I know......First hurdle is to work out how to induce long term sleep so that you can make a long journey, Cryostasis works in movies and films, and books but is never explained how that is supposed to work.. And no one has tried to make it work for real.
Oh, they did try. The problem is they die, because the water in the body crystalizes and ruptures literally every cell in the body.
Oh, they did try. The problem is they die, because the water in the body crystalizes and ruptures literally every cell in the body.
They did? When?
makes sense. The ice is destructive inside body.
Other solution: Making the space settlers unconscious and make them live up to 300 years. Oh wait... 300 years isn't long enough.
Then we need some kind of body parts regenerator that can replace the old parts with new parts.
It opens the door to warp drive.Not in any way that would indicate it would be at all conductive to faster travel. Even if it was, it would only appear faster to the outside observer - the traveler would still age and need resources for just as long of a trip, it would just have the destination not age.
Early days. It was unimaginable that we'd get a fundamental understanding of mass not too long ago. Now we're on the doorstep of taking it apart and playing with it like silly putty. Things to look forward to, as long as we don't blow ourselves up in the meantime.But the Higgs Boson is merely the smallest particle capable of generating Higgs field. There's nothing really to suggest that this can negate the generation of such a field or side step the concept of mass.
^ the 1940s
What did we do in the 1940s?
Wasn't that just a Mel Gibson movie?
^ All kinds of awful things.. Might be the darkest decade in the history of our depraved species
No that was all the stuff the "other side" was doing ....The one with the red flags and funny symbols......
Who was experimenting with cryostasis? And why?
And the first line was sarcasm
Or we build giant ships called Arks and point them at the closest star with possible planets to find and hope for the best...These Arks will have chambers for everyone to sleep in and they will all mysteriously explode when they get to the new world leaving a handful of people to land and cause problems on the new planet they find.
Hmmmm I think I saw a TV show like this
That Brian Cox article depressed me but also I do wonder if we find a planet we can use does that mean it's ours for the taking?
Will the prospect of new planets to rape and mine advance space travel due to the fact that humans are very greedy SOB's?
Brian Cox isn't an authority on life on other planets. No one is.
Raping and mining new planets wouldn't have anything to do with humanity's nature. It'll be a necessity perhaps and what else are those gas giants and lifeless planets good for if not their resources? Better to put them to use than to just have them floating around in space untouched due to space activists and their "leave Uranus alone!" signs.
Just be sure to leave planets regulating asteroid belts alone, don't want a bunch of rocks flying around, do we?
aye i gt an idea y dont we jus send dem a email thru gmail or ur othr favorite emal service n tel dem 2 build a machin da reflekt gamma burst den dey dun die n den we meet up n hook up w/ da alien lady lyke liara frum mas efekt tbh
Just be sure to leave planets regulating asteroid belts alone, don't want a bunch of rocks flying around, do we?
I dunno, it could make for some pretty unique rocks for my rock collection.
Oh, they did try. The problem is they die, because the water in the body crystalizes and ruptures literally every cell in the body.
The person can die in sub-physiological temperatures before the body succumbs to frostbite. I don't think there is a good rationale to freeze the entire human body below the freezing point of water for cryopreservation.
The person can die in sub-physiological temperatures before the body succumbs to frostbite. I don't think there is a good rationale to freeze the entire human body below the freezing point of water for cryopreservation.
The person can die in sub-physiological temperatures before the body succumbs to frostbite. I don't think there is a good rationale to freeze the entire human body below the freezing point of water for cryopreservation.
The rationale is preserving the body. Like preserving food in a freezer. If it's too warm, bacteria can still decompose the body as a person in cryostasis isn't really going to have an effective immune system.
I think it is because science and math are thinking in a different manner, not just memorizing facts. In that manner, it is almost like learning a foreign language - something traditional schooling stinks at as well. I took 10+ years of math, science and Spanish in school. I can barely speak a lick of Spanish, I stink at any math that can't be solved with a calculator and if it weren't for my own desire to learn things about science, I am betting my understanding would have been limited to the periodic table.
In that regard, I think the key problem is narrative. The best way to learn a foreign language is to immerse yourself in it, spend time where you have to communicate to others in the language, not just learn a list of verbs and how to conjugate them week-in-and-out.
Math and science are the same way - tell the story of the science, explain the problems that were solved by math and suddenly it becomes real. Explain the significance of the number zero for doing simple math or accounting, explain the use of geometry and trigonometry in understanding simple aspects of engineering or navigation. Tell how scientists stared at the sky and couldn't figure out how the stars moved until they said "maybe we aren't in the middle of everything."
The problem is that students are taught math and science with no use or value to their everyday lives. When they ask why, they are told "you'll need to know it learn other stuff." That means students will learn just enough to keep up with classes they are forced to take and, once school is done, they can file it all away under "stuff I'll never need to remember again." If the focus was on telling the story of technology, science and progress as a means to solve the problems of the ages, then each lesson has value and possible real world application.
Basic geometry won't make a kid ready to be a architectural engineer, but it was insanely helpful to building ancient architecture and can be used today for a kid to build a tree house. If the only thing we can prove basic math skills do today is be a stepping stone to a certain career or field of study, we disenfranchise everyone who isn't going to be (or at least doesn't currently envision themselves being) one of those things.
I don't think so, at least not in the immediate case of tutoring people. You have to assess a person's readiness to learn to even start talking about narratives.
People don't have good foundations in math and science, and they're not taught how to think and apply the information. Interestingly, it's a matter of commitment to accept the learning is what makes the difference between a failing student and a B student. I've tutored students in chemistry, and the best approach to learning is kung fu, mastery through practice of application level questions. They have their own agenda, and I'm willing to accept that.
The rationale is preserving the body. Like preserving food in a freezer. If it's too warm, bacteries can still decompose the body as a person in cryostasis isn't really going to have an effective immune system.
No, I don't think so. You don't need to be below freezing temperatures to slow microbe activity, especially flora that thrives in human body temperatures. Immunocompromised individuals can have external environmental systems in place like negative airflow.
Well, we know of many types of animals which can survive in sub-freezing water, and other animals which can go into a non-aging hibernation during winter months. So ideally if you had the right chemical cocktail, you could freeze someone and they wouldn't die or go into shock, allowing them to be preserved until they thawed out.
Not for 3000 years (in space).
Frozen Mammoths or salted/mummified men don't count / aren't counted.
Or this:
I don't think so, at least not in the immediate case of tutoring people. You have to assess a person's readiness to learn to even start talking about narratives.
People don't have good foundations in math and science, and they're not taught how to think and apply the information. Interestingly, it's a matter of commitment to accept the learning is what makes the difference between a failing student and a B student. I've tutored students in chemistry, and the best approach to learning is kung fu, mastery through practice of application level questions. They have their own agenda, and I'm willing to accept that.
Not for 3000 years.
Frozen Mammoths don't count / aren't counted.
Or this:
But if they are not engaged, what better way to catch their attention than narrative? People are hard wired to enjoy stories. It's why so many people who like science also enjoy science fiction - we can see the worlds that could exist with different/future technology to discoveries.
If instead of teaching Pythagorus' Theorum as a means to calculate the sides of a triangle by applying a random formula, what if students learned that ancient societies struggled with utilizing the triangle in construction, with its strong base and even height, due to being unable to easily calculate it's proper dimensions. And that by the visualization of seeing the lines of a triangle as sides of squares, it allowed us to see that geometry (and, hence, construction and engineering) can easily be predicted with simple math. This led to the foundation of our understNding of trigonometry, which later led to Calculus by Newton and allowed us to begin creating math models that mimicked the natural world much more realistically.
Instead, we're told "memorize this formula about triangles that sounds like a python." No background, no deeper description of how the concept was arrived at, no real grasp of how it fits into the larger picture of math, let alone the real world.
Math has a great story, a hugely engrossing narrative. But with math text books, you'd think someone just wrote down a bunch of formulas one day to torture students by saying "memorize this or I give you an F."
When I tutor a college student, I don't need to catch their attention. Their success in a class is part of their own agenda. That's why I make an assessment of their readiness. It is also a waste of time to create a narrative if it doesn't aid in creating a cognitive modification. Furthermore, the application of any formula like the Pythagorean theorem is evident in physics classes. I don't need to go back to Ancient Greece just to tell them the Pythagorean theorem is applicable in force vectors and parabolic trajectory equations. I mean, that may work in a lecture, but not a tutoring session. The problem really is they don't know how to think critically, and they don't know how to problem-solve. As such, their foundations are poor. The best thing that you can do for students is sometimes to try to gear them towards that kind of thinking.
Guest_TrillClinton_*
The problem is that students are taught math and science with no use or value to their everyday lives. When they ask why, they are told "you'll need to know it learn other stuff." That means students will learn just enough to keep up with classes they are forced to take and, once school is done, they can file it all away under "stuff I'll never need to remember again." If the focus was on telling the story of technology, science and progress as a means to solve the problems of the ages, then each lesson has value and possible real world application.
Basic geometry won't make a kid ready to be a architectural engineer, but it was insanely helpful to building ancient architecture and can be used today for a kid to build a tree house. If the only thing we can prove basic math skills do today is be a stepping stone to a certain career or field of study, we disenfranchise everyone who isn't going to be (or at least doesn't currently envision themselves being) one of those things.
Well I agree to a certain degree that math should be more specialized(to a certain degree because some people are not sure what they want to do until the end of their graduation), it would be nice to have but it is resource intensive. The idea of math is to build upon constructs that have been explored in earlier versions of it,offering a broad sense and an opportunity to explore it in other courses. That person doing geometry will not be an architect from that but that person will learn the geometry needed for him to understand concepts in linear algebra and even expand more on this in geometrical mathematical drawing courses. This is where the idea of the prerequisite comes in for courses.
I do not usually use continuous mathematics in my daily life but I had to learn it. Some topics im my field required that understanding of continuous mathematics to get a better understanding.
When I tutor a college student, I don't need to catch their attention. Their success in a class is part of their own agenda. That's why I make an assessment of their readiness. It is also a waste of time to create a narrative if it doesn't aid in creating a cognitive modification. Furthermore, the application of any formula like the Pythagorean theorem is evident in physics classes. I don't need to go back to Ancient Greece just to tell them the Pythagorean theorem is applicable in force vectors and parabolic trajectory equations. I mean, that may work in a lecture, but not a tutoring session. The problem really is they don't know how to think critically, and they don't know how to problem-solve. As such, their foundations are poor. The best thing that you can do for students is sometimes to try to gear them towards that kind of thinking.
Well, tutoring is the army field medic of teaching. You are there to triage, not instill healthy values. You don't tell people they need to cut out fatty foods when they are bleeding out and facing serious complications.
That's funny, but not really an apt depiction. Professors aren't really there to modify the affective value of the student. Rather, learning is the burden of the student. Both, the tutor and professor prioritize, with the former prioritizing to the needs of the individual student and the latter prioritizing to the needs of the class. Unless you're naive, affective aspect of education is the last thing they care about.
Retour en haut
