beecee

Mass/energy acts on spacetime by warping/curving it. We feel that warping/curving as gravity....a spinning massive object like the Earth, will twist spacetime within its vicinity which we call frame dragging or the Lense Thirring effect. As I have just said, it is mass/energy that curves spacetime or mis-shapes it in someway [gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, Frame dragging] and we feel that as gravity. So gravity is simply geometry...the geometry of spacetime as dictated by mass/energy....or as a famous physicist named John Wheeler once put it, "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve". Yes, it is a spherical object, or more correctly an oblate spheroid and the analogy by Strange is relevant. Also a point concerning gravitational lensing particularly, light/photons will follow similar geodesics in spacetime.

Tastes in music/singing are also subjective. As excellent as Franky was, I preferred his fellow member of the rat pack, Dean Martin, and of course the range and quality of Elvis Presley left them both for dead!

I believe it most certainly has, on the grounds that "perfection" is as you have been informed is subjective and of course the only parodoxes are those dreamed up when unreal and impossible applications of perfection are dreamed up, including the unreal, unscientific references to divine creation.

Just my ignorance on this aspect of science at this time, plus some facetiousness with regards to the aspect of "perfect" with regards to another thread.. Thanks, nice reply overall. Are you also saying there is perhaps just a hint of sensationalism and/or taking some observation to the nth degree as far as the WIKI entry is concerned?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii Turritopsis dohrnii, the immortal jellyfish, is a species of small, biologically immortal jellyfish[2][3] found in the Mediterranean Sea and in the waters of Japan. It is one of the few known cases of animals capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after having reached sexual maturity as a solitary individual. Others include the jellyfish Laodicea undulata[4]and Aurelia sp.1.[5] Like most other hydrozoans, T. dohrnii begin their life as free-swimming tiny larvae known as planula. As a planula settles down, it gives rise to a colony of polyps that are attached to the sea-floor. All the polyps and jellyfish arising from a single planula are genetically identical clones. The polyps form into an extensively branched form, which is not commonly seen in most jellyfish. Jellyfish, also known as medusae, then bud off these polyps and continue their life in a free-swimming form, eventually becoming sexually mature. When sexually mature they have been known to prey on other jellyfish species at a rapid pace. If a T. dohrniijellyfish is exposed to environmental stress or physical assault, or is sick or old, it can revert to the polyp stage, forming a new polyp colony.[6] It does this through the cell development process of transdifferentiation, which alters the differentiated state of the cells and transforms them into new types of cells. Theoretically, this process can go on indefinitely, effectively rendering the jellyfish biologically immortal,[3][7] although in practice individuals can still die. In nature, most Turritopsis are likely to succumb to predation or disease in the medusa stage, without reverting to the polyp form.[8] more at link.....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Comments?? Question is in the title of the thread. Amazing to put it lightly.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8126390/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl "The Most Unknown is an epic documentary film that sends nine scientists to extraordinary parts of the world to uncover unexpected answers to some of humanity's biggest questions. How did life begin? What is time? What is consciousness? How much do we really know? By introducing researchers from diverse backgrounds for the first time, then dropping them into new, immersive field work they previously hadn't tackled, the film reveals the true potential of interdisciplinary collaboration, pushing the boundaries of how science storytelling is approached. What emerges is a deeply human trip to the foundations of discovery and a powerful reminder that the unanswered questions are the most crucial ones to pose. Directed by Emmy-nominated and Peabody Award-winning filmmaker Ian Cheney (The Search for General Tso, The City Dark) and advised by world-renowned filmmaker Werner Herzog (Fitzcarraldo, Aguirre, The Wrath of God, Grizzly Man), The Most Unknown is an ambitious look at a side of science never before shown on screen. The film was made possible by a grant from Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation initiative dedicated to engaging everyone with the process of science." https://www.universetoday.com/ In an era of UFO and Bigfoot documentaries on cable TV masquerading as science, The Most Unknown is a refreshing and true science documentary. Let’s hope Netflix continues the trend, and other online outlets for original content (are you listening, Amazon and Hulu?) follow suit!

Some people certainly come to science forums to troll with little or no interest in science. Both statements true...I prefer though to ask someone who has been too brief in asking a question, for more clarification, then to sort through some muddled and lengthy confusing text, that seems more times then not, to have some sort of agenda at its core.

As someone in this thread has already inferred, even within species, one Lion will be stronger and smarter then another.....one Gazelle will be faster and more agile then another....the smart Lion stalks the slower, less agile Gazelle....the faster more agile Gazelle will escape the Lion that isn't as smart or cunning as another Lion. Perfection? A measuring tape is perfect for measuring the frame of a window....A Vernier caliper likewise is perfect for optimum results when boring a cylinder for a piston. Perfect is absolutely subjective and is certainly in line with the "survival of the fittest" and the mechanism of "natural selection". The only paradoxes are those dreamed up when unreal applications of "perfection" are dreamed up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

If I could give you a dozen up votes I would Eise!!! Exactly what came to my mind when I read that crazy tripe. But I was choosing to stay out of it, due to experience in other threads of circular arguments, ignoring of evidence and examples invalidating this weird philosophical stance that he has been trying to push since 2015. I could mention some more relevant anomalies in the OP claim and that of his reply to you, but I thought it best to try and alleviate another dummy spit. Not only is his knowledge of science questionable going on past posts, but it appears he also has a tentative grip on his favourite area philosophy. Again you have hit the nail fair square on the head.

The disputed article......https://phys.org/news/2016-09-oldest-fossils-life-young-earth.html Oldest fossils point to thriving life on young Earth September 1, 2016 Australian researchers have found the world's oldest fossils, revealing that diverse life forms thrived on Earth 3.7 billion years ago. Co-lead investigator Associate Professor Vickie Bennett from The Australian National University (ANU) said the research on stromatolite fossils found in Greenland provided a greater understanding of early habitats of life on Earth and could have implications for searching for life on Mars. "This discovery turns the study of planetary habitability on its head," said Dr Bennett from ANU Research School of Earth Sciences. "For the first time we have rocks that we know record the conditions and environments that sustained early life. Our research will provide new insights into chemical cycles and rock-water-microbe interactions on a young planet." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-09-oldest-fossils-life-young-earth.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19355 Rapid emergence of life shown by discovery of 3,700-million-year-old microbial structures: Abstract: Biological activity is a major factor in Earth’s chemical cycles, including facilitating CO2 sequestration and providing climate feedbacks. Thus a key question in Earth’s evolution is when did life arise and impact hydrosphere–atmosphere–lithosphere chemical cycles? Until now, evidence for the oldest life on Earth focused on debated stable isotopic signatures of 3,800–3,700 million year (Myr)-old metamorphosed sedimentary rocks and minerals1,2 from the Isua supracrustal belt (ISB), southwest Greenland3. Here we report evidence for ancient life from a newly exposed outcrop of 3,700-Myr-old metacarbonate rocks in the ISB that contain 1–4-cm-high stromatolites—macroscopically layered structures produced by microbial communities. The ISB stromatolites grew in a shallow marine environment, as indicated by seawater-like rare-earth element plus yttrium trace element signatures of the metacarbonates, and by interlayered detrital sedimentary rocks with cross-lamination and storm-wave generated breccias. The ISB stromatolites predate by 220 Myr the previous most convincing and generally accepted multidisciplinary evidence for oldest life remains in the 3,480-Myr-old Dresser Formation of the Pilbara Craton, Australia4,5. The presence of the ISB stromatolites demonstrates the establishment of shallow marine carbonate production with biotic CO2 sequestration by 3,700 million years ago (Ma), near the start of Earth’s sedimentary record. A sophistication of life by 3,700 Ma is in accord with genetic molecular clock studies placing life’s origin in the Hadean eon (>4,000 Ma)6. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" The Disputed Findings: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-evidence-earliest-life-earth-disputed.html Evidence of earliest life on Earth disputed October 17, 2018: When Australian scientists presented evidence in 2016 of life on Earth 3.7 billon years ago—pushing the record back 220 million years—it was a big deal, influencing even the search for life on Mars. But that discovery, based on an analysis of primordial rocks in Greenland, has now been challenged, with another team of researchers arguing in a study published Wednesday that the structures presented as proof of microbial activity were, in fact, geologically forged by underground heat and pressure. The truth hinges on whether the cone-shaped formations in question are genuine stromatolites, layered structures left in the wake of water-dwelling microorganisms. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-evidence-earliest-life-earth-disputed.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0610-4 Reassessing evidence of life in 3,700-million-year-old rocks of Greenland Abstract The Palaeoarchean supracrustal belts in Greenland contain Earth’s oldest rocks and are a prime target in the search for the earliest evidence of life on Earth. However, metamorphism has largely obliterated original rock textures and compositions, posing a challenge to the preservation of biological signatures. A recent study of 3,700-million-year-old rocks of the Isua supracrustal belt in Greenland described a rare zone in which low deformation and a closed metamorphic system allowed preservation of primary sedimentary features, including putative conical and domical stromatolites1 (laminated accretionary structures formed by microbially mediated sedimentation). The morphology, layering, mineralogy, chemistry and geological context of the structures were attributed to the formation of microbial mats in a shallow marine environment by 3,700 million years ago, at the start of Earth’s rock record. Here we report new research that shows a non-biological, post-depositional origin for the structures. Three-dimensional analysis of the morphology and orientation of the structures within the context of host rock fabrics, combined with texture-specific analyses of major and trace element chemistry, show that the ‘stromatolites’ are more plausibly interpreted as part of an assemblage of deformation structures formed in carbonate-altered metasediments long after burial. The investigation of the structures of the Isua supracrustal belt serves as a cautionary tale in the search for signs of past life on Mars, highlighting the importance of three-dimensional, integrated analysis of morphology, rock fabrics and geochemistry at appropriate scales.

"Around and 5 degrees either side of the equator we have an area called the doldrums, where little or no wind is evident. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/doldrums.html Known to sailors around the world as the doldrums, the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, (ITCZ, pronounced and sometimes referred to as the “itch”), is a belt around the Earth extending approximately five degrees north and south of the equator. Here, the prevailing trade winds of the northern hemisphere blow to the southwest and collide with the southern hemisphere’s driving northeast trade winds. Due to intense solar heating near the equator, the warm, moist air is forced up into the atmosphere like a hot air balloon. As the air rises, it cools, causing persistent bands of showers and storms around the Earth’s midsection. The rising air mass finally subsides in what is known as the horse latitudes, where the air moves downward toward Earth’s surface. Because the air circulates in an upward direction, there is often little surface wind in the ITCZ. That is why sailors well know that the area can becalm sailing ships for weeks. And that’s why they call it the doldrums". [from the link] <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then of course we have the Coriolis Effect.......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force In physics, the Coriolis force is an inertial force[1] that seems to act on objects that are in motion within a frame of reference that rotates with respect to an inertial frame. In a reference frame with clockwise rotation, the force acts to the left of the motion of the object. In one with anticlockwise (or counterclockwise) rotation, the force acts to the right. Deflectionof an object due to the Coriolis force is called the Coriolis effect. Though recognized previously by others, the mathematical expression for the Coriolis force appeared in an 1835 paper by French scientist Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis, in connection with the theory of water wheels. Early in the 20th century, the term Coriolis forcebegan to be used in connection with meteorology. In the inertial frame of reference (upper part of the picture), the black ball moves in a straight line. However, the observer (brown dot) who is standing in the rotating/non-inertial frame of reference (lower part of the picture) sees the object as following a curved path due to the Coriolis and centrifugal forces present in this frame.

The smallest BH's possible from stellar/Neutron star collapse is from memory about 3 solar masses and they would take some incredible unbelievable length of time to evaporate....around 10 to the 100 power years or similar. I'm ignoring the possible existence of micro/quantum size BH's that may have been created at or a short time after the BB. Done some checking at https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-explosion-power-of-a-micro-black-hole-when-they-evaporate-and-how-did-you-find-the-answer So according to the generally trusted answers from that site, micro BH's would have already evaporated, and so FRB's could certainly be evaporating micro/quantum BH's due to their place of origin being many billions of year away and which we are just witnessing.

Just went back in Reg Prescott's history as far back as 2015 where apparently then under the name SillyBilly, he was making exactly the same apparently rehearsed claims including the scientific method, his crazy take on the orbits of the planets in the solar system and Newtonian mechanics among his usual unmistakable attempt at humour when cornered or shown to be in error. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-886741 Just thought at this stage of this continued circular argument it might be an interesting observation.

Your opinion is just that...an opinion, but you actually need to reflect seriously about those opinions and their justifications based on agenda, when it is you who has had threads closed because of preaching/ranting/obfuscation. Again your bias and agenda reflects in misinterpretations.....It is not I, nor any lone scientist that judges what is obviously falsification or otherwise...it is the overwhelming scientific discipline and the scientists that make up that discipline, and of course the success of those incumbent theories, that you seem so fanatical about putting down. .More unsupported if rehearsed rhetoric and nonsense. Science, the scientific method and all it entails, is in perpetual progress and advancement. But it now appears that rehearsed unsupported rhetoric is all you seem to have. As before and again, science and scientific models and theories are continually running the gauntlet....The scientific methodology of course is unchallenged as it is the best we have and the best there is. So to put the onus where it belongs, on yourself, please tell me a better process along with some empirical evidence that supports whatever methodology you have and have been careful as yet not to divulge to the forum....Although I believe it is painfully obvious. The theory of the evolution of life is unchallenged at this time....Nothing is available to falsify it, and nothing explains what we have observed better. Any one who claims to have questioned it, including the process of "natural selection" have I suggest already been researched, reviewed and failed in over turning that aspect. Evolution due to the preponderance of evidence is just about certain...are you questioning that? Is this the agenda? On the other hand, we have no evidence for abiogenesis...but there really is no other scientific alternative, do you agree?

Object all you like....What I highlighted thus, "that falsifies the incumbent model, or explains beyond the applicable zone of the incumbent model?" The over-arching theoretical framework or paradigm is the best we have and no better method is forthcoming, so we have no need at this time to over ride it with hypothetical questioning or challenging, that do not improve it...It's that simple. The scientific method works, despite your continuing online claims. No, again you are being rather obtuse in claiming philosophical comments, isolated quotes that "seem" add some semblance of respect to your claim but ignore actual evidence that has been supplied to you.

Wow! You don't have a chip on your shoulder, its a damn whole tree! Now a couple of simple direct questions....I can show you plenty of scientific models that are being tested, researched, further tested, sometimes modified and challenging incumbent models every day. Do you deny these tests and research efforts are being undertaken? In turn please give me some scientific aspect/discipline etc that has been totally recalcitrant and obstinate by the refusal of mainstream scientists to accept newly found experimental and/or observational evidence that falsifies the incumbent model, or explains beyond the applicable zone of the incumbent model? Please answer these two questions without any of your continuing philosophical jargon and flimsy hairy fairy claims. quotes, misinterpreting data etc That is all my bone of contention is with your nonsensical claims...nothing else.

And of course we can add to that your never ending philosophical nonsense and hand waving. Yes most certainly...refuted every day, every week and ever since the implementation of the scientific methodology. My only concern with you, Sam or anyone else claiming science is recalcitrant, is that it flies in the face of the actual empirical evidence. One Swallow [expert or not] does not a Summer make. There is no discipline anywhere in this big wide fart arse world, where you can get everyone speaking to the beat of the same drum. Born was/is wrong and the continued ongoing evidence says he is wrong...just as Fred Hoyle an otherwise great Astronomer was wrong with his "Steady State" hypothetical. Whatever you have attempted to build is simply a house of cards with no foundation. The overwhelming, continued evidence shows you are most definitely wrong. You can go through whatever you like and continue to fool yourself that you have any argument at all re your ongoing anti science mission, and the members here, at least the vast majority of them, will continue to see your claims and anti science rant/s for what they are.

Economic and Financial considerations are always changeable....And again, the reason why I am in favour of an International effort. The thing is all these things will happen in the course of time, and as technology allows. We cannot halt nor should we try and halt progress. I would love these things to be done in my lifetime, but I also know that they can only be achieved when all the risks are minimised and at an acceptable standard, particularly the radiation problem. Isn't that one of the prime reasons that the conspiracy nutters claim we never went to the Moon?

Yeah I also remember "smart" people saying he was dreaming when he was talking about reusable/returnable rockets. Irrespective, in the course of time, we will have an outpost on the Moon and probably Mars also. Yep, going to the Moon was also science fiction. And of course if such hype as you would have us believe were true, we would forever be stagnating on planet Earth, which by the way does have a use by date that we [humans] seem to be diminishing through the course of time. In essesnce I certainly prefer the dreams and optimism of the likes of Musk and Handsorp then pessimism.

Obviously, scientifically speaking, Abiogenesis is the only answer as to how life arose in the universe...whether that was first on Earth and via Panspermia transported to other places, whether somewhere else and transported to Earth, or whether and in my opinion far more likely, arose on more then one planet and and is still arising when conditions are suitable enough, with again Panspermia taking place. Take your pick.

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-nasa-humans-venus-brilliant-idea.html NASA wants to send humans to Venus – here's why that's a brilliant idea October 16, 2018 by Gareth Dorrian And Ian Whittaker, The Conversation Credit: NASA extracts: Hovering in the atmosphere .I'm all for it! One of the apparent dangers was that Venus's atmosphere is acidic with H2SO4 [Sulphuric acid] falling as rain. This is readily overcome and to quote the article again, They had in excess of 200,000 applicants for Bas Landorp's one way Mars trip, I'm pretty sure they'll get at least that number here. What do others think? My greatest wish again is that if we were all smart enough to make this as big an International effort as possible, we could be returining to the Moon, conducting a manned mission to Mars, and balloon air cities on Venus. Having this all done before I kick the bucket would be great!

Born's assertion and the way "you" interpret it, your own assertions and anyone else's assertions on a public forum will certainly not change the facts of what a science theory/model is, nor of the reality and use of the scientific methodology, which as I pointed out to you and which others have also shown you, is evident everyday, every week of every year. In other words, the general adverse claims made against science so often made on forums such as this just don't cut it. I agree with the original claim of where the "begging the question" and "execrable logic" actually lay.

Again I stipulate an International effort...two, three, even four or more heads are always better than one. Personally, I'm with NASA in that a return to the Moon first would be a requirement. Obviously the most difficult aspect of getting to Mars is the long term effects of radiation, so efforts in that regard are paramount in any future mission. So how about a joint venture with Elon and Bas for starters? https://www.mars-one.com/news/press-releases

I'm still with the instant any massive object collapses to and beyond its Schwarzchild limit. Sort of like a last gasp before the BH is formed.

Your continued rhetoric and denial will not change what is patently observed, every day of the week, every week of the year. Please don't though mistake this as my aversion to new ideas....I don't mind entertaining new ideas as I believe most scientists have also shown....It's just that most new ideas are not sufficient enough to overturn the incumbent model, after all, something you continually seem to miss....the incumbent science theories and models, were also just ideas and hypothetical, and needed to run the gauntlet so to speak, to gain theory stage of consideration. You seem to want us all to have any and all ideas to take a dump within our brains. That's not science, that's not the scientific method.