It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
In 1966, just over 50 years ago, the distinguished Canadian-born anthropologist Anthony Wallace confidently predicted the global demise of religion at the hands of an advancing science: ‘belief in supernatural powers is doomed to die out, all over the world, as a result of the increasing adequacy and diffusion of scientific knowledge’. Wallace’s vision was not exceptional. On the contrary, the modern social sciences, which took shape in 19th-century western Europe, took their own recent historical experience of secularisation as a universal model. An assumption lay at the core of the social sciences, either presuming or sometimes predicting that all cultures would eventually converge on something roughly approximating secular, Western, liberal democracy. Then something closer to the opposite happened. Not only has secularism failed to continue its steady global march but countries as varied as Iran, India, Israel, Algeria and Turkey have either had their secular governments replaced by religious ones, or have seen the rise of influential religious nationalist movements. Secularisation, as predicted by the social sciences, has failed. To be sure, this failure is not unqualified. Many Western countries continue to witness decline in religious belief and practice. The most recent census data released in Australia, for example, shows that 30 per cent of the population identify as having ‘no religion’, and that this percentage is increasing. International surveys confirm comparatively low levels of religious commitment in western Europe and Australasia. Even the United States, a long-time source of embarrassment for the secularisation thesis, has seen a rise in unbelief. The percentage of atheists in the US now sits at an all-time high (if ‘high’ is the right word) of around 3 per cent. Yet, for all that, globally, the total number of people who consider themselves to be religious remains high, and demographic trends suggest that the overall pattern for the immediate future will be one of religious growth. But this isn’t the only failure of the secularisation thesis. Scientists, intellectuals and social scientists expected that the spread of modern science would drive secularisation – that science would be a secularising force. But that simply hasn’t been the case. If we look at those societies where religion remains vibrant, their key common features are less to do with science, and more to do with feelings of existential security and protection from some of the basic uncertainties of life in the form of public goods. A social safety net might be correlated with scientific advances but only loosely, and again the case of the US is instructive. The US is arguably the most scientifically and technologically advanced society in the world, and yet at the same time the most religious of Western societies. .’
New York City has plenty to worry about from sea level rise. But according to a new study by NASA researchers, it should worry specifically about two major glacier systems in Greenland's northeast and northwest - but not so much about other parts of the vast northern ice sheet. The research draws on a curious and counter-intuitive insight that sea level researchers have emphasised in recent years: As ocean levels rise around the globe, they will not do so evenly. Rather, because of the enormous scale of the ice masses that are melting and feeding the oceans, there will be gravitational effects and even subtle effects on the crust and rotation of the Earth. This, in turn, will leave behind a particular "fingerprint" of sea level rise, depending on when and precisely which parts of Greenland or Antarctica collapse. Now, Eric Larour, Erik Ivins and Surendra Adhikari of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory have teased out one fascinating implication of this finding: Different cities should fear the collapse of different large glaciers. "It tells you what is the rate of increase of sea level in that city with respect to the rate of change of ice masses everywhere in the world," Larour said of the new tool his team created. The research was published in Science Advances, accompanied by an online feature that allows you to choose from among 293 coastal cities and see how certain ice masses could affect them if the ice enters the ocean. The upshot is that New York needs to worry about certain parts of Greenland collapsing, but not so much others. Sydney, however, needs to worry about the loss of particular sectors of Antarctica - the ones farther away from it - and not so much about the ones nearer. And so on.
At just 11 light-years from our Solar System, a newly discovered exoplanet is the second-closest we've ever found that's temperate enough to potentially host and sustain life. Earth-sized planet Ross 128 b orbits inactive red dwarf Ross 128 in the system's Goldilocks zone. This means it ticks all the initial habitability boxes: it's probably rocky, not gaseous; and it's at a distance from its star that means the temperature could be hospitable to life as we know it. It was found using the European Southern Observatory's High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher (HARPS) in Chile - the most precise instrument of its kind. And it took researchers a long time to nail down. "We started to observe this star in July 2005," astronomer Nicola Astudillo-Defru of Geneva Observatory told ScienceAlert. "Since 2013, our monitoring started to be more intense, and only after acquiring 157 observations was the signal of the planet strong enough to be detected." Here's what we know about Ross 128 b so far. It's 1.35 times the mass of Earth. This means it's most likely a rocky planet since - as far as we know at least, gas planets tend to be giants. That's the other point in favour of Ross 128 b being a rocky planet: it's relatively close to its host star. In fact, it's 20 times closer to its star than Earth is to the Sun, and completes an entire orbit in 9.9 days. Why isn't it too hot for life? Ross 128 is a cool, faint red dwarf. It emits less radiation than our yellow Sun, so Ross 128 b receives only about 1.38 times more irradiation than Earth. Its equilibrium temperature is estimated to be between -60 and 20 degrees Celsius (-76 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit). In terms of flares, the star is also much quieter than other red dwarfs - such as Proxima Centauri, the red dwarf around which orbits our closest extrasolar planetary neighbour, Proxima Centauri b. So conditions on Ross 128 b are likely to be much more stable.
originally posted by: ketsuko
I know what you mean.
I've been fighting an infestation of camellanus worms in mu newly established fish tank. Camellanus means that by the time you realize you have them, at least one of your fish has a literal buttload of worms and likely all the fish in your tank are infested.
They do not sell an aquarium medication for them. In order to figure out how to treat the little bastards, you have to venture the dark spaces of hobby forums. I've had to order a packet of ovine stomach worm drench containing levamisole HCL and thankfully my husband works in a laboratory setting and can handle to math to help me prepare the proper dosage to worm my fish.
But camellanus in general have been getting more common in the pet trade and they will end up killing all your fish and commercially available parasite meds like Prazi-Pro don't work.
originally posted by: Groot
Maybe we should all come together , with no pressure, and share info with no ties.
Kind of like, " I read this today" and leave it at that for someone else to use and share .
So many times , I come across stuff and feel like sharing it, but making a thread about it is just not what I want to do.
I research alot and just want to share without the hassle of dealing with maintaining a thread.
Know what I mean?
What do you think? What type of system would entice you to post the information you deem important or interesting in a new thread? See, this thread is already extracting a price from the creator
originally posted by: LookingForABetterLife
I've put of creating a number of threads myself. These are ideas that pop into my head while I am trying to fall asleep. Once awake I either forget about them or don't see the point as someone on ATS has bound to post it already or I feel that my threads will be so out of the norm that not too many folks will want to read them.