It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# 100 Interesting Science Facts

page: 4
59
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by n00byn00b
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?

No, the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, not km per second.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 01:51 PM

4. 10 percent of all human beings ever born are alive at this very moment.

14. The Earth is 4.56 billion years old…the same age as the Moon and the Sun.

15. The dinosaurs became extinct before the Rockies or the Alps were formed.

23. One million, million, million, million, millionth of a second after the Big Bang the Universe was the size of a …pea.

you cant prove these

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:32 PM

Originally posted by erwalker

12. If you could drive your car straight up you would arrive in space in just over an hour.

It's generally accepted that space starts at the Karman Line, approx. 100 km (62 mi) above the surface of the Earth, where the velocity to maintain sufficient aerodynamic lift begins to exceed orbital velocity.

Assuming I could drive my car straight up, it would take around 35 s to reach its top speed of 255 km/h. To cover the rest of the distance would take approx. 24 minutes. So I wonder what auto the author was thinking of that would take over an hour? A Trabant maybe?
It's quite simple actually. They were talking about cruising at highway speeds (60mph)

I hope I don't have to help you with the math of covering approximately 60 miles @ 60mph...

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 02:33 PM

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

" 3. October 12th, 1999 was declared “The Day of Six Billion” based on United Nations projections. "

The Day of Six Billion - WHAT?? Days on the earth? There is NO WAY they could know that!!

More Proof that the U.N is part of the NWO and trying to impose it's views on the people.

Oh and there's a bunch of others I don't agree with but this one sticks out cus it's the silliest. I am shocked no one else bothered to question it!
Umm, 6 billion people on earth.

Nobody else questioned it because we have common sense.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 06:56 PM

Carbon dating is not accurate 100% every time.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:19 PM

Don't you think they are in the ball park?
Earth is around 4 billion years old.
The moon is around 4 billion years old.
Our sun is about 4 billion years old.

How about the age of the entire universe?

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 07:57 PM

Originally posted by djusdjus

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

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.

True nobody has done carbon dating on moon rocks. The rubidium-strontium dating method was used, showing the age to be 3-4.5 billion years old. These methods are not perfect, but they are based on known science, and I would not call them guesses.

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:15 PM

Spoken like a true scientist.
Are you a government scientist?

Scroll down to Rubidium-Strontium

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Eurisko2012]

[edit on 13-11-2009 by Eurisko2012]

posted on Nov, 13 2009 @ 08:57 PM

Originally posted by BornintheUSSA

Originally posted by erwalker

12. If you could drive your car straight up you would arrive in space in just over an hour.

It's generally accepted that space starts at the Karman Line, approx. 100 km (62 mi) above the surface of the Earth, where the velocity to maintain sufficient aerodynamic lift begins to exceed orbital velocity.

Assuming I could drive my car straight up, it would take around 35 s to reach its top speed of 255 km/h. To cover the rest of the distance would take approx. 24 minutes. So I wonder what auto the author was thinking of that would take over an hour? A Trabant maybe?
It's quite simple actually. They were talking about cruising at highway speeds (60mph)

I hope I don't have to help you with the math of covering approximately 60 miles @ 60mph...

Oh my god, I would never have thought of that. Thank you so much for pointing that out. What would I do without your incredible insight?

Of course, I don't think anyone has set a speed limit for travelling straight up. Please correct me if I am wrong!!!

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:34 AM
Great facts. I never knew a lot of those.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 06:27 AM
if you drove your car up you would reach space in about an hour?????

doesnt that depend on how fast you are going? it doesnt mention speed so that "fact" is null and void

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:46 AM
2. It takes 8 minutes 17 seconds for light to travel from the Sun’s surface to the Earth.

Interesting...

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 03:10 PM

14. The Earth is 4.56 billion years old…the same age as the Moon and the Sun.

Surely the SUN would have had to have existed before the completion of the planets.?

I thought that the theory of a large, rotating disk of debris, needed a central driving force...

first disk=MilkyWay driven by theoretical Black Hole,
second disk= our forming solar system around a proto Sun,
third disk= the forming planets, compacting around an ever strengthening, gravitational core

...like embedded epicycles, reducing in scale and influence.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 04:18 PM
Thanks for the thread - S&F. Although I don't have the time to read all 100 at the moment, I read all of the ones in the OP and found a lot of them interesting.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 05:26 PM
Answer to the OP first post.

These scientific facts are showing us that relative to the measurable speed of light (as discovered scientifically) at any stationary point in space as a reference point we would use to measure speed of light and considering the actual speed of the earth as it travels through space adding the angular speed of any given point of it on its surface and measure the combined speeds in the relation to the same relatively static reference point in space we used to measure light speed, we find that any point on the surface on earth travels through space with a measurable speed only 10 times slower than the speed of the light itself. Yet the speed of light if measured from the surface of the earth it will be the same as the relatively stationary reference point in space we both used to measure the speed of light and the combined speeds of earths rotation and earths traveling speed.

Therefore it is a fact that we don't really know what's going about the speed of light having us as a reference point OR we don't really know what is going on having a relatively stationary point in space as a reference point relative to us, OR we don't really don't know what's going on about both situations, which both are the only reference we can use to observe our reality.

HOW CAN WE TALK ABOUT FACTS? If the only FACT we can deduct from the above realizations is that we can't understand *snip* about what is really going on of how "reality" works.

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).

5. The Earth spins at 1,000 mph but it travels through space at an incredible 67,000 mph.

Facts? What facts?

I have to always laugh when science is talking about facts.
It feels like every time science has to confirm itself with a "FACT" to prove a point, the path to knowledge and understanding (relative to the problem being examined) branches to a different direction ending up spiraling around our initial perception of the said problem, thus we end back at where we started. That is what is wrong with current science. The way it chooses to perceive and test things. There can be no solid facts about anything. The simplest experiment is to try to understand how light behaves. Everything is relative to what we perceive and if we can perceive it or not, or how much of something we can perceive. We can't even explain light which is everywhere. Think about it.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by spacebot]

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 07:26 PM
EXCELLENT post. Much thanks to the OP for this fascinating info.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 08:03 PM
Nice post, some decent facts.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 08:08 PM
One of the most interesting papers on the speed of light was from a scientist who works with celestial mechanics and at one time worked for NASA.

ldolphin.org...

Dr. Tom Van Flandern wrote : The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptable on two counts. In the first place, it seemed to be a form of “action at a distance”. Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton: “That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it.

The second objection was that we had all been taught that Einstein’s special relativity (SR), an experimentally well-established theory, proved that nothing could propagate in forward time at a speed greater than that of light in a vacuum. Indeed, as astronomers we were taught to calculate orbits using instantaneous forces; then extract the position of some body along its orbit at a time of interest, and calculate where that position would appear as seen from Earth by allowing for the finite propagation speed of light from there to here. It seemed incongruous to allow for the finite speed of light from the body to the Earth, but to take the effect of Earth’s gravity on that same body as propagating from here to there instantaneously. Yet that was the required procedure to get the correct answers.

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 08:56 PM

Originally posted by ironbutterflyrusted

14. The Earth is 4.56 billion years old…the same age as the Moon and the Sun.

Surely the SUN would have had to have existed before the completion of the planets.?

I thought that the theory of a large, rotating disk of debris, needed a central driving force...

There is a theory that really early on in our solar system we were actually a binary system (2 stars, actually most solar systems are binary) And then something happened, one star was left and presumably loads of spare material to make the planets...

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:52 PM

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Oh .. O.k. it's Six Billion people.. No Problem.. the same.. There is NO WAY they could know that!.. Remember these are supposed to be FACTS.. and facts Must be provable to be considered Facts!

About the NWO.. no one in their right mind would claim such nonsense unless they were trying to pull the wool over someone eyes. The powers that be of the NWO seek to do just that.. so if the U.N make such outrageous claims as facts then is only serves to suggest they are part of this faction that seeks to bring about the NWO.

The fact part is that the UN declared that day as the day of 6 billion. Of course they are not positive that 6 billion was 'acheived' on that exact day, maybe it was the day before or a week later or whatever. That the UN picked that day to focus awareness on population is, however, a fact. And that is all the item claimed.

top topics

59