Reaper

So, yeah, anyways, lets talk about biology now.....

Well, the Drake equation is not really used as evidence though. It is just there to give us an idea of the likelihood that we will find another technological extraterrestrial civilization on galaxies. As for the number of planets that may support life that are out there, this article gives an idea of how many may be in our own galaxy:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401024 So, we are making progress in solving the Drake equation, if only very slowly. But it is best to be patient. Right now its guess work because we only have one data sample (which is Earth). But that doesn't mean that we won't be able to learn enough information that will allow us to figure out the likelihood of life on other planets. I'm pretty sure that we will learn that in the coming years of the 21st century. Maybe they might use a different one, but probably not likely. There is a reason why we transmit information at particular frequencies; they are not just frequencies that are chosen at random. Likewise, an extraterrestrial civilization capable of radio astronomy or telecommunications would have figured that out too.

I'm doing a project in my physics course and I'm wondering if you can provide some resources for my research. My particular project is about computers and how electromagnetic principles apply to them. In particular, I'm looking into the CPU, circuit boards, Do you guys know of any good resources out there online?

I'm pretty certain that if there was even one peer-reviewed scientific article that genuinely indicated that some other cause was at work for global warming, politicians, coorporations, the general public, etc would instantly change their minds and policies about global warming and environmentalism in a heartbeat. I'm pretty certain they would be rejoicing, rather than dismissing it. And I think that his analogy to nuclear winter is out of context and just plain wrong, for he claims that we cannot know the effects of a nuclear winter or the amount of destruction that can arise given x-amount of bombs fired and deployed. For example, a single volcano, while far less destructive than a nuke would be, throws up enough dust and ash to cause profound changes in Earth's weather patterns and significant temperature drops worldwide for quite a while, anywhere between a few months and a few years (depending on the severity of the volcanic explosion that is). Now, if a localized geological calamity can throw up that much dust to do that, it is not unreasonable to suggest that firing even a small percentage of our total nuclear arsenal (The TTAPS report assumed about 1000 nukes, or 5000 megaton yield, for reference) or so nukes can throw up enough dust to cause profound or permanent changes in Earth's weather patterns and/or climate changes. And, it is assumed that most of it will be concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere. Nevermind the fact that this dust is radioactive, which would cause even more problems than the ones he described. But, I do think he does have a point about the additude regarding sci-am. Ad-hominems, baseless assumptions, etc. are never ok, regardless of how wrong or how unsupported the claims or beliefs are. He is. The Drake equation has a pretty clear and precise aim; it was formulated to predict the probability or likehood of us finding another civilization elsewhere in the galaxy, or the universe for that matter. Just because we don't know the exact values of every variable in the equation doesn't mean it's not science. So far, however, all we can do is speculate, because we don't have any data on the nature of extraterrestrial civilizations, or any data on the likelihood of how and where life springs up in general. The only thing we know is the number of stars in our galaxy. You can watch this video here, Carl Sagan does a good job explaining what the equation means and how it can be applied: The drake equation has also been applied to our own to predict the likelihood of our survival. Well, that's because there is no information we have about it so far, so we can't do anything to improve it's accuracy

Only if the question is clear, concise, and/or to the point though. If it is vague or ambiguous, as Fred's recent threads have been, then one can't complain about it.

Actually I hear that most Iranians are usually pro-US. But otherwise, yeah, Iran is pretty much overrated in terms of "threat" level, nuclear or otherwise. I think Russia (and the other former Soviet states, where the majority of the nukes are) and our own arsenal is far more of a concern, even if most people aren't aware of it in this day and age.

I don't think they would be quick to use it themselves though even if they do happen to create one. It is far more useful to them as a deterrent than to suddenly fire it. The real worry is what would happen if someone like Al-Qaeda were to aquire that uranium. Even though they may not be able to create a bomb per se, there's a lot of harm that can be done with radioactive material in general...

Most movies out there are crap, so I'm not concerned. Very rarely do you actually run into a good movie in this day and age. As for the writers themselves, let them strike. The real entertainment will begin once I see people out there complaining about not being able to sit down on their lazy asses to waste hours of their pathetic lives in front of some big screen.

Next thing you'll know atomikpsycho will transform into the legendary super-retard. EDIT: Why don't we rename this thread to "atomikpsycho just got pwn3d" or something?

I don't really watch T.V. so I'm not terribly concerned.

Planet of the Apes anyone?

I thought I'd make a thread dedicated to linking to skeptical inquiry and/or debunking sites and books. You guys can add anything you want here that you find is good. Anyways, here's for starters: Quackwatch Skeptic's Dictionary Donald Simanek's Pages The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan

I agree too. ============================================= Perhaps a warning that debates can get quite heated too? I don't mind heated debates, but I do think that we should try and decide where to draw the line between "heated" and then just plain bashing and other immature behavior.

Well, I really don't think any of us can provide that one answer you are looking for, because there just isn't any. There are several reasons for why people would believe in incredulous and insane things, such as indoctrination, fear, wishful thinking, spiritual experiences, mental illness, inadequate training in formal thinking, ignorance, stubborness, laziness, false memories, suggestibility, etc. you know, the works. As irritating as frustrating as that is, it seems to me that humans just have the natural ability for being suckers and/or for looking for any justification for denying hard facts when they become too inconvenient. And I'm pretty certain that none of us here on SFN is innocent of holding such biases and delusions. I know that I have at various times in my life found believing in total nonsense to be very tempting, because it just has some sort of emotional lure to it. But the difference between me and most everyone is that I know how to catch myself and I know how to distinguish BS from everything else. Most people have a hard time being able to do that, especially since "everyone else" seems to believe in these things, and there are few people out there teaching the general public the art of distinguishing BS. If that doesn't answer your question, well, then, there really is nothing else I can do.

Well, how exactly do you know that? It's not like any effort was made to determine that from what I can tell... For example, why don't we make a thread (or just use this one) and on there the membership along with mods or admins can throw out any suggestion or express how they think the P&R forum should be like, such as what kinds of topics are acceptable, how they should make arguments, where to draw the line between bashing and preaching, who should be allowed to post, and so on. And then at the same time, we could randomly select a number of members to be potential candidates as to who will moderate the subsection (and/or take the responsibility of moving topics to and from that subsection should it deem necessary). Of course, if they don't wish to moderate that particular subsection they can say so. And, I will be happy to volunteer if no one else will do it.

You could also look at the possibility of liquid water on Mars too. While the existence of liquid water on Mars is uncertain in this day and epoch, it has been suggested that liquid water may have existed in large quantities a long, long time ago. Indeed, there is clear evidence all over the surface of Mars that liquid water may have existed. But, but.... what about that photo of a goat, the face on mars, and the efforts by the government to coverup such information!!! It's all a vast global conspiracy I tell you

Why don't we all come up with a set of restrictions that we all can agree on if we do actually decide to bring the P&R forum back? That and decide who should be qualified to moderate it?

I don't mean to be necroing, but I want to bump this up... Anyways, I think ChuckWest rightfully belongs here for his rather silly nuclear technology conspiracy. It was hilarious.

That's the spirit! Anything that comes out of the mainstream media is always reliable and trustworthy, open minded, and unbiased ================================================= Personally, I don't know why people seem to like Obama so much over here. The only reason I voted for him was because he seems a little bit more sincere about his motivations, that and I don't want to start a Bush-Clinton dynasty.

I guess it probably because there is much more of an emotional lure to believing total crap.

Haha, atomikpsycho just got OWNED!!!!! you hear me, OWNED!!!!!

here's the raw data: http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1051a1IowaDems.pdf

ad hominem much? I don't think that his particular POV indicates lack of independent thought. But why though? I'm pretty sure that they can build that themselves, unless you are talking about the ability to organize the effort to do so...

I don't know if it is just that particular one. The Constellation program does not just have one particular goal however; it is also an effort to revamp the entire space fleet and NASA itself. That is why it is critical, cutting funds to that could easily put the entire organization in serious trouble (not that it wasn't already in one beforehand). In any case, NASA has been the target of massive budget cuts ever since the Apollo days, and it has taken a toll on their ability to do any space-based project or research in general, never mind the ability to pursue more ambitious goals. Some people don't really realize the benefits of space-based research because, well, it is something that we don't experience in everyday life. But, was it not for research into manned and unmanned spaceflights, the computer you are posting on right now in front probably would not exist. Neither would reliable weather forecasts, knowledge of global warming (global warming was first discovered on Venus), modern firefighting and scuba-diving equipment, various medical advances (especially regarding disease resistance), sanitation, modern and theoretical physics advances, internet, etc. A lot of technology and products we use today came directly from research into manned spaceflight. It is an important part of our everyday lives, and, well, people also do have some sense of adventure too, even though that is more aesthetic than practical. =============================================== I'm not saying that education isn't important, but just how is more money going to solve our already dire situation on that front? I get the feeling that the only reason they look at throwing more money at the problem is because people are just too damned stubborn and lazy to actually make little changes in their habits or methods or their daily lives. It is, after all, much more convenient to do to use money rather than going out and doing something about it, of which might actually have an affect. It sounds good too, after all; who could oppose putting more money into something that everyone wants by taking it away from someone or something that nobody cares about?