51. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184604 by Rational_G on May 25, 2008 at 8:34 pm

mesomodel:

You must be pretty excited. I know I am. After all the excitement I stepped outside and looked at Mars hanging up there in the western sky, just to make the experience complete.

52. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184596 by Rational_G on May 25, 2008 at 8:13 pm

The lander WAS hauling ass. 12500 mph = 3.5 miles per second

53. Probe lands on Mars, NASA says

Comment #184588 by Rational_G on May 25, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Watched the whole thing on NASA TV. Incredible.

What fantastic engineering!

Was able to see the first images come down in real time at approx 9:50 PM EDT on University of Arizona web site.

Awesome!

To get a feel for what they just did, check out this video:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/phoenix/phx20080327.php

54. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #184142 by Rational_G on May 23, 2008 at 7:11 pm

OrbitalMike: - I'm over on the east coast

Yes, Mitchell was the LMP.

Actually the Apollo Guidance Computer did most of the flying. ;-)

excepting the last few hundred feet altitude, where the LM commanders maneuvered around obstacles and put all that fighter jock experience to good use.

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

Comment #184138 by Rational_G on May 23, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Concerning the Fermi Paradox, I like Philip Morrison's comments:

"Much better known is the stance I have called Malthusian. It rests on the idea of the exponential improvement in all technology. That must entail, proponents say, an
eventual physical tour by crews or mere automata, of the whole Galaxy. Using various estimates, all of which really exploit mainly the unbounded quality of an exponential rise,
these critics say that we must be the first ever to think of beings afar. otherwise they would have been here already; and where are they? This argument is modified to deliberate
concealment, the "zoo" idea, in which we humans have been preserved, as unwitting pristine specimens, and more. All of this is interesting, but it shares the defect of Malthus.
In the real world, there are no unlimited exponentials. Something limits every growth. We are surely finite beings, and it is likely we will remain finite forever, unless in finite time
we disappear into zero. I do not know what the upper bound of our grasp can be; I suspect it falls short of making a rose garden out of the galaxy. With that finiteness the power of
the argument fades; it all becomes a discussion over the values of limiting parameters that none of us know.

No, the best means to seek the unknown is by experiment, absent a tested theory able to exclude the result we seek - and even then, be careful about the truncation of experience.
Consult any textbook for answers."

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

Comment #184134 by Rational_G on May 23, 2008 at 6:37 pm

"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." - J.B.S. Haldane.

That's why we build radio and visible light telescopes, both ground based and space based and launch probes into the heavens. Because we always discover things we never even dreamed of.

"The realities of nature surpass our most ambitious dreams." - Rodin

57. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #183293 by Rational_G on May 21, 2008 at 6:51 pm

emmet -

right on. EE curriculum - the toughest!!

58. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183283 by Rational_G on May 21, 2008 at 6:26 pm

.......More likely "The Cloud of Bullshit"

59. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183281 by Rational_G on May 21, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Shroud of Turin:

....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ............

60. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #183278 by Rational_G on May 21, 2008 at 6:17 pm

I do share Mitchell's connectedness to the Universe - but in a purely natural - not supernatural- way.

We are made of starstuff - but we learned this through rational science, through observation and hard work - not from New Age nonsense. So our connection is real, physical - the iron in our blood, the calcium in our bones - forged in stars.

So when you look up in the sky at night - the connection to those points of light is physical - no sky daddy necessary.

61. Edgar Mitchell ushers in the Next Epoch in Evolution

Comment #183276 by Rational_G on May 21, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Hey, he was a good pilot, a good astronaut - maybe doesn't have a such a great scientific theory (EDIT - actually it's pretty looney). He landed a spaceship on the moon - that's not too shabby.

Only the Apollo astronauts have seen the planet Earth as it really is - a fragile colorful oasis floating in the back forbidding space. I don't think one can underestimate what seeing the earth like that does to one's psyche. We can all intellectualize it - but only a few astronauts have actually WITNESSED it - movies and pictures don't count.

I think this experience both awed and scared the shit out of them - understandably so.

OrbitalMike - I too am an aerospace engineer with training in science. I too have noticed a lot of engineers are believers - maybe has something to do with engineers (good ones) being team players rather than free thinking maverick scientists.

I have a lot trouble understanding how they can accept the supernatural - I can't. But then again I have astrophysics training as well as engineering training. Gives one perspective.

I'm the one always telling my coworkers that postulating the supernatural is unnecessary - they can't seem to let it go.

62. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180402 by Rational_G on May 14, 2008 at 7:51 pm

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.

It may slowly accrete mass from a companion however, since it is no longer a star with an active stellar wind and especially if the companion starts belching out its own mass. The white dwarf is composed entirely of degenerate electrons, and if it starts accreting mass, once it gets more mass than the "Chandrashakar limit". it'll blow. It is because all white dwarfs blow up just as they reach this limit, they blow up in a consistent manner with consistent brightness, making them excellent "standard candles" for distance measurements which helps calibrate the cosmic expansion rate which tells us the universe is accelerating!

The Chandra x ray telescope which discovered this object is named after Chandrashakar. These white dwarf supernova are called Type 1A

63. Youngest galactic supernova (not aliens) found

Comment #180348 by Rational_G on May 14, 2008 at 4:30 pm

The explosion happened 28,140 years ago.

Since the star is approximately 28,000 light years away - the light from the explosion took 28,000 years to arrive here. This arrival occurred about 140 years ago. So the initial "boom" was visible (with the right instruments) from Earth starting 140 years ago. What we see now is how it looked 140 years after the explosion- which makes it the youngest (least time after the explosion) of any supernova remnant in the Milky Way galaxy.

I suspect the Chandra X Ray telescope found it - and its location matched up with radio VLA images - they went back and retrieved the 25 year old radio data - since now they know what it is!

64. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179211 by Rational_G on May 12, 2008 at 10:14 pm

Great interview.

Low key, intelligent conversation.

How refreshing!

65. I Am Evolution

Comment #178589 by Rational_G on May 11, 2008 at 4:36 pm

rickenbacker77 has it right.

And the author explains exactly what she means in the first few sentences.

So everybody chill out.

Nice essay.

66. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178029 by Rational_G on May 10, 2008 at 9:47 am

This article IS bad. An not just because it makes a lame criticism of RD.

It's wishy washy no value added incoherent nonsense.

As has been mentioned, science didn't break up the space shuttles - bureaucracy did. Maybe he should take his social studies "skills" and study bureaucracy instead of scientists. Then he might actually contribute something.

67. What really goes on at the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #176109 by Rational_G on May 6, 2008 at 3:05 pm

Too bad some of you folks don't appreciate pure research. You would think "a clear thinking oasis" would know better. Apparently not. Better to comment on hairstyles and accents. Or tell people what they should be working on instead. I'm disappointed.

68. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175615 by Rational_G on May 5, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Peacebeuponme:

I like Mr Condell's sarcasm. The religious types deserve it. I don't put Condell in the same league as a Dawkins or a Carlin - I'm not trying to - there's no need for him to be in that league for me to appreciate his contribution. And he does make me laugh.

Cheers.

69. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #175038 by Rational_G on May 4, 2008 at 8:32 am

I can't believe you stodgy twits giving Condell a hard time. Let's just treat religion with kid gloves then.....

"Another cup of tea before you continue to trample on my human rights and deny scientific evidence?"

Condell is funny, angry, clever and calls out religion for the insult to human dignity that it is. I find the logic of his arguments compelling. We have every reason to be angry about the crap we have to put up with religion. It is a speed bump on the road to human progress and happiness. The shit organized religion gets away with is appalling.

As RD says, it's time to stop being so damned polite.

Oh, and peace - especially you uptight types.

70. Science leads to killing people

Comment #174534 by Rational_G on May 2, 2008 at 3:46 pm

Ben Stein is a total dickhead.

71. Pat Condell: Anthology DVD available now!

Comment #172525 by Rational_G on April 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Condell's funny - and he makes some good points. I like his rants.

Carlin is a comic genius, up there with Richard Pryor.

72. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171723 by Rational_G on April 28, 2008 at 6:17 pm

I think this had something to do with it.......

http://www.palantir.net/2001/tma1/pics/dawn06.jpg

73. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170073 by Rational_G on April 27, 2008 at 10:38 am

Science has destroyed the notion of God. It was on flimsy footing to begin with and science has finished the job. There is no need to postulate the supernatural.

Oh yeah, and screw Templeton and his religious soft sell.

74. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167267 by Rational_G on April 23, 2008 at 7:43 pm

The answer is..........

Yes!

75. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #166149 by Rational_G on April 22, 2008 at 8:54 pm

Ben Stein is an ignorant fool

76. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162350 by Rational_G on April 16, 2008 at 5:32 pm

To the Large Extinct Bird:

Books don't suck.

Airplanes don't suck.

Travel doesn't suck.

Oil doesn't suck.

The real world (yes an objective reality out there) doesn't suck.

Wikipedia doesn't suck - but it is hardly a definitive source of anything. An Ok starting point but that's all.

Demonizing things unnecessarily - that sucks.

77. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #161069 by Rational_G on April 14, 2008 at 5:59 pm

What an asshole. How lazy can you be, not even bothering to research your subject? How can the Guardian publish this?

78. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #161062 by Rational_G on April 14, 2008 at 5:49 pm

My copy arrived today from Amazon USA . Originally said I'd have to wait till May 15 - arrived today!

Wonderful book. One I'll be going back to again and again to savor. Bookmark a nice touch.

Thanks, RD for the wonderful collection.

79. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #155958 by Rational_G on April 6, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Note to self - ignore Wired Magazine science articles

80. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #155940 by Rational_G on April 6, 2008 at 11:21 am

Have things

"largely been settled in favor of what paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould termed punctuated equilibrium." ??

81. Beware the Believers

Comment #155795 by Rational_G on April 5, 2008 at 9:38 pm

speculawyer:

I concur.

82. Beware the Believers

Comment #154093 by Rational_G on April 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm

"I'll ignore your cheap aroma
And your Little bo peep diploma
I'll just put you in a coma
with some........

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6602788327816663997&q=zappa dirty love&total=41&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

83. Beware the Believers

Comment #153594 by Rational_G on April 1, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Here's some pretty cheezy lyrics...... (complete with muzac music version accompaniment)

and yet I enjoy singing it - the chorus especially - though I can't keep a straight face

http://www.geocities.com/bjaes.geo/lyrics/mcarthur.htm

You Brits of a certain age should know it well...

84. Beware the Believers

Comment #152842 by Rational_G on March 31, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Do they make Pound Sign rap jewelry?

85. Beware the Believers

Comment #152831 by Rational_G on March 31, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Hi everyone.

In the interest of being a good sport and a careful scientist, let me go on record that although I'm 99% sure the makers of this video are sympathetic to science, I'm not 100% certain and have no QED evidence. I just think it's extremely probable.

I don't need to be right, and if proven wrong, I will happily acquiesce.

Sure is a clever snappy tune regardless.....

C'mon sing along!

"I'm the Dickie D!
I gots my PHD!"

(raises the roof)

86. Beware the Believers

Comment #152376 by Rational_G on March 30, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Some of you people are way too paranoid. Must I point out the lyrics to the song for umpteenth time?

Just read the lyrics. What does that tell you?
No sophisticated analysis needed.

75% of the video is a song saying how good science is!

The pro-iders would never approve this - there's too many good things about science being said here.

If this is a virus, it's spreading some pretty good lines promoting science. On balance there is more pro science here than anti science. So sleep well, conspiracy theorists!

DICK TO THE DAWK TO THE PHD !!

87. Beware the Believers

Comment #152268 by Rational_G on March 30, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I'm over 50, I got it, and I don't even like rap.

A pro-science rhyme is OK by me.

".....cause I'm the rappinest, rabidest atheist who
unlike the Catholic, Muslim or even the Jew
believes that no God but science could ever be true....."

Good stuff!

88. Beware the Believers

Comment #152244 by Rational_G on March 30, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Science silenced that watchdog wingnut Paley
growing stronger and harder almost daily.....

(C'mon, sing along all you fuddy duddys, you can do it!)

storming Wilber by force
as we framed the discourse
that faith and science are split in schismatic divorce.....

(no non overlapping magesteria here! - can you dig it?)

Yo! Science & religion - not compatible!

89. Beware the Believers

Comment #152239 by Rational_G on March 30, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Time to open your eyes, get yourself wise, the age of science will rise to be religion's demise.......

Nice.

90. Beware the Believers

Comment #152223 by Rational_G on March 30, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Hey people - it's just silly - with clever lyrics.

If the video ended with the "Expelled" frame (thanks for pointing out the obvious) you might have something. Indeed the first time I saw the first minute of the video I thought it was going to be anti-science - but the rest of the video is too clever I doubt it would be produced by the pro-id half wits. There are just too many good pro-science references in the lyrics - the id crowd would never dwell that long reciting a laundry list of the achievements of science over the last 400 years!

OK - worst case - I'm 100% wrong and it WAS produced by the ID crowd - so what? They failed miserably then - They have given us a catchy ditty filled with accurate science references in a form that young people can relate to!!

The scientists are shown as hip ( and it is funny to see academics in rap clothes - if I have to explain that then you are beyond all hope of a sense of humor - would you rather they be depicted as nerds, the usual case?)

Yeah, they have an attitude - good. A little chest pumping by the guys and gals with evidence on their side.

It's just good fun.

91. Beware the Believers

Comment #152111 by Rational_G on March 30, 2008 at 6:36 am

It's pro science all the way - with satire of scientists thrown in for fun.

Even if it's not pro science (which I doubt) it's given us a catchy pro science song to sing.

Oh horrors, scientists being satirized!

Oh horrors, the music's not sophisticated!

Oh, horrors, It might take a few hearings to catch all the lyrics! (which are pretty clever and comment positively on the history of science and the importance of Darwin - what more do you want??)

It's a joke, people. Lighten up.

92. Beware the Believers

Comment #151942 by Rational_G on March 29, 2008 at 5:31 pm

What Jack Rawlinson said.

93. Beware the Believers

Comment #151923 by Rational_G on March 29, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Nova -

You are exactly right that the vast majority of scientists (the good ones) are very patient with the BS they have to put up with and that telling it straight is often wrongly perceived as arrogance.

Usually the arrogant ones are second rate.

94. Beware the Believers

Comment #151908 by Rational_G on March 29, 2008 at 4:42 pm

We are smarter than them.

Many of us have science degrees.

They're deluded - remember?

95. Beware the Believers

Comment #151890 by Rational_G on March 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm

I can't believe we're deconstructing humor.

If I slip on a banana peel and fall - after I make sure I haven't broken any bones I'd probably laugh at what happened.

You can laugh at yourself sometimes - unless you're wrapped up too tight.

So yes, scientists dressed up as rappers is funny.

And us science types can be a little arrogant at times.

So it's Ok to laugh at one self once in a while - healthy even.

I though the lyrics were clever - and I don't really like rap.

96. Beware the Believers

Comment #151834 by Rational_G on March 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Steve -

Damn your correct use of language! :-)

You're a very smart old fogey.

I'm an old "dude" myself.

97. Beware the Believers

Comment #151829 by Rational_G on March 29, 2008 at 2:12 pm

We might have lost at Scopes, beaten down by the dopes, and the stooges of popes, but in losin' we coped, becomin' more than we hoped, creationists slipped on the soap of their own slippery slope.

What was impossible, improbable, is now wholly unstoppable untoppleable, the Dick Doc'll roll up as you creationists foldup

98. Beware the Believers

Comment #151822 by Rational_G on March 29, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Artful_Dodger:

All wrong. You don't get it. It's pro science AND it's making fun of the scientists at the same time. It's called self-deprecating humor. If you can't laugh at yourself, dude......

Yeah, we're in your face, we're pissed. and we're right!!

Throw that creationist MOTHA F**KA outta the ivory tower, YEAH!

99. Beware the Believers

Comment #151814 by Rational_G on March 29, 2008 at 1:06 pm

SF:

I hate you! :-)

100. Beware the Believers

Comment #151796 by Rational_G on March 29, 2008 at 12:15 pm

An atheist war cry that you can tap your feet to.....

Gotta love it.