes.  This is an event that the walkers and others, at this time of year, usually try to avoid.   The snakes are harmless and they are called Florida Water Snakes.  But at certain times of the year they become exceptionally horny.  They leave the water and  climb the trees in search of a willing mate. Hundreds of them can be seen at the height of their activity.  This annual episode lasts only two or three days and the snakes return to their watery habitat.

The snakes can produce dozens and dozens of offspring for each fertilized snake mama.   Fortunately we have plenty of  Ospreys, Cormorants and other predators who manage to keep the snake population in check. Mother Nature is pretty damned cool if you just leave her alone. 

https://www.livescience.com/snake-orgy-florida.html
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Recusant on February 19, 2020, 03:20:07 AM
Cool. Seems like a great opportunity to get some mind-bending photos.  :sidesmile:
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on April 16, 2020, 01:29:41 AM
The Aussies have some strange neighbors.   I recently learned about "drop Bears" the bad ass, but cuddly looking Kaola.  Now there is the longest creature ever discovered......................

https://www.livescience.com/longest-animal-ever-underwater-australia.html?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=9160&utm_content=LVS_newsletter+&utm_term=3965884&m_i=vHKt01_58j9yflNNk370TNlm%2BSY4XeyNGy4i2muob0iK5BtM2wT3VW0x7fHURd0ahLhN8jxI_2NcUVNs9pKURvahwrUoi8u1Vv%2BNsMfvvp
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on July 13, 2020, 02:31:31 AM
I used to wonder how deep a hole my dog would dig. Then I wondered how deep a hole can I dig.........Here is some useless information that you do not need to know but it is fun to contemplate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E39GIysMevQ

Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on September 19, 2020, 02:32:41 AM
Seems like I am the thread hog for this subject.  Well all right if that is the way it is to be.  There are a whole mess of subjects that can be of casual interest to inquisitive folks, or to those of us who aim to expand our perspectives. 

Here is a tale about cannibal piss ants in Poland or Russia......I forget where.........

  https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-saga-of-the-cannibal-ants-in-a-soviet-nuclear-bunker?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on January 03, 2021, 04:35:36 AM
It is me again..................... What would we do without salt?  How would we salt the rim of our Margaritas?  A long time ago our salt had to be imported. It was expensive.  Then we learned something that certain indigenous people were aware of. ..................Salt in Appalachia?  Yep. Big time salt in a place that once was an ocean, namely West Virginia.

An interesting read here:  https://getpocket.com/explore/item/making-salt-from-an-ancient-underground-ocean?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: MarcusA on May 06, 2023, 03:09:24 AM
Christ, you lost me from the beginning. I'm sorry, Dave, but is there a book for dummies that I can read? haha
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Tank on May 06, 2023, 08:08:50 AM
Dave unfortunately passed away a while ago. So if you get an answer please tell us!  ;D 
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on May 13, 2023, 12:57:19 AM
OK so we need Ice to make our margaritas, the ones with salt on the rim of the glass. Here is an interesting it about ice. A glacier that can and very well may fall into the sea, can raise sea level by two feet (0.6 meters).

https://www.noemamag.com/listening-to-the-big-ice-of-antarctica/
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Dark Lightning on May 13, 2023, 02:19:36 AM
Thankfully it won't melt all at once!
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: MarcusA on June 17, 2023, 08:32:04 AM
As far as I am concerned, Asmo is the salt of the earth.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: MarcusA on July 01, 2023, 11:00:52 PM
What does NASA stand for? Not As Silly As, stupid.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Icarus on August 08, 2023, 03:28:39 AM
More bad news for our grandchildren..........

https://www.space.com/ocean-current-system-shut-down-2025-climate-disaster?utm_term=0ACB37CC-1B93-4BE0-B3B4-169C34F92E8F&utm_campaign=58E4DE65-C57F-4CD3-9A5A-609994E2C5A9&utm_medium=email&utm_content=D81D6063-ABE5-4202-89F7-A135311B1A2E&utm_source=SmartBrief

EDIT: Tank

Reworked the link and gave it a title.

Ocean current system could shut down as early as 2025, leading to climate disaster (https://www.space.com/ocean-current-system-shut-down-2025-climate-disaster?)

Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: MarcusA on August 09, 2023, 11:34:02 PM
What's not science is art.
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Recusant on October 14, 2023, 08:46:00 PM
May be of practical use for some.

"Should you charge your phone overnight? Will 'overcharging' make it explode? Common battery myths debunked" | The Conversation (https://theconversation.com/should-you-charge-your-phone-overnight-will-overcharging-make-it-explode-common-battery-myths-debunked-214956)

QuoteA number of factors determine a phone battery's lifespan, including its manufacturing age and its chemical age. The latter refers to the battery's gradual degradation due to variables such as fluctuations in temperature, charging and discharging patterns and overall usage.

Over time, the chemical ageing of lithium-ion batteries reduces charge capacity, battery lifespan and performance.

[. . .]

Research has found a 2019 smartphone battery could, on average, undergo 850 full charge/discharge cycles before dropping to below 80% capacity. This means only 80% of the initial battery capacity remains after about two to three years of use. At this point the battery begins to deplete noticeably faster.

Most new-generation smartphones will take somewhere between 30 minutes and two hours to charge fully.

Charging times vary depending on your device's battery capacity – larger capacities require more time – as well as how much power your charger supplies.

Charging your phone overnight is not only unnecessary, it also accelerates battery ageing. Full charging cycles (going from 0%–100%) should be avoided to maximise your battery's lifespan.

Similarly, keeping iPhones at full charge for extended periods may compromise their battery health.

Rather than a full top-up, it's recommended to charge your battery up to 80% and not allow it to dip under 20%.

In theory, lithium-ion batteries can be overcharged. This can lead to safety risks such as the battery overheating and catching fire. The good news is most modern phones have an in-built protection that automatically stops the battery from charging further than 100% – preventing any damage from overcharging.

However, each time a battery drops to 99% (due to apps running in the background) it will "trickle charge": it will start charging again to maintain a fully charged state.

Trickle charging can wear a battery down over time. That's why many manufacturers have features to regulate it. Apple's iPhones offer functionality to delay charging past 80%. Samsung's Galaxy phones provide the option to cap the charge at 85%.

[Continues . . . (https://theconversation.com/should-you-charge-your-phone-overnight-will-overcharging-make-it-explode-common-battery-myths-debunked-214956)]
Title: Re: Not science as such but . . .
Post by: Tank on October 15, 2023, 10:14:28 AM
That is interesting.