Name	-	To know who you are.
Avatar	-	To display with your posts and comments.
E-Mail	-	To send you updates and notifications. We will never send unsolicited mail.

I Love 'Science'

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'eureka!' but 'that's funny...' - Isaac Asimov

by Praveen Baratam

Edit

Alawys express your thoughts and ideas with relevant images and videos to communicate more effectively. There is a 1400 character limit on every post. The input box border turns 'Orange' when you are half way through and 'Red' after you reach the limit. Only line breaks are allowed in posts.

PS: You cannot create Posts until you reach Level 3 - More Info

Maven

Level 8

Praveen Baratam - 9 years ago Permalink Edit

A team of US researchers at Purdue University, Indiana have built a ping-pong gun that can fire balls at supersonic speeds of more than 400 meters per second or Mach 1.2. The gun fires a ping-pong ball faster than a supersonic F-16 jet.

And the gun they built is not some hell of a machine, its just beautiful science :-)

Freaking amazing!

Save Cancel

Super Sonic Ping Pong Ball

16 Comments - Show All

Praneeth Baratam, Evangelist - 9 years ago Edit

Knowing that most revolutionary inventions happened accidentally, I must say that it 'pays to play with science'.

Save Cancel

Nicholas Bc Shumate, Evangelist - 9 years ago Edit

The Question still remains: Application. All good science needs some form of application? Where do you see this fitting in?

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 9 years ago Edit

@Nicholas - Well, not every effort in the world of science is meant to culminate in a tangible application immediately. Applications may come later depending on how someone wants to exploit this principle for something useful. But for that somebody who is in search of a solution this principle can be yet another arsenal at his disposal. Lasers were invented long before they were exploited for anything useful and today we cannot imagine communications without them.

Save Cancel

Nicholas Bc Shumate, Evangelist - 9 years ago Edit

My fear is this will become another facet of the Human sickness for killing each other in the future. Einstein never imagined that he would use his greatest accomplishments to commit some of the greatest atrocities in human history

Save Cancel

Nicholas Bc Shumate, Evangelist - 9 years ago Edit

However Ping Pong fans every where just had wet dreams about one day training with something like that.

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 9 years ago Edit

@Nicholas - LOL. True! This principle could be used in some form of non-lethal arms that need to work with out an explosive mixture inside. On a side note, science gives us means and ways to achieve things. What we use them for is entirely up to us and the nuclear bomb apart from its debutant cruelty has averted major wars since then.

Save Cancel

Nicholas Bc Shumate, Evangelist - 9 years ago Edit

Agreed but through the means of fear, which is in of itself the definition of terrorism

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 9 years ago Edit

You got it wrong buddy! The world din't see another major war since 1945 because of 'Mutually Assured Destruction'. In the decade after Hiroshima, almost every major power developed nuclear capability and created a state of equilibrium in Europe and beyond. No power can now risk conflict and hence the prospects of another major war are greatly reduced if not nullified. Terrorism is not war persee but a method to resist a larger more powerful group / ideology with violence.

Save Cancel

Nicholas Bc Shumate, Evangelist - 9 years ago Edit

MAD is a terrifying concept isn't it? Terrorism isnt about violence. Violence is just a means to an end. The end is a very Machiavelli goal of getting what you want through what ever means necessary, and Fear is the strongest tool one could wield

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 9 years ago Edit

MAD is not as terrifying as it sounds. In fact conflict can only be avoided when every party knows that no one can win. Thats what every nation has aimed for in the past 6 decades. Nuclear Weapons are no longer intended to win a conflict but to avert conflict. As long as borders and different cultures exist, possibility of conflict cannot be discounted and nuclear capability is like an insurance for the nation in question. For a change fear is now playing a benevolent role in keeping peace.

Save Cancel

Nicholas Bc Shumate, Evangelist - 9 years ago Edit

But then you get the crack-head dictator with self esteem issues because he's short threatens to nuke a larger country. It only takes one moron with the their finger on the trigger and nothing to lose to kill just about every one. Yet after the cold war when the "Dismantling" began Both the United States and the Soviet Union's space programs were using the same rockets that were used to fly a radiated death bomb as to go to space, and they used uranium to power probes, yet neither went to them

Save Cancel

Nicholas Bc Shumate, Evangelist - 9 years ago Edit

contd... on either side, which would have been helpful right about now, could have saved a good buck and gotten rid of hazardous materials just like that. America is one big garbage man.

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 9 years ago Edit

Ofcourse, even though we are on a near ideal course, there are rogue nations, greedy nations, nations toppling legitimate democratic governments for access to minerals, etc. which continue to threaten the equilibrium. Nevertheless, if we look back there is relative peace after the invention of nuclear weapons than before them.

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 9 years ago Edit

@Nicholas - Looks like we are going off topic here... A topic about international diplomacy would be right place to discuss our ideas about these issues...

Save Cancel

Nicholas Bc Shumate, Evangelist - 9 years ago Edit

@Praveen- True, sorry about that, got a little carried away

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

I want to try this. Hope I remember to get around to it one nice afternoon. seems like it would be fun. spare pop cans to blasterize aren't hard to come by.

Save Cancel

There is a 500 character limit on every comment. The input box border turns 'Orange' when you are half way through and 'Red' after you reach the limit. Line breaks are not allowed in comments.

Post Comment Cancel

Evangelist

Level 4

Nicholas Bc Shumate - 8 years ago Permalink Edit

Suggests that humans have entered and cause a new Epoch, characterized by the adverse effects Humans have had on our world.
Some Geologists are of the mind that this is nothing more than a pop culture phase, but is there more to it than that?
100 years from now would it have an effect if our future children read of the time of Humans when ignorance ran like water among our race at the beginning of the Anthropocene Epoch, where we caused mass extinctions of various species, polluted the oceans, changed the Global temperature, perhaps permanently? Would they find themselves thinking "what was wrong with these people?" as we so often find ourselves doing upon reflection of our ancestors?
There is debate as to when the Epoch would begin, would it be at the start of the Industrial Revolution? The 1800's was a critical time period for Humanity, both for technology and growth. However it is also known that our most volatile changes today in temperature and sea levels started way back when we first started burning fossil fuels.
Should we focus so much on the Anthropocene Era as the epoch of Ignorance? Why not change the focus instead to an Era of solutions?

Save Cancel

Last 30 Comments - Show All

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

found "the great attractor", there's continued debate about the operation of black holes. And all of this is science that post dates the invention of GHG theory and warming theory by 10-20-30 years. GHG is obsolete because we know more now. GRACE mission, COBE, BICEP2, IBEX (or IPEX or something), SDSS, open access to accumulated information about the universe.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

can't totally agree. It is not clear whether the magnetic field is some kind of smoother/catcher/return system that balances out outbound emissions, in the same manner it protects us from surges of inbound. It could be the "bleed" valve that says we can''t change anything.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

we have measuerd and know that there is kinetic heat loss from earth. about 3.5 kg per second on average, of atmosphere reaches escape velocity, or enough velocity to reach altitude where solar wind whisks it away. I think the delta from balance point is called hydrostatic equilibrium, but that term can definitely describe other things as well. (you have to sort through some chafe when seeking info).

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

venus is a super special case it is in the stronget most certain "node" of gravity around the sun. so it's rotation, energy, size, etc, have remained very stable for 3 billion years. mercury changing quickly cause it is inside that. But venus is super stable and consistent.

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 7 years ago Edit

All the points you are talking about might have an effect on the energy budget of planet but not at the scale of GH effect. GH effect is a demonstrable and well understood effect. Why consider all the minutiae now. Lets focus on the question at hand. Greenhouse effect is real and observable. Agreed?

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

yes I am sure the so called "greenhouse effect" is legit.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

that molecules in the air catch more outbound radiation that less spectrum visible molecules do. each in their own range of spectrum catching bands.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

and do we agree that when they capture EM, the become more heated and kinetically active? and that they also have the ability to absorb heat through expansion, and that this expansion and contraction of the atmosphere happens daily anyways as we rotate under the sun?

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

and that there is no real good reason to believe that 10psi is 10 psi whether it is 100km think, or 101 km think, and therefor we must consider it, as well as hydrostatic euqilibrium, and spectrum overlap with water is HUGE and water MUCHLY overshadows CO2 and methane and the other GHGs.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

did you want a straight, "yes I agree in the greenhouse theory", and then have to bring these points up later, and backtrack on my yes? or do you like it this way, a qualified yes??

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

given with due prejudice, and reservation. (cause again, the term GHG does not do the situation justice. It just does not.

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 7 years ago Edit

@Alistair - he he. I am not trying to make you agree. Just explaining my point. We can consider your points and their effects soon after we consider mine. Now, dumping of CO2, Methane, etc. increases greenhouse effect increasing the temperatures in the short term. Agreed?

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

sighhh I wish I could answer with a straight yes, but I cannot. I will agree to the term greenhouse potential.if you insist on using the term greenhouse.at all. fair?

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

if we had to analogize and you would consider another analogy, I would more accurately and appropriately equate the earth to a frying pan on an oven set to 254, that has gas and a splatter shield above it, and is turning under and oscillating e/m field that more resembles a microwave oven than anything else.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

if we make a post, is there the ability for us both to edit it??

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 7 years ago Edit

@Alistair - Your posts are your ideas. I can comment on it and you can edit it later if you are convinced by the argument.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

or instead of getting pedantic, let's stick to facts, not ambiguous terms. Let's agree we dump produce/release/dump quantities of CO2, methane, etc. The nature of their existence to be further explored and determined.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

shall we start a post on Climate Change then, and build a discussion together.?? start with an index of forcings to co-relate against realized temperature. build instead of measure and theorize. Get to where we "know that we know what we know and don't disagree". Define the sandbox we are playing in. big picture first, work our way down to the details that are in contention. See if the big picture identifies andything that makes the details less significant in the grand scheme of things??

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 7 years ago Edit

You have a unique perspective to this situation. Lets finish of my argument here and you can create a post discussing your model of climate change. It will be very useful if you can quantify the forcings (not quote) you want to highlight. All I want to sensitize you to is - while the effect of GHGs can be seen as small it can kickstart many feed forward loops that may amplify the effects and cause much more damage than anticipated.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

yes I understand one of the initial fears was the "spiralling feedback loop". A few of the potential fears we had were unfounded. And the situation is shown it can correct itself quite easily and not end up spiralling. the changing of the tune to a heating staircase, because 98% of the predictions or 97% of the consensus scientist have failed to predict diddly squat.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

OK, Let's allow and proceed with the term GHG, and then well kick the crap out of it later.

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 7 years ago Edit

http://goo.gl/7xanZr - If you see this graph. Earth's temperature cools slowly (glaciation) but raises rapidly. With rising temperatures additional CO2 is released into the atmosphere from somewhere that helps maintain the higher temperature. Its also really abrupt. There should be some feed forward mechanism in action there.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

The ice age/glaciation cycle conforms pretty well to milankovich, I believe. do you?

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 7 years ago Edit

Let me get back to you on this. I need to read and assimilate some information before making a comment.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

from the graph you propose and that I agree is at least valid enough for use by us for these purposes, would you agree that there are many instances where the red line (carbon), lags behind the blue line (temp), so as to suggest temperature drives carbon? (as confirmed by current observation)

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

so from where the belief that carbon is a leader, I am 100% unclear. It seems much more likely it is co-related, and follows temperature/life mass.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

fair enough. I started a post called climate theory. PLEASE feel free to "splice into it" at your will. It will be easier to build one cohesive, sequential discussion, than play chat in the comments.

Save Cancel

Alistair Riddoch, Contributor - 7 years ago Edit

we can list agreed facts, agreed theories, agreed points of contention and there likelihood, potential impact, and agreed margin of error range in our disjointed belief.

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 7 years ago Edit

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But it need not be the culprit every time. In the said graph CO2 lags for the same reason. Something else is driving the change and CO2 system on earth is playing its part. That again does not mean that CO2 cannot start the change. Its just that in the studied events CO2 did not lead the change.

Save Cancel

Praveen Baratam, Maven - 7 years ago Edit

Great! You started a Topic! :-) We can discuss each forcing individually, debate its workings and magnitude of influence on the climate of earth. Someday may be we will throw enough light on the issue that a learned opinion can be formed about it. :-)

Save Cancel

There is a 500 character limit on every comment. The input box border turns 'Orange' when you are half way through and 'Red' after you reach the limit. Line breaks are not allowed in comments.

Post Comment Cancel

Who Stole Whose?

Very few people realize that a very useful innovation...

What Makes Us Evil?

Its sad that we have started to romanticize and lust for...

The Next Big Thing In Personal Computing

Aren't WiFi routers too dumb for today's digital...

The Miraculous Mind

This talk has changed my entire perception of life and...

The Applicious

The other day, me and my family were driving to a nearby...

♦	Create and mantain yet another profile.
♦	Remember one more username/password.

Your idea goes here...	POST
Attach: Image Video