Science joke du jour

Chemist #1: Know any good jokes about sodium?
Chemist #2: Na.

Addendum: Jon Singer added this rimshot:

Chemist #1: Well, okay. Let's consider potassium, then.
Chemist #2: K.

Addendum from Brian Gonzalez:

Q. What do you call an amalgam of sulfur, thorium, and ferric uranium ore?
A. STFU.

Science joke du jour

The world's smallest Klein bottle

There should be a drumroll for this.

The world's smallest Klein bottle, also available as earrings or a necklace.

The world's smallest Klein bottle

Video from a homemade spacecraft

Luke Geissbuhler built a weather balloon spacecraft in Brooklyn and let it go. It flew up to 100,000 feet, the upper stratosphere. The curve of the earth and the blackness of space are plainly visible. Wow.

Homemade Spacecraft from Luke Geissbuhler on Vimeo.

Video from a homemade spacecraft

The Old Weather project

I'd not thought of this, but it's a wonderful use of people's time and interest. The Old Weather project has people looking at Royal Navy ship's log books from around the time of World War I to recover worldwide weather observations. The project then uses the transcriptions for climate model projections. There's an historical element, too: the website says that historians will use this information to track past ship movements and the stories of the people on board.

The Old Weather project

Men and porn

This is an interesting and amusing article:

Researchers were conducting a study comparing the views of men in their 20s who had never been exposed to pornography with regular users.

But their project stumbled at the first hurdle when they failed to find a single man who had not been seen it.

"We started our research seeking men in their 20s who had never consumed pornography,” said Professor Simon Louis Lajeunesse. “We couldn't find any."

That's not a surprise, really: men are men and, as Jeff Foxworthy says, men's motivations tend to boil down to "I'd like a beer and I'd like to see something nekkid!" But what was rather interesting was that porn wasn't the corrupter of sexual preferences that it's popularly made out to be:

The study found that men watched pornography that matched their own image of sexuality, and quickly discarded material they found offensive or distasteful.

Prof Lajeunesse said pornography did not have a negative effect on men's sexuality.

“Not one subject had a pathological sexuality,” he said. “In fact, all of their sexual practices were quite conventional.

“Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship, which they all want to be as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” he added.

So, men like looking at dirty pictures (quelle surprise!) and it doesn't change their basic sexual makeup.

Men and porn

How well do you see colors?

I always thought I had a pretty good sense of color. Turns out I do. This test will help you identify your color sensitivity and where you have trouble with particular hues.

I scored 4 on this test. (0 is perfect.) 

How well do you see colors?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now we know!

Scientists have determined that the chicken came first. How do they know that? To form the egg shell, there needs to be a protein in the ovaries of the chicken, which means that at some point, there was an animal that developed this protein and was able to lay eggs. So the chicken did indeed come first.

It's fun to know that, but the article points out that there are potential applications for this knowledge.  But for a Friday after quitting time, I'll go for the baseline idea and be happy right with that. 

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now we know!

Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D

I've always liked what the Hubble Telescope does and the insights it brings. The Ultra Deep Field photograph is an amazing photo; as the video clip says, it may be the most important photo ever taken. This video clip shows the galaxies from the photo in a 3D rendering.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D

Caffeine, my drug of choice

My drug of choice these days is caffeine. (My previous drug of choice was something far more deadly, far more dangerous, and the most addictive substance known to humankind according to the CDC. God, I miss smoking even after 33 years....)

Anyway, this article from Lifehacker is something fascinating about caffeine and how it works.

Caffeine, my drug of choice

Repost: 6 slacker behaviors that are good for you

Cracked.com has really fascinating and funny articles. Here's one worth reading: it's about six different behaviors that are actually good for you, such as smoking weed (which appears to prevent cancer and Alzheimer's), sleeping in late (ensures you're getting enough), and wasting time on the Internet (which keeps your mind alive).
 

Repost: 6 slacker behaviors that are good for you

There's a reason we're geeks!

And this is it!

There's a reason we're geeks!

Jedi Mind Trick, Do You Can!

This article describes a nifty little toy that lets you control the motions of a ball purely with brain waves.

Jedi Mind Trick, Do You Can!

What the heck? It *is* the music of the spheres!

This article talks about astronomers recording the sounds made by stars using the Corot space telescope. There are recordings of three stars, including the Sun.

Professor Ian Roxburgh of Queen Mary College, London is among those trying to work out what the sounds from the stars tell us about processes occurring inside stars.

"It's not easy," he says "It's like listening to the sound of a musical instrument and then trying to reconstruct the shape of the instrument".

Fascinating stuff!

What the heck? It *is* the music of the spheres!

Hurrah for a little-known scientist: Llewellyn Imbesi!

This just came in from Tom Ciborowski, an old friend who sends great email.

Most of you are probably not aware of the fact that August 13th is the birthday of Llewellyn Imbesi (1854-1928). While he is for the most part unknown, one of his discoveries of nature has been enshrined as "Imbesi's Law for the Conservation of Filth."

"For something to become clean, something else must become dirty."

An interesting note is the fact that in 1937, Merryweather Freeman added the following, known as "Freeman's Extension to Imbesi's Law of the Conservation of Filth."

"Yes, but one can get everything dirty and get nothing clean."

Q.E.D.

Hurrah for a little-known scientist: Llewellyn Imbesi!

I'm not sure where to go with this

Is this the desperate act of a bunch of overmatched and incompetent people who are challenged by the task of tying their shoes... or is it a brilliant ploy to bring in expert assistance into a group known for breeding imagination and foresight out of the system? I really can't tell, although it could be both, I suppose.

Whatever it is, it's weird. It's really weird.

I'm not sure where to go with this

My Gawd, this explains a lot!

I sure hope this scientist wins the Nobel Prize. Could be for Medicine, could be for Peace; works either way, really.

My Gawd, this explains a lot!

Artwork from your DNA

All right, there are strange things in this post-modern world of ours and this one's nowhere near the strangest... but it's the strangest one I've seen so far today.  Here's a website for creating artwork from your DNA, so whatever you get is going to be truly unique. 

Mind you, I do like the blue and gold one very much but I'm enjoying the colors as much as anything else. 

Artwork from your DNA

IDiots

I think it's delightully apt to identify intelligent design proponents as "IDiots." It fits on just so many levels. Yes, there are certainly questions of "How did the universe get here?" and "Where is 'here', anyway?" and other measures of the vastness of it all, but intelligent design is just fundamentalist Christian drivel wrapped up in a wrapper of pseudo-science. I'm reminded of the last verse of "Have a Nice Day" by Mark Graham, one of the two kings of Mongrolia (the Land of Mongrel Folk).

We believe in the creation, evolution is a sham,
And for you awful humanists we do not give a damn,
‘Cause we believe in science when the word of God agrees,

And we believe in science that destroys our enemies.

There's a great article in Scientific American that addresses 15 of the popular arguments of creationists and other IDiots. I've always loved the basic concept that IDiots usually don't understand what a "theory" is in scientific terms. You can tell that they're going off-tangent at that point and headed for the horizon. The article also had the results of a survey that correlated the belief in intelligent design with lack of education: in other words, the more ignorant you are in general, the more likely you are to believe this twaddle.

Mind you, all this does give us some guidelines for society in general. Someone suggested (purportedly in a letter to a San Luis Obispo newspaper, although I've not been able to find the provenance for this) that we don't need to vaccinate absolutely everyone against the next possible flu pandemic.

SOME DON'T NEED VACCINE

Recent news about the avian flu virus has raised concerns from main street to the White House. There is the possibility, even likelihood, that the virus will mutate into a form that can more easily infect humans. As the president pointed out, a vaccine cannot be made until this evolution occurs. This raises the concern that it may be impossible to create enough vaccine fast enough to protect all our citizens.

But there is hope. Gallup polls tell us that up to 45 percent of Americans don't believe in evolution. Since random mutation is the engine of evolution, these same people must believe that the virus cannot mutate.

Therefore, there is no need to waste vaccine on folks who believe there is no possible threat to themselves--thus leaving a sufficient supply for the rest of us.

Perhaps the president, given his doubts about evolution, may wish to demonstrate his leadership by foregoing vaccination. This approach has added benefits. Polls also tell us that disbelief in evolution is more pronounced among the less educated, the poor and conservatives. If the anti-evolutionists among these groups were to opt out of vaccination then, through immediate deaths and natural selection, we would reduce poverty, raise educational attainment, and become a more progressive society.

(One secondhand online source lists a name and address for the writer, but I am omitting it intentionally.)

IDiots: can't live with 'em, can't live... uh... with 'em.

IDiots

A guest appearance

In one of those delightful bits of synchronicity, I just got this this morning from an old friend of mine, Gus diZerega. Gus is a man of diverse and wonderful talents. He's currently a visiting professor of Government at St. Lawrence University. He does amazing calligraphy and pen-and-ink artwork. (I still have some of the stationery he used to make and sell years and years ago.) He's fun. Gus sent me the following piece, which you are welcome to copy in its entirety and reproduce far and wide.

---

Intelligence and the Nature of the Designer
Copyright 2005 by Gus diZerega

Intelligent Design (ID) theory has been attacked as unscientific, offering a false alternative to evolution. I think this criticism is mistaken. ID is a theory with genuine scientific content.

Most scientists agree that to be considered a scientific hypothesis, a theory must be testable. If a theory can never be rebutted, it is not scientific. Advocates of ID claim life's extraordinary complexity, and its creatures' fine-tuning to their environment is evidence of deliberate intent. So, one way to evaluate the argument is to look for evidence of flawed design.

At first glance, the evidence looks pretty bad for ID theory. Consider the human back, the source of so much pain and suffering for so many people. Backbones apparently work well enough for four legged animals, but perform more poorly for us two-leggeds. One might imagine a competent designer would have done a better job.

Anyone noticing their cat or dog can drink and breathe at the same time might be forgiven a moment of envy, because we cannot. Cats and dogs never need the Heimlich maneuver. Sometimes we do. Again, this seems a case of flawed design.

The arcuate cruciate ligament in our knees is enables us to walk upright. Unfortunately, its positioning also makes it very susceptible to damage. Four-leggeds do not have this problem. Might better design have relieved us of it?

Every human eye has a blind spot, caused by a nerve that goes through the retina. No good audio-visual designer would design equipment with this feature. Why might an intelligent designer have done so?

The 'circle of willis' is a circle of arteries and veins surrounding the brain stem. As it regulates the blood that nourishes our brains, it is extremely important for our well-being. It is also very susceptible to failing under high blood pressure, leading to strokes. These veins are among the thinnest in the human body whereas a good designer would presumably have made them thicker and therefore less likely to burst.

Women give birth through the pelvis, a barrier that has caused the deaths of many women and infants. The design solution seems obvious: make pelvises wider. Alternatively, locate the birth canal elsewhere or enable women to lay eggs, or give them pouches like marsupials, so very tiny babies can grow larger safely.

Then, there is the male prostate gland, which is wrapped around the urethra. As men age it is prone to enlarging, making it difficult, painful, and sometimes impossible to pee. A good designer might have been expected to make it lie along side the urethra.

This list could be lengthened considerably. We have wisdom teeth when it seems wisdom would have eliminated the teeth. The appendix seems something largely unnecessary except occasionally to get inflamed, burst, and kill us.

These signs of bad design challenge ID theory, but they hardly rebut it. They only rebut the argument that the designer is omnipotent, omniscient, and good; characteristics the ID hypothesis need not posit. At least one of these traits has to be lacking, but a designer might still exist. The theory needs refining. Such a designer might instead be sadistic, incompetent, or lazy. Based on Genesis, we might choose laziness, or at least exhaustion, because that account claims we were made the sixth day and God needed to rest the seventh. Omnipotence can definitely be eliminated as a characteristic of the designer. But Genesis is not scientific, so let's stick with the physical evidence.

Like an archeologist exploring the ruins of an unknown people, using the styles and designs of their artifacts to deduce their interests and skills, we can tell a great deal from looking at what is well designed in us. One characteristic stands out prominently, giving us an important clue to the nature of a hypothetical designer: our sexuality. No other mammalian life form is so focused on sex, nor do any others have so many nerve endings so arranged that sexual activity is their source of greatest physical pleasure.

This evidence is powerful, but perhaps a bit disturbing. Our hypothetical Designer appears more interested in our sex lives than in our eating, breathing, drinking, walking, or other activities necessary for our existence.

If ID is true, we can now offer an educated hypothesis as to why we were designed: to produce pornography. Why else the unusual characteristics we have as humans, characteristics no other species needs to reproduce. A scientific theory of intelligent design offers powerful evidence that High Hefner may be closer to serving the will of his Creator than either Jesus or Buddha, who apparently practiced celibacy.

The most likely alternative to this hypothesis is evolution.

A guest appearance

We already could've guessed this...

...but it's lovely having one's opinions confirmed by scientific research.

Yes, it's true: too much religion in a society does make you socially backward and prone to murder, rape, and moral decay.

According to the Times today:

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

We all knew this--well, those of us who aren't damaged by this kind of belief, anyway--but it's wonderful to see this in print in something like the Times.

We already could've guessed this...