Leaderboard

To answer the question of whether viruses are living things or not, requires a precise scientific definition of life. Anyone who is so inclined can argue over such a definition until the proverbial cows come home, and some arguments are more convincing than others. Then again, answering this question may amount to nothing more than a philosophical exercise; or the basis of a lively and heated rhetorical debate but with little real consequence. Since this forum’s purpose is to foster lively discussion, I will oblige by continuing. According to modern day cell theory all known living things are made up of one or more cells and the cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms. Since a virus does not have a cellular structure, it fails at being a living organism, according to cell theory. Now for the “However”, cells are themselves composed of many sub-celluar components, such as ribosomes, mitochondria, membranes, DNA and proteins which together carry out the processes of life. One might ask whether those individual sub-cellular constituents are alive on their own or does life arise as an emergent property of a certain level of complexity, as the cell theory seems to be claiming. While a virus fails to reach the same level of critical complexity as a living cell, it is made from the same fundamental, physical building blocks; the same complex biochemicals that cells are made of. In fact, modern molecular biology rests on a foundation of information gained through viruses. Just one example: biologists have studied viral activity in host cells to determine how nucleic acids code for proteins. Modern evolutionary biology now accepts viruses, because of their rapid rates of replication and mutation, are the world’s leading source of genetic innovation. Viruses directly exchange genetic information with living organisms. Despite that recognition, most evolutionary biologists, and indeed biologists in general, still consider viruses to be inanimate, or “not fully alive” or “they verge on life”. Of course, these viewpoints will never satisfy anyone who will only settle for a black or white answer but maybe such a definitive answer is just not possible at this point in our understanding. [I should add that as a participant in NOAA’s marine research expeditions, I have had the opportunity to query a number of highly qualified marine biologists and other researchers about the classification of viruses as either living entities or inanimate bits of chemistry and the consensus view is they are the latter.]

Thinking to be smarter than 1 person or also 10 or 100 is one thing. Thinking to be smarter than 40 or 50 years of scientific comunity, thousands of experiments etc. calling them dumb etc. just shows either your lack of understanding. You know I worked on foreground removal in the cmb. And guess what I found foregrounds to be removed which were also found by telescopes as quasars etc. at other frequencies. And we could remove them. What should blow your mind is that if you can model galactic radiation (as you did somewhere on page 25), then guess what? The scientific comunity can too and guess what? they can remove it from the signal...Now if you are so much smarter than 50 years of scientific comunity like you think (this is not an insult, you called everyone dumb), you would have to admit that that argument of yours does not hold. But I somehow doubt this is gonna happen. Or showing the CMB anisotropies and using it to say this is not a black body, just shows you actually do not know what the CMB -anisotroies are...

OceanBreeze, there is one way it can creep into the mathematical mix physics wise. The following is a rehash of another post of mine here. Nina Byers goes into Emmy Noether and her contribution to the conceptual structures of the mathematics in modern physics in detail in her paper "E. Noether s Discovery of the Deep Connection Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws" in 1998. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044v2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether At a conceptual structural level improper integrals in physics can be piecewise continuous integrals, with limits from +infinity to -infinity, that converge. Refer H.J. Keisler, p367, Definition to p369, examples 7, 8, and 9. If they are continuous and don't converge then they are indefinite integrals which are entirely different. Refer H.J. Keisler, p370, example 10, diagram 6.7.10 "It is tempting to argue that the positive area to the right of the origin and the negative area to the left exactly cancel each other out so that the improper integral is zero. But this leads to a paradox... So we do not give the integral ... the value 0, instead leave it undefined." That doesn't mean that indefinite integrals don't play a part in our physics as an indefinite integral that cycles between +infinity and -infinity at its limits, as a sub function of a higher level function, is a valid proper use of indefinite integrals as definite integrals by change of variables. Refer H.J. Keisler, p224-5, Definition and example 8, diagram 4.4.6 second equation with u and substitute infinite limits. "We do not know how to find the indefinite integrals in this example. Nevertheless the answer is 0 because on changing variables both limits of integration become the same." Reference H.J.Keisler "Elementary Calculus an Infinitessimal Approach"

That's really cool. I am hardly qualified to comment, but when has that stopped me? Whacked hard enough to drive the ore down a km, but soft enough to not splatter the stuff all over. Hard sell, that one. The fission takes place on Mars but not the asteroid pre-impact. Seems unlikely since the concentration should be higher before impact. But the ore sits there for a super long time until water does something to what, pull it together? Water does do stuff like that, so maybe. Now it needs to be a bomb, which apparently is triggered by critical mass, and the subsequent boiling off of water. That's not going to happen in a short time since the water has nowhere to go quickly. Geyser maybe, with the overall pressure holding in the rest. Without the water, it goes all bomb on us, much slower than our weapons, but far more pressure keeping it there while it goes on. Eventually the pressure breaks the surface and you get this crater, a lot like Mt St Helens depressurizing in 1980. Where is that? How much does Martian weather erase craters like that? All they have is wind driven dust. So what, it fills in? Look for a deep sand hole? Just vocalizing my naive thoughts. I admit none of it seems to kill the idea. My strongest skepticism is at the top, before all the alchemy takes place. Since we're going off topic (sort of), it turns out they recently found the world's oldest fossilized forest, right by me (bicycle ride away), one old enough to push back the date of the earliest real trees. What they mostly have is a cluster of root systems, really big ones, like with a 15 meter footprint.

The Fermi paradox articles call this the 'great filter', some test that a technological species must pass in order to not get filtered out. It does not look well for humans. Problem is, our current civilization depends on technological continuity to maintain itself. War is one way that ends, but so is the simple exhaustion of non-renewable resources. Once gone, that's it. We cannot advance again and the species reverts to just an animal with an expensive brain that might be more of a hindrance than a help. One has to eat an awful lot of food that other animals don't need, in order to feed the expensive toy. Despite the frequent depiction in fiction ('Aliens' come to mind), nuclear reactors cannot explode. At worst they melt down, arguably a worse fate than a bomb, but not one that is quite as fun to depict on the big screen. The species needs to act for the benefit of the species instead of the individual. I know of almost nobody capable of that. Our core moral code even forbids it. We're quite doomed to fail the Fermi test. I notice that several people might point out the problem (as I am doing here), but nobody posits a solution (including me).

Hello Arcangelo and welcome to this forum. The relationship between gravity and electromagnetism is one that interests me. I have downloaded your paper and will be looking it over as time permits. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if you would start a discussion on this subject; not by posting a link to your paper (although that is permitted) by posting here in this thread at the very least an abstract of your ideas. The more theory you post here, the better, so interested people do not have to refer back and forth between this thread and you paper. Let us have the discussion here, thanks.

Ok, I believe I have finally found a detailed explanation about why astronomers are fairly certain about the T CrB nova happening this year. From this link: /Quote Recurrent nova T CrB has just started its Pre‑eruption Dip in March/April 2023, so the eruption should occur around 2024.4±0.3 Authors: B. E. Schaefer (Louisiana State Univ.), B. Kloppenborg (AAVSO), E. O. Waagen (AAVSO), and the AAVSO observers T Coronae Borealis (T CrB) is a famous recurrent nova with known eruptions in the years 1217, 1787, 1866, and 1946. Many workers have realized that the rise in brightness from its low state (1954.5 to 2015.0) to its high state (2015.0 to the present) is a precursor and harbinger for an upcoming eruption around 2025.5±1.3 or so (Munari et al. 2016; Schaefer 2023). A distinct and under-appreciated close-up harbinger is the unique and mysterious Pre-eruption Dip (Schaefer 2023). The Dip in 1945-1946 started around 1945.0 (1.1±0.3 years before the 1946 eruption), with the B-band magnitude fading from near 10.5 to 12.0 mag, while the V-band magnitude faded from around 9.8 to 12.3 mag. This fading ended abruptly with the nova eruption. In anticipation of the start of this Pre-eruption Dip, we have been frequently monitoring the up-to-date light curve as collected into the AAVSO International Database. The AAVSO B and V band light curves from 2021.0 to present, with 2-day binning, for 4330 B-band mags and 12734 V-band mags, all with CCD photometry, are linked below. The normal light curve since 2016 shows the usual ellipsoidal modulation, with a full amplitude of ~0.4 mag for a sinewave at half the orbital period. The light curve shows variations about this average curve on all time scales, with larger variations in the B-band than in the V-band, all arising from ordinary flickering always present since 1867. Starting around 2023.25, T CrB shows a systematic fade from its long-time ellipsoidal variations. This fading is far outside of any historic variations since 2016. The fading in the blue was 0.4 mag in 2023.3 to 0.8 mag in 2023.5. The fading in the V-band was 0.25 mag in 2023.3, and 0.35 mag in 2023.5. The fading in the R and I bands are substantially smaller. This color dependency in the fading is consistent with increasing dust absorption, for a scenario featuring a recently discrete mass ejection in which dust formation occurs (much like for R CrB stars). So the T CrB Pre-eruption Dip has already started in March/April of this year. If the Dip in 2023 is similar in timing to that in 1945, then the primary eruption should occur roughly 1.1±0.3 years later, or in 2024.4±0.3. This prediction is substantially improved over the prior predictions based only on the 2015 rise to the high-state. Still, possible deviations from the behavior in 1946 could create an early or a late eruption. This announcement of the start of the Dip and the prediction of the eruption date (2024.4±0.3) will hopefully be of use for researchers for making proposals with a wide variety of telescopes. Further, this serves as advance notice to take all needed pre-eruption baselines, for example obtaining infrared fluxes and background nebulosity images over a wide field for later light echo detections. And it is not too late to try to understand the pre-eruption high-state, with it still being unclear whether the increased luminosity comes from increased accretion or from nuclear burning on the white dwarf. For observations before the upcoming eruption, we particularly point to U-band photometry, UV spectrophotometry, and spectral line profiles, all for measuring the energetic physical mechanism of the Pre-eruption Dip, while long-running infrared photometry might detect dust formation. /Unquote My understanding from reading this, is there is a pre-eruption dip in the binary star system’s brightness, just about a year before the nova event. The actual mechanism behind the dip doesn’t seem to be well understood. It could be from formation of a dust cloud due to a large mass ejection from the red giant that gets absorbed by the white dwarf. The increased mass of the white dwarf causes a thermonuclear reaction, which is the nova. The pre-eruption dip, before the nova, brings to mind how the tide goes out before a tsunami hits the shore. Of course, this is just an analogy; the mechanisms are totally different.

You can see Corona Borealis from Sydney right now if you have a clear view of the northern horizon. There is an excellent article in the March 2024 Sky & Telescope on T Corona Borealis.

Dandav, I agree with oldpaddoboy that this post, in particular, is not only arrogant but also annoying and in violation of several of our Rules: First of all, you are cross-posting--that is, posting highly similar posts in more than one thread. oldpaddoboy started this thread about the James Webb Space Telescope detecting evidence of a neutron star which stayed hidden for 37 years in the wreckage of Supernova 1987A. You turned it into a continuation of your baseless challenging of mainstream science, which is another rules violation: Keep posting with an obvious agenda (like wanting to debunk science) without having proper contradictory evidence. I am sure I can find even more violations, such as generally being rude and annoying, but I think I have identified enough to give you a warning. From this point on Please follow our site rules - we really don't like to ban people.

Especially those that don't admit to possessing them, whether they are your allies or your enemies.

If we put aside the nonsense about Aliens manipulating the permittivity or permeability of free space, the OP does contain an interesting question which can be simply stated this way: Is the speed of light dependent on the values of ε0 and μ0, or is the value of c independent of ε0 or μ0? Let’s start with this equation: c=1/√(ε0μ0) Where : C = 299 792 458 m / s ε0 = 8.8541878128×10−12 F/m (farads per meter) permittivity of free space μ0 = 4π×10−7 H/m = 1.25663706143...×10−6 (henries per meter) permeability of free space Mathematically, it seems reasonable to assume if the values of ε0 or μ0 were to change (somehow and we are not interested in how) then the value for the speed of light would need to change also. For example: What if the value of ε0 changed to be 9x10-12 farads per meter, while μ0 remained unchanged? How would that affect the value for the speed of light? If you go through the math, the speed of light would be 297 354 019 m / s ; significantly different from the currently accepted value of 299 792 458 m / s. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, c is the speed at which all massless fields propagate; not just the speed of light. Gravity also travels at c, and since gravity apparently has nothing to do with electromagnetism, it’s speed should not be affected by any change in the values of ε0 or μ0. Also, we are all taught that the speed of light, c, is constant. Therefore, is c really dependent on the values of ε0 and μ0, as the above mathematical calculation seems to have shown? *Now we are getting into what I consider to be the interesting bit that makes this discussion worthwhile* Taking the equation we started with: c=1/√(ε0μ0) We can write: ε0 = 1 / μ0 c^2 and μ0 = 1 / ε0 c^2 We can see that ε0 and μ0 are just the inverse of each other mediated by the term 1/c^2. This inverse relationship isn’t immediately apparent by looking at their values of 8.8541878128×10−12 for ε0 and 1.25663706143×10−6 for μ0, but if you “do the math” and remember to multiply by 1/c^2, you will find they are exact inverses of one another. What does this have to do with the above calculation which showed the speed of light changing with a change in the value of ε0? Everything! Since they are inversely related, if ε0 changes, then μ0 would also change, and it would change in such a way as to keep the speed of light, c, constant at 299 792 458 m / s. To demonstrate this, in the above example ε0 changed to 9x10-12 farads per meter and the value of c consequently changed to 297 354 019 m / s. In reality, this is not possible because when ε0 changed, that would have caused a corresponding change in μ0, from 4π×10−7 H/m to 1.23627783938x10-6 H/m, because of their inverse relationship. Plugging these values for ε0 and μ0 into our equation: c=1/√(ε0μ0) We will once again get 299 792 458 m / s for c. While this long post may seem somewhat tedious, what I hoped to show is that sometimes even a carefully and correctly executed mathematical calculation can be very wrong if all of the facts are not properly considered. Also, I hoped to show that c is a fundamental dimensionless constant, which does not depend on the values of any other less fundamental, derived units such as permittivity and permeability of free space. In fact, many physicists today consider the values assigned to ε0 and μ0 to just be artifacts of certain unit systems and can be done away with. For example, both Gaussian and Lorentz Heaviside units have ϵ0=μ0=1, but that is going a bit beyond where I intended to go with this. One last final note for those who may ask how c can be a dimensionless constant when it is a velocity expressed in m/s. It seems clear that meters have a dimension in length and seconds have a dimension in time, so c should have the dimensions of LT-1, how is it then dimensionless? The answer is, it is entirely possible to define a system of measuring time by using light. The time between events is then the distance that light would travel in the duration between those events. Then by definition, the speed of light is 1 and dimensionless, as we measure time in meters and distance in meters, and light will naturally traverse the same distance in meters as the time we measure between its endpoints in meters. m / m = 1 dimensionless. This may also clear up the difficulty some may have with understanding spacetime diagrams where time is made comparable to a length or space unit, expressed as ct, and take some of the mystery out of the spacetime interval. Here also, the time dimension is made comparable to a unit of length but retains its unique character by having a different sign: (Δs)2 = -(cΔt)2 + (Δx)2 + (Δy)2 + (Δz)2

You can calculate based on mass and radius if it is a black hole or not, the core of a neutron star using the Schwarzschild radius equation. Why don't you plug in the numbers for a neutron star's core and see if it is a black hole or not? I think you will find that the mass is too light for a neutron star to be a black hole even at its small radius. This can all be calculated using simple equations that are based on General Relativity. If the R number in the equation is greater than radius of the neutron star where R schwarzchild radius > R neutron star core then it is actually a black hole otherwise if R neutron star core > R schwarzschild Radius then it is not a black hole, but you will need to know the mass of the neutron star's core which will be the M number in the equation. "Schwarzschild radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. This phenomenon is thought to be the final fate of the more massive stars"

Precisely why viral infections are difficult to cure is the fact that viruses are not alive and therefore cannot be killed. If the virus exists external to the human body it can be destroyed, not killed, by any number of ways. Simply washing your hands with soap and water destroys most viruses because the soap molecules wedge themselves into the lipid membrane and pry it apart. Antivirals do not attack the virus itself; they work by suppressing the virus's ability to infect and multiply in your cells. The usual mechanism involves inhibiting molecular interactions and functions in the cells, needed by the virus to produce new copies of itself, halting the attack. The virus is not destroyed and sometimes the infection can reoccur.

On 12/28/2024 at 5:45 PM OceanBreeze, said: I agree with Moontanman that the mechanism of natural selection selects certain traits based on the ecological and environmental niche that an organism lives in, and this process happens without goals or direction. Those organisms that are fortunate to possess those traits that happen to be beneficial, are better adapted to survive and reproduce. It keeps getting mentioned because we cannot have a meaningful discussion on evolution without acknowledging this fact: evolution by natural selection does not “lead” to any particular outcome. Near the end of my post I did give your suggestion sufficient coverage: Bottom line, in my opinion, human evolution can no longer be simply described according to the ideas of Charles Darwin; our evolution is not driven only by natural selection. Humans are engaged in activities that may eventually give us sufficient control over the evolutionary process that it will have a direction and lead to some goal; unfortunately, it may lead to an “own goal” although I don’t feel that such an outcome is inevitable. I stress that I am only speculating on a future possibility based on current trends in technological advancement.

I agree OceanBreeze, even Microsoft changed their calculators divide by zero error from 'Error: negative infinity' in Windows 98a to 'Error: cannot divide by zero' in Windows 98b. I also suspect that using change of variables as a valid proper use of indefinite integrals as definite integrals is not actually valid if there is not at least one complete cycle in the higher level function, regardless of there being infinite limits or not.

I am stating as a fact, IF the universe is infinite, there is NO possible way for us to know that. We would have to be able to observe infinity, which is impossible by definition. We can say, and some do say, if the universe is flat everywhere, it must be infinite. Tell me how could we know the universe is flat everywhere? Again, we would need to confirm this by observing an infinity; an impossibility. I have no problem at all with mathematical infinities, but if the calculation is about something real, an infinite result is nonsense! Nothing real can be ever shown to be infinite. A calculation for infinite energy, (which I have seen made) is one such example. The calculation was made by two mathematicians with advanced degrees and they insisted it was correct. I found the error and showed them how ridiculous their calculation was. Infinite energy! More energy than in an infinite amount of universes in an infinite time and they believed it because of a math mistake!

No, the galaxaies are not "expanding." Galaxies are "moving away" from us. That Doppler effect is Slipher's observation. And yes they move away faster if they are farther away. The basis for the math of distances is the inverse square law to the brightness of light. So, we get non linear, progressively larger distances, or accelerated motion away from earth. The motion is uniform and universal. Hubbell concluded based on those findings that spacetime is expanding. Since this observed motion is based on inverse square law of distances, math can include a cosmological constant Lambda to explain it, and that is consistent with Einstein's tensor equation. An alternative view is that there exists dark energy which is responsible for the motion of galaxies which Slipher observed, away from the Earth. This would delete the Lambda cosmological constant, and would introduce some other "dark energy" matrices in the formula. Spacetime then would not be stretching (expanding). However, no one observed any matter or energy in the universe that is responsible for uniform and universal motion away from anything. So this hypothesis about dark energy is inconsistent with observation. Even though acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable in Relativity under Einstein's tensor equations. In there lies the problem, there is something within spacetime that distinguishes some accelerations from curvature (gravity). Hence, Lambda factor for spacetime itself, separate from G factor which is the curvature (gravity).

Whenever I mention the "universe" I am referring to the only universe we know about, the observable universe. Everything I say about flatness, expansion or whatever, it is only about locally, as talking about a "global" universe is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. The universe that we observe is flat, meaning it has Euclidean geometry. We also observe this universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. Flatness has only to do with local geometry and it says nothing about the topology. I am not flat, and my house is not flat! The topology is 3D and as far as we know the observable universe is a sphere roughly 50 billion light years in radius. Also, a flat geometry doesn't imply the universe is infinite in extent. A piece of A4 paper has flat geometry but it has dimensions of 210 x 297 mm. All of the above is just for clarification. There is too much confusion about what a flat geometry means and what the difference is between local geometry and topology. I know everyone will not agree with what I wrote, but I believe it is correct, while inviting discussion.

Doesn't the way spin pairs in nuclei imply all nucleons are superimposed on each other? Otherwise spin cannot pair without a modifying constant due to the nucleons occupying different positions. This is since angular momentum does not cancel if particles are not at the same position (L = mvr). Their "r" value would not be the same so their "L" can't cancel.

I have approximated Goldbach's Problem (that all even numbers above 2 can be constructed with 2 primes) for a sequence from 4 to 100 using brute force and ignorance. Jokes aside, I used the Sieve of Eratosthenes and wrote down the results on the sum table below. In addition, I decided to plot the sum's numbers on two planes. The first plots formed an exponential curve, with a bell curve in the number 79. For the second plots, I took the values of the second numbers and plotted them as isolated points on the Y-axis, connecting them and smoothing the lines, forming bell curves. 2+2 =4 3+3 =6 5+3=8 5+5=10 5+7=12 7+7=14 13+3=16 13+5=18 17+3=20 19+3=22 19+5=24 23+3=26 23+5=28 23+7=30 29+3=32 29+5=34 29+7=36 31+7=38 37+3=40 37+5=42 37+7=44 43+3=46 43+5=48 47+3=50 47+5=52 47+7=54 53+3=56 53+5=58 53+7=60 59+3=62 59+5=64 59+7=66 61+7=68 67+3=70 67+5=72 71+3=74 73+3=76 73+5=78 73+7=80 79+3=82 79+5=84 79+7=86 83+5=88 83+7=90 89+3=92 89+5=94 89+7=96 79+19=98 97+3=100

That’s the most logical, and certainly correct explanation. Such rock formations are called glacial erratics. They are very common in Colorodo, especially near the town of Red Cliff. There is no magical piezo-electric, negative ion magic involved, although the piezo-electric effect is very interesting and deserves a thread of its own. Returning to the subject of glacial erratics: Curious Nature Rocks Tell Tales As Old As Time "One of the most prominent features near the town of Red Cliff are the red cliffs. This vibrant hue is due to the quartzite rocks in the cliff faces containing hematite. Specifically, it’s the oxidation reaction of the iron found in the grains of hematite that becomes rust when exposed to oxygen which turns the rocks red. Quartzite itself is a hard metamorphic rock that does not weather easily. Quartzite ridges are often exposed with barely any vegetation because it is difficult for the roots to dig into the hard and nutrient-poor substrate. Another neat geological phenomenon to keep an eye out for near Red Cliff are glacial erratics. These are rocks that were moved from one place to another by a glacier. They can range from the size of pebbles to giant boulders and the lithology, the type of rock, of glacial erratics are different from the bedrock of its landing site. This means that based on the lithology of some of the erratics, it is possible to determine from where, when, and the direction the glacier flowed. Glacial erratics often bare signs of their journey with striations or scratches, rounded edges and polished faces."

I agree, knowledge is power and a wonderful thing. I don't agree with the biblical God on a lot of things especially sending people to eternal torture for sin, but that's what the religious people believe. As I have said before, I think that God is a monster of the bible where someone like Hitler was portrayed as a good person via propaganda in the Bible.

It just seems to me there must be a better way to warm the Martian atmosphere than pumping millions of tons of pollutants into the air. There is a supplementary file that can be downloaded from: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn4650 That briefly addresses the issues you have raised. Quote 4. Possible hazards. Natural Mars air is unsafe for humans to breathe because it has almost no oxygen (insufficient for deflagration) and also has a high natural concentration of PM 2.5 (Mars mineral aerosol dust). The nanorod density is ~10 μg/m3, which would not substantially alter this situation. A more immediate concern is asbestosis, as humans would bring both natural dust and nanoparticles into settlements via airlocks. One way to mitigate this hazard would be to make nanorods that dissolve or fragment in liquid water. Unquote

This is an informational piece about a newly discovered species of horned dinosaur, read more at Meet Lokiceratops, a newly discovered species of horned dinosaur (sciencenews.org) Do you think about this newly discovered species of horned dinosaur?

It seems gene therapy AMT-130 appears to slow down signs of huntington's disease in phage I and II clinical trials, read more at Buckle in: Gene therapy AMT-130 appears to slow down signs of Huntington’s disease in Phase I/II clinical trial - HDBuzz - Huntington’s disease research news. By what year do you think a cure to huntington's disease will be proved by the FDA?

This is an informational piece on how tomato plants use their roots to ration water during drought, read more at How Tomato Plants Use Their Roots to Ration Water During Drought | College of Biological Sciences (ucdavis.edu) Do you think that genetic modification of other plants with this trait could increase drought resistance in other plants?

It does heat the ocean, but internally, tidal stress currently accounts for under half a percent of the internal heat budget of Earth, most of that being near the surface, not contributing even that half percent to the deep internal heat of the planet. The article you chose didn't bother to include sources below some threshold of significance Because radioactive decay accounts for about 100 times the heat compared to tidal heating? It's not a wishful thing. It is the finding of empirical measurements. Half of it is primordial heat leftover from formation, so you omitting that is far more negligent than the one particular article not bothering to include tidal stress energy.

The following interesting article promotes awe and wonder at the power of science and the mathematics involved. A shame that such news and education isn't published in our every day newspapers and broadcasted on TV and radio. https://phys.org/news/2024-04-qa-glimpse-star-night-sky.html Q&A: How to catch a glimpse of a new star about to appear in the night sky: by Daniel Strain, University of Colorado at Boulder "If you peer up at the constellation Corona Borealis—the Northern Crown—over the next several months, you may catch a glimpse: Astronomers predict that sometime this year, a new star will appear in the night sky, growing as bright as the North Star, then vanishing in a matter of days. The source of that pinprick of light is a stellar system roughly 3,000 light-years from Earth called T Coronae Borealis, or T CrB. There, two stars circle each other, interacting in ways that—like clockwork—produce a powerful eruption of energy about once every 80 years—an event called a recurrent nova. T CrB became visible briefly in 1946, and scientists suspect that it's on the verge again. David Wilson is an astrophysicist and research associate at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at CU Boulder who studies the ultraviolet light that stars emit. While astronomers wait for T CrB to burst, Wilson gives his take on what causes this impressive event—and how curious stargazers can catch a glimpse." More at link.............................. Supplementary article.... https://phys.org/news/2024-04-huge-star-explosion-sky-lifetime.html

I posted my reply to this forum's version that exists in the second universe. Please go there to read it.

Great! Thanks for the update.

A new solution to the warp drive problem has been found that does not require negative energy or negative mass has been suggested in this paper by Erik W. Lentz https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.00652

I think MAD still works for most countries, or at least those countries with a sane government, its the countries who have Nukes but lack sanity you have to worry about.

I support the current model of Neutron/Pulsars/Magnetars as are supported by the equations of gravity and NDP. Plus I have given many reputable links and a scientific paper, rather then as you have done, giving unsupported ideas with many baseless assumptions, while ignoring the most essential part...the maths involved... the maths that predicted these things even before they were detected. You actually havn't a leg to stand on in choosing to ignore the maths. And since we are going round in circles, and you insist on failing to recognise the facts of the indispensable nature of the maths involved, I will leave you to your confusion and will not be partaking anymore. You also have again avoided my suggestion, based on your misplaced confidence, to write up a scientific paper for peer review. Obviously, like myself and others partaking in this thread, we all know what the outcome of that will be.

Absolutely, individual efforts like green roofs can make a big impact over time. Are there other sustainability initiatives you're considering for your community?

Asteroids are often thought of as solid objects but the truth be told many are just piles of rubble. Vast piles of gravel and this is what you would expect if tiny rocks clumped together, or maybe what I would expect given the small size of asteroids. How would a pile of gravel coming together generate enough heat to solidify the object? This begs the question of where did the solid asteroids come from, I think the source has to be larger asteroids, dwarf planet sized at least that had small chunks broken off in collisions. Is this valid or does science say different?

SCIENCE FORUM RULES 2024 VERSION First of all, Introduce yourself! We require that all new members make their first post in the Introduction forum. Please tell us a little bit about yourself and your interest in science and anything else you want to talk about. Just be yourself, and have fun, but please respect these ground rules: 1) If you make strange claims, please provide evidence or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum. What we generally do not approve of is wild, unsubstantiated claims. But, even these are sometimes allowed and placed in the Silly Claims section if they are at least interesting. The very worst claims, which have no intellectual or amusement value at all, are usually deleted. 2) If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on. 3) Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion. 4) Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned. 5) The explicit discussion of drugs in order to promote non-scientific experimentation of drugs, show people how to obtain or create drugs, or providing histories of drug use to show off, will lead to deletion of posts, and we will issue warnings. 6) If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get. 7) Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid if they point out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It may get you banned! 😎 Rude and offensive behavior is not tolerated and might lead to instant banning (at the discretion of the forum staff). This includes forum posts, e-mails to users, and private messages. 9) We will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts. Such posts may be deleted or edited without further notice. Also, rants, flames, arrogant posts, and hit-and-run posts might lead to temporary or permanent banning so please try to behave in here as you would in real life, and everyone will be happy. 10) Avoid cross-posting--that is, posting highly similar posts in multiple threads. The majority of our members actually read most threads, and this is impolitely forcing them to read something they've probably already read. It's OK to reply in existing threads with a post containing, "I discuss a related, but different, idea in *this thread*", and provide a link, but it should be in the context of the thread in which you are posting. 11) Important: Never post PMs or e-mails from other users without asking their permissions first. PMs and e-mails are considered private communication and posting them is a violation of the other user's right to privacy. If you have received an offending PM or e-mail, send it to one of the admins. Posts containing PMs and e-mails can be deleted by the admins and might get you banned. Similarly, do not use PMs or a user's e-mail address to send rude or aggressive comments or rants. Any user who receives such communications is asked to forward this to an administrator for evaluation. Typical reasons for banning If you find yourself being banned, you most likely broke our rules above, or: Posted SPAM or something we assumed to be SPAM Annoyed our members so much that the moderators decided to ban you Posted hoax theories without doing proper research (this is a science forum, not a forum for fanatic nuts) Kept posting with an obvious agenda (like wanting to debunk science) without having proper proof Trolling - generally being rude and annoying, and contributing very little. Posted something which is copyrighted. It will be deleted and you might get warned or banned. A ban is either temporary or permanent. A temporary ban will usually last for a week, after which it will automatically be lifted. A permanent ban is - well, permanent. Please follow our site rules - we really don't like to ban people. Finally, Respond to requests from Mods and Admins. The moderators and administrators put a lot of time and effort into maintaining this site. If we send you an "official" private message or an e-mail, in which we obviously want your reply, we require that you respond. Failure to respond in such cases may force us to close your account. These rules are not all inclusive. Just let common sense be you guide as to what is acceptable behavior and what is not. If there are any disputes, The Admins and Moderators have the Final Word.

The Bee Gee's On Australian Bandstand in the very early days....

The singularity is defined as where our laws of physics and GR break down. That is at the quantum/Planck level, to my knowledge and according to what material I have read. We need a QGT, (quantum gravity theory) to describe at this level. So, then all we can say, is that gravity and density approach infinite status at these levels. Remembering that the Planck scale is a "man made" aspect. So then we can speculate that at or below the quantum/Planck level, a surface of sorts could exist. I'm pretty sure most cosmologists reject infinite gravity and density.

Much of the post would be more understandable with better punctuation and sentence structure. The big bang theory is not a theory about the generation of the universe, so no. This anthropocentric statement presumes humans to be the only or at least first self-aware species on Earth. Given no limit for the eventual age of the universe, any finite specification of a time is closer to the beginning than to the end, so that statement is tautologically true. You don't know this. It seems to presume a form of life that is dependent on the existence of a galaxy, and who knows what might be possible when lifted from the restriction of 'life as we know it'. I can't think of it either, and it would seem more probable in a second-generation star like our own, and not so much the first generation ones in the early stages of any galaxy. Still, our sun was hardly one of the earliest second generation stars to form. The Fermi paradox deals with detecting technological life nearby. The title of the thread asks if we're the first in the universe, and the odds of that are zero, but seemingly they are all so distant and/or so briefly lived that none of them are on (not just in) our local past light cone. And then this devolves into dyson spheres again, the relevance to the topic being left unstated. It will take considerably longer than that to blink out all the black holes. The universe of just radiation and black holes is about as incapable of supporting life as the same one with the black holes gone, but again, that's presuming 'life as we know it' in a way.

It seems researchers have found the first experimental evidence for a graviton-like particle in a quantum material, read more at Researchers find first experimental evidence for a graviton-like particle in a quantum material (phys.org) Do you think that the graviton exists after looking that this new experimental evidence?

Not into the fancy stuff too much. Prefer my old VB lager, particularly with a packet of salted peanuts! Son's into some Japanese stuff, Asahi The younger folk have just finished going crazy over Taylor Swift's concert tour of Australia. *shrug* I prefer my Greek Angel. Other then Nana, I have always loved Shirley Bassey. Saw her at the old Chequers night club in Sydney in 1962. Here she is with another great, Neil Diamond....

Just finished "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

And again this two teeth or actually two horn comet is in the news. https://youtu.be/0hwTWAHXj08?si=J3ilharxfiwAa3E7 We see about if something remarkable happens? And there is this eclipse too soon. Let us hope no earthquakes again!

And I have claimed that General Relativity "confirmation experiments" are heavy with confirmation bias! General Relativity's "spacetime curvature" is nonsense. What about "Mercury's Perihelion Procession" I hear you say. Well, let's look at it. The first thing that comes to mind about the orbit of Mercury around the Sun is that MERCURY DOES NOT ORBIT THE SUN! Mercury orbits the barycenter of the solar system. The Sun also orbits the barycenter of the solar system! As a matter of fact, when Jupiter and Saturn are lined up, the Sun is completely outside the solar system's barycenter! Like this: As you can see, Mercury's perihelion in the inertial barycentric coordinates IS NOT the same as Mercury's perihelion in the accelerated, non-inertial heliocentric coordinates. Newton's Laws and General Relativity are invalid in heliocentric non-inertial coordinates. But astronomers have been measuring this false perihelion in heliocentric coordinates for centuries. So what is this error angle, I wondered. This error angle θ shown here : Just how far off the real inertial perihelion have astronomers been measuring the non-inertial perihelion???? Well, the Sun is approximately 3/4 of a solar diameter (~1,000,000 km) away from the barycenter, and Mercury is at about 46,000,000 km away from the barycenter. So this angle is aproximately arcsin( 1.0/46) ≈ 1.25° !!! So there is a maximum of 1.25° of slop in the perihelion measurement of Mercury away from inertial coordinates! 1.25° !!! So it is nonsense to claim a 0.16° perihelion-precession PER CENTURY when astronomers can be 1.25° in error away from the true inertial coordinate perihelion! (technically a barycenter periapsis). So Mercury-precession claims matching GR are probably confirmation bias guided scientific misconduct !!! They can wait and measure anything that they want so it agrees with GR !!! Andrew Ancel Gray

Jeffreys, this is NonSense. It is scary to me how nonsensical this is. There is no wave-particle "duality". Making a "gravity particle" out of gravity waves is scary nonsensical. Yes, according to Obler's paradox, if galaxies were evenly distributed throughout the universe, the night sky would be bright. So that just means that galaxies are NOT evenly distributed throughout the universe.

Jeffreys, First of all, all of General Relativity's "confirmation experiments" are HEAVILY confirmation biased. The WORST being the Pound and Rebka experiment where they did not even measure their supposed Doppler velocity on a speaker which they went ahead and USED anyway. What I am saying is that we have Special Gravitivity and NOT General Relativity. We have a Weak Equivalence Principle, and therefore there is NO spacetime curvature, which means that black holes are NONSENSE. Sagittarius A* is actually a gigantic neutron star with gravity so great that there are no atoms present. Everything is compressed to neutrons. Therefore, without atoms, there is no visible light emanating from Sagittarius A*, only x-rays and gamma rays. That's right. Look at Sagittarius A* with an x-ray telescope and there it is! : Look at it! The object you supposedly cannot see... and there it is you dummies! Duh! I can see it, can you? The Chandrasekhar Limit (which uses General Relativity and even more nonsensical "electron degeneracy" to limit a neutron star's mass) is NONSENSE, just like General Relativity. You mainstream physicists have wonderment about many stars rapidly orbiting something that is black in the visible, but if you use x-rays, There it is! Duh. Jeffreys, you might as well face it! There are many myths in modern physics these days. Myths that have been around for a century! Jeffreys, "quantum gravity" is a myth upon a myth, or a "double myth" if you will. First of all, QA (Quantum Anything) is all nonsense, so to make "gravitons" out of gravitational waves is "going off the deep end" crazy. Just like EM waves are waves and only waves, gravity waves are waves and only waves! No! We can calculate a lower limit to how long ago "The Big Explosion" happened. That's all. The Universe having an "age" is a paradox. Jeffreys, what happened before the Universe was born? Huh? Duh. Jeffreys, anything but "infinite duration" of the Universe is a paradox. And yes, we may have a bunch of "iron stars" around our part of the Universe until another big crunch happens and it explodes again (which may make a LOT of hydrogen again)! Andrew Ancel Gray

By it's nature a FIAT system means that you have to have something to offer that others value highly in order to have a gain. "Highly" in this case means "more than the effort required to supply it." Getting rich quickly isn't likely for anyone barring some incredible luck. Stock market stuff is just an investment with a layer of abstraction: you could readily provide direct investment into a local business in exchange for partial ownership too. Plenty of young mechanics or painters or (insert profession) would gladly slave away if yuo merely provided them tools and a place to use them. One of the most high-gain low-cost business models I've seen is a coffee shop, and next to that advertising brokerage. It really comes down to: what can you do(or have others do for you), and how can you convince people to exchange for it at over-value in high volume.

The main issue is that we can't understand Quran because it's in Arabic. You will have to learn Quran and translate it in your language and understand it's meaning to know what exactly it's saying.