1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could a star orbit a planet?

« on: 24/11/2018 18:28:57 »

Thank you. Agreed, Just was interested to know if it at all was possible, what would the dynamics of this "Monster Planet" in regard to life on the planet be? Especially if the Sun is orbiting it

Since the planet, to meet your requirements, must be of great mass the gravity will be considerably greater than on Earth. This likely would present difficulties for the development of complex life. Also, the sun, of necessity to meet your requirements, would be small and dim. Combined with the long "days" and "nights"  the planet would probably struggle to maintain any liquid water.
That said, I am piling speculation, based on guesses, allied to improbabilities and founded on random thinking. However, I doubt the situation could ever actually arise - the "if" in your question seems to large.

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: The Mind Of A Flat-Earther?

« on: 10/10/2018 21:13:58 »

I'm pretty sure this is just a parody thread. Energon was some kind of thing in Transformers.

It's that old story. Sphere today, Energon tomorrow!

3

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Did glaciation produce this smooth, undulating rock surface?

« on: 11/09/2018 15:44:16 »

Or on second thought, I guess maybe more likely that at the time scale of a glacier, (moving inches in months or years I suppose), it's a matter of constantly melting to match contours and then refreezing long enough to powerfully scrape a few inches, then remelting/refreezing in a repeating cycle?

Not always that slow. A Greenland glacier set a record of 150ft/day, back in 2014.

Keep in mind that there is a complex interplay of variable loading, both vertical and horizontal, frictional forces, snout melting, or calving, etc. Melting and refreezing may take place over a wide range of time, from milliseconds to minutes.

Also, in direct regard to your picture I would not rule out the possiblity that this was stream erosion. Most, probably all, glaciers have streams flowing in networks at their base. Some of these can be quite substantial and they do carry large volumes of abrasive clastics.

4

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: What is the name for this form of arch-like geological structure with fractures?

« on: 27/08/2018 21:58:04 »

Since the structure is a product of weathering rather than tectonic deformation it might be more properly called a geomorpholgical structure, rather than a geological one. In that case "arch" would be the approrpiate term.

I wouldn't agree with the suggestion that it is an anticline. The top left to bottom right lineation in the rocks appears to be continued on both sides of the arch. that being the case there is no folding and so it cannot be an anticline.

"Bedding planes" can exist between individual lava flows, but they would not be as thin as is the case here. Thicker bodies of intruded magma (large sills, lacoliths, lopoliths, etc.) often have layering caused by the sequential crystallisation and settling of different minerals. Injections of fresh magma can cause this layering to be repeated many times. That's a possibility here.

The lack of a close up and the exposure of a fresh surface make it difficult to determine just what the rock type is. If much of the native rock colur is showing through lichen and weathered material then this is not basalt - far too light. The jointing is consistent with any body of cooling magma. i.e stress fractures are consistent with any igneous body, but especially a lava, rather than an intrusive mass.

Another possibility that occurs to me is volcanic ash, or pumice. This would explain the apparent layering, since multiple ash falls would be expected during an eruption. This would also be lighter in colour - another match with what we observe.

Summary: insufficient data to reach a conclusion, but a neat photograph and an intriguing feature.

5

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Why is natural selection so much slower than human-led selection?

« on: 02/08/2018 19:00:09 »

What you say means that you accept that randomness is the key to evolution of life, but not to evolution of ideas. Have you tried to figure out how our ideas could be anything else than biological stuff?

I apologise if my earlier posts lacked clarity. I just felt the following statement was unambiguous.
"The role of mutation is to supplement existing genetic variation within a population, which natural selection can then act upon."

Is this version clearer: mutation provides the raw material on which natural selection works.

i.e. major components in evolution are mutation and natural selection. Further, these are not the only components and, further still, mutations are not wholly random, at least in terms of the genes most likely to be impacted.
 

What you say means that you accept that randomness is the key to evolution of life, but not to evolution of ideas. Have you tried to figure out how our ideas could be anything else than biological stuff?

Clearly ideas are, in one sense, biological in that they are the product of living entities. However, they are not biological in that they are not themselves living entities. If you consider ideas biological, then you must also consider sculptures, plays, poetry and the like biological. Such a definition completely devalues the word.

Politicians are not elected to develop new ideas, only to govern, and new ideas don't work as often as old ones, so if they want to be reelected, they better present old ones.

Your knowledge of politics appears to be severely limited. You might wish to visit the fall of the Weimar Republic, the emergence of the SNP, or the transition from white-only rule in South Africa, as examples that demonstrate the fallacy of your thinking.

On the contrary, scientists have to look for new ideas if they want to keep their jobs, but new ideas take time to develop, and they don't always work. In fact, most of them don't, and the only ones we see are those that worked, which is also the case for mutations.

In the case of scientific ideas, we see many of those that did not work. The scientific literature is littered with them. (We might almost be better to call it litterature.) And try telling any person suffering from a "genetic defect" that we don't see the mutations that don't work.

I see a very strong link between the two kinds of evolution, but you don't seem to, so maybe you are one of those who think that when we search we automatically find. Is that so?

I see very clear parallels that make the two processes analagous. None of that renders correct those assertions of yours I have already contested.

In essence you seem to be arguing for a biological "reality" for memes as do their strongest proponents. I don't think even Dawkins is entirely comfortable with that approach.

Your comment on expecting to find when we search looks like a nonsensical non-sequitur.

6

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: Is the Earth the only planet where evolution has worked?

« on: 30/07/2018 16:58:11 »

I'm not entirely comfortable with the implications of your statements and questions. Thus the title "Why is Earth the only planet on which evolution has worked?" is a strawman. We do not know if evolution has worked on other planets or not.For example, Mars may have extensive subterranean lifeforms that have been evolving away quite happily for as long, or longer, as life on Earth.
Perhaps you meant "Why has evolution not produced complex lifeforms on other planets in the solar system?" In brief, the conditions have not been favourable to the development of complex lifeforms on the other planets. Since we only have Earth life as an example it is risky to speculate too deeply about what constrains or favours the development of complexity.

As a side note, it is probably a matter of translation, but the phrase "evolution has worked" implies that evolution has a purpose. Evolution is primarily a consequence, not a cause. It has not been demonstrated to have a purpose.

 

Whenever possible lifeforms on other planets are discussed it is suggested they are primitive yet complex life forms on the Earth evolved in less than half a billion years.

We must be reading different material. There are plenty of discussions that envisage complexity to be commonplace. Perhaps you have been (over)exposed to the work of Ward and Brownlee who, in Rare Earth, developed a well structured and soundly supported argument that life in the universe was probably commonplace, but that intelligent life was extremely rare. There is no solid consensus among exobiologists (that I am aware of) that supports this view, though it is well regarded.

 

Why this attitude is the Earth the only planet where evolution is possible ? 

This is not an attitude I have seen expressed anywhere - that includes popular science articles, popular science books, textbooks, monographs, technical literature in peer reviewed journals. Could you give two or three examples of where you have run across such attitudes?

7

Chemistry / Re: What is the difference between cationic and anionic water?

« on: 20/07/2018 20:48:54 »

Anions and cations are, by definition, charged particles.
The words anionic and cationic are defined analogously.
Water isn't charged.
Water isn't anionic or cationic.

What part of that is difficult?
I'm drinking  blackcurrant juice as I write this.
It's in a green plastic tumbler.
Putting red juice in a green  cup does not make the cup red.
Putting sodium ions into water does not make the water cationic.

The difficult part is that water, even pure water contains ions. I have no trouble envisaging a development of terminology in which it therefore became appropriate to describe water as ionic. I understand that such a development did not occur. I would like to have clarity as to usage. I was hoping for such a clarification, rather than a repetition of your earlier statements. I floated such a clarification, expecting you to either agree with it, or explain what was wrong with it. I'm still hopeful that you will do so.

8

Chemistry / Re: What is the difference between cationic and anionic water?

« on: 20/07/2018 04:35:02 »

salty water is simultaneously cationic and anionic water

No, the water is still not ionic.

I am puzzled by this response.
Can you please elaborate about why salty water doesn't contain cations & anions?

I share this puzzlement. Even pure water (certainly as pure as can practically be obtained) experiences a few instances of molecules losing a proton (thereby creating a negative hydroxide ion) that immediately attaches to another water molecule, creating a positive H3O+ ion. The reaction is reversible and there is a constant generation and revconversion of ions, though the proportion present at any time is very small.

I am presuming that bored chemist's statement is a technical one in which for water to be considered ionic the bulk of the water would have to be in ionic form (as is the case, for example, with a sodium chloride crystal) and not only a small amount of it. Thus water could contain anions and cation and still, technically, be non-ionic. I'd like confirmation or clarification, though.

9

General Science / Re: What are the leading technological and social challenges that need addressing?

« on: 21/06/2018 15:27:16 »

The largest challenge facing us currently is climate change. Numerous possibilities emerge from this:

• Carbon sequestration technology
• Novel renewable energy systems
• Improvements to existing renewable energy systems

10

General Science / Re: Can you help me with my homemade Teleportation project?

« on: 20/06/2018 22:35:59 »

Hello,PointofNoReturn. I'm very interested in partnering you on this exciting project. The best way to proceed would be for you to teleport directly to my sitting room. A cold beer and sandwiches are waiting your arrival.

11

Chemistry / Re: What is the difference between one mole of CH4 and one molecule of CH4?

« on: 22/04/2018 02:05:51 »

Just to add to Bored Chemists neat explanation, I suspect part of your confusion arose from the similarity of the two words:
mole and molecule

The reason for the similarity is that mole was derived from the German mol, itself an abbreviation for Molekulargewicht, molecular weight, in English.

12

The Environment / Re: Are we robots to a bad tech fantasy because of bad science?

« on: 02/03/2018 20:17:49 »

I have many weaknesses. One is relevant here. I tend to automatically reject any argument the constituent sentences of which do not parse. I know I should look through the mish-mash of bad grammar, buzz words and indignation to discern the message. But then I think, if it's that important couldn't the author have done a better job of presenting it?

I did, however, understand your last sentence; clear and concise. A masterpiece of precision. You want ideas.

My idea is that it is very important for you to understand the difference between science and technology. You do not appear, currently, to do so. Such an understanding is vital if we are to solve any problem of environmental disruption.

13

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Are there fossilised giraffes specimens?

« on: 09/02/2018 06:51:55 »

Wikipedia list twenty three giraffid genera, some of which contain multiple species. More than I expected, but that just reveals my ignorance about the state of Tertiary vertebrate palaeontology.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a difference between spacetime and placetime?

« on: 09/02/2018 06:10:15 »

My original question sprang from a conversation I recently had with a friend.  I must admit to only being able to define placetime conceptually.  For that I am sorry.  Let me rephrase...

Can an object remain stationary in spacetime?  Is there such a thing as an absolute position in spacetime?

and

If it were possible to remain stationary, would you "see" time passing, and be unaffected by its passage?

There is no absolute position in spacetime, hence it is only possible to remain stationary relative to another object. That being the case your second question has no meaning.

15

General Science / Re: Where is all the Oxygen hiding in the Solar System?

« on: 12/11/2017 21:01:07 »

Oxygen is the third most abundant element in the cosmos, after hydrogen and helium. So far I know you can't breath on Mars and the Moon. So where is all the oxygen hiding?

Given that it is the second most abundant element making up the Earth I don't think we should describe it as hiding. The bulk of the Earth's mass is present in the silicate mantle that, as pointed out by evan_au, contains abundant oxygen. It's almost as abundant, to a % or two, as iron.

16

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Could pyramids have been terraformed?

« on: 05/07/2016 07:54:37 »

Alex, you have an active imagination and that is commendable. Unrestrained active imaginations are of great value when creating works of fiction. However, when dealing with the non-fiction world, imagination must  be constrained by reality. Unfortunately your imaginative thoughts conflict with many facts established by tens of thousands of scientists over decades and centuries. I encourage you to do a little study of what is known and use your imagination to build on a solid foundation in future.

17

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Does this look like a meteor strike?

« on: 22/04/2016 10:59:23 »

Thank you. I was looking at the wrong thing. I shall try to take a closer look at this over the weekend. My suspicion is that this is just coincidental curved features. But then many of the now well established astroblemes were explained away in a similar manner.

18

Technology / Re: Can information be obtained by brainwaves as an alternative to torture

« on: 03/04/2016 17:01:13 »

Given the ineffectiveness of torture for extracting reliable information, I can confidently state current technology to "read minds" can match it in every regard.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why are the planets such different sizes - and in no particular size sequence?

« on: 08/03/2016 15:47:16 »

By what physics does the cloud collapse?

Gravity, though pressure waves from proximal, or embedded supernovae may trigger the collapse.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why are the planets such different sizes - and in no particular size sequence?

« on: 08/03/2016 11:38:13 »

The answer is complex, but this is a simplified version.

Planets form from a collapsing cloud of gas and dust. They are almost incidental, since most of the mass goes into the proto-star. The rest of the dust and gas form a flat disc around the star in which particles condense and coalesce.

As the star warms up the temperature in the disc prohibits ices from forming in the inner part of the system, so that rocky planets are formed. Further out ices can condense and coat any rocky cores that are formed. Stellar activity also drives gas away from the inner part of the system (and eventually all of it), but the outer rocky cores can attract some of this gas.

Thus we end up with small rocky planets in the inner system and large gaseous and icy planets with rocky cores in the outer system. During this process planets can move around a lot as a consequence of interaction with the disc and mutual gravitational effects. Some are lost into the parent star, some are ejected from the system and some swap places.