LGP Science Thread

[bhaw]

I think we had this posted before, but it is very appropriate for this thread... and it's mind blowing...

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA&feature=fvw

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMES ... re=channel

[doublem]

I was thinking about this today for some strange reason and couldn't find the answer, becasue I don't think it is possible but can a species come back? Say humans go extinct one day, with changes in the earths temp, or some other event make it possible for say, dinosaurs to return as the earths apex creature. I don't think so but does anyone know this for sure?????

[roland]

change in vibration/frequency. Weird.

[doublem]

Yangtze River’s Ancient Origins Revealed

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091831.htm

[Corvidae]

I was thinking about this today for some strange reason and couldn't find the answer, becasue I don't think it is possible but can a species come back? Say humans go extinct one day, with changes in the earths temp, or some other event make it possible for say, dinosaurs to return as the earths apex creature. I don't think so but does anyone know this for sure?????

Once a species is completely gone, unless some crazy new genetic engineering enters the picture, it's gone for good. However, if the earth slowly became like it was during the dinosaur days, then it isn't out of the question the many species, specifically their modern day ancestors, would evolve into larger and more varied species (due to warmer temps and higher 02 levels). You would never have the exact same species, though, due to the sheer about of randomness involved in mutations and genetic drift, but they would likely have similar qualities.

[shafnutz05]

[doublem]

I was thinking about this today for some strange reason and couldn't find the answer, becasue I don't think it is possible but can a species come back? Say humans go extinct one day, with changes in the earths temp, or some other event make it possible for say, dinosaurs to return as the earths apex creature. I don't think so but does anyone know this for sure?????

Once a species is completely gone, unless some crazy new genetic engineering enters the picture, it's gone for good. However, if the earth slowly became like it was during the dinosaur days, then it isn't out of the question the many species, specifically their modern day ancestors, would evolve into larger and more varied species (due to warmer temps and higher 02 levels). You would never have the exact same species, though, due to the sheer about of randomness involved in mutations and genetic drift, but they would likely have similar qualities.

That is what I was thinking. Cool.

[doublem]

Climate change made apes vanish in ancient Europe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_ ... 209492.stm

[Dan H]

I was hoping you'd pop up! I wasn't aware that dark matter was considered "regular matter" at all. Also, I was more referring to "dark energy," which according to current book I'm reading (circa 2006), is believed to be 70% of the matter/energy in the universe?

I gave about the simplest rebuttal I could, but yeah, there are some distinctions between dark matter and the zero-point energy people refer to as dark energy. There are also probably distinctions between "normal" matter (by which I mean composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons) such as the Earth and what makes up the rest of the dark matter in the universe. A lot of the quantity of dark matter astronomers think exists is probably neutrinos and other particles, some of which we may not have discovered yet. However, we can't detect planets orbiting other stars by a direct electromagnetic signature, so they - and also the Earth - are "dark matter" in that sense. The way I believe most astronomers think about it is that "dark matter" is an umbrella term encompassing all the mass that must be there to account for the observed orbital speeds of stars about galactic centers, and nonluminous "normal" matter is just one component of that. They also sometimes say "dark matter" when they mean all the matter in that first set other than "normal" matter. At some point, it's just a matter of lexigraphy rather than a real physical distinction. The point of my first post was that it's not just the fact that some dark matter has to be around to "make our equations work" that makes scientists hypothesize its existence. We can directly observe some of it (the Earth), and indirectly observe other parts of it (neutrinos).

Dark energy is a different physical concept, but I can make some defense of that hypothesis, too. The basic concept to have straight is Doppler shift, like how a train whistle or the drone of an airplane engine changes in tone depending upon if it's travelling toward you or away from you. That's a pretty fundamental tidbit of physics; it's used all the time in science and engineering, and there are so many things it explains completely and correctly that it's difficult to call scientists arrogant for assuming the concept is right. Astronomers use the Doppler shift of light emitted from distant stars to determine how quickly they move toward or away from us. One thing they have observed from measuring this rate from many stars is that the universe seems to be expanding at an accelerating rate. Everything to this point is backed by really solid basic science. Now, we'll get into people's hypotheses. Astronomers have been trying to figure out for decades why they see accelerating expansion. This is where "dark energy" comes in. Assuming that there is some energy uniformly spread throughout all space is one somewhat simple way of producing this accelerating rate of expansion. Although astronomy isn't my specialty, I don't believe I've ever heard a professional astronomer claim that any particular dark energy model has been proven correct. It's not arrogance that's driving them to think about it; it's simply an effort to understand and explain what we can measure and see.

[Corvidae]

I understand the use of red shifts to detect the speed that an object is moving away, and it does make sense. But here's the thing...

Inflation Cosmology is favored over the Standard Big Bang model, and one reason for that is the more analytical description of how the universe can be at almost exactly the Critical Density shown by Einstein's equations, and therefor flat. Yet, to paraphrase Brian Greene, if the initial inflation was as large as calculated, then the visible universe would be the size of a grain of sand and the entire universe the size of the earth. Seems like an awfully small sample size, considering that a grain of sand would look flat if you were an atom on it's surface. Yet, the Earth is round. Galaxies are moving faster away from us, but only in our visible part of the universe. When high tide comes in, the grain of sand is uniformly wet. It's as if an inhabitant of that grain would then state that the entire earth is wet and nothing is dry.

The problem I have is with the current method of scientific thought is that it continues to build upon things which are not yet proven. Inflation Cosmology itself relies on an Inflaton Field which is based on the Higgs Field that requires the Higgs Boson. If the LHC cannot detect the Higgs Boson, does that question the rest of the steps? At some point there may be a disconnect between what works on the chalk board and what simply is, because our sample size is so ridiculously small.

[doublem]

There is tantalising evidence that a common parasite may affect human behaviour

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnol ... /te/rss/pe

[Corvidae]

There is tantalising evidence that a common parasite may affect human behaviour

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnol ... /te/rss/pe

Without even looking I'm going to assume that it's toxoplasmosis.

EDIT: Score one for the me. Very interesting little bugger.

[doublem]

There is tantalising evidence that a common parasite may affect human behaviour

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnol ... /te/rss/pe

Without even looking I'm going to assume that it's toxoplasmosis.

EDIT: Score one for the me. Very interesting little bugger.

[Corvidae]

There is tantalising evidence that a common parasite may affect human behaviour

http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnol ... /te/rss/pe

Without even looking I'm going to assume that it's toxoplasmosis.

EDIT: Score one for the me. Very interesting little bugger.

Check out this book some time. You'll never look at nature the same way again.

Another interesting tidbit about toxoplasmosis is that it can be killed by an antibiotic that affects bacteria's ribosomes. It is not, however, a species of bacteria. The explanation? It absorbed and assimilated one at some point in it's evolutionary history.

[doublem]

Wow, sounds good I will have to check it out.

[wallflower]

Check out this book some time. You'll never look at nature the same way again.

It looks like it would be really interesting but I don't know if I could read a book with a cover that would give me horrible nightmares.

That thing looks like it wants my soul.

[Corvidae]

Check out this book some time. You'll never look at nature the same way again.

It looks like it would be really interesting but I don't know if I could read a book with a cover that would give me horrible nightmares.

That thing looks like it wants my soul.

That's because I do it does.

[wallflower]

Check out this book some time. You'll never look at nature the same way again.

It looks like it would be really interesting but I don't know if I could read a book with a cover that would give me horrible nightmares.

That thing looks like it wants my soul.

That's because I do it does.

I'll consult my popple, get her opinion on it.

[shafnutz05]

Corvi stop trying to get us to read your books of the occult!!!

[doublem]

Mammoths Ate Their Own Poo

http://news.discovery.com/animals/mammo ... n-poo.html

[doublem]

New robotic telescope in Chile set for planet hunt

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_ ... 266549.stm

[canaan]

honest question:

when did the machine make global warming and climate change synonymous?

[Corvidae]

honest question:

when did the machine make global warming and climate change synonymous?

When they realized that, since global warming actually makes some places and winters colder, that having "warming" in the name was counterproductive. Overall the Earth is getting warmer but "change" is a better description.

For example, if things get really bad, Europe will get colder because article ice will melt into the gulf stream. If you drew a line across from Europe, you'll see that London is roughly near the same latitude as St. John, Newfoundland, and Winnipeg. But the warm water from the gulf stream makes their winters even milder than Pittsburgh's. Yatta yatta yatta, they'll be freezing their balls off.

[Admin]

Male Spiders Are All Bark, Female Spiders Fight to Kill

[doublem]

Oh my is that scary.