The Science Thread

[Louanne Learning]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[Louanne Learning]

This may be of interest to science-fiction writers - a setting for a future story -

NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has identified over a dozen newly confirmed pit craters on the Moon that could serve as natural entrances to underground environments—some of which may be ideal for future astronaut shelters.

NASA Unveils ‘Hidden’ Cave Entrances to the Moon’s Secret Underworld​

 

[Louanne Learning]

There's a common misperception that our earliest days as a species were "brutal and short." But I think tenderness gave us a lot more evolutionary advantage than did brutality. One need only reference the love of a mother. That, more than anything, is how we survived.

Brutality is an aberration, and works against survival.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Then I must take devil's advocate, and argue that brutality gave our species an evolutionary advantage of its own. Without brutality, our species would not have evolved hunting for food. It would not have evolved weapons (e.g. stone spearheads for mammoth and sabre-tooth tigers, slings and/or bows for hunting birds). It would not have evolved nets for fishing.

The fact that spears and bows later evolved into lethal weapons for being brutal to other humans doesn't negate the fact that, without them, our primitive forebears would quickly have become extinct.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Without brutality, our species would not have evolved hunting for food. It would not have evolved weapons (e.g. stone spearheads for mammoth and sabre-tooth tigers, slings and/or bows for hunting birds). It would not have evolved nets for fishing.

I would not equate hunting with brutality. I think hunting was approached by and large as a spiritual endeavour, with a great respect and gratitude for the food nature provided.

Consider that all of the earliest art consisted of depictions of wild animals. They were given great symbolism.

The fact that spears and bows later evolved into lethal weapons for being brutal to other humans

I never said brutality did not exist, only that it was in error to wash our entire existence as "brutal." Love and caring and altruism made sure communities survived - and babies who depended so vastly on their mothers.

 

[Tallyfire]

I found a helpful video (8 minutes) - and while it turns out String Theory may not be "The Theory of Everything" it is still useful.

I love Kurzgesagt! They put so much effort into their videos, drawing on many different researchers for input to make sure they represent their topics accurately, and they pair those topics with such captivating art. Their calendars have been hanging on my walls the past years now. I especially liked last year's "Cosmic Creations," which depicted various astronomical phenomena one month and on the next month they drew possible life that might evolve near those phenomena.

Have you seen other videos of theirs? This one is relevant to your recent discussion on aliens if you want another look at it:

 

[Louanne Learning]

This one is relevant to your recent discussion on aliens if you want another look at it:

Fascinating stuff. Thanks so much for sharing. The numbers are truly astronomical!

For example - if only 0.1% of planets in the Milky Way support life, that would be 1 million planets in our galaxy alone!

Then, when you take into account the exceedingly long interval of time involved since the universe began, that number increases greatly.

Yes, humans are special, but in essence we are just very highly evolved chemistry. Since the same elements and chemical laws exist throughout the universe, it seems reasonable to assume the chemistry to develop life happened elsewhere. Why wouldn't it?

 

[Selluwud]

Fascinating stuff. Thanks so much for sharing. The numbers are truly astronomical!

For example - if only 0.1% of planets in the Milky Way support life, that would be 1 million planets in our galaxy alone!

Then, when you take into account the exceedingly long interval of time involved since the universe began, that number increases greatly.

Yes, humans are special, but in essence we are just very highly evolved chemistry. Since the same elements and chemical laws exist throughout the universe, it seems reasonable to assume the chemistry to develop life happened elsewhere. Why wouldn't it?

Math (astronomical odds 1 in 10^1040)...........................too many variables to duplicate. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. But, just when you think you've got if figured out, something unbelievable happens. Death and taxes are all that are certain.

 

[Selluwud]

Food for thought: The universe is probably infinite. Anything with greater than zero odds, no matter how small, is likely to occur an infinite number of times. The premise that life as we know it can be duplicated revolves around the definition of infinite as it relates to the universe??

 

[Homer Potvin]

For example - if only 0.1% of planets in the Milky Way support life, that would be 1 million planets in our galaxy alone!

It's depends on how life is defined. We have literally zero data or reference points, but I'd suspect for every planet that has a microbe, 1% has a lifeform you can see without a microscope, then 1% of those might have a troglydyte, then 1% might have a mammalian something. Again, pure guesses with no data, but odds are still in favor. Time works both ways with that. Lots of stars won't live long enough to even develop planets. Even more stars won't be stable long enough for the billions of years needed for life to evolve. At least life as we know it. For all we know, there could be life that develops in 20 minutes once the correct conditions exist.

 

[Louanne Learning]

The universe is probably infinite. Anything with greater than zero odds, no matter how small, is likely to occur an infinite number of times.

Wow! What an excellent observation. And I think we do need to think big here.

The whole concept of infinity is difficult for us to comprehend, but I think it is important to remember that just because something is beyond human understanding, does not mean it cannot exist. I feel very aware of the limitations of the human senses, and our technology.

We've got the observable universe at 93 billion light-years in diameter. Who knows what is beyond that?

Infinity does exist. For example, there are infinite numbers between 1 and 2.

The premise that life as we know it can be duplicated revolves around the definition of infinite as it relates to the universe??

that's certainly not a question that scientists agree upon.

Can we say that time is infinite, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed?

 

[Louanne Learning]

It's depends on how life is defined.

I'm thinking of self-regulating, self-contained, self-replicating units of life (what we call cells) that can grow and develop.

Every single cell in your body has its own life.

1% has a lifeform you can see without a microscope, then 1% of those might have a troglydyte, then 1% might have a mammalian something.

Or something we would not recognize. Depends which way evolution took the chemistry in the environment in which the life evolved.

Time works both ways with that. Lots of stars won't live long enough to even develop planets. Even more stars won't be stable long enough for the billions of years needed for life to evolve.

This is true, all stars have different life spans.

For all we know, there could be life that develops in 20 minutes once the correct conditions exist.

the average life span of a typical bacterial cell is only hours to a few days.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I feel very aware of the limitations of the human senses,

“If the doors of perception were cleansed every thing would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern.”

― William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

 

[Homer Potvin]

Can we say that time is infinite, since energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed?

According to cosmology, time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so if the universe stops expanding and contracts in the Big Collapse (or whatever they call it), then maybe time ceases to exist again if all the shit reverts back to its original singularity.

Science changes it's mind about that all the time, similar to the age of the universe. The margin of error is like 80% or something. Essentially useless.

 

[Selluwud]

If you'd like to read about a concept that's hard to wrap your head around concerning the observation of the universe, Dr. Robert Lanza, a stem cell pioneer, has a series of books touting Biocentrism. Pretty heady stuff concerning how life and consciousness are the keys to understanding the true nature of the universe. I have only read excerpts as I get lost in the comprehension of the words.

Biocentrism

Robert Lanza is one of the most respected scientists in the world — a US News & World Report cover story called him a “genius" and a “renegade thinker," even likening him to Einstein. Lanza has teamed with Bob Berman, the most widely read astronomer in the world, to produce Biocentrism, a...

www.google.com

 

[Louanne Learning]

According to cosmology, time didn't exist before the Big Bang

Not all physicists are in agreement about this. Some say yes, some say no, some say we just don't know.

Science changes it's mind about that all the time

Science does not have a mind. It is an area of study conducted by thousands of individual minds. Yes, sometimes they disagree.

similar to the age of the universe.

Up to about twenty years ago, the age of the universe was contested, but most scientists now agree (with the advent of better technology, like spacecrafts and telescopes) that the universe is 13.80 billion years old.

Essentially useless.

No, science is not useless. There's uncertainty, for sure, but that calls for more investigation, not regression.

 

[Louanne Learning]

If you'd like to read about a concept that's hard to wrap your head around concerning the observation of the universe, Dr. Robert Lanza, a stem cell pioneer, has a series of books touting Biocentrism. Pretty heady stuff concerning how life and consciousness are the keys to understanding the true nature of the universe. I have only read excerpts as I get lost in the comprehension of the words.

Biocentrism

Robert Lanza is one of the most respected scientists in the world — a US News & World Report cover story called him a “genius" and a “renegade thinker," even likening him to Einstein. Lanza has teamed with Bob Berman, the most widely read astronomer in the world, to produce Biocentrism, a...

www.google.com

Sounds very interesting. Your link led to the book, here's another link to a summary which I am just about to read!

Biocentrism

Like “<b>A Brief History of Time</b>” it is indeed stimulating and brings biology into the whole. Any short statement does not do justice to such a scholarly work. Almost every society of mankind has explained the mystery of our surroundings and being by invoking a god or group of gods...

robertlanza.com

 

[Tallyfire]

Or something we would not recognize. Depends which way evolution took the chemistry in the environment in which the life evolved.

Totally agree with you here. Many people limit their expectations to “life as we know it” and the “Goldilocks zone” but even now we’re discovering life that exists without oxygen, or in extreme heat, or in many habitats originally thought fundamentally inhospitable to life. The study of fungal systems in forests and the incredible complexity and communication behind those is also so new. Alien life could look nothing like what we expect.

Science changes its mind about that all the time, similar to the age of the universe. The margin of error is like 80% or something. Essentially useless.

You reminded me of something. Back when I was studying, we had an exercise (in observational astronomy) to calculate the age of a supernova remnant (nebula) based on the expansion of the cloud in images taken over time. I made a calculation with error margins so large that, according to my results, the explosion may not have even happened yet.

 

[Homer Potvin]

No, science is not useless.

Nobody said science is useless. I said estimating the age of the universe is useless. Or anything else with a margin of error north of 50%. If you study cosmology, particularly distance and age, which are synonymous at the largest scales, you will see that it's constructed from a chain of estimates. Even the most basic ones, like spectroscopic parallax, fall within the 50% error range. That margin for error then chains into redshifts, Hubble's Constant, and the other tools used to estimate the size/age of the universe. All are very unreliable are being constantly refined. At that range of estimation, a dart board becomes more definitive.

We've got the observable universe at 93 billion light-years in diameter.

that the universe is 13.80 billion years old.

Putting our critical thinking caps on, how can a 13.8 billion year old universe expanding at the speed of light be 93 billion light-years in diameter?

 

[Selluwud]

Putting our critical thinking caps on, how can a 13.8 billion year old universe expanding at the speed of light be 93 billion light-years in diameter?

Bad traffic and lots of stop lights.