CIVIL.10

07 Sep 1996 - 03 Sep 1998

Messages - nauka

nauka.608 dselic, -> #606, geronimo
> Ne vredjamu opshte.A shto se tice znanja kako to da ti imash? Jesi, doduše, ne u ovoj konferenciji ali se sećam par poruka (čini mi se da behu u civ/filmovi) u smislu 'lupaš dečko....'. Nemoj ovu poruku da shvatiš kao ponižavanje; samo sam hteo da ti predočim greške koje praviš, a koje su dosta karakteristične za nove korisnike. :) Što se mog znanja o SAD tiče, odrastao sam tamo tako da ne govorim po sistemu 'prijatelj od mog brata od strica mi je rekao da ... '.
nauka.609 supers, -> #602, dselic
>> Ima vrlo kratkoročno pamćenje koje služi da zapamti najnovije >> 'informacije' koje mu serviraju sa CNN-a, a i to vrlo brzo zaboravi >> da bi napravio mesta za nove, i tako se vrti u krug. Jeste li gledali francusku komediju "Osveta plavuše" u kojoj se radi, gle čuda, o medijima? Ima legendarna replika: "Današnji gledalac ne želi da razume, on želi da zna".
nauka.610 mileusna, -> #593, geronimo
>> MI imamo isto medju najboljim lekarima na svetu ali je problem >> u tome shto lekari ovde nemaju volju ni da napreduju ni da rade. Čudo da nemaju volju kad po bolnicama nema ni lekova, ni špriceva, ni zavoja... Poludim kada gledam na RTS-u kako vodaju tamo neke inostrane posetioce po nekim ekskluzivnim bolnicama u Beogradu koje se mogu na prste nabrojati, dok ostatak našeg zdravstva nema ni osnovne uslove za rad...
nauka.611 mileusna, -> #609, supers
>> gle čuda, o medijima? Ima legendarna replika: "Današnji gledalac ne >> želi da razume, on želi da zna". Ma Pajtonovci su zakon. :) Udarna emisija njihove televizije bila je vožnja autoputem, tj. snimanje isprekidane linije na kolovozu. Gledaoci su imali komentare tipa: Jesi li gledao 20. kilometar? Nisam, ali je 30. bio fenomenalan. :)
nauka.612 goth, -> #607, strider
> O tome ne milo pricam. Nije mi do tetke i tece > oni su nekako svoje proziveli. Zao mi je burazera, > i jednog i drugog. Jedan je 80 a drugi 83 godiste. > Neki ce reci da su jos klinci, ali njihovo vreme tek > dolazi. Oni jednostavno nisu videli bolje od Amerike > i za njih je tamo divno a sto sam se ja grizao od > muke u zatvorenoj prostoriji gledajuci robote kako > setaju ulicama njih nije uzbudjivalo. Jednostavno > bi rekli " ma daj ovde je cool kakva juga vi nemate > pojma a ni love" > Sve u svemu sranje. Potpuno se slazem sa tobom. Coca-Cola, cokoladice, roboti itd. sigurno nisu razlog zbog cega bi tamo bilo bolje. Moja ortakinja je pre mesec dana otisla u Chicago, pa se javlja i kuka "Pa nista nije onako kako sam mislila".
nauka.613 geronimo, -> #612, goth
||> O tome ne milo pricam. Nije mi do tetke i tece ||> oni su nekako svoje proziveli. Zao mi je burazera, ||> i jednog i drugog. Jedan je 80 a drugi 83 godiste. ||> Neki ce reci da su jos klinci, ali njihovo vreme tek ||> dolazi. Oni jednostavno nisu videli bolje od Amerike ||> i za njih je tamo divno a sto sam se ja grizao od ||> muke u zatvorenoj prostoriji gledajuci robote kako ||> setaju ulicama njih nije uzbudjivalo. Jednostavno ||> bi rekli " ma daj ovde je cool kakva juga vi nemate ||> pojma a ni love" ||> Sve u svemu sranje. Pa shto nisi sretan.Zato shto tvoji burazeri nemaju isto mishljenje kao ti? c c c
nauka.615 strider, -> #612, goth
<!> otisla u Chicago, pa se javlja i kuka "Pa nista nije onako kako <!> sam mislila". Upravo tako . STRiDeR!
nauka.616 strider, -> #613, geronimo
<!> Pa shto nisi sretan.Zato shto tvoji burazeri nemaju isto <!> mishljenje kao ti? NE. Nego zato sto imaju pogresno misljenje. Nisu bili ovde i kako mogu da znaju kako je. Sigurno im je njihov dragi CNN preneo ;) PS : EEEE i nemoj te me vise gnjaviti ! Od sada ignorisem sve poruke na ovu temu ;| Ipak je ovo nauka. STRiDeR!
nauka.618 drist,
> PS : EEEE i nemoj te me vise gnjaviti ! Od sada ignorisem > sve poruke na ovu temu ;| Ipak je ovo nauka. Strider je potpuno u pravu.Pratio sam neko vreme raspravu i shvatio da ste vi ljudi ko ona dva jarca na balvanu. Niko od vas nece popustiti u svom stavu ma sa kakvim se cinjenicama suocio tako da je dalja rasprava nepotrebna jer je sve vec receno Pa posto je ovo nauka trebo bi mi odgovor na jedno pitanje Ajnstjn je reka da kad bi postigli brzinu svetlost mi bi presli u energiju.Zanima me da li bi mogao postojati obrnut proces tj da li bi taj svemirski brod mogao da smanji svoju brzinu i da se vrati u "normalno materijalno" stanje. Inace ko je stvorio teoriju o skoku u hipersvemir Zanima me na kom principu "radi". Ajd dosta je bilo Drist
nauka.620 vdjole, -> #618, drist
> kad bi postigli brzinu svetlost mi bi > presli u energiju.Zanima me da li bi mogao postojati obrnut > proces Paa... obrnut proces naravno postoji. Kada elektromagnetni talas tj.foton naiđe na odgovarajuću prepreku može se pretvoriti u par čestica-antičestica mase ekvivalentne njegovoj energiji. Inače, ne bih baš rekao da je "Ajnštajn rekao da kad bi dostigli brzinu...". Naprotiv, po S.T.R. bilo kom telu koje se ubrzava do brzine koja se približava brzini svetlosti masa teži ka beskonačnosti, a ekvivalentno tome se povećava i sila koja bi bi bila potrebna za dalje ubrzanje. Jedini poznati ekvivalentni proces je opet anihilacija para čestica-antičestica što kao rezultat daje elektromagnetni talas, tj. foton odgovarajuće energije, i, naravno, ima brzinu svetlosti. Tećko da bi se takav postupak mogao ekstrapolirati na neko telo sa složenom strukturom, ako što bi, na primer, bio svemirski brod. >Inace ko je stvorio teoriju o skoku u hipersvemir >Zanima me na kom principu "radi". Ne znam ko je stvorio, ali bih to pre nazvao spekulacijom nego teorijom. Zasniva se na tome da opšta teorija relativnosti dopušta krivljenje prostora zbog uticaja masa, pa se onda govori o tome kako bi u hipotetičkom višedimenzionom prostoru mogle postojati putanje koje su "pravije od prave" tj. od najkraće moguće putanje u našem zakrivljenom prostoru. Kao i mnogo šta drugo iz te oblasti i ovo se vizualizuje smanjenjem broja dimenzija za 1: ako se rastojanje između dve tačke na listu hartije predstavi jednom duži, to nije najkraći mogući put između tih tačaka. Ako se hartija savije tako da se tačke poklope, rastojanje između njih se može proizvoljno smanjiti. Koliko znam ova "teorija" nije, zasad, poduprta nikakvim eksperimentalnim dokazima (premda, meni lično deluje sasvim moguće). Pretpostavljam da bi se najrazumnija objašnjenja ovakvih efekata mogla naći u nekoj od onih Hokingovih knjiga, i to verovatno u okviru neke priče o crnim rupama.
nauka.628 mango,
Na kojoj f radi mozak?
nauka.629 sav.gacic, -> #602, dselic
> Amerikanaca nije uopšte bio u stanju da pokaže gde se nalaze SAD na karti > sveta! Još veći deo nije znao da locira grad u kome živi... itd. Dakle, > Amerikanac (prosečan, naravno) nema pojma, niti ga zabole za sve što se > dešava izvan njegovog grada. Ima vrlo kratkoročno pamćenje koje služi > da zapamti najnovije 'informacije' koje mu serviraju sa CNN-a, a i to > vrlo brzo zaboravi da bi napravio mesta za nove, i tako se vrti u krug. > Zaključak: globalno gledano, Ameri su jedna glupa, vrlo nestabilna, i > neobrazovana rulja kojom je vrlo lako manipulisati odnosno vladati. Ovo je bolje ;) od sovjetskih političkih komentatora iz Brežnjevljevog vremena :) Zarad pravde kosmičke, prošetaj malo staničnim trgom (u cilju utvrđivanja proseka i preseka u svojoj sredini) sa atlasom i zabrinućeš se da veliki broj ljudi neće znati ni kako se zove tip knjige koji držiš u ruci, a ne još da pronađe kontinente, zemlje, gradove. Uostalom, sudar sa stvarnošću ti tek predstoji, u vojsci i sl. (bolnica je takođe tužno mesto za tu vrstu obrazovanja, ali bih zaista voleo da bez tog iskustva ostaneš)... Takođe, mrdni iz centra, zađi po prigradskim naseljima, levim i patriotskim gradovima koji su posali predstavnike 24. decembra i iznesi nam malo svoje utiske (ali iskreno). Šupljiranje (c) Rambo Amadeus gornje vrste (p)ostaje groteska kada se čuje iz ove sredine koja se bukvalno davi u sopstvenim g*@&#ž%¸. Prošetaj malo ulicama Kn. Miloša i Birčaninovom radnim danom pre podne, turizma radi, ako uspeš da se probiješ od redova pred ambasadama... A možda bi te US Administracija uposlila (i dobro platila!) da tu priču širiš duž južne obale reke Rio Grande. U prevodu na fudbalski jezik: nema veze što ispadamo u predtakmičenju, kada MI ZNAMO da igramo najbolji fudbal na svetu! ;) Svetski prvaci su ionako sisančad. Naslušao sam se ja svakakvih priča... Od takvih kao tvoje do ditiramba u slavu Kim Il Sunga od člana naše delegacije po povratku sa turneje po Severnoj Koreji. Bio je oduševljen "radom, redom i dostignućima" ;). Mnoga potpitanja o života su ostajala bez odgovora, jer "nije bilo obuhvaćeno protokolom"... Bilo kakvu težinu ili ozbiljnost tvoje reči će imati tek kada objasniš kako misliš da dođeš do svog krova nad glavom, da sebi isvojoj porodici odgajiš dete/decu, skuckaš koju kintu za (polovan) auto OD PRIHODA KOJI SI OVDE OSTVARIO SAM, LEGALNIM PUTEM. Nivo može da bude i upola manji od onog koji debilizovani Amer smatra normalnim... Sve se može braniti i zagovarati.
nauka.630 sav.gacic, -> #588, dizel
> ** jedan Amer, a kave naš naučnik? Možda su im iste stvari > ** dostupne? U istoj meri? > Naravno da nisu, ali ima nešto kod nas... :) Upravo to što su slabiji > uslovi tera čoveka na veći rad. Da li ovo Radoman Božović (iz 1992) progovara iz tebe? :) Sankcije kao veliki motiv i stimulans za našu privredu ;) > Pa, upravo juče sam pričao sa jednim naučnikom, ex Sezamovcem, koji > mi je govorio o institutu u Vinči, kako bez love nema ničega, itd... > A verovatno je takva i naša celokupna nauka. :( Nadam se da samo da će > se uskoro ovo izmeniti. Samo od sebe neće nikako. U našim je rukama.
nauka.631 geronimo, -> #629, sav.gacic
×× Zarad pravde kosmicke, prosetaj malo stanicnim trgom (u cilju ×× utvrdivanja proseka i preseka u svojoj sredini) sa atlasom i ×× zabrinuces se da veliki broj ljudi nece znati ni kako se zove tip ×× knjige koji drzis u ruci, a ne jos da pronade kontinente, zemlje, ×× gradove. Uostalom, sudar sa stvarnoscu ti tek predstoji, u vojsci i ×× sl. (bolnica je takode tuzno mesto za tu vrstu obrazovanja, ali bih ×× zaista voleo da bez tog iskustva ostanes)... Takode, mrdni iz ×× centra, zadi po prigradskim naseljima, levim i patriotskim ×× gradovima koji su posali predstavnike 24. decembra i iznesi nam ×× malo svoje utiske (ali iskreno). Ovo me podsetilo na scenu koju su mi pricali burazeri od tetke kad su bili u vojsci.igrali su karte a iznad njihovih glava je cucao neki zelja,pitaj boga odakle.Moj burazer mu kaze:Aj molim te promeni stanicu na radiju ,mrzi me da ustajem ,da prekidam igru bezveze.Na to se zelja zacudjenookreno prema radiju,uneo se u njega a zatim okreno i reko:"Vidjo sam ja ovo i ranije ali neznam ti ja kako se snjim radi." Tip je bio nepismen(nije bio jedini ,naprotiv) i komandir je moje burazere(inace su blizanci) zaduzio dda ga nauce dda cita i pishe. Posle nekoliko mukotrpnih dana bez rezultata zelja im je reko: "Shta ce to meni,ja sam pastir i meni to netreba,nemojte da se mucite bezveze"
nauka.632 strider, -> #628, mango
<!> Na kojoj f radi mozak? sqr(x-p) + sqr(y-q) = sqr(r) ;) STRiDeR!
nauka.633 n.ceh, -> #628, mango
Ma> Na kojoj f radi mozak? Kako kod koga... Imam ja jednu ortakinju kojoj radi na 0,1 Hz... Čeh
nauka.634 djino,
Executive Summary of Workshop Findings The Search for Origins: Findings of a Space Science Workshop October 28-30, 1996 Executive Summary This document reports the findings of three dozen biologists, planetary scientists, astronomers, and cosmologists assembled by NASA and the National Research Council at the request of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. This discussion paper reports the findings of three dozen biologists, planetary scientists, astronomers, and cosmologists assembled by NASA and the National Research Council at the request of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. They met in Washington, DC on October 28-30, 1996. In a workshop format, the group considered emerging directions in space science and identified ORIGINS as a unifying theme for future initiatives. Questions about our ORIGINS are as old as human thought; broadly interpreted, they comprise: How did the Universe come to be what it is today? What is the origin of life? What are the building blocks and conditions necessary for life, and how did these come about in the universe? Is life unique to Earth? Can we find convincing evidence that life once existed or even now exists elsewhere in or beyond our solar system? The study of ORIGINS follows the 15 billion year long chain of events from the birth of the universe at the Big Bang, through the formation of the chemical elements, of galaxies, stars and planets, through the mixing of chemicals and energy that cradled life on Earth, to the earliest self-replicating organisms and the profusion of life. Recent discoveries from diverse disciplines attest that life is remarkably hardy and that each step in the chain of ORIGINS occurred surprisingly quickly. Discoveries in just the past few years provide the first scientific basis for believing that life may be widespread in the universe, in our solar system and beyond. We also have a new comprehension of the development of the universe, its constituent galaxies and stars, the number and variety of planetary systems, and the processes that shape them. For the first time in history, we have achieved the level of understanding and technical capability necessary to fill in "missing links" along the chain of ORIGINS by exploring on the Earth and outward in space, in the present and backward in time. To do so, we need to understand more about the processes leading to the origin of life, about habitats suitable for life, and about the origins of the building blocks of the universe. Answers to these questions are within reach. Major advances over the next 15 years can be realized by continuing and building upon the multidisciplinary programs that have brought us to this point. The current and planned space science programs of NASA begin the next steps in the quest for ORIGINS and pose the technology challenges needed for subsequent steps. Missions now underway and in planning, including upgraded instrumentation for the Hubble Space Telescope, the Advanced X- ray Astrophysics Facility, the Space Infrared Telescope Facility, the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, the Mars Surveyor series, and other planetary and space astronomy and physics projects, will offer powerful tools for advancing the ORIGINS program. At the same time, while the ORIGINS challenge provides a unifying core for the space science program, neighboring disciplines address important problems of their own, and may unexpectedly contribute directly as was the case for the recent analyses of Martian meteorites. These related activities span the broad panoply of laboratory, field, and theoretical research conducted by NASA. Existing NASA planning processes, coordinated with NSF and other agencies and using peer review, are the best way to define the details and priorities of these programs. Investment in a balanced and diversified ORIGINS program will yield a steady return of significant findings and, inevitably, major surprises. Over the next 15 years, scientists and the public could share the excitement of discoveries such as: when and how primitive life emerged and flourished on Earth; whether the Martian meteorites found on Earth or rocks returned from Mars confirm that life existed on that planet; the presence of a liquid water ocean on Jupiter's moon Europa that could harbor primitive forms of life; the detection of dozens of planetary systems, including some which may be conducive to life as we know it; sharp pictures of planet-forming disks, infant stars and the growth of galaxies; more detailed histories of the early stages of the universe, including maps of the dark matter seeds that grew to form galaxies. The Hubble Space Telescope images of embryonic solar systems and the evidence for possible past life on Mars have aroused intense public interest in the ORIGINS of the universe and its contents. These breakthroughs are the astonishing returns from years of investment in many scientific disciplines. The ORIGINS quest informs, excites and inspires the public. Its outcome could well have as profound an effect on human thought as the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. finding.htm
nauka.635 djino,
FROM THE EMINENT SOVIET JOURNAL: 'SPUTNIK' IS THE MOON THE CREATION OF INTELLIGENCE? by Mikhail Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, scientists Although people long ago began to wonder whether the "canals" on Mars were the creation of cosmic engineers, for some odd reason it has not occurred to look with the same eyes upon the peculiarities of the lunar landscape much closer at hand. And all the arguments about the possibilities of intelligent life existing on other celestial bodies have been confined to the idea that other civilisations must necessarily live on the surface of a planet, and that the interior as a habitat is out of the question. Abandoning the traditional paths of "common sense", we have plunged into what may at first sight seem to be unbridled and irresponsible fantasy. But the more minutely we go into all the information gathered by man about the Moon, the more we are convinced that there is not a single fact to rule out our supposition. Not only that, but many things so far considered to be lunar enigmas are explainable in the light of this new hypothesis. AN ARTIFICIAL SPUTNIK OF THE EARTH? The origin of the Moon is one of the most complicated problems of cosmogony. So far there have been basically three hypotheses under discussion. HYPOTHESIS I. The Moon was once a part of the Earth and broke away from it. This has now been refuted by the evidence. HYPOTHESIS II. The Moon was formed independently from the same cloud of dust and gas as the Earth, and immediately became the Earth's natural satellite. But then why is there such a big difference between the specific gravity of the Moon (3.33 grammes per cubic centimetre) and that of the Earth (5.5 gr.)? Furthermore, according to the latest information (analysis of samples brought back by the U.S. Apollo astronauts) lunar rock is not of the same composition as the Earth's. HYPOTHESIS III. The Moon came into being separately, and, moreover, far from the Earth (perhaps even outside the Solar system). This would mean that the moon would not have to be fashioned from the same "clay" as our own planet. Sailing through the Universe, the Moon came into Earth's proximity, and by a complex interplay of forces of gravity was brought within a geocentric orbit, very close to circular. But a catch of this kind is virtually impossible. In fact, scientists studying the origin of the Universe today have no acceptable theory to explain how the Earth-Moon system came into being. OUR HYPOTHESIS: The Moon is an artificial Earth satellite put into orbit around the Earth by some intelligent beings unknown to ourselves. We refuse to engage in speculation about who exactly staged this unique experiment, which only a highly developed civilisation was capable of. A NOAH'S ARK? If you are going to launch an artificial sputnik, then it is advisable to make it hollow. At the same time it would be naive to imagine that anyone capable of such a tremendous space project would be satisfied simply with some kind of giant empty trunk hurled into a near-Earth trajectory. It is more likely that what we have here is a very ancient spaceship, the interior of which was filled with fuel for the engines, materials and appliances for repair work, navigation, instruments, observation equipment and all manner of machinery... in other words, everything necessary to enable this "caravelle of the Universe" to serve as a kind of Noah's Ark of intelligence, perhaps even as the home of a whole civilisation envisaging a prolonged (thousands of millions of years) existence and long wanderings through space (thousands of millions of miles). Naturally, the hull of such a spaceship must be super-tough in order to stand up to the blows of meteorites and sharp fluctuations between extreme heat and extreme cold. Probably the shell is a double-layered affair--the basis a dense armouring of about 20 miles in thickness, and outside it some kind of more loosely packed covering (a thinner layer--averaging about three miles). In certain areas--where the lunar "seas" and "craters" are, the upper layer is quite thin, in some cases, non-existent. Since the Moon's diameter is 2,162 miles, then looked at from our point of view it is a thin-walled sphere. And, understandably, not an empty one. There could be all kinds of materials and equipment on its inner surface. But the greatest proportion of the lunar mass is concentrated in the central part of the sphere, in its core, which has a diameter of 2,062 miles. Thus the distance between the kernel and the shell of this nut is in the region of 30 miles. This space was doubtless filled with gases required for breathing, and for technological and other purposes. With such an internal structure the Moon could have an average specific gravity if 3.3 grammes per cubic centimetre, which differs considerably from that of Earth (5.5 grammes per cubic centimetre). A BATTLESHIP THEY COULDN'T TORPEDO? The most numerous and interesting of the formations on the lunar surface are the craters. In diameter they vary considerably. Some are less that a yard across, while others are more than 120 miles (the biggest has a diameter of 148 miles). How does the Moon come to be so pockmarked? There are two hypothesis--volcanic and meteoric. Most scientists vote for the latter. Kirill Stanyukovich, a Soviet physicist, has written a whole series of works since 1937 in which he expounds the idea that the craters are the result of bombardment of the Moon for millions of years. And he really means bombardment, for even the smallest celestial body, when it is involved in one of those fastest head-on collisions so common in the cosmos behaves itself like a warhead charged with dynamite, or even an atomic warhead at times. Instant combustion takes place on impact, turning it into a dense cloud of incandescent gas, into plasma, and there is a very definite explosion. According to Professor Stanykovich, a "missile" of a sizable character (say 6 miles in diameter) must, on collision with the Moon, penetrate to a depth equal to 4 or 5 times its own diameter (24-30 miles). The surprising thing is that however big the meteorites may have been which have fallen on the Moon (some have been more than 60 miles in diameter), and however fast they must have been travelling (in some cases the combined speed was as much as 38 miles per second), the craters they have left behind are for some odd reason all about the same depth, 1.2-2 miles, although they vary tremendously in diameter. Take that 148-mile diameter crater. In area it outdoes Hiroshima hundreds of times over. What a powerful explosion it must have been to send millions of tons of lunar rock fountaining over tens of miles! On the face of it, one would expect to find a very deep crater here, but nothing of the sort: there is three miles at the most between top and bottom levels, and one third of that is accounted for by the wall of rock thrown up around the crater like a toothed crown. For such a big hole, it is too shallow. Furthermore, the bottom of the crater is convex, following the curve of the lunar surface. If you were to stand in the middle of the crater you would not even be able to see the soaring edge-- it would be beyond the horizon. A hollow that is more like a hill is a rather strange affair, perhaps. Not really, if one assumes that when the meteorite strikes the outer covering of the moon, this plays the role of a buffer and the foreign body finds itself up against an impenetrable spherical barrier. Only slightly denting the 20-mile layer of armour plating, the explosion flings bits of its "coating" far and wide. Bearing in mind that the Moon's defence coating is, according to our calculations, 2.5 miles thick, one sees that this is approximately the maximum depth of the craters. A SPACESHIP COME TO GRIEF? Now let us consider the chemical peculiarities of the lunar rock. Upon analysis, American scientists have found chromium, titanium and zirconium in it. These are all metals with refractory, mechanically strong and anti-corrosive properties. A combination of them all would have envitable resistance to heat and the ability to stand up to means of aggression, and could be used on Earth for linings for electrical furnaces. If a material had to be devised to protect a giant artificial satellite from the unfavourable effects of temperature, from cosmic radiation and meteorite bombardment, the experts would probably have hit on precisely these metals. In that case it is not clear why lunar rock is such an extraordinarily poor heat conductor--a factor which so amazed the astronauts? Wasn't that what the designers of the super-sputnik of the Earth were after? From the engineers point of view, this spaceship of ages long past which we call the Moon is superbly constructed. There may be a good reason for its extreme longevity. It is even possible that it predates our own planet. At any rate, some pieces of lunar rock have proved older than the oldest on Earth, although it is true, this applies to the age of the materials and not of the structure for which they were used. And from the number of craters on its surface, the Moon itself is no chicken. It is, of course, difficult to say when it began to shine in the sky above the Earth, but on the basis of some preliminary estimates one might hazard a guess that it was around two thousand million years ago. We do not, of course, imagine that the moon is still inhabited, and probably many of its automatic devices have stopped working, too. The stabilisers have ceased functioning and the poles have shifted. Even though the moon keeps that same side turned towards us, for some time it has been unsteady on its own axis, on occasion showing us part of its reverse side which were once invisible to observers on the Earth--for example, the Selenites themselves if they made expeditions here. Time has taken its toll. Both body and rigging have disintegrated to some extent; some seams on the inner shell evidently diverged. We assume that the long (up to 940 miles) chains of small craters formerly ascribed to volcanic activity were brought about by eruptions of gas through cracks appearing in the armour plating as a result of accidents. No doubt one of the most splendid features of the lunarscape--a straight "wall" nearly 500 yards high and over 60 miles long--formed as a result of one of the armour plates bending under the impact of celestial torpedoes and raising one of its straight, even edges. The Moon's population presumeably took the necessary steps to remedy the effects of meteorite bombardment, for example, patching up rents in the outer shield covering the inner shell. For such purposes a substance from the lunar core was probably used, a kind a cement being made from it. After processing this would be piped to the surface sites where it was required. Not long ago astronomers discovered variations in the gravitational fields near the large "seas". We believe the reason to be this: the Moon's dry seas are in fact areas from which the protective coating was torn from the armour cladding. To make good the damage to these vast tracts, the installation producing the repair substance would have had to be brought immediately beneath the site so that it could flood the area with is "cement". The resulting flat stretches are what look like seas to the terrestrial observer. The stocks of materials and machinery for doing this are no doubt still where they were, and are sufficiently massive to give rise to these gravitational anomalies. What is the Moon today? Is it a colossal necropolis, a "city of the dead," where some form of life became extinct? Is it a kind cosmic Flying Dutchman? A craft abandoned by its crew and controlled automatically? We do not know and we shall not try to guess. WAITING FOR THE EVIDENCE We have put forward in this article only a few of the reasons--unfortunately the evidence is so far only circumstantial--for our hypothesis, which at first glance may appear to be crazy. A similar "crazy" idea was put forward in 1959 by Professor Iosif Shklovsky, an eminent scientist, in relation to the "moons" circling around Mars. After carefully weighing up the evidence he concludes that they are both hollow and therefore artificial satellites. We feel that the questions we have raised in connection with our Moon provide sufficient food for serious thought on the matter; the result may be the illumination of our many lunar riddles. Now, of course, we have to wait for direct evidence to support our idea. Or refute it. Probably there will not be long to wait.
nauka.636 dr.grba,
Jel' može jedno benasto pitanje? Pomozite mi da vidim kometu (: U kom smeru treba da gledam, pod kojim uglom i sve o tome. Večeras pratih neko društvo, bistro nebo, švrljao sam ulicom pet minuta k'o blesav zijajući u zvezde, ali ne videh ništa.
nauka.637 johnnya, -> #636, dr.grba
>> Pomozite mi da vidim kometu (: U kom smeru treba da gledam, pod kojim >> uglom i sve o tome. Večeras pratih neko društvo, bistro nebo, švrljao >> sam ulicom pet minuta k'o blesav zijajući u zvezde, ali ne videh ništa. Kakvo pitanje takav i odgovor :) Jasno se vidi (kao zvezda) i to sve sa repom, otprilike oko 20h, u pravcu zalaska Sunca, pod uglom od nekih 60° u odnosu na horizont... Već negde oko 23h je nema na nebu. PS Barem mislim da sam je video :)
nauka.638 ivkeb, -> #637, johnnya
PS Barem mislim da sam je video :) Ako je to kometa ondaK sam je video i ja :)
nauka.639 gmatic, -> #638, ivkeb
==> PS ==> Barem mislim da sam je video :) ==> ==> ==> Ako je to kometa ondaK sam je video i ja :) I ja!
nauka.640 nenad, -> #636, dr.grba
> Pomozite mi da vidim kometu (: U kom smeru treba da gledam, pod kojim > uglom i sve o tome. Večeras pratih neko društvo, bistro nebo, švrljao > sam ulicom pet minuta k'o blesav zijajući u zvezde, ali ne videh ništa. Pogledaj u smeru konferencije EXTRA, tema 'zvezde', poruke od poslednje 2-3 nedelje. :) Nema ih puno (poruka, zvezda ima).
nauka.641 vstan, -> #640, nenad
>> Pomozite mi da vidim kometu (: U kom smeru treba da gledam, > > Pogledaj u smeru konferencije EXTRA, tema 'zvezde', poruke od Evo jednog fast-finda za grbu: lociraš Mesec, pa dve šake (u predelu nosa) udesno i četiri prsta nadole :)) Dakle pravac severozapad. Vidi se već od 20.15h, prilično iznad horizonta.
nauka.642 snemcev, -> #636, dr.grba
>> Pomozite mi da vidim kometu (: U kom smeru treba da gledam, pod kojim >> uglom i sve o tome. Verovatno ti zgrada Bolnice smeta. Kometa je na pibližno 30 stepeni visine, kad gledaš prema vatrogasnom i nema teorije da je promašiš. :) Najbolje se vidi od 20-21 h.
nauka.643 dr.grba, -> #641, vstan
>>> Pogledaj u smeru konferencije EXTRA, tema 'zvezde', poruke od >> >> Evo jednog fast-finda za grbu: lociraš Mesec, pa dve šake >> (u predelu nosa) udesno i četiri prsta nadole :)) Ama, videh je, uhvatio sam bistro nebo (: Baš je tačno vidim sa balkona. A kako da vidimo onaj svemirski brod iza komete? (((:O
nauka.644 dr.grba, -> #642, snemcev
>> Verovatno ti zgrada Bolnice smeta. Kometa je na pibližno 30 stepeni Taman je malo ulevo. (: Problem je, uglavnom, bio u tome što nisam mogao da vidim kometu gledajući u računar danonoćno (:
nauka.645 orlic, -> #638, ivkeb
Iv> Ako je to kometa ondaK sam je video i ja :) Ehem, ova sto je vidjam ovih dana na nebu? :) Da li je istina da ce 6. maja obasjati nebo?
nauka.646 orlic, -> #636, dr.grba
Dr> Jel' moze jedno benasto pitanje? Dr> Pomozite mi da vidim kometu (: U kom smeru treba da gledam, pod kojim Dr> uglom i sve o tome. Veceras pratih neko drustvo, bistro nebo, svrljao Dr> sam ulicom pet minuta k'o blesav zijajuci u zvezde, ali ne videh nista. Pa gledaj na sever :) Slucajno je moja zgrada okrenuta ka severu i vrlo se lepo videla 2 dana (juce je bilo oblacno)... Slaba ti vajda ako je u tom pravcu izvor svetla... Jel' je to ista kometa koju sam vidjao pre oko mesec dana?
nauka.647 jaroslav.s.,
Evo interesantnog teksta o bolestima, koje su genetski uzrokovane Normal development and physiologic homeostasis depend on the coordinated interactions of the products of many genes working together in metabolic systems. These systems are adaptable within limits, allowing normal homeostasis to occur over a range of environmental conditions. For instance, the products of some 30 to 40 genes participate in blood glucose regulation; in concert they maintain a relatively constant blood glucose concentration despite intermittent and highly variable ingestion of glucose precursors. On a larger scale, developmental and homeostatic interactions of 10,000 or so gene products are believed to be necessary for normal development and function of the central nervous system. Mutations that reduce the adaptive capacity of these systems result in abnormalities that we recognize as genetic disease. The mutant gene may so compromise a particular developmental or homeostatic system that the system functions poorly or not at all under all circumstances, thereby producing a monogenic disorder. Alternatively, the mutant gene may have modest effects under ordinary conditions but in certain environments cause maldevelopment or dyshomeostasis that we recognize as a multifactorial disorder. Thus the role of the genes in health and disease is both central and complex. Consequently, treatment of genetic disease is both difficult and frequently less than completely effective. Effective treatment of genetic disorders requires accurate diagnosis, early intervention prior to development of irreversible tissue damage, and an understanding of the abnormal biochemistry or metabolic pathophysiology. Progress in delineating the molecular basis of genetic disease has improved our capability for accurate diagnosis of monogenic disorders. Understanding of the metabolic pathophysiology is increasing at a slower rate mainly because progress in this area often requires elucidation of integrative physiology by study of the intact organism. The development of noninvasive metabolic monitoring techniques such as positron emission tomography and topical magnetic resonance spectrometry, as well as new genetic technologies for the production of animal models of human genetic disease, offers promise for progress in this area. Approaches to treatment of genetic disease can be organized proceeding from the clinical phenotype through the abnormal metabolites and dysfunctional protein to the level of the defective gene. Treatment of the clinical phenotype includes conventional medical practices such as patient education, pharmacologic interventions, and surgical procedures. It depends on a thorough understanding of the natural history of the particular disorder so that potential complications can be avoided or addressed early in the course to minimize the consequences. Although therapy at this level is not aimed at correcting the primary defect, it can markedly improve the quality of life. Examples include instruction to patients with albinism or xeroderma to limit sun exposure or to patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency to avoid the offending drugs; administration of beta blockers to Marfan's syndrome patients to prevent or slow dilatation of the aortic root, anticonvulsants to patients with neurogenic disorders, or antihypertensive agents to patients with secondary hypertension; and a host of surgical interventions for patients with genetic malformations, skeletal dysplasias, and malignancies.
nauka.648 geronimo,
Zanima me kolkoima sativ na (citaj, centru) Severnog pola?
nauka.649 zoran.r, -> #647, jaroslav.s.
=> Evo interesantnog teksta o bolestima, koje su genetski => uzrokovane => Normal development and physiologic homeostasis depend on the => coordinated Interesuje me sa kog sajta si skinuo tekst? Ujedno poziv svima koji znaju adrese sajtova sa medicinom kao osnovnom temom, da ih ovde navedu.
nauka.650 goth, -> #648, geronimo
>> Zanima me kolkoima sativ na (citaj, centru) Severnog pola? Kako kad...
nauka.651 goth, -> #649, zoran.r
>> Interesuje me sa kog sajta si skinuo tekst? Ujedno poziv svima >> koji znaju adrese sajtova sa medicinom kao osnovnom temom, da >> ih ovde navedu. Moze i neki sajt sa genetskim inzenjeringom?
nauka.652 dr.grba, -> #648, geronimo
>> Zanima me kolkoima sativ na (citaj, centru) Severnog pola? Dejvid Belami je svojevremeno pred kamerama optrčao sve časovne zone za oko 10-15 sekundi (:
nauka.653 geronimo, -> #652, dr.grba
-^->> Zanima me kolkoima sativ na (citaj, centru) Severnog pola? -^- Dejvid Belami je svojevremeno pred kamerama optrcao sve casovne -^- zone za oko 10-15 sekundi (: Ali i dalje nema odgovora :(
nauka.654 nenad, -> #648, geronimo
> Zanima me kolkoima sativ na (citaj, centru) Severnog pola? Onoliko koliko piše na tvom satu. Merenje vremena i sati se oslanja na dogovorene norma i pravila koje su ljudi smislili kako bi lakše određivali termine u toku dana. Zemaljski sati i minuti, oni dakle koje čitamo sa naših časovnika, nemaju nikakvo kosmičko, a ni planterano značenje.
nauka.655 morkin, -> #653, geronimo
> -^->> Zanima me kolkoima sativ na (citaj, centru) Severnog pola? > Ali i dalje nema odgovora :( Nisi precizno pitao. Ako je podne u Beogradu, koliko je sati u Subotici? Administrativno je isto, mereno po Suncu nije. Koje te od ta dva vremena interesuje? "Administrativno" zavisi od toga ko si i šta si. Vreme je nešto što je usvojeno po dogovoru. Ako vreme meriš kao pilot, onda je to vreme po Griniču gde god se nalaziš na planeti. Mislim da polovi ne pripadaju nijednoj zemlji pa tako verovatno niko nije propisao koliko je tamo sati. Ekspedicije koje se lomataju po tim krajevima uzmu neko vreme kao svoje i njega se pridržavaju. Ne umem da ti odgovorim šta bi bilo kad bi se dve ekspedicije srele na polu i kad bi jedna upitala za tačno vreme.
nauka.656 dr.grba, -> #653, geronimo
>> Ali i dalje nema odgovora :( Pa čuj, verovatno se pribegava starom štosu koji služi za izbegavanje zabune različitih časovnih zona - meri se vreme po griniču (UMT). Američka vojska ima i ono što nazivaju ZULU vreme, ne znam sa čime se to poredi; to koriste za prenos komandi preko pola sveta i u sličnim prilikama, budući da ih ima k'o šaše po celom svetu...
nauka.657 pifat, -> #656, dr.grba
>>Američka vojska ima i ono što nazivaju ZULU vreme, ne znam sa čime se >>to poredi; to koriste za prenos komandi preko pola sveta i u sličnim >>prilikama, budući da ih ima k'o šaše po celom svetu... Za sve praktične potrebe Z = UTC = GMT Z - Zulu UTC - Coordinated Universal Time GMT - Greenwich Mean Time
nauka.658 nenad, -> #657, pifat
> Za sve praktične potrebe Z = UTC = GMT > > Z - Zulu A šta znači to Zulu, tj. što se to tako zove?
nauka.659 morkin, -> #658, nenad
> A šta znači to Zulu, tj. što se to tako zove? Slovo "Z" se speluje kao Zulu u avijaciji. A zašto se tako zove, nemam pojma.
nauka.660 d.mladen,
Zna li neko sta nam je sa vremenom, ili mozda samo pretpostavlja? P.S. Boze mili cuda velikoga kad se case po zemlji Srbiji po Srbiji zemlji da prevrne i da ... :)
nauka.661 nenad, -> #660, d.mladen
> Zna li neko sta nam je sa vremenom, ili mozda samo pretpostavlja? Verovatno je tehničar u nekoj ruskoj laboratiriji doveo nestašnog sina na posao. :))
nauka.662 sav.gacic, -> #661, nenad
>> Zna li neko sta nam je sa vremenom, ili mozda samo pretpostavlja? > Verovatno je tehničar u nekoj ruskoj laboratiriji doveo nestašnog > sina na posao. :)) Ux, mnogo se o "vremenskom inženjeringu/kontroli" priča, a još više mašta. Navodno, već nekoliko decenija postoji tehnologija koja je u stanju da upravlja vremenom... Navodno, spada u najstrože čuvane tajne i po važnosti je u rangu atomskog oružja. Za sada je svet upoznao samo "bombardovanje" oblaka jedinjenjima srebra koja pospešuju kondenzaciju i povećavaju verovatnoću izazivanja padavina na nekom mestu (ili van njega). Da to ne ostane na nivou šuplje priče, Rusi (ok, Sovjeti) su svojevremeno dali obećanje da kiše u Moskvi (bar nad stadionom) neće biti ni na otvaranju ni na zatvaranju Olimpijade '80. Oba dana su bila siva i oblake si mogao "rukom da dohvatiš", na otvaranju su organizatori imali sreće - kiše stvarno nije bilo, ali na zatvaranju je nešto prskalo čitav dan (hoće-neće intenzitetom), tako da sam bio veoma sklon da poverujem da je ultrasofisticirana tehnologija vremenskog inženjeringa bila bazirana na principu "neće valjda" ;) Slično važi i za sada jedinu super-silu: štete koje su vremenske nepogode pričinile SAD u poslednjih par godina (eto, dosta je i ono što videsmo na TV), po meni, svakako prevazilaze "efekat tajnosti" vremenskog oružja. Ako je to nešto tako skupo i nedosatižno - čega se boje? Ko danas na svetu ima mogućnost da generiše dovoljno NOVCA da napravi nešto slično (sve i da pokrade planove) ;) A ako nešto slično imaju, o tome bi se sigurno čulo, a onda bi pod pritiskom javnosti dotični autoritet definitivno morao to čudevenije da pusti u pogon a ne da ostavlja fellow Americans da se dave, smrzavaju, lete u vazduh ili lipsavaju (odabrati u zavisnosti od godišnjeg doba) ;) A što se kilavog aprila tiče, oni '85. i '89. su bili još gori... Na putu za Hercegovinu za majske praznike nekolio puta smo upadali u snežne mećave, a temperatura se držala na jezivih +2. Malo se raspitajte kod starijih... Videćete kako će početi da se pucaju po čelu i počinju svoje besede sa: "Nije to ništa, a one godine, sećam se..." :). Zabrinutosti nema mesta :) sve je u granicama normale ;) samo da preguramo ovu zelenu zimu i da se nadamo da smo "neuobičajeno hladno vreme za ovo doba godine" odradili ;) Nešto mi pade na pamet... nisam pročitao, niti čuo ni jedno negodovanje na jednako neuobičajenih +22 u februaru ove godine ;)(:
nauka.663 nenad, -> #662, sav.gacic
>> Verovatno je tehničar u nekoj ruskoj laboratiriji doveo nestašnog >> sina na posao. :)) > > Ux, mnogo se o "vremenskom inženjeringu/kontroli" priča, a još više > mašta. "Za*ebali Rusi klimu, 'mesto leta šalju zimu" - (c) Bora Čorba :) > Za sada je svet upoznao samo "bombardovanje" > oblaka jedinjenjima srebra koja pospešuju kondenzaciju i povećavaju > verovatnoću izazivanja padavina na nekom mestu (ili van njega). Neko mi reče da su Rusi tražili 20 miliona maraka za garanciju da će proslava rušenja berlinskog zida proteći bez kiše...
nauka.664 dr.grba, -> #662, sav.gacic
>> Zabrinutosti nema mesta :) sve je u granicama normale ;) samo da preguramo >> ovu zelenu zimu i da se nadamo da smo "neuobičajeno hladno vreme za ovo >> doba godine" odradili ;) Fakat je da je mnogo voća propalo. Npr, ko bude imao kajsije, *a tek kajsijevaču*, svaka mu čast. Na Fruškoj gori je, recimo, procvetalo skoro svo voće sem jabuka, pao je sneg na cvetove, a potom se zaledio. Stradalo je i mnogo vinove loze. Propast ):
nauka.665 d.mladen,
Znam da se ovo uci u osnovnoj skoli i da pitanje moze zvucati glupo, ali prosto moram da pitam. Samo dve reci: magnetno polje Mozda postoji neka dobra dusa sa dovoljno zivaca i vremena da malo pojasni sta je magnetno polje, tacnije od cega se sastoji. Koliko se ja secam u skoli su me ucili da je to polje koje privlaci gvozdene predmete, a toliko sam i sam znao. (vrlo je moguce da me secanje vara) :)
nauka.666 stameni,
U Beogradu je svojevremeno u Ulici Đure Jakšića (seče Knez- Mihailovu) bila knjižara u kojoj se za ne puno novca mogla nabaviti prilično dobra literatura iz oblasti nauke uopšte (zato poruka ide u CIV:nauka), a pre svega matematike i fizike, a bogami i programiranja na ruskom jeziku. Jedno vreme ta knjižara nije radila; pričalo se da je premeštena na drugo mesto. Elem, zna li se nešto o njoj? Rado bih pogledao čega ima. Takođe, ako neko zna gde se u nas može nabaviti literatura za male pare, neka javi...
nauka.667 vstan, -> #666, stameni
/subj:Prosvetina knjižara ruske knjige/ > U Beogradu je svojevremeno u Ulici Đure Jakšića (seče Knez- > Mihailovu) bila knjižara u kojoj se za ne puno novca > mogla nabaviti prilično dobra literatura iz oblasti nauke > uopšte (zato poruka ide u CIV:nauka), a pre svega matematike i > fizike, a bogami i programiranja na ruskom jeziku. Jedno > vreme ta knjižara nije radila; pričalo se da je premeštena na > drugo mesto. Elem, zna li se nešto o njoj? Ta knjižara definitivno ne postoji više godina. Prilikom ukidanja sve knjige su bile prenete u Jugoslovensku knjigu, palata Albanija, i to u odelenje u podrumu, gde se i inače prodavala strana, pa i ruska knjiga. Mada sam tada bio načuo da postoji i nekakva radnja pri Narodnoj biblioteci, pa je nešto i tamo trebalo da ode, ali to nije provereno. Prostorije je nazad uzeo SANU, i čine deo njihovog muzeja tehnike.
nauka.668 d.mladen,
>Mozda postoji neka dobra dusa sa dovoljno zivaca i vremena da malo pojasni sta je magnetno polje, tacnije od cega se sastoji. - Da se razumemo, moze i u dve-tri reci samo da je koliko-toliko jasno (nisam ja bas toliko glup kao sto mozda zvucim, da ne kazem izgledam :) )
nauka.670 miste,
Postovana Sezam publiko, Zdravo. A sada spektakl: najostriji snimak Marsa ikada uzet, snimio ga Hubble svemirski teleskop u martu. Download obavezan i molim odgovor. P.S. Skinuto pre bukvalno 2 sata sa Internet-a. Lokacija: www.stsci.edu. Pozdrav, VLADA marssm97.jpg
nauka.671 nenad, -> #670, miste
> Zdravo. A sada spektakl: najostriji snimak Marsa ikada uzet, snimio ga > Hubble svemirski teleskop u martu. Download obavezan i molim odgovor. Lepo, samo je možda za poruke ovog sadržaja bolje mesto Extra:zvezde. :).
nauka.672 dr.grba, -> #671, nenad
>> Lepo, samo je možda za poruke ovog sadržaja bolje mesto >> Extra:zvezde. :). Nije na odmet malo osvežiti ni ovde (: Ili da uvedemo princip hiperlinka na poruku u drugoj konferenciji?...
nauka.673 stameni,
Preporučite CD naslove iz oblasti kardiologije i/ili kardiohirurgije.
nauka.674 stameni, -> #673, stameni
>> Preporučite CD naslove iz oblasti kardiologije >> i/ili kardiohirurgije. The Total Heart?
nauka.675 sareni,
Da li neko zna gde/da li mogu da se nadju sledeci cd-rom-ovi? 1. Cambell - "The Operative Orthopaedics" 2. Rockwood Green - "Fracture In Adultes" 3. Turek - "The Text Book Of Orthopaedics" Hvala :)
nauka.676 dbambi,
Evo jednog neobičnog problema :) Treba da očistim jedno ogledalo od nekih teških mrlja. Nijedno sredstvo za čišćenje nije pomoglo, pa sam odlučio da upotrebim sonu kiselinu (HCl). Sve bi bilo ok, da mi neko nije rekao kako moram jako da pazim da slučajno kiselina ne dospe na drugu stranu ogledala. Ako bi se ovo desilo, kiselina bi razorila premaz od srebro-oksida i to u velikoj meri, jer navodno, mala količina kiseline burno reaguje sa znatno većom količinom srebro-oksida i time ga razara. Ima li nekog ko voli hemiju više od mene :)), da me posavetuje ? Bambi
nauka.677 olio, -> #676, dbambi
> Treba da ocistim jedno ogledalo od nekih teskih mrlja. Nijedno Koje teske mrlje? Ako je staro ogledalo, onda se unistio sloj srebro-oksida i tu nema pomoci. Jedino mozda pomaze da se ponovo prevuce novim slojen oksida(ai to je pitanje).
nauka.678 mmarkovic, -> #676, dbambi
> Treba da očistim jedno ogledalo od nekih teških mrlja. Nijedno > sredstvo za čišćenje nije pomoglo, pa sam odlučio da upotrebim Da nisu te mrlje u stvari oštećenja? Liče...
nauka.679 dbambi, -> #677, olio
=>> Treba da ocistim jedno ogledalo od nekih teskih mrlja. Nijedno => => Koje teske mrlje? => Ako je staro ogledalo, onda se unistio sloj srebro-oksida => i tu nema pomoci. Jedino mozda pomaze da se ponovo prevuce => novim slojen oksida(ai to je pitanje). Ne, niste me ukapirali. Mrlje potiču od dečjih sličica (zeke, kuce mace i sl. sve staro cirka 20-25 god.) Te sličice su nalepljene na licu ogledala (tu naravno nema premaza od srebro-oksida). Te sličice ne bih želeo da uklanjam nekim mehaničkim putem (struganje ili brušenje) jer će na staklu ogledala ostati ogrebotine. Takođe, ni problem sa srebro-oksidom se neće javiti ako budem pažljivo radio i ne dozvolim da mi kiselina padne na poleđinu ogledala (tu se nalazi srebro-oksid) a to valjda svako uz malo truda može da uradi. Moje pitanje se više odnosilo na situaciju tipa " šta bi bilo kad bi bilo i kiselina ipak dođe (kao što naravno neće :)) u kontakt sa premazom ogledala " Bambi
nauka.680 mmarkovic, -> #679, dbambi
> Moje pitanje se više odnosilo na situaciju tipa " šta bi > bilo kad bi bilo i kiselina ipak dođe (kao što naravno neće :)) > u kontakt sa premazom ogledala " Pa pitaj nekog hemičara. Mislim da je user olio hemičar. A šta se desi kad prenoći sa nekom natopljenom krpom, ili se nisi usudio?
nauka.681 olio, -> #679, dbambi
> Ne, niste me ukapirali. Mrlje poticu od decjih slicica (zeke, kuce Lepak od slicica na staklu su organskog porekla. To e pere 96% etanolom(etil-alkoholom),acetonom, ili razredjivacem (uzmi nitro razredjivac). Nikako nemoj sipati neku kiselinu. Pazi da donji sloj stakla(onaj tamni, suprotni od ogledala) ne pokvasis sa doticnim hemikalijama. Radi vise na suvo:namoci krpu ili vatu alkoholom i onda protrljaj i vidi da li se skida lepak.
nauka.683 dr.grba,
Mala poslastica, deo drugi (: Saturn i njegovi meseci, brojke. Diameter Distance from Sun Saturn 120,536 km/74,900 mi 1.4 billion km/870 million mi Saturn's Moons Distance from Planet Center Atlas 40x20 km/24x12 mi 137,670 km/85,500 mi Prometheus 140x100x80 km/85x60x50 mi 139,353 km/86,600 mi Pandora 110x90x80 km/70x55x50 mi 141,700 km/88,500 mi Epimetheus 140x120x100 km/85x70x60 mi. 151,472 km/94,124 mi Janus 220x200x160 km/135x125x100 mi. 151,422 km/94,093 mi Mimas 392 km/243 mi 185,520 km/115,295 mi Enceladus 520 km/320 mi 238,020 km/147,900 mi Tethys 1,060 km/660 km 294,660 km/183,100 mi Telesto 34x28x26 km/20x17x16 mi 294,660 km/183,100 mi Calypso 34x22x22 km/20x13x13 mi 294,660 km/183,100 mi Dione 1,120 km/695 mi 377,400 km/234,500 mi Helene 36x32x30 km/22x20x19 mi 377,400 km/234,900 mi Rhea 1,530 km/950 mi 527,040 km/327,500 mi Titan 5,150 km/3,200 mi 1,221,860 km/759,300 mi Hyperion 410x260x220 km/250x155x135 mi 481,000 km/920,300 mi Iapetus 1,460 km/910 mi 3,560,830 km/2,212,900 mi Phoebe 220 km/135 mi 12,952,000 km/8,048,000 mi
nauka.682 dr.grba,
Mala poslastica, deo prvi (: Jupiter i njegovi meseci, brojke. Diameter Distance from Sun Jupiter 142,984 km/88,846 mi 778,000,000 km/483,000,000 mi Jupiter's Moons Distance From Planet Center Metis 40 km/25 mi 128,000 km/79,500 mi Adrastea 24x20x14 km/14x12x9 mi 129,000 km/80,100 mi Amalthea 270x166x150 km/165x103x95 mi 181,300 km/112,600 mi Thebe 110x90km/65x55 mi 222,000 km/138,000 mi Io 3,630 km/2,225 mi 422,000 km/262,000 mi Europa 3,138 km/1,949 mi 661,000 km/414,500 mi Ganymede 5,262 km/3,269 mi 1,070,000 km/664,900 mi Callisto 4,800 km/3,000 mi 1,883,000 km/1,170000 mi Leda 16 km/10 mi 11,094,000 km/6,900,000 mi Himalia 186 km/115 mi 11,480,000 km/7,133,000 mi Lysithia 36 km/20 mi 11,720,000 km/7,282,000 mi Elara 76 km/47 mi 11,737,000 km/7,293,000 mi Ananke 30/18 mi 21,200,000 km/13,173,000 mi Carme 40 km/25 mi 22,600,000 km/14,043,000 mi Pasiphae 50 km/31 mi 23,500,000 km/14,602,000 mi Sinope 36 km/22 mi 23,700,000 km/14,727,000 mi
nauka.684 dr.grba,
Kad smo se već navadili (: Uran, meseci, brojke, a tek imena (: Diameter Distance from Sun Uranus 51,118 km/31,764 mi 3 billion km/1.8 billion mi Uranus's Moons: Distance from Planet Center Cordelia 26 km/16 mi 49,800 km/30,950 mi Ophelia 30 km/18 mi 53,800 km/33,400 mi Bianca 42 km/26 mi 59,200 km/36,800 mi Juliet 62 km/38 mi 61,800 km/38,400 mi Desdemona 54 km/33 mi 62,700 km/38,960 mi Rosalind 84 km/52 mi 64,400 km/40,000 mi Portia 108 km/67 mi 66,100 km/41,100 mi Cressida 54 km/32 mi 69,900 km/43,400 mi Belinda 66 km/40 mi 75,300 km/46,700 mi Puck 154 km/95 mi 86,000 km/53,000 mi Miranda 472 km/293 mi 129,900 km/80,650 mi Ariel 1,158 km/720 mi 190,900 km/118,835 mi Umbriel 1,172 km/728 mi 265,969 km/165,300 mi Titania 1,580 km/981 mi 436,300 km/271,100 mi Oberon 1,524 km/947 mi 583,400 km/362,500 mi
nauka.685 dr.grba,
onda je ponestalo inspiracije... Neptun, njegovi meseci, brojke. Diameter Distance from Sun Neptune 49,528 km/30,776 mi 4.5 billion km/2.7 billion mi Neptune's Moons: Distance from Planet Center 1989N6 54 km/33 mi 48,000 km/29,827 mi 1989N5 80 km/50 mi 50,000 km/31,000 mi 1989N3 180 km/110 mi 52,500 km/32,600 mi 1989N4 150 km/95 mi 62,000 km/38,525 mi 1989N2 190 km/120 mi 73,600 km/45,700 mi 1989N1 400 km/250 mi 117,600 km/73,075 mi Triton 2,700 km/1,680 mi 354,760 km/220,500 mi Nereid 340 km/210 mi 5,509,090 km/3,423,000 mi
nauka.686 dr.grba,
Da nabrojimo pride - Merkur i Venera nemaju satelite, Zemlja ima... kako se ono zvaše..., Mars ima Fobos i Deimos (u prevodu sa grčkog: "strava" i "užas"), a kažu da i Pluton ima neki kamenčić po imenu Charon, otkriven 1978.
nauka.687 vukan, -> #686, dr.grba
> sa grčkog: "strava" i "užas"), a kažu da i Pluton ima neki kamenčić > po imenu Charon, otkriven 1978. Da, i to je otkriveno tako što je primećeno (posmatranjima pomoću "smrtnih" Zemaljskih teleskopa - tada nije bilo Habla) da Pluton ima nekakvu "grbu" na sebi. Kasnije je uočeno da je to, u stvari, satelit. Međutim, dimenzije (i masa) satelita su, u odnosu na Plutonovu, takve da se može govoriti i o tzv. "dualnom" sistemu, pošto masa satelita ne zaostaje mnogo za Plutonovom. Još je nešto interesantno, a to je gustina Plutona. Dimenzije Plutona, njegov položaj, orbita, uticaji "susednih" planeta,... sve to nije moglo da objasni rezultate proračuna, na osnovu kojih sledi da je Pluton sastavljen od nečega što je teže od olova. Zato se i spekuliše desetom planetom, koja se kreće ko-zna-kuda oko Sunca i koja utiče na kretanje Plutona. Inače, zamislite letovanje na predivnoj obali mora zaleđenog metana (koje preovlađuje na Plutonu) :)
nauka.688 pifat,
U Parizu je u osamdeset sedmoj godini umro poznati podmorski istrazivac Jacques Yves Cousteau. Verujem da se mnogi od vas secaju njegovih sjajnih TV serija.
nauka.689 kalimero, -> #688, pifat
>> U Parizu je u osamdeset sedmoj godini umro poznati podmorski >> istrazivac Jacques Yves Cousteau. Verujem da se mnogi od vas secaju >> njegovih sjajnih TV serija. Slava mu. Bio je i ostaće neprevazidjen!
nauka.690 morkin,
Da li neko zna gde imaa da se kupi :( ili pozajmi :) knjiga "Bezbolan porođaj"? U obzir dolazi isključivo Beograd.
nauka.692 vdjole, -> #684, dr.grba
> Uranus's Moons: > Cordelia Ophelia Bianca Juliet Desdemona Rosalind Portia Cressida > Belinda Puck Miranda Ariel Umbriel Titania Oberon Jedan mali kviz :) šta je zajedničko za gornja imena? Nego, zaista, kako je došlo do toga da se ti sateliti ovako nazovu? Mnogo mi je milo i drago i mislim da je čovek to i zaslužio.
nauka.694 firus, -> #692, vdjole
>> Cordelia Ophelia Bianca Juliet Desdemona Rosalind Portia >> Cressida Belinda Puck Miranda Ariel Umbriel Titania Oberon > > Jedan mali kviz :) šta je zajedničko za gornja imena? U pitanju su imena junaka Šekspirovih dramskih dela. > Nego, zaista, kako je došlo do toga da se ti sateliti ovako > nazovu? Mnogo mi je milo i drago i mislim da je čovek to i > zaslužio. BTW, a šta ako je F. Bekon pravi autor Šekpirovih dela, čime se u poslednje vreme poprilično špekuliše !?
nauka.695 mojke,
Evo jednog pitanja koje nema mnogo veze se naukom,ali me zivo interesuje: Pitanje:Ako su Amerikanci dosli prvi na Mesec,i tamo pobedonosno zaboli svoju zvezdasto-tufnastu zastavu,da li je sad Mesec vlasnistvo USA ???
nauka.696 radomir, -> #695, mojke
->Ako su Amerikanci dosli prvi na Mesec, ->da li je sad Mesec vlasnoistvo USA. E pa nebi trebalo po medjunarodnom pravu. Jer Mjesec je stvar extra comercum (van prometa kao sto je vazduh). Ali posto u medju- narodnom pravu vlada pravo jaceg (skoro). Onda cemo vidjeti uskoro za koju godinu da li je njihovo vlasnistvo. P.S. Ako grijesim neka me ispravi neko od starijih pravnika. Znam sigurno da sada nije.
nauka.697 morkin, -> #695, mojke
> Pitanje:Ako su Amerikanci dosli prvi na Mesec,i tamo pobedonosno > zaboli svoju zvezdasto-tufnastu zastavu,da li je sad Mesec > vlasnistvo USA ??? Nije. Po nekom međunarodnom sporazumu, ne pripada nikome i nema veze ko prvi stigne tamo. To važi za ceo svemir, ne samo za Mesec.
nauka.698 obren,
Nakon eksperimentisanja sa jednim kompjuterskim programom, dvojica srednjoškolaca iz Konektikata zapanjila su matematički svet rešivši jedan od osnovnih geometrijskih problema, na način koji nadmašuje čak čuvenog grčkog matematičara Euklida. Šta je zadatak? Podeliti duž na proizvoljan broj jednakih delova (naravno geometrijskim putem, bez merenja). Euklid je pronašao način da se ovo uradi, ali na daleko složeniji način. Dejvid Goldenhajm i Danijel Ličfild, obojica šesnaestogodišnjaci, pronašli su elegantan i jednostavan metod da se reši ovaj problem (pogledajte animirani GIF okačen uz poruku). Momci su sedam dana odsustvovali iz škole kako bi svom pronalasku podučili svoje nastavnike - na nacionalnom seminaru za nastavnike matematike u Mineapolisu. Kratko objašnjenje postupka: 1) Nad zadatom duži treba konstruisati pravougaonik proizvoljne visine 2) Povući duž od donjeg-levog ugla pravougaonika do sredine njegove gornje stranice (stranice paralelne zadatoj duži). 3) Povući dijagonalu pravougaonika od gornjeg-levog do donjeg-desnog ugla. 4) Iz preska duži iz tačke 2) sa dijagonalom treba konstruisati normalu na donju stranicu pravougaonika (zadatu duž) čime se dobija 1/3 zadate duži. 5) Sada povući duž od gonjeg-levog ugla pravougaonika do dobijene tačke na trećini duži 6) U preseku ove duži i duži iz tačke 2) dobija se tačka čija projekcija na duž određuje 1/5 7) Navedeni postupak se ponavlja i tako se dobijaju 1/7, 1/9 itd. duži Za parne podele treba nakon povlačenja duži iz tačke 2) "školski" odrediti polovinu duži i tako odrediti potrebnu tačku (umesto povlačenja dijagonale kod neparnih podela). Sada se 1/4, 1/6, 1/8 itd. dobijaju na isti način kao i u prethodno opisanom postupku. podela.gif
nauka.699 radomir, -> #697, morkin
-->Pitanje:Ako su Amerikanci dosli prvi na Mesec,i tamo pobedonosno -->zaboli svoju zvezdasto-tufnastu zastavu,da li je sad Mesec -->vlasnistvo USA ??? -> ->Nije. Po nekom medunarodnom sporazumu, ne pripada nikome i nema veze ->ko prvi stigne tamo. To vazi za ceo svemir, nee samo za Mesec. Nista to ne znaci jer ipak su oni najjaci, a izmedju ostalog oni prakticno imaju monopol na osvajanje svemira jer jedini imaju tu tehnologiju sto znaci dok neka druga drzava stigne do mjeseca on ce vec citav biti njihov. Posto ce oni biti uvijek korak ispred svih to vazi za svaku drugu planetu. Medjutim pitanje je kakva ce biti njihova politika, tj. dali ce dozvoliti drugim nacijama da se ukljice u njihove programe ili ce ih zadrzati za sebe. Ali to ti je vise sociolosko pitanje o pravcu razvitka svjetskog drustva.
nauka.700 geronimo, -> #697, morkin
-^- Nije. Po nekom medunarodnom sporazumu, ne pripada nikome i nema veze ko -^- prvi stigne tamo. To vazi za ceo svemir, ne samo za Mesec. Za Amere ne vazi...Oni ne pripadaju svemiru..Oni su visha bica ;)
nauka.701 dr.grba, -> #698, obren
>> Šta je zadatak? Podeliti duž na proizvoljan broj jednakih delova >> (naravno geometrijskim putem, bez merenja). Euklid je pronašao >> način da se ovo uradi, ali na daleko složeniji način. Izvinjavam se što smetam, ali Euklidov način je ipak jednostavniji: 1) Iz jedne temeni duži koju treba podeliti povući liniju pod proizvoljnim, a najbolje oštrim uglom. 2) Tu liniju podeliti na n jednakih segmenata. Ne treba merenje, dovoljan je šestar. 3) Tačku na kraju poslednjeg segmenta spojiti sa drugim temenom duži koju hoćemo da podelimo. 4) Povlačimo linije paralelne dobijenoj liniji, tako da prolaze kroz tačke koje određuju segmente. 5) nema 5. Ovo što se dobilo je rezultat. Koji crni pravougaonici i koje crno sedmodnevno obučavanje (: -------------------- P.S. Možeš i ovo da markiraš modulatorskim flegom (:
nauka.702 obren, -> #701, dr.grba
> Izvinjavam se što smetam, ali Euklidov način je ipak jednostavniji: > > 1) Iz jedne temeni duži koju treba podeliti povući liniju pod > proizvoljnim, a najbolje oštrim uglom. > 2) Tu liniju podeliti na n jednakih segmenata. Ne treba merenje, > dovoljan je šestar. > 3) Tačku na kraju poslednjeg segmenta spojiti sa drugim temenom > duži koju hoćemo da podelimo. > 4) Povlačimo linije paralelne dobijenoj liniji, tako da prolaze > kroz tačke koje određuju segmente. > 5) nema 5. Ovo što se dobilo je rezultat. Da bre :)) ovo se uči u osnovnoj školi i svakako je prostije od metode pravougaonika :) Nije mi palo na pamet da je to u stvari Euklidov način... :) Inače ono je preneto sa "www.discovery.com", čisto da ne zaostajemo za svetom u geometriji ;)
nauka.704 stefan, -> #701, dr.grba
>Izvinjavam se što smetam, ali Euklidov način je ipak jednostavniji: > >1) Iz jedne temeni duži koju treba podeliti povući liniju pod > proizvoljnim, a najbolje oštrim uglom. > >2) Tu liniju podeliti na n jednakih segmenata. Ne treba merenje, > dovoljan je šestar. Pre će biti: 2) Na tu liniju (tj. polupravu) šestarom naneti n jednakih segmenata. Da možemo da je izdelimo na n segmenata ne bi ni vukli tu pomoćnu polupravu već bi odmah izdelili "originalnu" duž :)
nauka.705 dr.grba, -> #704, stefan
>> 2) Na tu liniju (tj. polupravu) šestarom naneti n jednakih segmenata. >> >> Da možemo da je izdelimo na n segmenata ne bi ni vukli tu pomoćnu >> polupravu već bi odmah izdelili "originalnu" duž :) OK, ovo je konkretnije, što b' rekli - matematički ispravnije rečeno. Slažem se sa opservacijom.
nauka.706 petronio,
In lieu of the extra-terrestial phenomena, and its realting theories, I would like to bring us back to earth for a bit. There is a lot of theories of what or who are Aliens. But a theory is just that.. a theory... Yet when a theory become so popular, people might consider it a fact. Generations laters, it is a fact. Before we think about life in the stars... let think about current disagreements here at home.. Disagreements About Evolution-Why? When a special centennial edition of Darwin's Origin of Species was to be published, W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, in Ottawa, Canada, was invited to write its introduction. In it he said: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution" THOSE who support the theory of evolution feel that it is now an established fact. They believe that evolution is an "actual occurrence," a "reality," a "truth," as one dictionary defines the word "fact." But is it? To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth. Would an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the same solid ground? Interestingly, ever since Char les Darwin's book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter of consi derable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists. Today, that dispute is more intense than ever. And it is en lightening to consider what advocates of evolution themselves are saying about the matter. Evolution Under Assault The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: "Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalis t Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the foss il record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." 1 Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and auth or of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: "For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying pr inciple of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble." 2 After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded: "[Evo lution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is no w a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight." 3 Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly con fident certitude of evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He spoke of the "lack of total agre ement even within the warring camps," and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists." A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: "It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal hole s." Regarding Darwin's Origin of Species, he observed: "We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famo us for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind."-Italics added. Booker also stated: "A century after Darwin's death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible ide a of how evolution really took place-and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the who le question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionar y] sect urging some new modification." He concluded: "As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest id ea and probably never shall." 5 Evolutionist Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, fo r and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions, "potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a l ong-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes its place." 6 And Britain's New Scien tist observed that "an increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest in tellectual credentials." 7 Dilemmas Over Origins Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no c lear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out o f nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened." He added: "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation." 8 But the difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has be en the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organ s would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed. So the question arises: Could the undirected el ement of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right ti me to produce such elaborate mechanisms? Darwin acknowledged this as a problem. For example, he wrote: "To suppose that the eye . . . could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 9 More than a century has passed since then. Has th e problem been solved? No. On the contrary, since Darwin's time what has been learned about the eye shows that it is eve n more complex than he understood it to be. Thus Jastrow said: "The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of te lescopes could have done better." 10 If this is so of the eye, what, then, of the human brain? Since even a simple machine does not evolve by chance, how ca n it be a fact that the infinitely more complex brain did? Jastrow concluded: "It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of ran dom disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors." 11 Dilemmas Over Fossils Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If e volution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into ano ther kind. But the Bulletin of Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History commented: "Darwin's theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very importa nt part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately , this is not strictly true." Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way h e predicted it would . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow an d progressive evolution." In fact now, after more than a century of collecting fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time," explained the Bulletin. 12 Why is this the case? Because the more abundant fossil evidence available today shows that some of the examples that were once used to support evolution now a re seen not to do so at all. This failure of the fossil evidence to support gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In The New Evolution ary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He said: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution]." 13 Ni les Eldredge also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." 14 Newer Theories All of this has led many scientists to champion novel theories for evolution. Science Digest put it this way: "Some scie ntists are proposing even more rapid evolutionary changes and are now dealing quite seriously with ideas once popularize d only in fiction." 15 For instance, some scientists have concluded that life could not have arisen spontaneously on earth. Instead, they spec ulate that it must have originated in outer space and then floated down to the earth. But that just pushes the problem o f the origin of life further back and into a more forbidding setting. The perils confronting life in the hostile environ ment of outer space are well known. Is it likely, then, that life began spontaneously elsewhere in the universe and surv ived under such harsh conditions to reach the earth, and later to develop into life as we know it? Since the fossil record does not show a gradual development of life from one type into another, some evolutionists theor ize that the process must have happened by jerks and starts, not at a steady pace. As The World Book Encyclopedia explai ns: "Many biologists think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes." 16 Some adherents to this theory have called the process "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species maintain their "equili brium" (they stay much the same), but every once in a while there is a "punctuation" (a big jump to evolve into somethin g else). This is just the opposite of the theory that has been accepted by nearly all evolutionists for many decades. Th e gulf between the two theories was illustrated by a headline in The New York Times: "Theory of Rapid Evolution Attacked ." The article noted that the newer "punctuated equilibrium" idea had "aroused new opposition" among those who hold to t he traditional view. 17 Regardless of which theory is held, it is reasonable that there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between different types of life found in the fossil record, as well as the gaps between different types of living things on earth today, still persist. Also, it is revealing to see what has happened to Darwin's long-accepted idea regarding the "survival of the fittest." This he called "natural selection." That is, he believed that nature "selected" the fittest living things to survive. As these "fit" ones supposedly acquired new features that worked to their advantage, they slowly evolved. But the evidence of the past 125 years shows that, while the fittest may indeed survive, this does not explain how they arrived. One lio n may be fitter than another lion, but that does not explain how he got to be a lion. And all of his offspring will stil l be lions, not something else. Thus, in Harper's magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented: "Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. . . . One organism may indeed be 'fitter' than anoth er . . . This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, . . . It is clear, I think, that there was s omething very, very wrong with such an idea." Bethell added: "As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin's theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse." 18 Fact or Theory? Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: "In three crucial areas whe re [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evol ving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life." -Italics added. 25 Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: "To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theor y so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it en compasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lif eless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things ." In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution "so inadequate that it deserves to be trea ted as a matter of faith." 19 However, many advocates of evolution feel that they do have sufficient reason to insist that evolution is a fact. They explain that they are just arguing over details. But if any other theory had such enormous remaining difficulties, and s uch major contradictions among those who advocate it, would it so readily be pronounced a fact? Merely repeating that so mething is a fact does not make it a fact. As John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: "Many scient ists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has b een presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogma tic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science." 20 On the other hand, what about creation as an explanation for how life got here? Does it offer a framework for the evide nce that is any more sound than the assertions that often underpin evolution? And, as the best-known creation account, d oes Genesis shed any credible light on how the earth and living things got here?
nauka.707 geronimo,
Zanima me da li bi u realnosti bili moguci onako brzi pokreti rukom prilikom povlacenja one rucke u Star treek-u iako je bestezinsko i iako imajuone magnetne cizme.Poshto mi ortak tvrdi kako su moguci jer telo ima oslonac tj noge su pricvrshcenje za podlogu
nauka.708 dr.grba,
Ako još niste uspeli da vidite golim okom orbitalnu stanicu "Mir", pokušajte večeras! Nebo je jasno ovih noći, a uzbudljivo je videti jednu "zvezdu" koja se kreće velikom brzinom po nebu (: Dakle, podatak za Beograd, sreda, 6. avgust: vreme pravac trajanje max. ugao 21:27 zapad-severozapad do severoistok 6 minuta 26 stepeni 23:03 zapad-severozapad do sever-severozapad 3 minuta 23 stepena Ako živite severno od Beograda, u povoljnijem ste položaju, a gledajte malo ranije i južnije (: Ako ste južnije od Beograda, onda obrnuto - malo kasnije i malo severnije.
nauka.709 pdeze, -> #708, dr.grba
> Ako jos niste uspeli da vidite golim okom orbitalnu stanicu "Mir", > pokusajte veceras! Nebo je jasno ovih noci, a uzbudljivo je videti > jednu "zvezdu" koja se krece velikom brzinom po nebu (: Nisam bas u toku... Jel' je ovo neka sezonska atrakcija, ili je Mir uvek vidljiv na nebu (osim naravno kada je oblacno, a bogme ni danju se ne vidi, to je sigurno :)) Da li znas kolika mu je perioda?
nauka.710 dr.grba, -> #709, pdeze
>> Nisam bas u toku... Jel' je ovo neka sezonska atrakcija, >> ili je Mir uvek vidljiv na nebu (osim naravno kada je oblacno, Ne znam, izgleda da je sad povoljan ugao gledanja. Beše neki raspored vremena vidljivosti na Internetu, na Web adresi http://www.osf.hq.nasa.gov/mir/bf.html >> Da li znas kolika mu je perioda? E, nemam pojma. Bilo je večeri kada se moglo videti dva puta, u razmaku od par sati.
nauka.711 vdjole, -> #708, dr.grba
>Ako jos niste uspeli da vidite golim okom orbitalnu stanicu "Mir", >pokusajte veceras! S obzirom na tumpave meteoroloske prilike ovih dana, je l' mogu ti podaci za nekoliko dana unapred? Please...
nauka.712 ivkeb,
Evo periodnog sistema elemenata sa osnovnim podacima za svaki element,njegova istorija,izotopi,... down obavezno period.zip
nauka.713 ivkeb,
Imam prog.za crtanje matemat.f-ija.Ne znam jel sam ga skinua na Sez.ili Intern. Ako nekom treba recite pa cu ga okacim. cu
nauka.714 pvlada, -> #713, ivkeb
> Imam prog.za crtanje matemat.f-ija.Ne znam jel sam ga skinua na > Sez.ili Intern. > Ako nekom treba recite pa cu ga okacim. Na sezamu imaš u WINDOWSĐGRAPHĐgpt34win.zip program za crtanje funkcija Gnuplot ver. 3.4, pa ako to nije taj program ili novija verzija tog mogao bi da pošalješ :) Pozdrav Vlada
nauka.715 ivkeb,
Ha ,.. evo tog crtaca f-ija. math.zip
nauka.716 olio, -> #712, ivkeb
> Evo periodnog sistema elemenata sa osnovnim podacima za svaki > element,njegova istorija,izotopi,... > down obavezno Ima na Sezamu ovde jedan program za PER.SIS.ElEMENATA. Radi pod Windowsima. Da li je to isti takav? Poz.Oliver.
nauka.717 ivkeb, -> #716, olio
E more bi bidne a i ne mora.... E stvarno se ne secam odaklen sam ga skinuo.Sorry.
nauka.718 dr.grba, -> #716, olio
>> Ima na Sezamu ovde jedan program za PER.SIS.ElEMENATA. >> Radi pod Windowsima. >> Da li je to isti takav? Boga mi, ovaj je mnogo bolji. Kolege file moderatori, u akciju!
nauka.719 pvlada, -> #708, dr.grba
> Ako još niste uspeli da vidite golim okom orbitalnu stanicu "Mir", > pokušajte večeras! Nebo je jasno ovih noći, a uzbudljivo je videti > jednu "zvezdu" koja se kreće velikom brzinom po nebu (: > > Dakle, podatak za Beograd, sreda, 6. avgust: A kakvi su podaci ovih dana, ako može još uvek da se vidi ? Pozdrav Vlada
nauka.720 dr.grba, -> #719, pvlada
>>> Dakle, podatak za Beograd, sreda, 6. avgust: >> >> A kakvi su podaci ovih dana, ako može još uvek da se vidi ? Eh, konačno da se setim da zavirim na Web. Nije izgubljeno ništa osim sinoćnog prolaska (: MAXIMUM PICKUP DIRECTION ELEVATION TIME OF VISIBLE ABOVE (Local MOVEMENT FOR: HORIZON CITY DATE Time) from: to: (min.) (deg.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Belgrad, Serbia 13-Aug-97 21:11 NW NE 4 38 14-Aug-97 20:18 NE E 2 21 14-Aug-97 21:50 WNW W 2 37 15-Aug-97 20:52 WNW E 5 55 16-Aug-97 21:31 WNW WSW 3 39 17-Aug-97 20:33 WNW SE 6 83 18-Aug-97 21:12 WNW SSW 4 23 19-Aug-97 20:15 WNW SE 6 44 20-Aug-97 20:54 W SSW 4 13 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kompletan spisak je na http://www.osf.hq.nasa.gov/mir/for_txt.html, a ako ste baš lenštine, evo tog HTML fajla uz ovu poruku. mir.zip
nauka.721 ivkeb, -> #720, dr.grba
svaka cast majstore zeleni :) Ivan