Baby Astronaut

Seems a few others had the redirect problem too.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=newscientist+1uktimes

Who knows if newscientist.com is even aware of the problem, as I didn't find any reports by them online.

Wouldn't using geothermal energy result in cooling down our planet's interior, especially when its heat is used to such a massive extent?

Also, if we could move Earth, then it'd possibly be simpler to (instead) move the rogue planet just enough so that it doesn't collide with the sun

Do you by chance know which thread that was mentioned in, I am interested in seeing the person's reasoning.

Maybe thinking of another forum? Using the search, just one thread contains the words "fluorine + negativity". But the word "versatile" isn't found in any combination of those.

Also, that leaves a problem of how do we STOP... Last I checked the Earth has no "park" gear.

"Ready? Everyone to the opposite side and we jump at the same time. One, two..."

I shall now attempt to return us back on topic. Hopefully forever. And

ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever

Merged post follows:

Ok, for real

How many species would die? Mostly all of them, or everything but us and whatever's in our shelters? Unless of course we make huge domes where environments are kept survivable.

I believe we're getting off topic here

Moving Earth itself to a new home.

Talk about climate change (while it's enroute)

The uktimes.cn link is a redirect to the bestscan site which apparently has a fake antivirus for download. These sites are flagged as very dodgy.

Who in particular has flagged those sites?

Your anti malware must have that site listed in its database hence it notified you.

It was a false notification by the site itself (at the time I didn't have anti-malware installed). So had I clicked "OK" it would've probably done something naughty.

So I'd just like for someone with advanced protection/expertise to double check the Wikipedia link itself before I'd change it.

I followed a link to newscientist.com and got redirected to spam, don't know how exactly. Could a banner ad do that by itself?

Just want someone to check the link, that can do it safely (in other words please make sure you're a computer expert ).

Here's the path I took and the redirects according to my viewing history (on Firefox). I had gone to the Wikipedia link below and clicked on the footnote #11 link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger%27s_cat

11. Chown, Marcus (2007-11-22). "Has observing the universe hastened its end?". New Scientist. Retrieved 2007-11-25.

It began taking me to newscientist.com but (according to my history view) instead redirected me 2 or 3 times...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626313.800-has-observing-the-universe-hastened-its-end.html

Has observing the universe hastened its end? - physics math - 22 November 2007 - New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19626313.800-has-observing-the-universe-hastened-its-end.html

mg19626313.800-has-observing-the-universe-hastened-its-end.html

http://bestscan11.com/1/?sess=%3DWQ51jDwMS01MSZpcD0yMDguNTguMTE0LjI5JnRpbWU9MTI2NjMwOA0MaQ%3DO

Computer Security

http://1uktimes.cn/go.php?id=2006-51&key=0522c7066&d=1

go.php

At the end I had a pop up about my computer not being secure or whatever nonsense. I'd just like to make sure it wasn't a fluke and -- just as importantly -- isn't harmful.

Plus if not a fluke I'll remove the offending link from Wikipedia.

Martin, I had seen the TED video earlier in the year but it was nice to view it again. The way they moved from great scales to the ones we're more used to is neat. But something's off with his diagram of all the various universe epochs pieced together.

He mentioned projects like the galaxy redshift survey. Does it take into account the movements each galaxy (and/or cluster) long after their photons have reached us and where those galaxies would be now?

Since all the galaxies we've viewed are in far different positions today (as each galaxy's light reaching us is a snapshot of its distant past), wouldn't the filament shapes be an illusion created by piecing together the different epochs?

A bit perhaps like amoebas taking snapshots individually of cars in a human-scale racetrack, and then (in an image) placing each car according to its position when the camera took its picture -- in order to see who's in the lead -- rather than placing each car according to mathematical predictions of where it'd likely be.

Earlier this year I brought a similar matter up in another thread: Mapping the universe in "real time"?

It's possible I'm wrong and they've mostly accounted for changes in position when making the filaments diagram. I just wrote George Smoot an email to find out more. Below is a part of it...

I watched your Ted video on galaxy filaments and was interested in how you pieced together all the epochs into a visual whole.

A question: is the pieced-together diagram a visual representation of the universe "as is"? i.e. how it looks at this very moment. Because I can't help wonder how different that universe diagram would look after repositioning the older galaxies to their actual positions millions and billions of years later (i.e. today). Would the filaments retain their shape afterward?

oh and iNow, great link.

emphasis mine,

It's the multiworlds hypothesis, where everything that is possible happens, and you have exponentially many universes.

The key is "everything that is possible". It could be that at some juncture, your body's life capacity in every universe will have reached a point/threshold of where it's no longer a matter of (increasing or decreasing) likelihood, but of certainty. However, who knows really, the other universes if they exist could have unimagined possibilities.

Awesome. Martin, thanks.

I owe you a reputation. Must spread it around first.

Being naturally synthesized by a plant suggests that the chemical has had an evolutionary history.

A good point.

Our ancestors likely went through the natural selection dance with the plant or natural substance. Could be that at one point Vitamin __ was deadly to many people, but the survivors not only evolved to ingest it more safely, it's become essential for health (to us, their descendants).

What's important to keep in mind is any truly new synthesized formula hasn't withstood the evolutionary trial and error process happening in nature over long stretches of time.

I do agree with John Cuthber though it doesn't automatically become a rationale to simply pre-judge anything by its origins. Just be reasonably careful is what I'd like.

There are only few that have an open peer review, and even then it is mostly voluntarily. Besides that you will have to check the journal, as Klaynos said. If they do not describe a review process, it is not peer-reviewed.

Also a number of database (e.g. Pubmed) only list paper from peer-reviewed journals.

Would it normally list the sections that were peer reviewed...and how? (Like notes or whatnot)

Basically, check the journal website. If it's a peer-reviewed journal, it'll say as much. If it doesn't have a website, it's probably not worth reading.

Is there ever a claim of being peer-reviewed but it turns out false? How can one double-check if the reviewers are mostly unknown/anonymous?

Also, I'd like to bring up a point StringJunky made that I found surprising as well.

In bold...

Not even amongst professional scientists it seems. To quote from ajb and Klaynos in Baby Astronaut's thread about checking if something's been through peer review:

 

I don't think it is publicised who has reviewed papers. - Klaynos

 

Referees tend to be anonymous. I think this helps remove any possible hard feelings and resentment when rejecting papers.- AJB

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=46870

 

I was surprised to learn that the source of any scientific critique in the peer review process is anonymous.

 

If scientists can't take critical analysis on the chin from a transparent source, it's hardly surprising that laymen can't take it on these boards either!

How in the world can science operate most effectively without ultimate transparency in such a very important process? It didn't just baffle me to read that, it practically floored me, as I had an entirely different picture of how scientific review normally functions.

Just my opinion: it's of critical importance being able to backtrack and identify everyone in the process. It seems like more than just common sense.

The info that follows pissed me off, as I wondered how many other so-called "science" papers in circulation might be tainting not only science but all the hard work and level of accuracy that scientists built over centuries of discipline and peer review.

Merck pays Elsevier to publish fake journal

Merck Paid for Medical ‘Journal’ Without Disclosure

So then, looking up Elsevier I discovered more about the company that on further research led me to other faked studies by (its partner in crime) Merck and the familiar patterns of deceit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib#Fabricated_efficacy_studies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib#VIGOR_study

I don't think a lot of that could occur as easily if the process were more open.

In the first paragraph below, the description's indicative of less heat (coldness of a void). Yet in the second and third paragraphs, the description's more indicative of a rise in heat. But isn't each a description of the same place, thus contradictory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_medium#Intergalactic

Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a total vacuum. Certainly, the space between galaxy clusters, called the voids, is nearly empty. Some theories put the average density of the universe as the equivalent of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.[22][23] The density of the universe, however, is clearly not uniform; it ranges from relatively high density in galaxies (including very high density in structures within galaxies, such as planets, stars, and black holes) to conditions in vast voids that have much lower density than the universe's average.

Surrounding and stretching between galaxies, there is a rarefied plasma[24][25] that is thought to possess a cosmic filamentary structure[26] and that is slightly denser than the average density in the universe. This material is called the intergalactic medium (IGM) and is mostly ionized hydrogen, i.e. a plasma consisting of equal numbers of electrons and protons. The IGM is thought to exist at a density of 10 to 100 times the average density of the universe (10 to 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). It reaches densities as high as 1000 times the average density of the universe in rich clusters of galaxies.

The reason the IGM is thought to be mostly ionized gas is that its temperature is thought to be quite high by terrestrial standards (though some parts of it are only "warm" by astrophysical standards). As gas falls into the Intergalactic Medium from the voids, it heats up to temperatures of 105 K to 107 K, which is high enough for the bound electrons to escape from the hydrogen nuclei upon collisions. At these temperatures, it is called the Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium (WHIM). Computer simulations indicate that on the order of half the atomic matter in the universe might exist in this warm-hot, rarefied state.

It's been over a month, I just don't get your answer in the least. Perhaps the real question is simply can a boson exist by itself?

This is why I hate reading threads with my posts from 2004.

Wow, I jumped back in time to read some of your posts, and discovered a few somethings.

Like if anyone doubts evolution, we can now show them the indisputable evidence below (in order)...

2002

2003

2004

last year

And here's some cool links I picked up along my journey.

Planetary Highways (fafalone)

"New Form of Life" Claim (Sayonara³)

Human Cloning Go-Ahead for UK Scientists (Sayonara³)

And more blasts from the past of SFN 2002

New Meaning to Fuel Effeciency (kenel)

So long second law.. (blike)

Probably everyone's correct.

But I thought having seen it elsewhere other than here, for instance on gaming boards. However a search on google turned up just one page of hits for such requests.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=forums+"im+only+15"+"so+please+excuse"+my+spelling

...grammar, wild ideas, etc.

i.e. those online people who claim to be a younger age, usually in order to excuse their post's grammar or a wild idea.

But on a psychological level, do you think it completely natural for a kid to even highlight their age in such a circumstance?

I wouldn't think so. Actually seems like a cover either for asking (what they perceive to be) a "stupid" question, or their partly illegible grammar.

But let's hear what the experts say

Could be an oversight, but I don't recall it ever saying "peer-reviewed by _____ and _____" in a study or research printing.

It occurred to me as I was reading through papers in the Scholars Research Library. How can one tell what's been peer-reviewed or not?

The entry page has the above info, then if you click on the "Archives of Applied Science Research" link, you can browse papers or use the embedded google search on their page for narrowing it down to a term.

I'd like to be able to quickly tell which are the peer-reviewed ones -- and by who....like how many of the peer reviewers are trusted sources, for instance. Also, not just for that website, but I'd like to know for any scientific paper I happen across on the net which includes details on how they've conducted experiments and such.

We've had the bird flu possibly mutating into a human concern, and now the swine flu. Why don't our pets -- which spend way more time near us (i.e. humans) -- get a flu that spreads with the potential for mutating into something that affects humans? Why only birds and swine?

Is this going to be a regular occurrence now, with every few year a new animal might transfer a new flu strain to us? Maybe chicken flu, or hamster, garden snakes, etc.

Damn, that's awesome, but I can't make it do that. I wanted to get a screenshot.

Done. First try again, I got the bacon.

Merged post follows:

whoops, realized that I left out a quotation mark in the url of post #6 so the link doesn't work. Mind fixing it? Thanks.

Man, that was one prediction I made spot on.

It unfolded a bit at a time, first as I saw the Phi for All mention chemicals in a "negative" sense (all matter in existence is technically a chemical, far as elements are described), then as I saw the first response was by a chemistry expert, and finally the prediction was cemented just by reading the opening of that response.

I have been using stevia as alternative to artificial sweeteners for a few years now. It was blocked from import to the US until fairly recently...

Where's you get that info?

It takes a bit of getting used to. It's level of sweetening doesn't increase the more you use like sugar does (at least to me - if I use more than one packet it has a bad aftertaste to me).

Yeah, I thought the same. "Yuck" was my first impression. So naturally I hadn't tried it again, but later I realized maybe the aftertaste was because I tasted it straight and a little too much of it.

However, this year I planted a stevia in my garden and tried a leaf: once again staight but then it was good, no aftertaste.

" has none of the chemicals that artificial sweeteners rely on."

No, it has other chemicals instead. But since they are natural we know that they are all perfectly healthy.

Seriously, why even mention the "artificial vs natural" bit?

If there are adverse effects then that's independent of the origins of the material.

I realize that as a chemist you're probably annoyed by news and scare tactics portrayal of chemicals as dangerous. If you work for a company in developing new product, it can make that job extra difficult. Naturally you might respond a bit scoffingly.

But if so, you're missing a crucial point.

Here's a translation of "chemical" by many people who use it negatively: "a cheaper yet harmful alternative slipped into production by unscrupulous money-grubbers who's idea of business competition is to royally eff us in the A if that's what brings costs down and profits up, and who camoflauge their ill behavior among the good scientist and business leaders who do great things"

Agreed, chemical isn't the best word to use. Yet it doesn't make all concerns totally bunk. And what steps have you taken to check if both sides have legitimate and illegitamate concerns as well?

I do prefer natural even though I dismiss a great number of claims by advertisers. It's easy to dismiss a lot of such claims, as what's enticing also tends to draw the false adverstisements. But it's easy to support the other parts, as I do my research, and it's easy to see why people readily support natural food and edibles, as we're intimately familiar with putting natural things directly into our bodies -- for millenia no less. Plus it's stuff we can grow and see for ourselves, rather than depend on the word of a business (hidden away from scrutiny) that might only care about how green its pockets are stuffed.

But it doesn't mean lab-produced things are inherently worse, it just means there's a (psychologically) legitimate reason to distrust what's behind the curtain more that what's been (also grown) in front of us the entire time....after you factor in the large way some businesses have abused the public's trust.

And your concerns are legitimate as well. I support the use of dihydrogen monoxide as a lesson for people to investigate claims they hear and/or read before jumping the gun.

Not to mention, it's essential for people to recognize how much chemistry's improved the world.

But part of their concerns are legitimate as well.

Also if you look below, Phi for All wasn't speaking about chemicals in general. Just the ones specifically relied on by the artificial sweeteners.

I use it mostly in teas and find it gives a longer lasting sweet flavor than sugar and has none of the chemicals that artificial sweeteners rely on.

I sleep and you all are in my dreams.

How odd, I had a dream about that.

This is a side issue to my main work. Newton suggested that the universe is corpuscular in nature and that the fundamental structure of the universe is a structure of ‘great simplicity’. I have taken both of these statements and searched for that great simplicity.

I applaud the effort, yet I'm of little help in that area of knowledge, so can't verify or disprove what you've shown.

Spread over several submissions I have attempted to show that what we know about the force, matter, volume (radii) and wavelength of particles can be explained using vacuum force and the elasticity of matter. The conclusion is that there is only one elementary particle and only one elementary force.

That seems an entirely different beast than what you've presented here. I could see insane alien's misgivings, but even so I think if you provided the maths for a specific concept, that you did your part sufficiently at least for that one concept, regardless if your other stuff were bunk or not.....I really wouldn't know.

The discovery of element 122 has made it possible to extend the graph and tables so that they now become a complete prediction theory as shown by the table at bottom right on the graph.

But can you predict what types of elements the next discoveries will be, in advance? I'm not sure if you're claiming that, but if so, why not give us a list? Something we're able to check/verify in the future? Unless I'm wrong about the purpose of your Structural Table of Elements to begin with.

I am pleased to read that I am not alone in thinking the result is elegant, but I am most excited in being able to point out that it is as Newton wrote, a matter of ‘great simplicity’.

Just because it appears elegant doesn't mean it's correct. But your thread hasn't really gotten the full weight of the "criticism hammer" as would've a thread by most crackpots, so maybe that's indicative of something or maybe not.

What I'd like to know for sure: does your claim reduce/ignore the other scientifically established theories, or does it build upon it? I understand you're sort of branching into unexplored areas, rather than challenging modern understanding. Am I correct in that?