U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-11-2009, 03:28 PM
 
13,140 posts, read 35,994,034 times
Reputation: 12077

Advertisements

I just read a neat article in New Scientist magazine about the 10 different scientific objects that forever changed humanity. There's a slide show with picture and info about each for those interested.

1. Apollo 10 Capsule
2. Thompson Atmospheric Engine (Steam Engine)
3. Electric Telegraph
4. Model T Ford
5. Computers (Pilot Ace)
6. V2 Rocket Engine
7. Penicillin
8. DNA Double Helix
9. X-Ray Machine
10. Stephenson's Rocket

Gallery - 10 scientific objects that changed the world - Image 1 - New Scientist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2009, 08:08 PM
 
Location: USA
3,966 posts, read 9,158,160 times
Reputation: 2197
It's too bad they only gave credit to Crick and Watson and not Rosalind Franklin. Without Rosalind Franklin's work they would have nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2009, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Drury Lane
820 posts, read 2,496,965 times
Reputation: 248
How about the printing press?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2009, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
16,862 posts, read 51,373,474 times
Reputation: 27750
Good start. I'd add the (movable type) printing press as well.
Apollo 10? How about Apollo 11?
The DNA double helix isn't an object. Time for some new suggestions.
Diesel engine
Radio transmitter
AC generator
Tractor and combine
Camera & film
Air conditioner
Airplane
Scotch
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2009, 02:21 AM
 
2,255 posts, read 4,797,994 times
Reputation: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by w1ngzer0 View Post
It's too bad they only gave credit to Crick and Watson and not Rosalind Franklin. Without Rosalind Franklin's work they would have nothing.
For me the work here with the DNA Double Helix model is the most interesting.

One thing you have to understand about the scientific world (and it's definitely it's own little secret society of a world) is you are often times dealing with massive over inflated egos and arrogance. It's no different than any other endeavor or pursuit in life where people in a particular field, sport, industry, politics, finance, or any other type of interest are constantly and continually competing with and against each other. That's simply the nature of imperfect man.

Along with the DNA Double Helix model, the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology is extremely important for me. Here's a brief definition.

The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology

Lately there have been attempts at redinfining the Central Dogma as we've always known it. I think it's funny because it is imperitive to have it changed for the purpose of explaining the origins of life for which they have ZERO answer for except the creation of fables or fairytales.

On another note, I think the creation of inventor companies like Monsanto as an example and the Marxist Biology coupled with the Doktor Josef Mengele GMO research is having a major profound effect on our planet's ecosystems and if not reversed or altogether stopped, some detrimental effects may be irreversable.

Most science today is power and wealth driven. You cannot separate the two. Studies and the results are either shelved or buried and not reported until it's too late. That's why you see in many lawsuits against such companies the court oredered release of these studies that prove the company knew of the dangers all along. This crossing of the species barriers already has been proven to be a major flaw. There is a reason nature has these checks and balances encoded into their varied and different specific species DNA. Although I suppose that is a subject for another thread. But can you imagine what mankind could have accomplished all these last several decades by working with nature rather than against it ???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2009, 10:48 AM
 
3,142 posts, read 7,159,597 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by muffinman View Post
How about the printing press?
LOL... Wouldn't that be like number 1??? I can't believe they left that out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2009, 09:11 PM
 
Location: USA
3,966 posts, read 9,158,160 times
Reputation: 2197
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluepacific View Post
For me the work here with the DNA Double Helix model is the most interesting.

One thing you have to understand about the scientific world (and it's definitely it's own little secret society of a world) is you are often times dealing with massive over inflated egos and arrogance. It's no different than any other endeavor or pursuit in life where people in a particular field, sport, industry, politics, finance, or any other type of interest are constantly and continually competing with and against each other. That's simply the nature of imperfect man.
Agreed and it is unfortunate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 06:49 AM
 
3,142 posts, read 7,159,597 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by w1ngzer0 View Post
Agreed and it is unfortunate.
And it is that arrogance he speaks of that has rightly doomed mankind. While we have the potential to carry on forever we are ultimately our own worst enemy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 07:19 AM
 
176 posts, read 568,783 times
Reputation: 91
Hi,
I'll admit I'm not the Scientists you guys are, but this post caught my eye, and I wondered your thoughts.

I once saw a Popular Science cover feature, on the new Buckyball C10? carbon structure back in the '90s.
Would you guys say this qualifies?

Last edited by Lionsdale; 06-16-2009 at 07:19 AM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2009, 07:48 AM
 
2,255 posts, read 4,797,994 times
Reputation: 771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionsdale View Post
Hi,
I'll admit I'm not the Scientists you guys are, but this post caught my eye, and I wondered your thoughts.

I once saw a Popular Science cover feature, on the new Buckyball C10? carbon structure back in the '90s.
Would you guys say this qualifies?
Here's an interesting link to an article dealing with the Bucky ball model structure. I do think it's kool that some have come up with such clever illustration models which help us all to visualize things we would'nt otherwise see or take any note of.

Bucky Balls
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top