How can we make low-energy concrete for the Moon or Mars — or, Earth?
The C18 rediscovery/ re-invention of concrete . . . it had apparently been made by the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians [–> earlier, the Nabataeans] (and many natural, volcanic or sedimentary rocks are concrete-like) . . . opened up a world of new building possibilities; especially, when it is reinforced by steel. As, we can see all around us. But, concrete here uses a high energy process based on limestone, so how can we break through such barriers for the Moon or Mars? And, how could this be relevant to our home world, Earth? We could look at bones and teeth. For: >>The minerals found in human teeth and bones that give them their hardness and strength belong to a group Read More ›
Test: If naturalists are right, totalitarian states should be just as creative as free ones
At Aeon: Religion, science, and post-modernism
Are God and science good chemistry?
Fossilized Cambrian arthropod brains found
Sabine Hossenfelder proposes superdeterminism” to replace quantum mechanics
At New Scientist: Our puny human brains can’t imagine alien life
One of the biggest science stories of the last decade: The Descent of Man gets crowdsourced
Claim: The tree of life may have only two major branches
Chipping away at the millions of habitable exoplanets…
Legal activism as one of the threats to science
Consciousness: Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci skates around the main problems
drc466 exposes the argument from incredulity fallacy
Here at UD, we will headline particularly noteworthy comments spotted in discussion threads. Today, drc466 has a gem, in the Show a Natural OoL for $10 mn prize thread,: drc466 , no. 21:] “there is nothing more irritating than the constant (invalid) refrain from evolutionists of “argument from incredulity”. And the variant “God of the Gaps” or “Goddidit” accusations. When a scientist, engineer, or layman for that matter, conclusively demonstrates mathematically or empirically that something is impossible, that is not an “argument from incredulity”. It is a proof requiring evidence to the contrary. Say, for example, that I make the claim “Iron doesn’t float”. That’s not an argument from incredulity, that is a positive hypothesis based on experimental observation that Read More ›
A note on technology-driven economic long waves (aka, the ghost of “Kondratiev” roars)
Nikolai Kondratiev was a Russian economist in the 1930’s who was shot by Stalin on September 17, 1938, because he had the integrity and courage to say the economic crisis of that decade, on statistical evidence, was largely a generation(s) length cyclical oscillation; not the Crisis of Capitalism leading to global Socialist Revolution that Marxist theory as understood by Stalin demanded. (Echoes in current debates on trends vs oscillations in climate trends etc are not coincidental. [Note, climate, technically, is a 30+ year moving average of weather.]) Joseph Schumpeter picked up his thought, and there has been a (somewhat marginalised/ “misunderestimated”) school of thinking on long waves across time. One aspect of that, has been a focus on how key Read More ›