Most Viewed Science Blogs (319)

While doing my work, the television was still on the Channel it was on earlier in the day, National Geographic. I don't usually watch that channel and am not very familiar with their programs. But last night, I found they had a very interesting show on having to do with King Tut and the contents of his tomb. There were a lot of things they mentioned on that show that went against common belief about the King himself. However, what I found even more interesting, they were showing items never seen before. Of these things never shown before, there were two items that just stuck out to me...and to the creators of the show also.

They each had their own sarcophagus. There were two "babies" buried with Tut.

Where do I go from here....hmm. If I only knew how to upload images of these so-called babies, I am sure one could guess where I a going.

I believe I shared this story on here once before, but here is just a quick rendition of it. About 20-ish years ago, living in the countryside of America, with my nearest neighbor about a 1/4 mile away, something dug up a single plant I had. The previous day I planted it, and surround it with vegetation...the darn thing was only 2" tall. After I was done planting it, I could not even see it myself. But, anyway, I knew the exact area it was. The next day I go out to that exact area to check on it...to only find a freshly dug hole. A hole probably 10" wide by about 8" deep...nothing huge. The dirt from the hole was sitting off to one side and in that fresh dirt was a footprint the exact shape of a human's footprint....the heal, the arch, the toes, and the wedge shape. Dumbfounded by this, I thought to myself, if this was a human that did this, most likely there should be fingertip marks on the walls of the hole. I checked that, and sure enough, there were small rounded tip marks that had scraped and running down vertically the walls of the hole.

I asked my gf if I could borrow the birth certificate of her son's....because it had his infant footprint on it. I took it out there and compared it, not only did it look identical but it was also the same size. I figured whatever dug out that hole was the size of a newborn.

Okay, now back to the show. Both of the "babies" they claim, were still born and were Tut's unborn children. I am not an expert on what stillborn babies look like. But, I have seen a couple of UFO shows in the past few years where people who claimed to have seen aliens described what they seen to artists and sketches have been drawn of those people's accounts. In my opinion, the "baby" on the right (since the only thing that really exists are photos of Tut's "unborn babies," you can see which one I am referring to) looks pretty much identical to these artist's alien drawings. The only thing that does not match, is the height of them.

The thing that baffles me...even the show creators found these never shown beings significant...why were they never shown before? In addition, why were they not better preserved? Anyway.....

Happy Monday folks.

It's safe to say the whole world knows about WD-40.
Sold in cans as a water-displacing spray, people probably use it more for it's penetrating oil lubricating properties than it's ability to repel water.
Having dozens of household uses, WD-40 gets squirted into sticking locks, squeaky wheels and stuck door hinges. If someone spray painted your car with graffiti, WD-40 and a soft cloth can usually liquefy the paint and remove it without harming your cars finish.

It's truly amazing stuff... and I read the 39 other attempts at creating this product failed. Hence the name WD-40. I can only imagine that WD-39 sure must have been nearly the same. Surely...

The trailer -


The entire presentation -


I was going suggest these vids on Simon's 'Evolution vs God - REPLY' blog but thought the information merited a blog of it's own.

Accept it or not, it is well presented and lays out a comprehensive & far reaching alternative interpretation of what we see all around us...

* The Earth's core & mantle.
* The origin of Earth's radioactivity.
* Ocean sediments.
* Formation of the Grand Canyon & other surface features.
* Coal & fossils.
* Frozen, but unfossilized, Arctic mammoths.
* Distribution of craters on the moon.
* The origin of meteors, asteroids, comets & trans-Neptunian objects.
* Why it took many centuries and a variety of methods among many cultures to develop a 365 1/4 day calendar.
* More.

I'm not going to attempt to defend the theory's assertions point by point.
The presentation speaks for itself.

If you have an inquiring mind, and want to know - go ahead & have a look.

Yeah. It's long.
It's broken into six presentations - plus two special presentations on 'The Origin Of Earth's Radioactivity' and 'Origin Of Meteors, Asteroids, Comets & Trans-Neptunian Objects'.
Those interested can watch individual segments as time allows.

Enjoy!

...

Been and paddled kayak yesterday. Saw a female elk with 2 calves. Totally under impression.

But where is the logic?

So if this European craft now traveling on top of comet discovered life came from big explosion, what would happened with all religions that we know today...Total Chaos?

According to perceived wisdom the entire universe came about when an object the size of a tennis ball of unimaginable intensity exploded.

Putting aside how the tennis ball object got there in the first place, I am wondering what is the difference between 'nothing' and what we currently call 'space' ?

And The Potential For A Landslide-Induced Mega Tsunami In The Atlantic.



A Brief (12 min.) Documentary Posted To YouTube Four Years Ago -
But Sounding Eerily Current - See Especially @ 9:30 ...

... sure, some may have heard of them. But as in much of real science, they have their own interesting stories.
They've been noticed for a century, since the optics of light microscopes became much more able to resolve tiny cellular components. In many chromosomes, these would be the little distinguishable bulbs on both ends of these little pieces of compacted, histone wrapped, genetic bodies. A little of these get lost at each cell division, and when no longer present, the cell enters a final cycle, this one of programmed cell death. One of many functions of this system is to protect chromosomes during the beautiful process of Mitosis (meiosis), whereby microtubules attached to a sister bulb at the center of each chromosome, oddly named Centromeres, help to line the little buggers all up, and as cables, to tow them apart. First really peeked in on with scanning electron microscopes. Really, this is all so that a copy of each genetic plan can be sent to each daughter cell (why not son cell?) , after cell division is completed. In the absence of Telomeres, things between/among chromosomes seem to get a little too sticky in the process.
An enzyme system, known as the Telomerases, is main actor here. An integral part of a separate genetic system, with its own complemennt of Ribonucleic "acids", energy, etc., for control of the consumption of telomerase length. And, oh my CS homies, ---what shrinks can also grow. As gnomoid Runts like the Vierk should know. But I digress, TWICE?!?!.
Well, as in much of biology at these tiny levels, there's lots of redundancy, which isn't always a good thing. These now well known chromosomal parts can also be involved in LENGTHENING themselves, thereby contributing to LONGER cell life. As in the initial rapid multiplication of cancer cell lines, stems cells, and so on, where rapid division is important..
But here's the redundancy kicker. Seems that these Telomeric subsystems can also control nearby genes for other vital cellular functions. Introns and extrons. And who knows what else? So totally 'Efing slick, it brings the shakes to these shrimpy small man's little legs. Thrice?
Of course, thousands of hard working scientists gave humanity this information. But perhaps three were judged, fairly or not, as most central. Work done at the Karolinska Institutet, a cousin of the famous Vierk Institutet (for the study of political syndromes).
All hail: Carol Greider (while still a doctoral student!), Jack Szostak and lab leader, Eliz. Blackburn. Frice?
WTF? And twice as many women lab creatures as men get the prize? What's wrong with this Nobel Prize picture, I ask you?

Perhaps the most delicate and certainly the most important area of which the individual seeks an understanding to some extent, which may vary from person to person, is that of his/her psyche or mind in relation to his/her existence where the term mind is viewed as the capacity for thought or mental activity. Most people, if not all, at some time, seek to understand themselves or this mental activity through which they can define an identity of their own, with a view towards finding some meaning or purpose in their existence. Philosophy itself seeks an answer to this quest on a broader basis.

The method of approach used towards the attainment of such an understanding is generally the observation of one's thoughts, feelings, desires, etc., in addition to one's behaviour, and the subsequent attempt to find some logical interrelation between these factors on the basis of which a “sensible” deduction can be made. The above-stated factors may be considered to be subjective knowledge, i.e. knowledge of the effects of the mind. Perhaps the stated description of a general method of approach may not be very exact, seeing that each individual decides his/her method of approach. Yet it appears that in most cases, strong emphasis is placed on the use of logical reasoning applied to subjective knowledge. As is commonly stated, most people try to make sense, i.e. logical sense ,of it all. However, this raises the question: Is it possible for the human mind to arrive at a true and complete understanding of itself through the process of logical reasoning seeing it can only acquire subjective knowledge of itself, i.e. knowledge of its effects?

Through the process of logical reasoning, the human mind may try to arrive at an explanation of the causes that produce these effects, but it can never acquire objective knowledge of itself directly in order that it may validate the deductions it made about itself through logical reasoning. For to acquire objective knowledge of itself, i.e. direct knowledge of the causes responsible for its effects, mind would have to break itself into fragments and then make observations about these fragments thereby acquiring direct knowledge about the causes of its effects. This obviously would be impossible since mind would no longer exist, seeing that now there would only be fragments of mind and not mind as a whole to make the observations about its fragments.

How is weather over there ?
I have hot here about 41-42 centigrade ,it is so hot