puzzlegirlsandpoprocks: eatsleepblee: vorpalbookmaster: spookysoul12066: ergonomiczombie: queennubian: theveiledwarrior: hamburgerjack: mothernaturenetwork: Scientists successfully generate gasoline out of thin airBreakthrough technology takes carbon, hydrogen and oxygen from CO2 and water in the air to create methanol and then converts it into gasoline. We’ll never hear about this again. And we may never hear from those scientists again. Amazing though. Big Oil’s gonna be piiiiiiiiissed Somebody go put these folks in the witness protection program before they get hits put on them by ExxonMobil just in time for me to  get my first whip PUT THIS EVERYWHERE. Now HERE’S a post that needs 4 million notes! EVERYBODY REBLOG I’ve actually heard of a man mysteriously disappearing after he refused to the government to not go through with his making of a substitute of gasoline with water. So everybody needs to reblog. Seriously. I told my mom about this and the first thing she said was “He’s gonna disappear.”

puzzlegirlsandpoprocks:

eatsleepblee:

vorpalbookmaster:

spookysoul12066:

ergonomiczombie:

queennubian:

theveiledwarrior:

hamburgerjack:

mothernaturenetwork:

Scientists successfully generate gasoline out of thin air
Breakthrough technology takes carbon, hydrogen and oxygen from CO2 and water in the air to create methanol and then converts it into gasoline.

We’ll never hear about this again. And we may never hear from those scientists again.

Amazing though.

Big Oil’s gonna be piiiiiiiiissed

Somebody go put these folks in the witness protection program before they get hits put on them by ExxonMobil

just in time for me to  get my first whip

PUT THIS EVERYWHERE.

Now HERE’S a post that needs 4 million notes!

EVERYBODY REBLOG

I’ve actually heard of a man mysteriously disappearing after he refused to the government to not go through with his making of a substitute of gasoline with water. So everybody needs to reblog. Seriously.

I told my mom about this and the first thing she said was “He’s gonna disappear.”

(via loveyourchaos)

positive-press-daily: The revolutionary ‘contact lens’ loaded with stem cells that restores sight - by helping the eye heal itself naturally A ‘contact lens’ loaded with stem cells could be a way to naturally repair or retain sight. Scientists hope the biodegradable implant loaded with stem cells that then multiply will allow the body to heal the eye naturally.  Stem cells are the building blocks of tissue growth. They can transform into any other type of cell the body is built from and so should be able to repair everything from the brain to the heart. The scientists at the University of Sheffield who developed the implant now hope the new technique could help millions of people across the world retain or even regain - their sight.  The technology has been designed to treat damage to the cornea, the transparent layer on the front of the eye, which is one of the major causes of blindness in the world. With the new implant, by mimicking structural features of the eye, the researchers have developed a new method for producing very delicate thin membranes to help graft stem cells onto the eye itself. Using a series of complex techniques, the researchers are able to make a disc of biodegradable material that can be fixed over the cornea. The disc is loaded with stem cells that then multiply, allowing the body to heal the eye naturally. Standard treatments for corneal blindness are corneal transplants or grafting stem cells onto the eye using a donated human  membrane as a temporary carrier to deliver these cells to the eye.  But for some patients, the treatment can fail after a few years as the repaired eyes do not retain these stem cells, which are required to carry out repair of the cornea. A key feature of this new disc is that it contains small pockets to house and protect the stem cells, to keep them in the eye and also grouped together. ‘The disc has an outer ring containing pockets into which stem cells taken from the patient’s healthy eye can be placed,’ said Dr Ílida Ortega Asencio, from Sheffield’s Faculty of Engineering.  ‘The material across the centre of the disc is thinner than the ring, so it will biodegrade more quickly allowing the stem cells to proliferate across the surface of the eye to repair the cornea.’ Without this constant repair, thick white scar tissue forms across the cornea causing partial or complete sight loss. The researchers said another advantage of the disc is that it is biodegradable and made from the same material already used in sutures, so it will not cause a problem in the body.  Laboratory tests have shown that the membranes will support cell growth. As a result, clinical trials are expected to begin shortly in India, as the Sheffield scientists are working in conjunction with researchers at the LV Prasad Eye Institute in Hyderabad. Commenting on the disc, Dr Frederick Claeyssens, lecturer in biomaterials at the University of Sheffield, said:  ‘We also believe that the overall treatment using these discs will not only be better than current treatments, it will be cheaper as well.’ The research is published in the journal Acta Biomaterialia.

positive-press-daily:

The revolutionary ‘contact lens’ loaded with stem cells that restores sight - by helping the eye heal itself naturally

A ‘contact lens’ loaded with stem cells could be a way to naturally repair or retain sight. Scientists hope the biodegradable implant loaded with stem cells that then multiply will allow the body to heal the eye naturally. 

Stem cells are the building blocks of tissue growth. They can transform into any other type of cell the body is built from and so should be able to repair everything from the brain to the heart. The scientists at the University of Sheffield who developed the implant now hope the new technique could help millions of people across the world retain or even regain - their sight. 

The technology has been designed to treat damage to the cornea, the transparent layer on the front of the eye, which is one of the major causes of blindness in the world. With the new implant, by mimicking structural features of the eye, the researchers have developed a new method for producing very delicate thin membranes to help graft stem cells onto the eye itself.

Using a series of complex techniques, the researchers are able to make a disc of biodegradable material that can be fixed over the cornea. The disc is loaded with stem cells that then multiply, allowing the body to heal the eye naturally. Standard treatments for corneal blindness are corneal transplants or grafting stem cells onto the eye using a donated human  membrane as a temporary carrier to deliver these cells to the eye. 

But for some patients, the treatment can fail after a few years as the repaired eyes do not retain these stem cells, which are required to carry out repair of the cornea. A key feature of this new disc is that it contains small pockets to house and protect the stem cells, to keep them in the eye and also grouped together.

‘The disc has an outer ring containing pockets into which stem cells taken from the patient’s healthy eye can be placed,’ said Dr Ílida Ortega Asencio, from Sheffield’s Faculty of Engineering. 

‘The material across the centre of the disc is thinner than the ring, so it will biodegrade more quickly allowing the stem cells to proliferate across the surface of the eye to repair the cornea.’

Without this constant repair, thick white scar tissue forms across the cornea causing partial or complete sight loss. The researchers said another advantage of the disc is that it is biodegradable and made from the same material already used in sutures, so it will not cause a problem in the body. 

Laboratory tests have shown that the membranes will support cell growth. As a result, clinical trials are expected to begin shortly in India, as the Sheffield scientists are working in conjunction with researchers at the LV Prasad Eye Institute in Hyderabad.

Commenting on the disc, Dr Frederick Claeyssens, lecturer in biomaterials at the University of Sheffield, said:  ‘We also believe that the overall treatment using these discs will not only be better than current treatments, it will be cheaper as well.’

The research is published in the journal Acta Biomaterialia.

(via loveyourchaos)

infinity-imagined:

   DNA Double Helix stores genetic information.     DNA Polymerase replicates DNA.

   RNA Polymerase synthesizes RNA from DNA.   Ribosomes use RNA to build proteins

These four biological molecules are essential to all life on Earth.

They originated more than 3 Billion years ago during the Proterozoic Era, in a common ancestor of Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota.  Together these molecules form the fundamental pattern of the fractal of life; they are specialized machines that replicate each other and produce an endless variety of new forms.  They have evolved over trillions of generations into extraordinarily complex arrangements that consume energy, organize, and reproduce.

(via indianajosh)

In Space, Flames Behave in Ways Nobody Thought Possible Recent tests aboard the International Space Station have shown that fire in space can be less predictable and potentially more lethal than it is on Earth. “There have been experiments,” says NASA aerospace engineer Dan Dietrich, “where we observed fires that we didn’t think could exist, but did.” Image: A composite false-color image of fire in space. The bright yellow traces the path of a drop of fuel, shrinking as it burns, producing green soot Credit: Paul Ferkul / NASA That fire continues to surprise us is itself surprising when you consider that combustion is likely humanity’s oldest chemistry experiment, consisting of just three basic ingredients: oxygen, heat and fuel. Here on Earth, when a flame burns, it heats the surrounding atmosphere, causing the air to expand and become less dense. The pull of gravity draws colder, denser air down to the base of the flame, displacing the hot air, which rises. This convection process feeds fresh oxygen to the fire, which burns until it runs out of fuel. The upward flow of air is what gives a flame its teardrop shape and causes it to flicker. But odd things happen in space, where gravity loses its grip on solids, liquids and gases. Without gravity, hot air expands but doesn’t move upward. The flame persists because of the diffusion of oxygen, with random oxygen molecules drifting into the fire. Absent the upward flow of hot air, fires in microgravity are dome-shaped or spherical—and sluggish, thanks to meager oxygen flow. “If you ignite a piece of paper in microgravity, the fire will just slowly creep along from one end to the other,” says Dietrich. “Astronauts are all very excited to do our experiments because space fires really do look quite alien.” Such fires might appear eerily tranquil to people accustomed to the capricious nature of earthly flames. But a flame in microgravity can be more tenacious, capable of surviving on less oxygen and burning for longer periods of time. Full Article

In Space, Flames Behave in Ways Nobody Thought Possible

Recent tests aboard the International Space Station have shown that fire in space can be less predictable and potentially more lethal than it is on Earth. “There have been experiments,” says NASA aerospace engineer Dan Dietrich, “where we observed fires that we didn’t think could exist, but did.”

Image: A composite false-color image of fire in space. The bright yellow traces the path of a drop of fuel, shrinking as it burns, producing green soot Credit: Paul Ferkul / NASA

That fire continues to surprise us is itself surprising when you consider that combustion is likely humanity’s oldest chemistry experiment, consisting of just three basic ingredients: oxygen, heat and fuel.

Here on Earth, when a flame burns, it heats the surrounding atmosphere, causing the air to expand and become less dense. The pull of gravity draws colder, denser air down to the base of the flame, displacing the hot air, which rises. This convection process feeds fresh oxygen to the fire, which burns until it runs out of fuel. The upward flow of air is what gives a flame its teardrop shape and causes it to flicker.

But odd things happen in space, where gravity loses its grip on solids, liquids and gases. Without gravity, hot air expands but doesn’t move upward. The flame persists because of the diffusion of oxygen, with random oxygen molecules drifting into the fire. Absent the upward flow of hot air, fires in microgravity are dome-shaped or spherical—and sluggish, thanks to meager oxygen flow. “If you ignite a piece of paper in microgravity, the fire will just slowly creep along from one end to the other,” says Dietrich. “Astronauts are all very excited to do our experiments because space fires really do look quite alien.”

Such fires might appear eerily tranquil to people accustomed to the capricious nature of earthly flames. But a flame in microgravity can be more tenacious, capable of surviving on less oxygen and burning for longer periods of time.

Full Article

(Source: ikenbot, via loveyourchaos)

rawlivingfoods: Just imagine how many resources are used up for lawns. And how amazing would it be to know where your food comes from? Grow food and fuel your life! I think it would be interesting to see what things would be like if we all did this.

rawlivingfoods:

Just imagine how many resources are used up for lawns. And how amazing would it be to know where your food comes from? Grow food and fuel your life!

I think it would be interesting to see what things would be like if we all did this.

(via oatsandyoga)

loveyourchaos:

interesting.

Just something interesting I found that I thought I would leave here.

Neutrinos REALLY REALLY can travel faster than light

Science fiction is slowly becoming reality.

(Source: guardian)

I’ve been meaning to post something for a while, and I have an unfinished post just sitting in my drafts. Sorry.

So, because of the delay, is there anything that you guys want to hear about?

Okay, this deviates a little from moral philosophy, but we had a debate in class the other day and had to write a reflection for it, so I thought it would be good to post that here.

—

I love debating philosophy. I really do. And actually, I find arguing for the less popular side the most fun whether it’s for or against what I believe. But today’s debate lined up well for me. I felt that even though I was on the side with five (versus 15), I was only saying things that lined up with my actual preferences. That being said, here’s my response:

Are human beings only animals?

            I believe humans are only animals – albeit more developed and evolved animals. There is no higher power that makes us special, and there is nothing other than our biology that makes us human. Yes, we have the ability to think rationally, but, as I pointed out in the debate, so did our predecessors. There were arguments like, “But they were like us! We came from them, so isn’t it the same?” To that I’d like to say that yes, we came from them, but the argument is about humans, they weren’t humans. In fact, it is believed that our ancestors in a completely different genus had rational thought capabilities. So if that’s the only argument for us being different from animals, then it falls. There were also a lot of arguments about our intelligence and ability to build skyscrapers and planes. I’m not arguing against humans being smarter and more able than other animals. I just believe that it is our proportionately larger brains (developed through the completely natural process of evolution) that allow us to do these things, not some higher power or greater worth. People seemed to get stuck on this one. There was also a lot of conflict over worth: whether humans were worth the same as an animal. If so, it was argued, then humans shouldn’t kill other animals because we all have the same worth. I don’t believe that’s true. A good number of animals kill other animals for food. And, as I am arguing that humans are only animals, then it is completely natural and okay to eat other animals. As in animal societies, humans view other humans as being (more or less) equals because of their similar intelligence and less capable animals as not equals.

           

Do humans have intrinsic worth? Or are we only as valuable as our contribution to society?

            Humans are not valued for the mere fact that they are human. We are valued for our contributions. Now you might call that cynical, but hear me out. Value is relative. What is valuable to me might not be valuable to you. That being said, the people we love contribute to us (our happiness, comfort, etc.), and thus, we value them. However, that does not mean that someone on the other side of the world will necessarily value your best friend. He/she has not done anything that might positively affect that other person and thus, your best friend has no worth to him.  Whereas he might have a dog that he loves and values and might try to hurt your best friend if your best friend tried to do something to the dog. That is, the person would value his dog (something that contributes to his wellbeing) over your best friend (a human that does not contribute something to his personal wellbeing).

Do humans have inalienable rights? If so, where do they come from?

            This idea of inalienable rights is distinctly western and modern. For thousands of years people did not have so-called inalienable rights, and many people in developing nations still don’t. This concept, once invented, was found to work pretty well, and thus adopted as a man-made entity. Although I do believe in inalienable rights, we were not inherently born with them. Try telling a hungry polar bear not to eat you because you are a human and thus have inalienable rights. Doesn’t work.

Are all human beings equal?

            I believe that every human was born on equal footing – we all came out vulnerable, crying, and bloody. However, from that point on we started to distinguish ourselves from others. I think that the level a person is at is dependent on their intelligence and what they do with their life. As such, I don’t think everyone should be allowed the same privileges like voting and having babies. 

Is morality real?

Is there such a thing as moral goodness? Should/Ought I be morally good? If morality is not real, are you willing to actually live this way? Are you willing for others to live this way?

Here we go, question number one. 

Personally, I think morality is real but relative. It’s impossible to say that one person’s morals are the exact same as everyone else on earth and that everyone on earth is held to a single standard. It just doesn’t work like that. Sure, some people ascribe to certain religions all hold similar values, but it doesn’t transfer cross-culture very well. For example, I can guarantee you a Buddhist in Tibet and a Buddhist in Japan have similar, but not identical, value sets. 

So how does this relate to the question? I believe that goodness to one person is not necessarily goodness to another. One person could say, “killing 1 to save 1,000 is okay!” while another says, “killing anyone is wrong.” 

I believe that for a sense of personal fulfillment and righteousness, people should always adhere to their sense of goodness. However, that might not always impact the people around them in a good way. 

On the flip side, if no one listened to their sense of good or bad (and we’re assuming there is no law to abide by), we’d have total anarchy. Sure, the individual would benefit from being “bad,” but once others also go bad, the individual would no longer like this society because bad things are being done against him. Without other people around, we’d all be selfish and uncaring of what “right” and “wrong” is. But because there are other, freethinking humans walking around and interacting with us, we feel the need to do good so that maybe others will do good for us as well. 

In the end, it’s really hard to say that there’s a moral standard everyone needs to live by without compromising others’ beliefs. That’s what the justice system is for (although the justice system is really an overinflated set of morals imposed on all who live in a certain jurisdiction. I could go on and on about how politics attempts to make it fairer, but I won’t).

In short: Morality is real, but its definition differs from person to person.

Coming soon: A quick rundown on the different schools of moral philosophy and some major philosophers’ stances on what morality really is. 

But until then, do you think morality is real?

A small collection of philosophy, religion, history, unanswerable and rhetorical questions, science, and occasionally politics.
I like to share my opinions, and everything is open to comments, so feel free to share yours as well.

Also, don't be afraid to ask anything. I'll try to answer any questions and respond to comments. If there are questions I can't answer I'll at least point you in the right direction.