Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
|
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
On 8/7/12 12:13 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Zz Yzx wrote: I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science. Good job! Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be. Perhaps it's just hyperbole. Like when you're watching a good baseball game and the announcer says, "Now, that's some real pitching." -- -MIKE- "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life" --Elvin Jones (1927-2004) -- http://mikedrums.com ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
-MIKE- wrote:
On 8/7/12 12:13 PM, Mike Marlow wrote: Zz Yzx wrote: I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science. Good job! Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be. Perhaps it's just hyperbole. Like when you're watching a good baseball game and the announcer says, "Now, that's some real pitching." Yeah - perhaps. It's just that the term "science" or "real science" is thrown around so much here by people who remember back to their high school physics classes, that it may just bring about a reaction... -- -Mike- |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: -MIKE- wrote: On 8/7/12 12:13 PM, Mike Marlow wrote: Zz Yzx wrote: I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science. Good job! Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be. Perhaps it's just hyperbole. Like when you're watching a good baseball game and the announcer says, "Now, that's some real pitching." Yeah - perhaps. It's just that the term "science" or "real science" is thrown around so much here by people who remember back to their high school physics classes, that it may just bring about a reaction... Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and reasoning. Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to something totally new. Mars may or may not have had water and a potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus far do not prove one way or another. Curiosity may or may not find evidence to substantiate those hypotheses or wild ass guesses. We won't know until ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
Han wrote:
Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and reasoning. Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of? Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to something totally new. "Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree with you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not incremental "maybe this could be" stuff... Mars may or may not have had water and a potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus far do not prove one way or another. In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive. Curiosity may or may not find evidence to substantiate those hypotheses or wild ass guesses. We won't know until ... Agreed, but curisosity is just that - curiosity. -- -Mike- |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
: Han wrote: Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and reasoning. Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of? Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ... Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to something totally new. "Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree with you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not incremental "maybe this could be" stuff... Science depends on observed facts, and the reasoning to connect them, generate hypotheses and thence into theories. Sometimes that takes a long series of facts, sometimes just an apple falling from a tree. Mars may or may not have had water and a potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus far do not prove one way or another. In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive. Indeed. Curiosity may or may not find evidence to substantiate those hypotheses or wild ass guesses. We won't know until ... Agreed, but curisosity is just that - curiosity. Curiosity the rover/laboratory is what I meant, not "being curious" -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:13:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote: Zz Yzx wrote: I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science. Good job! Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be. Saawwwwwry. It was an attempt at humor, but I didn't take into account that most of this group has not been involved in the energy or mineral exploration industries. So I'll explain: In those industries, there is a long-standing, good-natured feud between geologists and engineers. We take every opportunity to put humor or hurt on the other discipline. We adapt jokes, we cajole, we irritate, we compete for promotions. Hence the put-down reference to real science. |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and reasoning. Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of? Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ... I think you would find any real scientist would tell you science doesn't have much to do with facts. In science there really are none. Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to something totally new. "Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree with you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not incremental "maybe this could be" stuff... Science depends on observed facts, and the reasoning to connect them, generate hypotheses and thence into theories. Sometimes that takes a long series of facts, sometimes just an apple falling from a tree. Was that story ever verified? How does one observe a fact - in a field that does not accept facts as facts? The apple fell to the ground. That is a fact - but the why and how is complete opinion (layman's term for theory). The majority wins. But the problem is that testing, and re-testing, and re-re-testing does not always result in the exact same outcome. The "wrong" outcomes get attributed to someone doing something wrong. How does one know that that 1 out of a 1000000 times of it being different doesn't mean the whole idea of the why and how is wrong but only shows itself 1 out of a 1000000 times? How does one know the subject has been tested with a method that will provide the factual results instead of the wanted results? All the work of science is based on limited knowledge. The problem is that it is thought of as "fact" (or at least elevated beyond what it is faith). And the attitude (teaching for decades now) is that "they're the experts". So it is accepted by most without even thinking about it (look at all the insane things they have come out with that was simply accepted by the vast majority with gawking eyes and open mouth - only to have to be all taken back, yet you never see their faith shaken in them). Go to college for X years studying all the theories and methods used... isn't that circular - teaching how to do something and basing it on previous theories - why would it be surprising to get the usual results? When theories (exalted opinions) are based on other theories, based on other theories - it is all a stone wall being built without mortar. Mars may or may not have had water and a potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus far do not prove one way or another. In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive. Some of the photos are labeled blah...blah.."water". "ancient"...blah..blah.."water" Is this the objective method of science? - Maybe I missed the "fact" of water discovered? .....Keep searching for the meaning of life - ignore the answers given. |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
Zz Yzx wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:13:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow" wrote: Zz Yzx wrote: I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science. Good job! Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be. Saawwwwwry. It was an attempt at humor, but I didn't take into account that most of this group has not been involved in the energy or mineral exploration industries. So I'll explain: Whoosh.... right over my head. The Saawwwwwry is all mine... In those industries, there is a long-standing, good-natured feud between geologists and engineers. We take every opportunity to put humor or hurt on the other discipline. We adapt jokes, we cajole, we irritate, we compete for promotions. Hence the put-down reference to real science. -- -Mike- |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
On Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:52:38 +0000, Han wrote:
Mars may or may not have had water and a potential for life at some point in the past. Actually, I believe the previous landers proved that surface water once existed on Mars. In one of the interviews about Curiosity, A NASA spokesman said something on the lines of "now we've proven water, we're looking for organic compounds". -- Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
|
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
Larry Blanchard wrote in news:jvsh53$pno$1
@speranza.aioe.org: Actually, I believe the previous landers proved that surface water once existed on Mars. In one of the interviews about Curiosity, A NASA spokesman said something on the lines of "now we've proven water, we're looking for organic compounds". Yes, I agree. There is an abundance of indirect evidence that surface water existed. Does it still exist? Then we get the search for organic compounds. That will be interesting, because there are organic compounds in meteorites. So different organic compounds need to be found for "life" to be proven. It is science, search and research for the evidence ... -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
Zz Yzx wrote in
: On Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:13:03 -0400, "Mike Marlow" wrote: Zz Yzx wrote: I want to thank all you engineers for building such a cool gizmo so we geologists can cruise around Mars and conduct some real science. Good job! Please define "real science" - beyond that which you hope it to be. Saawwwwwry. It was an attempt at humor, but I didn't take into account that most of this group has not been involved in the energy or mineral exploration industries. So I'll explain: In those industries, there is a long-standing, good-natured feud between geologists and engineers. We take every opportunity to put humor or hurt on the other discipline. We adapt jokes, we cajole, we irritate, we compete for promotions. Hence the put-down reference to real science. There is science, theoretical science, engineering, applied science, technology, etc, etc. All worthwhile, all prone to jokes about ivory towers or mechanics ... Sigh grin. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says... Han wrote: "Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and reasoning. Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of? Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ... I think you would find any real scientist would tell you science doesn't have much to do with facts. In science there really are none. I think you have never met a real scientist. I guess I'm the only one who have heard scientists say that science is not in the business of proving facts? And if there are facts then why do they keep getting changed? A fact is something that can't change. Very seldom is there a discovery that turns previous knowledge, facts and theories completely on its head. Still the combined facts discovered after a certain period do point to something totally new. "Point to..." if that is your viewpoint. Not to completelly disagree with you here, ,but come on Han the topic at hand is "science" - not incremental "maybe this could be" stuff... Science depends on observed facts, and the reasoning to connect them, generate hypotheses and thence into theories. Sometimes that takes a long series of facts, sometimes just an apple falling from a tree. Was that story ever verified? How does one observe a fact - in a field that does not accept facts as facts? What field would that be? Science. That water is falling down the rocks....(science) are we sure the water is falling down the rocks or are the rocks moving through the water? - that is a very low level version of the questioning. What everyone (almost everyone) can say - yeah it is that way... scientist must take years to contemplate to decide everyone was right. They they start dissecting it trying to figure out why and how. The apple fell to the ground. That is a fact - but the why and how is complete opinion (layman's term for theory). No, that's the layman's term for a hypothesis. Lets see the definition of the words, Hypothesis (noun): A *tentative explanation* that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation. Theory (noun): 1. Systematically *organized knowledge*, especially a set of *assumptions* or *statements devised* to explain a phenomenon or class of phenomena. 2. *Abstract reasoning*; *speculation*. 3. A set of rules or principles for the study or practice of an art or discipline. 4. An *assumption*; *conjecture*. I didn't see much difference. Hypothesis is the opinion before they all agree to interpret the results the same way - then it become a theory - which is a majority opinion. Maybe the test results aren't subject to interpretation? The majority wins. No, the model that most closely fits the facts wins. No not at all - not all the time at all. It all depends on what they want. You have never seen science agree on a theory that some didn't agree on and later change to the other's theory? But the problem is that testing, and re-testing, and re-re-testing does not always result in the exact same outcome. That is called "precision". You mean imprecision? Unless science deals with different English? The "wrong" outcomes get attributed to someone doing something wrong. Only if the "wrong" outcomes are different from many, many other measurements of the same quantity. I guess it must be me - if an out come is different then it is very likely to be (or must be) different no matter how you measure it. That is the proof that one test was wrong - never of course proof that something may be wrong with the theory. How does one know that that 1 out of a 1000000 times of it being different doesn't mean the whole idea of the why and how is wrong but only shows itself 1 out of a 1000000 times? How does one know the subject has been tested with a method that will provide the factual results instead of the wanted results? Different experimenters perform the measurement using different techniques. Yes, it's possible that one in 10,000 times the velocity of light is 1 meter per hour instead of 300,000 kilometers per second, but that's not the way to bet. Let me get this straight. Your saying that if light is found 1 out of 10,000 tests to travel 1 meter per hour instead of the 300,000 then the theory that light travels at 300,000 meters per second is still good (isn't there other theories that claim a photon must travel at the speed of light (i.e. the 300,000 m/ps) or it doesn't exist?) All the work of science is based on limited knowledge. All the work of everything is based on limited knowledge. So what do we do, just sit aroung wringing our hands and accomplishing nothing because we can't know everything? First not elevate it beyond a faith. That is all it is - faith that a group of people have got it right (or at least close to right). It is taught in school - yet school can't deal with other faiths. The problem is that it is thought of as "fact" (or at least elevated beyond what it is faith). You are conflating fact, which is a measured observation, with theory, which is a model that attempts to establish rules base on the facts. Measured? I guess one could say that - I prefer being plain - it can be seen, it happened. And the attitude (teaching for decades now) is that "they're the experts". If teachers are teaching that we should believe scientists because the are experts, well, we all know that the education system is down the crapper and this is just another symptom. Someone used the words in this thread "their the experts". If you say you don't hear this then I think we might as well stop the conversation, because someone isn't being genuine. It isn't just science. In the "advanced" modern world we have an expert for everything. You expert for roofing, expert for plumbing, expert for car work, expert for your lawn, expert for your health, expert for your knowledge, expert for your religion. "Well He's/She's the expert." We believe science for one simple reason. It works, where religion and all the various philosophical systems that are not based on the scientific method do not. Wow? It does? There sure seem to be a lot of mistakes in science and their "developments" to say it works? How many people have been killed or hurt because science said it works - and it doesn't (or at least not that time)? You seem to confuse the unavoidable fact with the field of science. A plane flies not because of scientific research. In fact if I recall history (what we get of it) inventors got the plane working not scientist. Scientist then try to tell us why it works. So it is accepted by most without even thinking about it (look at all the insane things they have come out with that was simply accepted by the vast majority with gawking eyes and open mouth - only to have to be all taken back, yet you never see their faith shaken in them). Which "insane things" are these? If I had to come up with a list it would take a while (it is definitely doable), but to get just one - The pre-historic man that actually was a pig's skull. I know the answer - but they corrected it... yes. They always are right, because the only time the admit being wrong is when they say they were (they don't listen to others) and then of course they are right because they have already changed their minds. Ahh. I am always right, unless I am wrong - but since I am the only one to say when I am wrong - I am then right again. Go to college for X years studying all the theories and methods used... isn't that circular - teaching how to do something and basing it on previous theories - why would it be surprising to get the usual results? And yet we have numerous examples of scientists coming up with experimental results that invalidate previous models or with models that more accurately explain the facts and toss the earlier models down the ..... Do not get rid of the power of ego. Besides even people who think alike do not always think the same. When theories (exalted opinions) are based on other theories, based on other theories - it is all a stone wall being built without mortar. Theory is based on observation, not on other theory. If you think you have a counterexample please present it. Maybe I am mistaken... I was almost sure other theories take their bases on previous theories? Quantum - seems it relied on a bit? Trajectory - seems to rely on the theory of gravity? Aren't there others? Mars may or may not have had water and a potential for life at some point in the past. Verified facts thus far do not prove one way or another. In fact, they suggest the other, though that is not conclusive. Some of the photos are labeled blah...blah.."water". "ancient"...blah..blah.."water" Which photos are those? There are photos that show what appear to be ancient water courses. If you have a better explanation for them please present it. I think it was the photos a few pictures after the dust storm photo. Of course it was water. It must of course be recently water or it must not be dust storms - seems one or the other would kind of mess up the other. But whale bones on top of a mountain sure aren't a sign there may have been a flood. (Not that they have proven themselves very good at recognizing bones) Is this the objective method of science? - Maybe I missed the "fact" of water discovered? Who has claimed that water was discovered? I don't know - when you label photos as being ancient river beds or ancient ground water, seems a strong hint... You're sure that some theories at least aren't the result of really wanting it to be a certain way? ....Keep searching for the meaning of life - ignore the answers given. You'd ignore the answers if the answers beat you to death with a baseball bat. No actually I know the meaning because I don't ignore the answers. I don't toss the manual over my shoulder and then bemoan the need to figure it all out. |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
Michael Joel wrote:
I guess I'm the only one who have heard scientists say that science is not in the business of proving facts? And if there are facts then why do they keep getting changed? A fact is something that can't change. Science is not in the business of proving facts. Science doesn't prove, it only disproves. If enough attempts to disprove something fail, that something is believed to be true. Always subject to some successful attempt to disprove it. I guess it must be me - if an out come is different then it is very likely to be (or must be) different no matter how you measure it. That is the proof that one test was wrong - never of course proof that somethiing may be wrong with the theory. Nonsense. One test is never proof of anything. One test is evidence in support of a theory or evidence against the theory (or hypothesis). Your saying that if light is found 1 out of 10,000 tests to travel 1 meter per hour instead of the 300,000 then the theory that light travels at 300,000 meters per second is still good [...] 300,000 meters per second is still good, pending understanding of the outlying test result. That understanding could lead to a whole new theory of physics. Look up Michelson-Morley and special relativity. First not elevate it beyond a faith. That is all it is - faith that a group of people have got it right (or at least close to right). It is taught in school - yet school can't deal with other faiths. Science is indeed a faith in that it is anchored in beliefs that cannot be proven. Roughly, these a 1) The universe operates by a fixed set of laws. 2) These laws are the same for everyone everywhere. 3) These laws can be determined by observation. It isn't just science. In the "advanced" modern world we have an expert for everything. You expert for roofing, expert for plumbing, expert for car work, expert for your lawn, expert for your health, expert for your knowledge, expert for your religion. "Well He's/She's the expert."i Yep. Our world is too complex for everyone to know everything. It has been that way for centuries. Wow? It does? There sure seem to be a lot of mistakes in science and their "developments" to say it works? How many people have been killed or hurt because science said it works - and it doesn't (or at least not that time)? You are looking for perfection in a human endeavor? Good luck. You seem to confuse the unavoidable fact with the field of science. A plane flies not because of scientific research. In fact if I recall history (what we get of it) inventors got the plane working not scientist. Scientist then try to tell us why it works. The Wright brothers were pretty damn fine scientists. Great inventors, too. They discovered that Lilienthal's aerodynamic data was just plain wrong and did the research needed to get it right. I know the answer - but they corrected it... yes. They always are right, because the only time the admit being wrong is when they say they were (they don't listen to others) and then of course they are right because they have already changed their minds. Ahh. I am always right, unless I am wrong - but since I am the only one to say when I am wrong - I am then right again. That's the great thing about science. Anybody can say it is wrong. Don't expect to be taken seriously unless you have data to back you up. -- Doug |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
|
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
On 8/8/2012 4:39 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
Whoa, you're making the same mistake he is. Science is very interested in determining facts such as the mass of the Earth or the velocity of light or the permeability of free space. The thing is though, a scientist wouldn't say that he had "proven" one of these facts, he would say that he had "measured" it. Theory on the other hand is not fact, and is valid only to the extent that its predictions agree with established facts. That the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth is approximately 9.8 meters per second is a fact. No new discoveries are going to change that. The theory that gravitation is an inverse-square force on the other hand, is subject to change as improved models are developed--it's not going to change much mind you but it could change some. Whoa again! Might be that some of your hard core facts are slightly off... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...nking-kilogram |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
On 8/8/2012 9:27 AM, Michael Joel wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: In article , says... Han wrote: "Mike Marlow" wrote in : Han wrote: Most often, science is an incremental increase in verified facts and reasoning. Science is much more than that Han. Incremental knowledge happens in everyone - whether it is scientific or not. Verified facts - well that one would spark a long debate - as we have seen here. So... just what are these "verifiable facts" you speak of? Sorry, I am not a Mars astrophysicist, so I don't have all the "facts" on the tip of my tongue. I rely on reports from the experts. Thus far, the evidence seems to be that there is no or not much water on Mars, but there could have been. Further facts to be gathered ... I think you would find any real scientist would tell you science doesn't have much to do with facts. In science there really are none. I think you have never met a real scientist. I guess I'm the only one who have heard scientists say that science is not in the business of proving facts? And if there are facts then why do they keep getting changed? A fact is something that can't change. You have apparently have not watched the news in the last 50 years if you think facts can not be changed. ;~) |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
"J. Clarke" wrote:
That the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth is approximately 9.8 meters per second is a fact. No new discoveries are going to change that. We may be playing games over the definition of "fact". It is not a word often used in the scientific community. But if a fact cannot change, then 9.8 m/s is fact only for sufficiently large values of "approximately". That value was found to be different at the poles than equator because the earth is not a sphere. Later, it was found to vary because of uneven distribution of mass in the earth. I'm sure there are other variations. The point is that even well-established observations are subject to revision based on new data, just like theories. -- Doug |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
|
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Engineers, geologists, and the Mars rover Curiosity
"J. Clarke" wrote:
And next time someone says "approximately" don't waste everybody's time quibbling over how approximately. My apologies. I didn't mean to quibble over "approximately", I meant to riff on it. My core point was that anything in science is subject to change based on new data. Otherwise, it is not science, it is dogma. I think you are saying some things are very well established and unlikely to be changed. Agreed. But when it happens, it can take us to very interesting places. -- Doug |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT - NASA's Curiosity Rover Lands on Mars | Metalworking | |||
Heads up, Mars Rover Landing | Electronic Schematics | |||
The Gulf Disaster: a geologists take | Woodworking | |||
Mars Rover Wheels, one large machined piece? | Metalworking |