Science Squabbling

Balls. Just seen this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lrt1s

That's pretty much what I had in mind.

Oh well, flattery/imitation and all that : )

Dunno, but I've just seen your response on people to interview.

I pissed off on holdiay as I didn't really get anywhere at the time but have now been asked if I'm still doing the story above (biomimicry).
So the question still stands, anyone know anything, anyone in the field - for example, if one of you happens to be Janine Benyus and you happened to be in the UK within the next month, would be well up for filming you : )

Damo, have checked out LondonBiotechNetwork/OneNucleus and they look an interesting bunch, particularly their funding and sponsorship which would be relevant to the particular programme I work on.

Looking mainly for cool specific tech/bio examples that I can go and see/film - shit like this: http://brainz.org/15-coolest-cases-biomimicry/

Have been looking at Bath University as potentially a key place, also Reading has some interesting research going on. Any more?

I remember seeing something about using fungus or moss for transport/city planning

did anyone see the horizon programme on monday about what was there before the big bang
wow what a programme
black holes
multiverses

and one thing that really puzzled me was a number that was 1 to the power of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 7

can anyone explain this to me ? i.e how many zero's ?

The answer is none.

Raising something to the power of x is equivalent to multiplying it by itself, x number of times.
For example:

2 to the power of 2 = 4 or 2x2
2 to the power of 3 = 8 or 2x2x2.

Multiplying 1 by itself will always return an answer of 1.

10 to the power 10 = 10000000000
10000000000 to the power 7 = 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

1 multiplied by itself 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
times is still 1.00

Change the initial digit from 1 to anything else and you would have a very different answer.

I think he was referring to standard form, not just plain indices.

for example you write 1 billion as 1x10(9) or 1 nanometre as 1x10(-9)m where () indicates a power.

So 1x10(10(7)) = 1x10(10,000,000) = 1 with 10 million zeros (i think)

1 followed by 10^8 zeroes

What was it a number of anyway?

parallel universes

Like the two parallel threads on which dicki posted the question ;-)

Anyway, yes, I agree with Neu.

"one times ten to the power of ten billion" is the same as "one times ten to the power of ten to the power of seven"

If you wrote it out as a single power, you'd have to write down ten billion zeroes above the little 10:

1 x 10^100000000000000.......0000000000000000000000000000000

So they abbreviate to: 1 x 10^(10^7)

1 followed by 10^8 zeroes

.

Get some.

powers of ten :: charles and ray eames on Vimeo

Anyway, yes, I agree with Neu.

"one times ten to the power of ten billion" is the same as "one times ten to the power of ten to the power of seven"

If you wrote it out as a single power, you'd have to write down ten billion zeroes above the little 10:

1 x 10^100000000000000.......0000000000000000000000000000000

So they abbreviate to: 1 x 10^(10^7)

Is that the same size as the national debt?

Realised that pretty much everything I have said on this powers thing is likely wrong. I'm tired.

Whatever.

Always leave your working mashton

Just started watching that horizon thing.

The fella just said we live in a "near infinite" universe. idiot

it's expanding, therefore it's infinite but bounded.

I'm just refering to the words "near infinite". the finiteness of the universe is "perfectly" up for debate

right. so. pedant hat on.
what would you call a slowly expanding blob of stuff that keeps expanding. constantly. and never looks like slowing down?

massive?
quite big?
really big?
fuck off huge?

if you had to explain something to a partially interested audience what would you use to explain the concept of really really big?
6 x10^23?

inconceivably huge.

What makes you so sure it won't slow down? (I'm no expert, hence why I'm watching the horizon doc)

But yeah, just say the estimated size, in miles. Why not?

Near infinite is not only silly, it's says nothing, and says it badly. The rest of the programme is quite interesting, so this point is moot anyway.

I forget my pedant hat is on sometimes

Current interpretations of astronomical observations indicate that the age of the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years,[4] and that the diameter of the observable universe is at least 93 billion light years, or 8.80 × 1026 metres.[5] According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed. Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the universe is finite or infinite.
Thus says wikipedia. Can anyone with physics training confirm it (last two sentences for example aren't referenced (I'm not saying it's wrong)).

YouTube - the Total Perspective Vortex

But yeah, just say the estimated size, in miles. Why not?

because that's ridiculous. can you comprehend the distances involved?

how far to the moon? to jupiter?
from one point in the universe to the edge?

badscience: are you ben goldacre?

because that's ridiculous. can you comprehend the distances involved?

how far to the moon? to jupiter?
from one point in the universe to the edge?

badscience: are you ben goldacre?

The size of the universe is ridiculous? But you can comprehend near infinity?