Jump to content

Science Thread


Nigel

Recommended Posts

The best science is when you prove an existing theory to be wrong. If this.evidence of gravity waves is correct and reproducible then it dismisses a swathe of hypotheses and reinforces inflationary theory as the best fit for the earliest moments of the universe.

 

... and "God" gets smaller.

 

I'm not sure the last bit is true.

 

However far back we can track, toward the beginning and what was before the beginning and what was before that, people will still be able to say 'that' is where their god pushed the button.

 

Right now, for some, a proven ripple or wave is just proof of where god's finger pinged the surface of nothing and began creation.

 

So yeah, as a scientific discovery it's absolutely fantastic and a potential springboard to more. As proof there is no god, hmmm, not sure it's going to cause Ephraim Mervis too many new problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Limpid was referring to the fact that God is often credited with being / doing everything we don't know. Every time something else is discovered / explained the pool of stuff we don't know (or God) gets smaller.

Its not "proof" but I don't really think that is required.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Limpid was referring to the fact that God is often credited with being / doing everything we don't know. Every time something else is discovered / explained the pool of stuff we don't know (or God) gets smaller.

Its not "proof" but I don't really think that is required.

 

AKA "the god of the gaps". 

 

Reminds me of the church billboard that said: "The Dawkins Delusion - scientists think they know everything". 

 

The genius who dreamed that one up clearly hadn't the first clue about science, as the exact opposite is true - in fact it's the very basis for science itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Scientists have 'Good Chance' of Successfully Cloning 43,000-Year-Old Woolly Mammoth
woolly-mammoth.jpg?w=660&h=456&l=50&t=40
A woolly mammoth found frozen in Siberia, Russia is pictured upon its arrival at an exhibition hall in Yokohama, south of Tokyo(Reuters)

Scientists have claimed they have a "good chance" of cloning a woolly mammoth which has been frozen for the past 43,000 years.

The international team of scientists at the North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk, Siberia, believe they can extract DNA taken from the blood of the animal to mix it with that of an elephant.

The team, made up of scientists from several countries including Russia, US, UK, South Korea and Denmark, said the DNA taken from the autopsy could provide the perfect material for cloning.

Radik Khayrullin, vice president of the Russian Association of Medical Anthropologists, added the team must be responsible if they decide to in effect bring the woolly mammoth back to life.

"The data we are about to receive will give us a high chance to clone the mammoth," he told the Siberian Times.

"We must have a reason to do this, as it is one thing to clone it for scientific purpose, and another to clone for the sake of curiosity."

He added that if the process was successful, the animal would be different to the mammal which became extinct around 4,000 to 10,000 years ago.

"It will be a different mammoth to the one living 43,000 years ago, specially taking into account that there will be interbreeding with a female elephant."

The team are said to be looking for a female Asian elephant whose egg they can inject the cloned material from the woolly mammoth with.

Semyon Grigoriev, head of the Museum of Mammoths of the Institute of Applied Ecology of the North at the North Eastern Federal University, said the cloning process may prove difficult as the evolutionary paths of the elephant and mammoth split many years ago.

Viktoria Egorova, chief of the Research and Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory of the Medical Clinic of North-Eastern Federal University, described her surprise at how well-preserved the body was after tens of thousands of years.

"We have dissected the soft tissues of the mammoth - and I must say that we didn't expect such results," she said.

"The carcass that is more than 43,000 years old has preserved better than a body of a human buried for six months.

"The tissue cut clearly shows blood vessels with strong walls. Inside the vessels there is haemolysed blood, where for the first time we have found erythrocytes. Muscle and adipose tissues are well preserved.

"We have also obtained very well-visualised migrating cells of the lymphoid tissue, which is another great discovery."

The mammoth was discovered in May 2013 on the Mally Lyakhovsky Island, off the northern coast of Siberia.

 

A Man Moth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A universe/multiverse that is eternal still makes a lot more sense to me than a 'god' that's eternal.

 

I agree, but I still don't like the idea of anything being eternal.

 

If that is how it is, then so be it. I doubt we'll ever know either way, and I'm fine with not knowing, but it does leave room for religous folk to say 'ah, but', and I'd rather hit them for six.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's tough to grasp that something always was there, but something has to have been there to start everything in the first place, so there has to have always been something somewhere, right?

Edit: I also probably know far less about science than most of you in this thread, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Edited by Rovers13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept of infinity and "nothing" baffled me in equal measures at school, and still does to be honest.

 

I annoyed my Physics teacher by asking him so much about nothingness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's tough to grasp that something always was there, but something has to have been there to start everything in the first place, so there has to have always been something somewhere, right?

Edit: I also probably know far less about science than most of you in this thread, so correct me if I'm wrong.

The time in our universe started at the singularity. To ask what was before it is like asking which direction is south when you are stood at the south pole. It's a meaningless concept.

 

Multiverse theory allows that there is/are things outside of our universe, but as they are outside of our universe they are irrelevant to how time works in our universe..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept of infinity and "nothing" baffled me in equal measures at school, and still does to be honest.

 

I annoyed my Physics teacher by asking him so much about nothingness

There is no such thing as nothing, both figuratively and literally.

 

Even empty space has a quantum potential which can cause particles to randomly come into existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept of infinity and "nothing" baffled me in equal measures at school, and still does to be honest.

I annoyed my Physics teacher by asking him so much about nothingness

There is no such thing as nothing, both figuratively and literally.

Even empty space has a quantum potential which can cause particles to randomly come into existence.

that was what I said to him, albeit not so eloquently.

I just couldn't fathom that there could ever be "nothing"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In what sense?

Sorry. I was probably being a shade naughty there.

I saw a Horizon programme the other day (What was before the Big Bang - or something such) which had some stuff about multiverses and the big bang not necessarily being 'a/the beggining', yadda, yadda.

It also had some stuff from Laura Mersini-Houghton about multiverses and I wondered what impact these observations may have on her ideas, some of which are expounded here:

http://iai.tv/video/how-to-find-a-multiverse

 

 

Good tip on the video. Here is her essay which makes the same points but a bit more coherently (she's a little rushed in the video, no fault of hers).

Edited by CarewsEyebrowDesigner
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's a Universe? Can another Universe not be ruled by the same laws of space and time as this one or if it did would that rule it out from being seperate from this Universe.

The Universe is a space-time continuum; most likely am 11 or 12 dimensional brane. Multiverse theory would certainly allow for another universe with the same physical properties to be co-located (as location is undefined). It couldn't interact in any way though as to interact it would have to be the same brane and therefore the same universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks I've got a book on String Theory that mentions these branes I'll have to have a proper read of it. I think It's by someone called Brian Greene he seems good at explaining stuff that's where I got that stuff about everything travels through space and time at the speed of light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â