Thats about as wacky as what the Germans believed during world war 2. A lot of them actually believed that we lived on the inside of a hollow sphere, and they pointed infrared cameras up into the sky to try to spy on the british fleet.

I wonder where they thought the sun went at night.

Sort of like the Truman movie

.

PLANET SAVED!!! :thumb:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/n...ergy-0305.html

New catalyst could lead to cleaner energy
MIT chemists devise a reaction that traps carbon dioxide and turns it into something useful.
Anne Trafton, MIT News Office

http://img.mit.edu/newsoffice/images...04163832-0.jpg
This illustration features a new catalyst developed at MIT which consists of a molybdenum atom (yellow) bound to four oxygen atoms (red). This complex, known as molybdate, binds two molecules of carbon dioxide (carbon atoms are gray), which can later be released to create organic compounds.
ILLUSTRATION: JOSE-LUIS OLIVARES/MIT; MOLYBDATE 3-D RENDERING BY LOANA KNOPF

MIT chemists have devised a way to trap carbon dioxide and transform it into useful organic compounds, using a simple metal complex.

More work is needed to understand and optimize the reaction, but one day this approach could offer an easy and inexpensive way to recapture some of the carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles and power plants, says Christopher Cummins, an MIT professor of chemistry and leader of the research team.

“Ideally we’d like to develop carbon-neutral cycles for renewable energy, to get carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and avoid pollution,” Cummins says. “In addition, since producers of oil have lots of carbon dioxide available to them, companies are interested in using that carbon dioxide as an inexpensive feedstock to make value-added chemicals, including things like polymers.”

The new reaction transforms carbon dioxide into a negatively charged carbonate ion, which can then react with a silicon compound to produce formate, a common starting material for manufacturing useful organic compounds. This process, which the researchers describe in the journal Chemical Science, relies on a very simple molecular ion known as molybdate — an atom of the metal molybdenum bound to four atoms of oxygen.

Scientists have long sought ways to convert carbon dioxide to organic compounds — a process known as carbon fixation. Noble metals such as ruthenium, palladium, and platinum, which are relatively rare, have proven effective catalysts, but their high price makes them less attractive for large-scale industrial use.

As an alternative, chemists have tried to make abundant metals, such as copper and iron, behave more like one of these powerful catalysts by decorating them with molecules that alter their electronic and spatial properties. These molecules, known as ligands, can be very elaborate and usually contain nonmetallic atoms such as sulfur, phosphorus, nitrogen, and oxygen.

With most of those catalysts, the carbon dioxide binds directly to the metal atoms. Cummins was curious to see if he could design a catalyst where the carbon dioxide would bind to the ligand instead. “That would set the stage for chemical transformations of carbon dioxide that might be different from what people had seen before,” he says.

After finding some success with metal complexes consisting of either niobium or titanium bound to ligands consisting of large organic molecules, Cummins decided to try something simpler, without unwieldy ligands. “It occurred to me that there was no reason why these bulky organic ligands would be a requirement for carbon dioxide binding. I wanted to see if we could find something really simple that would exhibit similar reactivity,” he says.

A simple catalyst

Molybdate, which is relatively abundant and stable in air and water, seemed like it could fit the bill. A simple tetrahedron with four atoms of oxygen bound to a central molybdenum atom, molybdate is commonly used as a source of molybdenum, which can catalyze many types of reactions. Until now, no one had studied its interactions with carbon dioxide.

Working with molybdate dissolved in an organic solvent that also contained dissolved carbon dioxide, the researchers found that the ion could bind to not one, but two molecules of carbon dioxide. The first carbon dioxide attaches irreversibly to one of the oxygen atoms bound to molybdenum, creating a carbonate ion.

A second molecule of carbon dioxide then binds to another oxygen atom, but this second binding is reversible, which could enable potential applications in carbon sequestration, Cummins says. In theory, it could allow researchers to create a cartridge that would temporarily store carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles. When the cartridge is full, the carbon dioxide could be removed and transferred to a permanent storage location.

Another possible application would be transforming the carbon dioxide to other useful compounds containing carbon. Cummins and his colleagues showed that the trapped carbon dioxide could be converted to formate by treating silicon-containing compounds called silanes with the molybdate complex.

“This is a really elegant addition to the carbon dioxide fixation literature because it shows that some really beautiful transformations are achievable without an elaborate ligand system,” says Christine Thomas, an associate professor of chemistry at Brandeis University who was not involved in the research.

More research is needed before the reaction can become industrially useful, Cummins says. In particular, his lab is investigating ways to perform the reaction so that molybdate is regenerated at the end, allowing it to catalyze another reaction.

“The big advance of the present work is just showing that molybdate takes up carbon dioxide in the way that it does, and illustrating in detail the structures that are produced by addition of carbon dioxide to molybdate,” Cummins says. “Hopefully it’s going to be a little bit thought-provoking and cause people to take a step back and consider just what we’re going to need to do.”

The paper’s lead author is graduate student Ioana Knopf; other authors are former visiting student Takashi Ono, former postdoc Manuel Temprado, and recent PhD recipient Daniel Tofan. The research was funded by the Saudi Basic Industries Corporation; the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport; the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; and the National Science Foundation.

Europa has more water than us!!!

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-b...no/KoGb3Mv.jpg

I agree, an iPhone is slightly better than 1880s technology...

o:-)

I'm assuming you guys will be watching Cosmos tonight? I will.

It'll be like science porn.

Very excited about it.

To go along with it, they are also re-airing all of the original cosmos on discover.

DVR is gonna be rockin.


Love Sagan, Love NDGT.

I want my little baby to grow up and be just like NDGT :(

When?

Cosmos is one of my favorite things. I have the entire series on DVD. I just plowed through it a few weeks ago before I even knew they were airing a new version. I like Tyson, but I don't think he'll be able to bring the pathos and eloquence that Carl Sagan did. That series was every bit as poetic as it was scientific.

I'll watch it, but doing so will probably just make me miss Sagan that much more. The world needs more people like him.

Completely agree. I listen to NDG's podcast, and I like him, but no one compares to Sagan's eloquence. It's cheesy as hell, but I find it very mysterious and soothing at the same time.

I saw this yesterday and thought that it looked pretty freaking cool.

http://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/spee...ry?id=22819573

As cool as it is for my old ass, sitting here watching my nine-year-old watching with amazement is truly awesome!

THAT'S what I hope the primary goal of the show is, and if it is, it's working to a "T"!

I remember Neal from the John Stewart show. My son wants to study under him. I'm really grateful to him in bringing physics and astrophysics into our life's.

Love this show.

Been playing all day on discover, and they changed the name a bit like 'The original Cosmos' and its listed with a 2014 release date.

The man is amazing. Pop star of physics.

surprise somebody isn't protesting the Cosmos shows


science is teh devil's work

I'm more stunned that they aren't calling Neil an Uncle Tom for wasting money on science.

I'm a little upset that I missed out. Hopefully they offer the first episode online.

The most FUN book I ever listened too.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/i...ill-bryson.jpg

From fthe lever to quantum mechanics, it really covers it all. It was like 75 hours on audiobook.

If DGT manages a 1/10 of that book, it'll be phenomenal, and I have faith he will.

If anyone.

I was pretty disappointed in it. Preachy as all hell. I kind of expect that from Seth MacFarland however.

replays on National Geographic channel. on Monday.

I don't have that channel.

Thanks for the heads up though.

I am only 45 min in, but I have to agree. The spaceship observer gambit, and the animations are not up to par. I urge everyone to listen to or read Bryson, who gets to the same places, but in a much more reasoned manner than NGT.

It is onerous, but it's a tale as good as GRRMartin ever devised, and so well told as to never lagged. It tells the same stories, but with the nuances and the rationales to the naysayers as to actually STRENGTHEN their tales. Of discovery and criticism.

I really thought NGT would hew closer to legitimate review than he did. But thus far it's falling into Veggie Tales territory.

I've seen Jack Chick Tracts that were less preachy and more intellectually consistent than tonight's Cosmos. NGT and MacFarland just took a giant crap on Sagan tonight. I had really high hopes for this. Hopefully it will get better.

What exactly were you disappointed by? You seem to be in an incredibly tiny minority. You'll have to include Sagan's widow in that group too, I guess she took a crap on her late husband as well.

As far as preachiness or taking shots at pseudoscience, Sagan sternly did plenty of that, he just saved it for the 3rd or 4th episode rather than the first.

I don't know what you don't like about the spaceship, it was obviously a nod towards the spaceship in the original series, and I don't know that they could have done much of a better job rendering it.

As far as showing historical scenes, they actually discussed that in interviews. They did not want actors in powdered wigs again, and they didn't want a standard cartoon. They chose to illustrate them in the graphic novel style, and I think that style works well for a subject like this, cartoons seem a little more less-serious and more light-hearted to me. If you were hoping to see a cartoon or actors, you'll just have to get used to the choice they made, the graphic novel approach is a fine choice of artistic style.

My 8 & 9 year old boys sat there and loved it. Had to make my 8 year old go to bed halfway through and he was ticked because he wanted to watch it.

The only issue i had with Cosmos is the the Spaceship CGI Fest. I didn't like the way it was executed. I could've done with out the emphasis on Neil's imaginary spaceship. Maybe if the CGI was better....but Neil looked so out of place with it.

The way they illustrated Galaxy clusters and Multiverses though.....Mind = Blown.

I got toked up to watch this and i was tripping bawls for a minute.....had never felt so insignificant in my life after watching the way they displayed Galaxies and Multiverses.

Haven't watched it yet, but I've never been a big fan of deGrasse Tyson. To me he has always come across as as much condescending as he is brilliant, so I've never particularly enjoyed watching him. I'll still give it a look though.

Same here. I can stand him but his personality is a bit off.

There aren't very many science personalities that aren't totally awkward though. Sagan was a rare bird.

Yeah, scientists as a rule are not very.... "telegenic", to say the least.

Tyson is probably about as good as it gets right now, he's the only serious scientist with enough of a personality and sense of humor to be a frequent guest on evening talk shows.

I also agree with this. Even though he's not perfect he's still getting the job done and getting people interested/excited about science.

I've always enjoyed Michiu Kaku and Brian Greene and Brian Cox.

Cosmos finished 2nd in the 18-49 demo that advertisers care about. (they don't have the ratings yet for the simulcast on the other fox networks if you wanted to add that to big Fox)

What in the hell is resurrection, and why were people watching that?

New show on ABC, I haven't watched it yet so I can't tell you much about it, but the early reviews were that it's good.

I wish there was someone who had read/heard Bryson's book to discuss the differences in approach.

I found his more chronological, Archimedes, Eqypt, Newton, Einstein into modern physics, of course with tons of details and developments in between. He was also more anecdotal and evenhanded with less emphasis on certainty.

Will be interesting to so how Cosmos builds upon previous episodes week to week.

That Leonard Suskind guy is pretty good too although he is defnitely getting up there in age.

Come to think of it there are a bunch of people who fit the Carl Sagan type mold and are also very entertaining. Tyson is just more 'name brand' than most others.

They just included the rest of the Cosmos ratings, which actually kinda surprised me. Out of all the people age 18-49 who watched Cosmos, a whopping 1/3 of them watched it on one of the cable Fox networks for some reason instead of on big Fox. That gooses the rating quite a bit for Cosmos, but resurrection still edged it out. (The ratings tonight on national geographic probably should not count, different day, different time)

Do these numbers include people dvr'ing? I DVR'ed it. Walking dead and all.

Kaku is very good.

I thought you stopped?

My kids LOVED the show and that's the audience that matters to me. Off to a great start.

It was outstanding as well.

What exactly was "preachy"?

They don't like that religion looks stupid on the whole equation.

and I'm sure thats NDT goal. To spark the wonder and vastness of science to explore in the next generation.

Bitching about CGI because of its budget and the theater device using the ship is being petty.

NDT has to be one of the smartest persons on the planet. I've met very few highly intelligent people that were not also arrogant. And none that could also host a TV show without coming off as stiff or aloof.

Maybe the haters are pissed off about Pluto?:rolleyes:

well they should look stupid. The orthodoxy of religion is the #1 enemy of science.

It's basic. God is infinite. Why can't the universe be infinite? Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. I don't see why they can't coexist peacefully without someone being burned at the stake.

IKR!

Ashamed I just did that.

I had no problem with it until the part about Giordano Bruno. That was almost complete FICTION. When you are a show about science it's kind of important to stick to FACTS. The show lost all credibility at that point for me. Anyone who knows the least thing about Bruno would have been bewildered at the nonsense they showed.

If you are comfortable with showing your kids crap that is make believe then you might as well show them Creationism or some other nonsense.

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Bruno was NOT burned at the stake for scientific heresy. That is utter claptrap. He was a pantheist and pretty much an asshole in general. Now, that doesn't mean he should have been burned, no one is advocating that... but he was persecuted for his RELIGIOUS beliefs that had nothing to do with science.

He also wasn't some poor suffering martyr. Playing fast and loose with historical facts is a sure fire way to lose credibility in my book.

And now it calls into question all the very REAL science that is being taught by giving the whackos a legitimate LIE told by the show as "proof" that the whole thing is questionable. Stick to the ****ing facts, it's not hard to do.

My burned at the stake comment was not about Bruno. But the systemic torture and killing of anyone with a scientific thought not approved by the church for hundreds of years. I'm sure he was using "Bruno" as a metaphor for all those scientists that were tortured and killed solely because they were pursuing science instead of blindly following church doctrine.

Nice try but he wasn't using Bruno as a metaphor, he presented the account as historical fact. You can NOT have a show about science where you turn around and simply make up sections of history.

TOTAL. CREDIBILITY. FAIL.

Ding Ding Ding. Winner Winner, chicken dinner.


http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethe...fixion-fox.jpg


http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethe...the-world.html

Generally a positive review, but, like AustinChief, nails the Bruno thing on the head.

His beliefs on astrology were a part of the reason why there was a heresy trial. But, most of the reason was religious.

Again, thats not my point. Religion killed many scientists for advocating scientific beliefs and principles.

You want to get side tracked and say since this one thing wasn't the whole truth and nothing but the truth therefore everything else is pure BS. Thats your right.

Tyson's effectiveness is as a communicator. He's definitely a brilliant man, but he's nowhere near one of the smartest people on the planet. He's done nothing of note as a researcher. Most of his effectiveness has been as a public intellectual and advocate for science, which is important, but it doesn't put him in the rarefied air. I don't want to sound like an internet ass by typing that, but it's the truth.

Sagan, for example, made important contributions to research within the solar system, several of which were mentioned last night, as well as contributions to a number of NASA's interplanetary (and now extrasolar) missions.

Dude, come on. You KNOW it was a complete **** up. It wasn't just a little "off" it was an almost complete fabrication. That's fine for Bible Studies but that shit does NOT cut it when it comes to SCIENCE. It wasn't a parable or an allegory or a metaphor.. it was a LIE. There was absolutely no reason for it.

(and his beliefs on cosmology had nothing, ZERO, to do with him being tried for heresy.)

(and and... the idea that this vast number of scientific martyrs died at the hands of the Church is also make believe... there were certainly a few cases of persecution but for the most part that idea is fantasy land)

Actually. The reason for Bruno being burned at the stake is still a subject of controversy among historians. To pass the version you choose to believe off as though it is fact is dishonest. Yay God.

Are you trying to lump me in as an anti-science religious nut? You obviously don't know me very well if you are.

I care about FACTS. And you are dead wrong about Bruno. It is a subject of controversy like 9/11 is a subject of controversy. Yes there are some tin foil wackadoodles that think it was a conspiracy but those of us who live in the real world know better. Yes, a few nuts have pulled the "Bruno was persecuted for his science" theory out of their asses but there is nothing to indicate this in the least. The very real reason he was burned at the stake was because he was espousing a ton of different heresies AND was a complete asshole about it. There were MANY other prominent scholars and members of the Church disagreeing with the Church doctrine at the time who were never persecuted in the least.

BUT let's ignore ALL OF THAT... the rest of the account was full of lies as well. He wasn't some poor persecuted homeless person wandering from handout to handout as they tried to represent him.

Like I said before, anyone who knows a damn thing about the history here is scratching their head as to why Cosmos went full reerun on this.

I was kind of surprised how much my kids enjoyed it to be honest.

I finally pulled it off the DVR last night and they did a great job of polishing NDT. He's super awkward on talk shows but having a script seems to straighten him out.

My wife could care less about science and was playing on her iPad while I watched it. She was drawn to the calendar analogy and I could tell that her mind was totally blown.

I don't mind if the content is at odds with religion, what's irksome is that they have to tell us that time after time. Let people realize it on their own, it might even be a more powerful message. If you are educating us on science, do that. And if it changes our world view on other things, let us figure that out, Don't preach about non-science in a science education show.

It's kind of like saying 'here's a great documentary to tell you all about the legendary 1969 SB champion Chiefs. . . . Al Davis was such a dick, let me detail how much of a dick he was, the end.'

I tend to disagree. Informing people as to how stifling to our civilization religion has been and can be is very important. Otherwise they might just teach creationism in schools, or that the earth is only 6000yrs old and Jesus used to ride raptors.

Where could we be right now as a civilization if religion never oppressed knowledge?

Do it somewhere else. Educating on science is it's own activity. Educating on the social history of religion is it's own as well.

None of my EE classes discussed religion, ever. Guess what, I learned a lot about science.

I find it weird at the consternation exhibited by Baby Lee and AustinChief in regards to Giordano Bruno's portrayal in the series.

It is true, that Giordano was put to death for his heretical religious views. But it would only be heretical religious views that would rise to the level of requiring a death penalty.

It has been brought up many times that the hierarchy of Understanding at that time put Theology at the top with then philosophy, law and toward the bottom was natural science and mathematics. Only when these lower fields of understanding came in direct conflict with theology did there rise cause to consider the death penalty. And because they were thought as derivative to understanding their weight in argument was not considered prominent.

Giordano's ideas that included heretical views on the Trinity and such, grew directly from his extension of his Naturalistic View of existence. He rejected a supernatural explanation.

And it only makes sense for the times that the Religious results of his philosophy should be the basis of his receiving the death penalty. It is clear that the whole of his ideas were on trial as far as he was concerned. It was just that the Church drew a death penalty from the authority of highest reasoning in Religion in order to justify such sentence. You wouldn't do so for some petty Natural Science idea.

NDT himself spent several minutes Monday night arguing with Colbert that science is facts, they're cut and dried, you test them and test them and they reliably respond to your trials, then they're established as immutable. He got very animated about that point.

I find it weird that he'd devote so much time to an INTERPRETATION of history, a wrong one at that, if he wanted to teach science.

It's like starting a series on the nuts and bolts of the game of football, training, plays, schemes, throwing motion, velocity, etc., like ESPN's The Science of Football. Then sitting around railing on the NFL exemption, salary caps, costly concessions and parking, etc.

It wasn't wrong interpretation of History. I repeat it was the Naturalistic Philosophy that was placed as the authority by Giordano as opposed to Theological Arguments. That reflects the modern scientific success and position in discovering understanding as opposed to Revelation. It is at the center of the disagreement between faith and science.

I want to watch a science show, not a discussion of the disagreement between faith and science.

You do realize that's possible?

I don't watch Enter The Dragon to see a Twilight romance.

As for the detractors, you might open more minds by presenting the science alone than you would presenting the science then muttering 'but your religion keeps ****ing all this interesting shit up.'

At it's base, NDT is not being a scientist right now, he's being a social activist.

That is why you took your EE class or physics or whatever. This show is not that end at all.

I bolded the part which exposes your ignorance on this subject. EVERYTHING for Bruno was rooted in the supernatural. The idea that he was a scientist at all is a joke... which makes it even more puzzling as to why they put him in the show at all. There were other ACTUAL scientists at the time that were advancing our understanding of the universe not writing multiple books on MAGIC.

I notice you also ignore the fact that they lied in representing the nature of his life not just his death. There is NO PLACE whatsoever in a show about science for what amounts to needless propaganda.

I recommend that before you reply you actually do some research on Bruno then go back and watch Cosmos and tell me with a straight face that it wasn't ridiculous.

I'll help you out and get you started

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ou...ck-wrong-hero/

Except you are dead wrong on this. You are ascribing attributes to Bruno that simply are NOT true. It's a compelling fantasy .. it certainly sounds good... unfortunately it is still fantasy.

No, it's to show kids shiny pictures about the universe while they convince them religion is bad.

I am not an expert on the writings of Giordano, but I don't see a guy who insists that our sun and planets are not unique, that atoms make up existence and the naturalistic observations were infinite and universal as being supernatural in form that would be the central Christian view at the time with man being the center of created existence.

I am sure there could be elements that could be said to be supernatural like having god present everywhere equally in the universe. But that is much more consistent with a uniform understanding that can be discovered than a revealed religious edicts with unique properties put forth as true knowledge.

Well understanding how science works starts with looking to Naturalistic Laws to develop understanding and not revealed truth. Revealed truth at the times was bad for it held its truth was unassailable. Modern Science can be changed with new findings and expansion of understanding.

So if you are doing science, instead of just reading science, you do try to put your prejudices about the absolutes aside in coming to an understanding.

As far as the facts of science those ideas come later in the series but it is to be understood the release of science was the embracing of a uniform explanation that can be discovered.

You've obviously been paying absolutely no attention to NDT in the media and on the internet since the show aired.

I should probably clarify that on Sunday, it was an eyeroll. But after seeing his media offensive the past two days, I'm saddened that he is clearly aiming to be a social activist instead of a scientist.