News Briefs 06-04-2011

A common view of ancient Greek technology is that they knew about things like gears, mechanics and steam pressure, but only used it for entertainment.

Apparently this was also the case for the Antikythera device, following the artice:

Whereas today, we can make amazingly capable and cheap computers, that would enable us to optimize households to optimize energy usage, water consumption and the like. We could also use these computers, networked as they already are, to gather important atmospheric and geological data in previously unknown detail.

So consequently we use these computers to entertaining children, and adults in their non-grown-up moments. And we use the networking to gather important data, in order to sell them more entertainment.

I love it when Randi mocks real science or science doing its best to be scientific. Ths latest mockery reminds me of Randi's pathetic attempts to "explain away" the classic entangled photons experiments. He is not a real scientist, and he demonstates that to us with some regularity.

The team used a 1970’s software program called Phong Shading, originally developed to create a 3D rendering effect on graphics, to model the reflection of waste heat from the spacecraft on their varied surfaces – the 2.7-metre diameter antenna, and rest of the spacecraft behind it. Then they did the maths.

Rather than a program, phong shading is a mathematical algorithm invented to simulate the way light bounces at a 3d object, and also to give it a smoother appearance —compensating for a low polygon number in the topology of the model, which was pretty important back when computers were not as powerful. It is now a standard feature in all modern CGI software packages.

Quite an amusing article. Too many words just to say that the scientists polished their models (pardon the pun) and that solved the anomaly ;)

"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."*

Oh, come on - a Twain quote? Nope, don't buy it. Why didn't you just finish the job and put up Babs Streisand's Shakespearean "drums of war" non-quote-of-convenience? Really, please. It's important that even quotation attribution be correct, otherwise we look sloppy and credulous - or exactly what debunkers try to make us, er, I guess that should be "people like me", look like.

So, post a verifiable reference to this quote in a Clemens' work, letter, interview or remarks, and I shall abase myself in fulsome paeans to your erudition. Otherwise, I'm gonna keep it up with the this-is-such-an-obvious-stinker-you-should-have-known stuff as long as it remains attributed to the man.

*I agree with the sentiment, and while I love skeptics, they must be intellectually honest, or they're mere debunkers.