Slashdot Mirror
'Civilization on Mars' Claims Debunked
StarEmperor writes "Bad Astronomy's Phil Plait has finally taken some time to
debunk conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland's claims about life on Mars. There's also a CNN story about this here."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Actually, the claims aren't really debunked, instead, Plait attacks Hoaglands credibility.
Oh, and this article is old, there's already a rebuttal over at Enterprisemission
Hoagland is a con-artist who got lucky a long time ago and decided to parlay his scant credibility into an industry built on duping clueless dreamers out of their money. He's the Wade Cook of science.
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
Isaac Asimov once wrote:
quote:"For one thing Velikfovskianism, and indeed, any exoheretical view that becomes prominent enough to force itself on science, acts to puncture scientific complacency-and that is good. An exoheresy may cause scientists to bestir themselves for the purpose of reexamining the bases of their beliefs, even if only to gather firm and logical reasons for the rejection of the exoheresy-and that is good too. An exoheresy may cause scientific activity which, in a serendipitous fashion, may uncover something worthwhile that has nothing to do with the exoheresy-and that is very good, if it happens."
...why in earth would NASA want to cover up such a thing?
If you enjoy his web site and the service he provides to the public buy his book, Bad Astronomy.
The link to his book on Amazon can be found here
He covers a wide range of misconceptions, myths and outright falsehoods about astronomy and associated topics. My favorite topic he covers is the "Apollo Moon Landing Hoax". He gives the subject an excellent treatment.
Unfortunately his definitions are wrong.
I am a born-again evangelical Christian. That is to say, those are the terms I would use to describe myself, and my church describes itself as Evangelical.
I also believe that creationists are nuts, that modern science makes it impossible to take the whole of the Bible literally, and that God may only have played a minimal part in evolution, although I still find Him irreplacable as an explanation for what caused the Big Bang to happen.
Please don't use the term "evangelical" when you mean "fundamentalist". The two mean entirely different things. It's as bad as saying "socialist" when you mean "Stalinist", or using "capitalist" to mean "oppressive and exploitative", or "gay" to mean "stupid"... or "stupid" to mean "ignorant", come to that.
All those words are used in those ways in colloquial contexts, but that doesn't mean it's at all acceptable to use it that way when you're trying to make a serious point about real issues. There are indeed fundamentalist Christians who believe that everything scientists say is a direct assault on Christianity and probably directly inspired by Satan, but using "evangelical" to describe that group does nobody any favours.
Sorry for double post, but before I forget...
Dieting is generally a bad idea for weight loss (although useful for other purposes). The reason for this is that the body which is starved reacts by breaking down muscle tissue instead of fat. It tries to keep as much fat as possible as a response to the lack of food. This is why you see people diet for a long time and still have fat all over their body even after their muscle loses all definition.
In fact, the best way to lose weight is to cut down on fat (obviously), eat more carbohydrates and do it regularly (no starving yourself in the evening and such) and eat a reasonable amount of protein. Then do a lot of aerobic exercise (steppers, jogging, long-distance swimming and similar). You need carbohydrates to be able to withstand the exercise without feeling dead (most of it gets burnt during this process) and protein to support and rebuild the muscles as they get hit by the exercises.
This was proven almost 3 years ago. And the terrain on Mars isn't exactly flat, either.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
1) Instant (using the ATP stores in the muscles themselves)
2) Anaerobic (without oxygen): This generally is done by burning carbohydrates in your body
3) Aerobic (using oxygen): This is burning fat with the presence of oxygen.
Sorry, that's incorrect. Carbohydrate metabolism has two steps: glycolysis which is the anaerobic part and the citric acid cycle (aka TCA cycle, aka Kreb's cycle) which is the aerobic part. When your body uses carbs it goes through both glycolysis and the citric acid cycle as long as it can. When a tissue starts running out of oxygen, such as when you are running for a while and your oxygen supply can't keep up, you can't do TCA, so glucose metabolism stops at the end of glycolysis and produces lactic acid. The buildup of lactic acid is what gives you the sensation of burning in your muscles. Fat and protein metabolism does not go through glycolysis, only TCA, which happens when you are low on carb stores.