beecee

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-x-rays-black-holes-cosmic-sea.html Like whirlpools in the ocean, spinning black holes in space create a swirling torrent around them. However, black holes do not create eddies of wind or water. Rather, they generate disks of gas and dust heated to hundreds of millions of degrees that glow in X-ray light. Using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and chance alignments across billions of light-years, astronomers have deployed a new technique to measure the spin of five supermassive black holes. The matter in one of these cosmic vortices is swirling around its black hole at greater than about 70% of the speed of light. The astronomers took advantage of a natural phenomenon called a gravitational lens. With just the right alignment, the bending of space-time by a massive object, such as a large galaxy, can magnify and produce multiple images of a distant object, as predicted by Einstein. more at link...... the paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1d56 Constraining Quasar Relativistic Reflection Regions and Spins with Microlensing: Abstract: We present an analysis of Chandra spectra of five gravitationally lensed active galactic nuclei. We confirm the previous detections of FeKα emission lines in most images of these objects with high significance. The line energies range from 5.8 to 6.8 keV, with widths from unresolved to 0.6 keV, consistent with emission close to spinning black holes viewed at different inclination angles. We also confirm the positive offset from the Iwasawa–Taniguchi effect, the inverse correlation between the FeKα equivalent width (EW) and the X-ray luminosity in active galactic nuclei, where our measured EWs are larger in lensed quasars. We attribute this effect to microlensing, and perform a microlensing likelihood analysis to constrain the emission size of the relativistic reflection region and the spin of supermassive black holes, assuming that the X-ray corona and the reflection region, responsible for the iron emission line, both follow power-law emissivity profiles. The microlensing analysis yields strong constraints on the spin and emissivity index of the reflection component for Q 2237+0305, with a > 0.92 and n > 5.4. For the remaining four targets, we jointly constrain the two parameters, yielding a = 0.8 ± 0.16 and an emissivity index of n = 4.0 ± 0.8, suggesting that the relativistic X-ray reflection region is ultracompact and very close to the innermost stable circular orbits of black holes, which are spinning at close to the maximal value. We successfully constrain the half-light radius of the emission region to <2.4 r g (r g = GM/c 2) for Q 2237+0305 and in the range 5.9–7.4 r g for the joint sample.

Nice point!! Which sort of puts and end to my hypothesis here.....

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-antarctic-ice-high-lows.html The amount of ice circling Antarctica is suddenly plunging from a record high to record lows, baffling scientists. Floating ice off the southern continent steadily increased from 1979 and hit a record high in 2014. But three years later, the annual average extent of Antarctic sea ice hit its lowest mark, wiping out three-and-a-half decades of gains—and then some, a NASA study of satellite data shows. In recent years, "things have been crazy," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. In an email, he called the plummeting ice levels "a white-knuckle ride." more at link..... the paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116 A 40-y record reveals gradual Antarctic sea ice increases followed by decreases at rates far exceeding the rates seen in the Arctic: Significance: A newly completed 40-y record of satellite observations is used to quantify changes in Antarctic sea ice coverage since the late 1970s. Sea ice spreads over vast areas and has major impacts on the rest of the climate system, reflecting solar radiation and restricting ocean/atmosphere exchanges. The satellite record reveals that a gradual, decades-long overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extents reversed in 2014, with subsequent rates of decrease in 2014–2017 far exceeding the more widely publicized decay rates experienced in the Arctic. The rapid decreases reduced the Antarctic sea ice extents to their lowest values in the 40-y record, both on a yearly average basis (record low in 2017) and on a monthly basis (record low in February 2017). Abstract: Following over 3 decades of gradual but uneven increases in sea ice coverage, the yearly average Antarctic sea ice extents reached a record high of 12.8 × 106 km2 in 2014, followed by a decline so precipitous that they reached their lowest value in the 40-y 1979–2018 satellite multichannel passive-microwave record, 10.7 × 106 km2, in 2017. In contrast, it took the Arctic sea ice cover a full 3 decades to register a loss that great in yearly average ice extents. Still, when considering the 40-y record as a whole, the Antarctic sea ice continues to have a positive overall trend in yearly average ice extents, although at 11,300 ± 5,300 km2⋅y−1, this trend is only 50% of the trend for 1979–2014, before the precipitous decline. Four of the 5 sectors into which the Antarctic sea ice cover is divided all also have 40-y positive trends that are well reduced from their 2014–2017 values. The one anomalous sector in this regard, the Bellingshausen/Amundsen Seas, has a 40-y negative trend, with the yearly average ice extents decreasing overall in the first 3 decades, reaching a minimum in 2007, and exhibiting an overall upward trend since 2007 (i.e., reflecting a reversal in the opposite direction from the other 4 sectors and the Antarctic sea ice cover as a whole).

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-citizen-scientists-vital-microplastics-datafrom.html Citizen scientists collect vital microplastics data—from their yachts: The world's oceans are under invasion by a virtually indestructible enemy—plastic. Florida International University (FIU) and the International SeaKeepers Society have joined forces to combat this plastic problem. As part of a new collaborative project, dubbed the S.A.R.A.H. initiative, privately owned yachts become platforms for FIU scientists to conduct field research. Special nets are towed behind the vessels to gather samples of plastic debris in the water. They are designed to collect even the tiniest bits of plastic—that can be smaller than a grain of rice—known as microplastics. more at link.....

I'm not that far into biology, and am actually learning as I go. Perhaps viruses are just another step or a biological entity towards actual full blown defined life.

Perhaps your own delusion needs looking at since I don't believe straws have been mentioned, other then by your self in your poor attempt at deriding science and the obvious...The problem ol son is plastics, period. You raised the collisions scenario in another obtuse effort of yours along with your errors re the OP and discoveries, now you are side stepping again. . wrong again, In my city we have recycling of all plastics, some banning of straws and plastic bags and even takeaway coffee cups. With the recycling effort we receive 10 cents on every returned plastic bottle or tin or alluminium can.

We get hit by meteorites every day...It just depends on the size. And of course if humanity had of been around when the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs, it would also have done the same to us. And who said anything about straws destroying the planet. Going on your attitude here with regards to pollution, your house must be a real pig sty.

No. At the proposed time of the theoretical collision, the Earth was still partly molten and the Oceans did not exist. With your little straw nonsense, let me say that you can dismiss the science for as long as you like, but the evidence tells us different.

The thermovents were discovered 40 odd years ago...the mirror pools and the pollution at such great depths were not....Unless of course you have some link detailing that they were discovered 40 years ago? Yep, better lighting etc was not available 40 years ago, hence the discovery this year. And please, educate me as to what the collision of any body with Earth, has to do with deep Ocean pollution? You overall appear rather hesitant that the mountains and mountains of plastic discard is causing any problem? Maybe it's time you did some realistic, scientific unbiased research into that field then. Here, you can start your research here......https://www.wwf.org.au/news/news/2019/wwf-releases-report-on-global-plastic-pollution-crisis?gclid=Cj0KCQjwu-HoBRD5ARIsAPIPendfraEe4OM4rlU81yqAUsnmiTk

Yes, I already alluded to that. Still the fact that at one time the universe had no life, then there was life, can only be explained scientifically by Abiogenesis.

Then I suggest you didn't read it fully. Let's start anyway with the "Mirror Pools" and of course the main point of the article and my posting it, the presence of pollution in the deepest parts of the Ocean.

The point of the article was not the discovery of hydrothermal vents, which certainly have been know for around 40 years.

Do you? 40 years ago? My article and links were/are from April this year. Do you have any link confirming those discoveries in my linked article, that they were discovered 40 years ago? Here...I did some research for you.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVzBjY8oLkk While deep sea Ocean thermo vents were discovered 40 years ago, the pollution and other aspects in the article in the OP were not

As others have said planets etc are actually oblate spheroids. If you chose to ask why these oblate spheroid shapes form, then the answer is the centripedal force overcoming the force of gravity in attempting to shape perfect spheres. As dust and debris gather and stick together in space, it does so under the domain of the electrostatic forces, until a certain size is reached, when gravity takes over and attempts to form spheres. Why you may ask? Simply put, only spherical shapes allow for every point on a surface to have the same distance from the center of that mass....Tectonic plate movements etc may cause mountains and such to form or result in other aspects of irregularities, but over the course of time, even these will eventually be flattened out. Then again the centripedal forces that are present, result in an oblate shape. So the conclusion that is reached is that the strong and weak nuclear forces, electrostatic forces, gravity, angular momentum and centripedal forces control the general shape of things.

Great thread, with some really accurate Interesting, intelligent responses!

Some more stuff on Abiogenesis and why it is the only scientifically viable answer to how life came to be........and obviously from someone who does know what they are talking about.... http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/calilasseia-78-papers-on-abiogenesis-t845.html "Blind faith" in chemical evolution? Guess who hasn't read the scientific literature! "Here's 78 scientific papers from the abiogenesis literature, that demonstrate conclusively that "blind faith" doesn't apply. Instead, what applies is direct experimental confirmation that the postulated chemical reactions WORK, and work under the prebiotic conditions postulated to have been present on the early Earth" ... One of those papers is entitled....."A Combined Experimental And Theoretical Study On The Formation Of The Amino Acid Glycine And Its Isomer In Extraterrestrial Ices by Philip D. Holtom, Chris J. Bennett, Yoshihiro Osamura, Nigel J Mason and Ralf. I Kaiser, The Asatrophysical Journal, 626: 940-952 (20th June 2005)" LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Here is a nice little illustration https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718341/figure/RSOB120190f1/ LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL The above, at least to me, shows how two seemingly distinct processes of abiogenesis and evolution can be combined and addressed together and as a logical sequence. It also illustrates the validity of my statement earlier on in this thread, that indeed at one time there was no life, then there was.

Considering that the claim made was that my statement "once there was no life, then there was" was inferred as a bold statement, and considering the link given was overlooked and ignored, and considering no alternative was offered, and considering that it may have been construed as "off topic" in the other thread, I see discussing and debating the subject here as appropriate. My comment re creationists/IDers is simply what those that oppose Abiogenesis, generally do have as extra baggage. Nice to see you agree though and that is what I'm after with reasons given as to why it is a valid statement and why it is the only scientific answer. I suppose that the 78 papers linked to here, confirms my statements beyond reasonable doubt, and as they were not linked to in the other thread, I will take your thoughts re this thread going downhill under consideration, and ask the mods/admins to consider closing it, if that at all eventuates, or even if they believe it may eventuate.

I have been prompted to start this thread after a valid, logical statement I made in another thread, and which was foolishly and ignorantly I believe questioned by another member. Perhaps though I am being a touch too hard. Perhaps this is just another example of a brainwashed creationist/IDer inevitable argument and protest. Anyway to the subject of the thread......Is the claim I made thus.... "certainly we know that at one time there was no life [universally speaking] then there was" correct? My contention based on mainstream science is that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer to how life first started in the universe. It certainly to the best of our knowledge was not created from or at the BB. The BB was the evolution of space and time [as we know them] at a time of t+10-43 seconds. From there and though a process that was a result of decreasing temperatures and pressures, and expansion, our first atomic nuclei was created at around 3 minutes. 380,000 years later, temps and pressures were such that the first light elements of hydrogen and helium were constructed. Still no life!!! From there, stars, galaxies etc started to form...time frame around 400 million years post BB...still no life. From there the story gets more familiar and far more validated with eventually the formation of life from non life....or Abiogenesis. Again there is no other scientific answer. While we certainly are still rather ignorant as to the exact process of Abiogenesis, we are just as certain that it is the only scientific possibility. An interesting account at WIKI.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis starting with....""Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth." "Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred". And an interesting account here......http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/calilasseia-78-papers-on-abiogenesis-t845.html "Blind faith" in chemical evolution? Guess who hasn't read the scientific literature!Here's 78 scientific papers from the abiogenesis literature, that demonstrate conclusively that "blind faith" doesn't apply. Instead, what applies is direct experimental confirmation that the postulated chemical reactions WORK, and work under the prebiotic conditions postulated to have been present on the early Earth ... List of 78 papers at link......Your canards about "information" are revealed to be canards courtesy of the fact that the research in those papers works. Now, what part of "relevant chemical reactions pertinent to abiogenesis have been demonstrated to WORK" do you not understand? LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL So again the question at hand is, is my claim that Abiogenesis is evident in the fact that "at one time there was no life, then there was" in error? Was it, or is it, a "bold statement" as insinuated by another member ? Or is it a logically and scientifically correct statement? Is the statement correct that the usual claim by dissenters to Abiogenesis that what scientists are basing their opinions on is nothing but "blind faith"? Or are they again exhibiting an application in their own faith, despite the valid assumptions made via direct scientific experiments? In other words, yes chemical reactions work!

We seem to agree on most aspects except perhaps the likelyhood of Panspermia. I concur that Earth based Abiogenesis is certainly more certain then Panspermia, if as is probably most likely, Abiogenesis occurred elsewhere. But again, basic microbial life has been shown to be able to survive very harsh conditions.

..A link was given, twice. All information with regards to Abiogenesis, the only scientific answer for the emergence of life, is there.

Perhaps you need to read the relevant posts again, and cease your obvious nonsense.... again "Considering that Abiogenesis is really the only scientific answer to life arising from non life, and considering that we have already detected and tabled an interstellar interloper in our solar system, Panspermia is still a viable option" and the link.... This may help you also et pet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred. more at link..... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note carefully et pet, that the article starts of thus....... "Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth. Not to be confused with Biogenesis". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I reject the Fermi paradox for obvious reasons....While we certainly have no evidence for any life off this Earth as yet, the sheer weight of numbers, and the extent of the universe, along with the stuff of life being everywhere we look, has the vast majority of scientists and cosmologists, certainly of the belief that it should exist. In fact if on the off chance we were alone, it would prompt far many more questions I suggest. That was not directed at me, and your question has been logically answered despite you failing to see that.

This may help you also et pet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life,[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which lifehas arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8] While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but a gradual process of increasing complexity that involved molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes.[9][10][11] Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred. more at link..... <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note carefully et pet, that the article starts of thus....... "Origin of life" redirects here. For non-scientific views on the origins of life, see Creation myth. Not to be confused with Biogenesis".

The facts are that the most presentable model of the evolution of the universe is the BB. That did not include life only matter...you know, the elements and such.....For life to have evolved from a universe empty of life, means life evolving from non living matter. We call that Abiogenesis, and while we certainly do not know the exact path of that process, Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer for life, universally speaking. So the statement "certainly we know that at one time there was no life [universally speaking] then there was" is valid.  Or possibly any number of the probable billions and billions of other planets in the galaxy/universe.

Considering that Abiogenesis is really the only scientific answer to life arising from non life, and considering that we have already detected and tabled an interstellar interloper in our solar system, Panspermia is still a viable option. We are actually unaware of how many suitable [Earth like environments] that do exist elsewhere, but we do know that the stuff necessary for life [as opposed to the conditions] is everywhere, but certainly you are correct that Earth based life first evolved on Earth, and is still the most likely scenario. Note though, that all we are speaking of is "life, as we know it" and of course the many harsh conditions that basic microbial life can exist in.