beecee

Best science book I have read? By a long way, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. Not so much about the making of the bomb, as more a total history of late 19th, to 20th century Physics and Chemistry from Rhoentgen and Bequeral, to Curie and Mitner and through to Fermi, Bohr, Feynman and Einstein. Great read!!

The King and the Fraulein: Incredible !!!!

I do see some distinction between Earth based Abiogenesis and Panspermia which would come under Universal Abiogenesis. My only doubt on your reply is that if Abiogenesis/Universal Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life arose anywhere, I would see it much more then just an hypothesis? That of course would rest on the premise of is there another scientific explanation? Perhaps another technical distinction?

Hmmm Interesting! and good to be back!! I was always under the impression that a scientific theory is science's best explanation of a particular situation, and that as any scientific theory continues over time, to match new observations and make correct predictions, that it does gain in certainty over that time.eg: The discovery of gravitational radiation/waves, further enforced GR as being our best theory of gravity. I can see the method in your madness though. 🙂

I remember also reading that the axial tilt of the Earth is not a fixed quantity, and undergoes very tiny changes [getting less] probably due to tidal gravitational effects...which also explain the Moon moving ever so slightly further away and the Erath's day lengthening. Found this....................... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt extract: Earth currently has an axial tilt of about 23.44°.[8] This value remains about the same relative to a stationary orbital plane throughout the cycles of axial precession.[9] But the ecliptic (i.e., Earth's orbit) moves due to planetary perturbations, and the obliquity of the ecliptic is not a fixed quantity. At present, it is decreasing at a rate of about 47″[10] per century (see details in Short term below).

While certainly lower population densities, it seems that Australia and New Zealand have essentially shown the way with controlling this damn virus. At the present time both NSW and Victoria have a few new [single digits] cases and other states are so far free of any new cases. Victoria went into a total lockdown a couple of months ago and then went 60 odd days without a case. The present single digit numbers have been put down to returning flight crews breaking isolation rules. Sydney has now deemed wearing a face mask as compulsory on public transport and in shopping complexes after a similar small "second wave" of single digit cases. There is and have been talk of creating a "Pacific bubble" with regards to Australia, New Zealand and some Pacific Islands. The Mrs is anxiously looking forward to that time to enable us to visit her family in Fiji. The same type of bubbles have worked successfully with our Rugby League competition that has now concluded without any problem, and continues with the Cricket and the Australia/India tests that are now in progress.

Hi: Nice to be back! I'm going to state a few views I have based on what reputable articles I have read and logical common sense. [1] The process/theory/assumption of Abiogenesis [life from non life] via chemistry is the only scientific answer we have to explain the methodology of how life came to be. [2] Any mythical "answer" relating to ID of any kind is unscientific at best. [3] In saying that at [1] science has yet to learn the exact pathway or methodology as to how Abiogenesis took place. Does [3] in anyway detract from the validity of Abiogenesis? How is Abiogenesis best described? A scientific theory? a scientific assumption? A scientific process? or are all three correct? The theory of the evolution of life is now so well supported that it is indeed a fact, as well as a scientific theory. True or false?

Weird or not, the prime issue is that we see and know this quantum weirdness is actually the norm.

And of course the "Father of the BB theory" the Belgian priest, Father George LaMaitre.

OK thanks for those answers fellas. Would it be valid to say that research on warp drive potential continues because warp drive hasn't been disproven as yet? Yuk! I hate using that word proven [or disproven]. So, there may possibly be hope for a future with FTL? The problems listed may be in time overcome? Found some more potential problems at Wiki.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive extract: Although the metric proposed by Alcubierre is consistent with the Einstein field equations, construction of such a drive is not necessarily possible. The proposed mechanism of the Alcubierre drive implies a negative energy density and therefore requires exotic matter. So if exotic matter with the correct properties cannot exist, then the drive could not be constructed. or is this a possibility? "At the close of his original article,[4] however, Alcubierre argued (following an argument developed by physicists analyzing traversable wormholes[5][6]) that the Casimir vacuum between parallel plates could fulfill the negative-energy requirement for the Alcubierre drive." another probably difficulty..... "Brendan McMonigal, Geraint F. Lewis, and Philip O'Byrne have argued that when an Alcubierre-driven ship decelerates from superluminal speed, the particles that its bubble has gathered in transit would be released in energetic outbursts akin to the infinitely blueshifted radiation hypothesized to occur at the inner event horizon of a Kerr black hole; in the case of forward-facing particles, energetic enough to destroy anything at the destination directly in front of the ship." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The Geraint Lewis was a much respected participant on another forum I was on that is now defunct. He is also Professor of Astrophysics at Sydney University.

I was prompted to start this subject by an article I came across, as follows..... https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...-drives-seriously-especially-this-one-concept Scientists Are Starting to Take Warp Drives Seriously, Especially This One Concept: MATT WILLIAMS, UNIVERSE TODAY 1 MAR 2020 It's hard living in a relativistic Universe, where even the nearest stars are so far away and the speed of light is absolute. It is little wonder then why science fiction franchises routinely employ FTL (Faster-than-Light) as a plot device. However, in recent years, the scientific community has become understandably excited and skeptical about claims that a particular concept – the Alcubierre Warp Drive – might actually be feasible. This was the subject of a presentation made at this year's American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Propulsion and Energy Forum, which took place from August 19th to 22nd in Indianapolis. This presentation was conducted by Joseph Agnew – an undergraduate engineer and research assistant from the University of Alabama in Huntsville's Propulsion Research Center (PRC). As part of a session titled "The Future of Nuclear and Breakthrough Propulsion", Agnew shared the results of a study he conducted titled "An Examination of Warp Theory and Technology to Determine the State of the Art and Feasibility". As Agnew explained to a packed house, the theory behind a warp propulsion system is relatively simple. more at link...... https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2019-4288 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OK, Of course this being achieved anytime soon is totally fanciful, and highly unlikely to be achieved at anytime, in my very humble opinion. And as we do know, sometimes pop science articles, can stretch a point for the sake of sensationalism. My question is in regards to the following extract and particularly the highlighted parts.... "In layman's terms, the Alcubierre Drive achieves FTL travel by stretching the fabric of space-time in a wave, causing the space ahead of it to contract while the space behind it expands. In theory, a spacecraft inside this wave would be able to ride this "warp bubble" and achieve velocities beyond the speed of light. This is what is known as the "Alcubierre Metric". Interpreted in the context of General Relativity, the interior of this warp bubble would constitute the inertial reference frame for anything inside it. By the same token, such bubbles can appear in a previously flat region of spacetime and exceed the speed of light. Since the ship is not moving through space-time (but moving space-time itself), conventional relativistic effects (like time dilation) would not apply." Any further comments are welcome as will be the answers to my question.

https://tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/?main=https%3A//tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/welcome/ Scientists Find The First-Ever Animal That Doesn't Need Oxygen to Survive MICHELLE STARR 25 FEB 2020 Some truths about the Universe and our experience in it seem immutable. The sky is up. Gravity sucks. Nothing can travel faster than light. Multicellular life needs oxygen to live. Except we might need to rethink that last one. Scientists have just discovered that a jellyfish-like parasite doesn't have a mitochondrial genome - the first multicellular organism known to have this absence. That means it doesn't breathe; in fact, it lives its life completely free of oxygen dependency. more at link..... https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/02/18/1909907117 the paper: A cnidarian parasite of salmon (Myxozoa: Henneguya) lacks a mitochondrial genome: Significance Mitochondrial respiration is an ancient characteristic of eukaryotes. However, it was lost independently in multiple eukaryotic lineages as part of adaptations to an anaerobic lifestyle. We show that a similar adaptation occurred in a member of the Myxozoa, a large group of microscopic parasitic animals that are closely related to jellyfish and hydroids. Using deep sequencing approaches supported by microscopic observations, we present evidence that an animal has lost its mitochondrial genome. The myxozoan cells retain structures deemed mitochondrion-related organelles, but have lost genes related to aerobic respiration and mitochondrial genome replication. Our discovery shows that aerobic respiration, one of the most important metabolic pathways, is not ubiquitous among animals. Abstract Although aerobic respiration is a hallmark of eukaryotes, a few unicellular lineages, growing in hypoxic environments, have secondarily lost this ability. In the absence of oxygen, the mitochondria of these organisms have lost all or parts of their genomes and evolved into mitochondria-related organelles (MROs). There has been debate regarding the presence of MROs in animals. Using deep sequencing approaches, we discovered that a member of the Cnidaria, the myxozoan Henneguya salminicola, has no mitochondrial genome, and thus has lost the ability to perform aerobic cellular respiration. This indicates that these core eukaryotic features are not ubiquitous among animals. Our analyses suggest that H. salminicola lost not only its mitochondrial genome but also nearly all nuclear genes involved in transcription and replication of the mitochondrial genome. In contrast, we identified many genes that encode proteins involved in other mitochondrial pathways and determined that genes involved in aerobic respiration or mitochondrial DNA replication were either absent or present only as pseudogenes. As a control, we used the same sequencing and annotation methods to show that a closely related myxozoan, Myxobolus squamalis, has a mitochondrial genome. The molecular results are supported by fluorescence micrographs, which show the presence of mitochondrial DNA in M. squamalis, but not in H. salminicola. Our discovery confirms that adaptation to an anaerobic environment is not unique to single-celled eukaryotes, but has also evolved in a multicellular, parasitic animal. Hence, H. salminicola provides an opportunity for understanding the evolutionary transition from an aerobic to an exclusive anaerobic metabolism.

You have failed to leave enough space between Fish and and, and and, and Chips. 😁

The most accurate gyroscopes ever made [I presume] were those on GP-B. https://einstein.stanford.edu/TECH/technology1.html#gyros World's Most Perfect Gyroscopes: To measure the minuscule angles predicted by Einstein’s theory, the GP-B team needed to build a near-perfect gyroscope—one whose spin axis would not drift away from its starting point by more than one hundred-billionth of a degree each hour that it was spinning. By comparison, the spin-axis drift in the most sophisticated Earth-based gyroscopes, found in high-tech aircraft and nuclear submarines, is seven orders of magnitude (more than ten million times) greater than GP-B could allow. Gyro Rotors Three physical characteristics of any gyroscope can cause its spin axis to drift, independently of the general relativity precession predicted by Einstein’s theory: An imbalance in mass or density distribution inside the gyroscope An uneven, asymmetrical surface on the outside of the gyroscope Friction between the bearings and axle of the gyroscope. This meant that a GP-B gyroscope rotor had to be perfectly balanced and homogenous inside, had to be free from any bearings or supports, and had to operate in a vacuum of only a few molecules. After years of work and the invention of new technologies and processes for polishing, measuring sphericity, and coating, the result was a homogenous 1.5-inch sphere of pure fused quartz, polished to within a few atomic layers of perfectly smooth. In fact, the GP-B gyro rotors are now listed in the Guinness Database of World Records as being the roundest objects ever manufactured, topped in sphericity only by neutron stars. more at link.....

I presume that's travelling at "c" ? While the BB happened around 13.83 billion years ago, our observable universe is around 94 billion L/years in diameter, due to spacetime expansion over those years.

Firstly like you I aint no scientist, but I have read plenty of stuff I believe to be reputable and based on the scientific methodology. In actual fact, we are not sure one way or the other, whether the universe is finite or infinite. Experiments like WMAP have shown us that the universe is topologically flat, to within very small margins of error, and on face value that tells us that in actual fact the universe is infinite. But it also does not take into account exotic geometries like torus shapes. Worth mentioning at this time that the BB applies to the observable universe, and that as I often like mentioning, that the BB tells us that space and time [as we know them] evolved from a hot dense state, at t+10-43 seconds. http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk Joseph Silk "No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat.

Theories are not guesses. They are best estimates at any specific time, that may or may not change, as technology advances and more data becomes available. Those same theories grow in certainty as they continue to match the observational and experimental data: The theory of evolution of life is actually a fact...other theories such as the BB, SR/GR are overwhelmingly supported. But didn't I explain this to you elsewhere earlier on? Glad to be of further assistance anyway.

The usual unsupported rhetoric. When will you support what you claim? The theory of evolution is fact. There is no doubt in that regard https://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact? It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact." In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously" more at link.... .

I support that which is backed by the observational and experimental evidence. It's a model, that is overwhelmingly supported by four main observational pillars. The fantasy I leave for you. TIP: Learn some science and how and why theories are constructed. If you did some research, you would know it was a Belgian priest who is known as the father of the BB. He was an astronomer as well, and as you would have known if you checked, the Catholic church has numerous scientists serving. The recognition of the BB and theory of the evolution of life are a result. Again, perhaps you need to research what a scientific theory really is, and how it gains in certainty, as it continues to match the observational and experimental data...eg: GR and the discovery of gravitational waves from billions of L/years distant. In fact that certainty is now fact with the evolution of life. Are you doubting the theory of gravity? Because its still "only" a theory. The case for space and time is a logical, common sense application of the BB, and GR, and what we know has transpired since. As mentioned before Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers, due to the consistency/invariance of the speed of light. Yes, we have evidence to support that, GPS satellites for one and the allowances made in line with GR. We again have no reason, or application of logic to doubt that time will always pass at 1 second per second within any FoR, when observed from that frame. Learn some science, would be great for you and your attitude. Is this the only way you can justify whatever mythical beliefs you have? Forget laws, meaningless and other nonsensical derisive claims? The laws of physics are indisputable. Scientific theories are the highest accolade science achieves, the scientific method is an application of logic. You seem to doubt all, but only have unsupported rhetoric to support it. No space exists observationaly everywhere we look...the space between stars and planets etc. Yep, just told you. You have already been told about proof in science. So far the observable universe is around 94 billion L/years in diameter of space, and we have absolutely no reason to doubt that allowing for time dilation and length contraction, that the space at our observable horizon is the same as the space between Earth and Mars.

Interesting contemplation, to say the least. The facts are that when the Moon was first formed, it was half its present distance, and a day on Earth was shorter. Due to tidal gravitational interactions, the Earth is ever so slowly being lifted in its orbital path, and at the same time, days are getting longer. This will I think continue until the Moon is double its distance, and a day on Earth, is equal to a Lunar month, and one side of the Earth will be eternally facing the Moon, just as we have one side of the Moon eternally facing Earth. Obviously if we, and the Earth are still around then, there will be no more total eclipses [just annular] just as in the past, all eclipses were total with no annular. All I would say is that other aspects have been borne out by GR since the Eddington eclipse.

I don't indulge in fables, myths or conspiracy no matter how warm and fuzzy it makes me feel inside. The BB was the evolution of space and time, as we know them, and what transpired since. So much so, that even the Catholic church has seen the need to recognise the BB along of course with the theory of evolution of life. One of the first things you learn in science is that all theories, while being the model that best suits all the available evidence at that time, are never set in concrete and always open for changes, modifications, and/or scrapping altogether. It aligns with our observational and experimental data at any one time, not just faith. Wrong! Your religion as I suggested, simply has you ignoring all the evidence and the scientific methodology and logic that goes with it.

What do you mean forget space? It is not made up, it is what evolved with time at t+10-43 seconds. By the way, space is interchangeable with time...Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers...that's relativity. You also seem rather hostile to any and all reasonable answers given to you.

I believe MigL has answered that.

Time and space [as we know them] evolved at t+10-43 seconds. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers, and can be in effect interchangeable. Without space, there is no time, without time their is no space. A union of the two [spacetime] follows from the fact that "ç" is invariant and of course gravity is described by the warping/curving/twisting of this spacetime.

The energy that photons lose through expansion, [by having their wave length stretched ever so slightly] would I suggest be very minimal...perhaps as minimal as the warping of spacetime by photons themselves due to their momentum. But I'm open for correction on that point. Otherwise I agree with Ghideon.