100 Interesting Science Facts

page: 3
59
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Fact # 13 is my favorite




posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
If you look at the whole list and really think about it.. about them as being facts.. at least one third would go Poof, perhaps more.

Now if you said these were a bunch of interesting speculations then they can all stay.. they wouldn't have to be correct.

Even so.. Bravo to the guy who found this post because it still may teach us about things we don't know. Good Job.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


"According to UN projections"

It's just a projection, there's no way to have an exact figure is there? the moment you get a figure it will change.

I'm not too sure how stating a population figure is pulling the wool over our eyes...plus the figure isn't outrageous...

[edit on 13/11/09 by Chadwickus]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


"According to UN projections"

It's just a projection, there's no way to have an exact figure is there? the moment you get a figure it will change.

I'm not too sure how stating a population figure is pulling the wool over our eyes...the figure isn't outrageous...


It could be.. we are given no information on what data they used for those projections. The number could be off by several tens of millions. It still doesn't constitute a fact in my opinion.. that's like saying " Its a fact that the Sun may make you warm."




[edit on 13-11-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by doogle
 



Yeah.. the Blood Cell thing was Great. I didn't think of that. Wish I would have.. Big Kudos!



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   
there are some wrong ones on there, cant be arsed to point them out , see if anyone else can spot them



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The astronauts brought back rocks from the moon.
NASA did carbon dating on them. 4.6 Billion years old


Every one of the 'facts' posted is simply assumed to be true based on evidence.

Ok, firstly - carbon dating doesn't 'prove' anything - it is a piece of evidence with a rational theory behind it. It is a model with data, nothing more.

Secondly - you can't carbon date rocks, you need something organic.

Thirdly carbon dating is related to the exchange of carbon isotopes in Earths atmosphere - not terribly useful for dating moon rocks.

Don't be fooled by facts - nothing can be proven - but we can understand.

PS: I think the moon is a lot older than the earth, but arrived in our orbit not that long ago - maybe 12-15,000 yrs. Unfortunately - I, like anyone else, cannot furnish any facts to substantiate that. Of course, I do have evidence, and a rational model. ;P

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Alaska Man

I cant believe people can copy and paste an entire thread and and still get on the top page of ATS.



BAD BAD


[edit on 13-11-2009 by justin credible]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by justin credible]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
people these are " FUN FACTS", not to be confused for "FACTS" .

a theory is just that, a theory. an average is just that, and average. an estimation is just what it is, an intelligent calculation with a high 'probability' of being true. no one really knows when the dinosaurs lived or died, all time spans are approximated, carbon dating is an approximation, so are any other methods like it.

like it was said a few posts before, all of those theories are subject to change. just like the flat earth theory....


these are 'fun facts' you tell your kids so they give you the cutest wide-eye- look in the world


good conversation starters too, sparks human interest


- oh and time is an illusion. [edit]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by deadlysponge]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The astronauts brought back rocks from the moon.
NASA did carbon dating on them. 4.6 Billion years old


You cannot carbon date rocks. Nasa has done no such thing and the moons age is as yet undetermined and only theoretically guessed at.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

91/ The mortality rate if bitten by a Black Mamba snake is over 95%.



I guess the 5% that survive get to the hospital and take some antivenom.


When warding off a bigger threat or feeling very threatened, the black mamba usually delivers multiple strikes, injecting its potent neuro- and cardiotoxin with each strike, often attacking the body or head, unlike most other snakes. It can strike up to 12 times in a row. A single bite from a black mamba injects enough venom to kill anywhere from 20–40 grown men, easily killing one unless the appropriate anti-venom is administered in time....Males are equipped with hemipenes, or a dual set of penises. Copulation is prolonged. When breeding takes place, two mambas twist their bodies together and begin mating which can last up to 2 whole days.




Straying off topic a bit. so please excuse me:

One of the most intereting bits of footage I've seen was an African Badger taking on a mamba (badgers love to eat snakes). It wasn't actually a quick fight, taking several minutes with the Mamba inflicting multiple bites.
Whilst the badger did kill the Mamba, after about 10 minutes or so, the Badger stopped eating the Mamba and collapsed into what appeared to be a coma. At this point, it seemed all over for the Badger, with the film crew sharing the same sentiments. However, after about 20 minutes of being comatosed, and to the astonishment of all, the Badger came to and began his feasting again on the remains of the Mamba!!

A great film to watch - as long as you're not rooting for the Mamba


[edit on 13-11-2009 by mckyle]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by mckyle]



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Thanks for the read kind sir.

S+F



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   



Originally posted by doogle

...there are still tribes hidden in jungles that we don't know about.



How do we know they are there if we don't know about them?

Sorry, I'm in a facetious mood today for some reason...



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by djusdjus

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The astronauts brought back rocks from the moon.
NASA did carbon dating on them. 4.6 Billion years old


You cannot carbon date rocks. Nasa has done no such thing and the moons age is as yet undetermined and only theoretically guessed at.


I pointed out your mistake at the bottom of Page 1 of this thread.
Click on the link:
- Wikipedia Moon Rock -



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


It's hard to believe we have so many carbon dating experts on this
thread.

See the bottom of page 1.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amagnon

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The astronauts brought back rocks from the moon.
NASA did carbon dating on them. 4.6 Billion years old


Every one of the 'facts' posted is simply assumed to be true based on evidence.

Ok, firstly - carbon dating doesn't 'prove' anything - it is a piece of evidence with a rational theory behind it. It is a model with data, nothing more.

Secondly - you can't carbon date rocks, you need something organic.

Thirdly carbon dating is related to the exchange of carbon isotopes in Earths atmosphere - not terribly useful for dating moon rocks.

Don't be fooled by facts - nothing can be proven - but we can understand.

PS: I think the moon is a lot older than the earth, but arrived in our orbit not that long ago - maybe 12-15,000 yrs. Unfortunately - I, like anyone else, cannot furnish any facts to substantiate that. Of course, I do have evidence, and a rational model. ;P

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Amagnon]


So it is just a coincidence that the oxygen isotopes on the Moon are an exact match for those on Earth?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
And as far as the Moon's age goes, one of the methods used to get a relative age is by the tedious process of crater counting.



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by cowboys703
 


Well that sounds fun.

1,2,3,4...........oops the phone rang.
Where was i?
Lets start over. 1....2....3.....4



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
1. The speed of light is generally rounded down to 186,000 miles per second. In exact terms it is 299,792,458 m/s (metres per second – that is equal to 186,287.49 miles per second).
do you mean km not metres?



posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by doogleAnother thing... if there are 60,000 miles of blood vessels in the human body and an individual blood cell takes about 60 seconds to make a complete circuit of the body, does that mean that the average blood cell travels at 10,000 miles per second!?


If there are 6 million miles of roads in the US and it takes 48 hours to for a car to drive from LA to New York, does that mean the that the car traveled at 125,000 mph? No, because the car took one route, it didn't drive on every road in the country. A singled blood cell doesn't travel through every blood vessel in the body before returning to the heart.

[edit on 13-11-2009 by nataylor]





new topics
top topics
 
59
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join