LGP Science Thread

[PensFanInDC]

Scientists revive giant virus from 30,000-year-old Siberian permafrost
http://rt.com/news/virus-siberia-permafrost-france-776/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This could only lead to good...

[columbia]

Seriously.

[PensFanInDC]

HEY! HERE'S A VIRUS WE HAVEN'T BEEN EXPOSED TO IN 30,000 YEARS! LET'S WAKE IT UP! I'M SURE NOTHING BAD CAN HAPPEN! WE HAVE, LIKE, ANTIBIOTICS RIGHT!? WHAT DO YOU MEAN ANTIBIOTICS DON'T WORK ON VIRUSES?!

[Letang Is The Truth]

Scientists revive giant virus from 30,000-year-old Siberian permafrost
http://rt.com/news/virus-siberia-permafrost-france-776/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Giant virus destroys half of earth's population

[Letang Is The Truth]

ah looks like yinz beat me to the punch

[count2infinity]

random science thought of the week...so it's a safe assumption that there's plenty of intelligent life scattered all across the universe. it's also a safe assumption that we're not going to be subject to some invasion by this alien species at any point.

BUT...it seems scientifically probable that somewhere in the universe, there is a solar system containing 2 planets (or 1 planet and 1 moon, or 2 moons) that are both in the galactic sweet spot that can support water, plant life and other weird creatures like us. so ultimately, it makes me happy in a twisted way, that somewhere out there, alien warfare is totally going down.

coming back to this... the more I think about it, the more I think that we're asking the wrong question about life in the universe. Everyone asks "where?" Assuming that somewhere out there, there is life right now, and that very well may be the case, but the timeline of the universe vs. earth vs. life on earth vs. humanity vs. a human's lifetime. It's almost like time on a logarithmic scale. The amount of time that humans have been on Earth is barely a wink when compared to the life time of the universe. So when I think about life in the universe, and I prefer to think that there have been hundreds and hundreds of "intelligent" life opportunities, but it's happened over such a huge timeline that it was either a really really long time ago, or won't happen until far into the future, long after we (humans) are all gone.

[shmenguin]

random science thought of the week...so it's a safe assumption that there's plenty of intelligent life scattered all across the universe. it's also a safe assumption that we're not going to be subject to some invasion by this alien species at any point.

BUT...it seems scientifically probable that somewhere in the universe, there is a solar system containing 2 planets (or 1 planet and 1 moon, or 2 moons) that are both in the galactic sweet spot that can support water, plant life and other weird creatures like us. so ultimately, it makes me happy in a twisted way, that somewhere out there, alien warfare is totally going down.

coming back to this... the more I think about it, the more I think that we're asking the wrong question about life in the universe. Everyone asks "where?" Assuming that somewhere out there, there is life right now, and that very well may be the case, but the timeline of the universe vs. earth vs. life on earth vs. humanity vs. a human's lifetime. It's almost like time on a logarithmic scale. The amount of time that humans have been on Earth is barely a wink when compared to the life time of the universe. So when I think about life in the universe, and I prefer to think that there have been hundreds and hundreds of "intelligent" life opportunities, but it's happened over such a huge timeline that it was either a really really long time ago, or won't happen until far into the future, long after we (humans) are all gone.

i agree. it's rare to have a planet like ours and it's even rarer that, on a planet like ours, you have highly intelligent life at a specific point in time.

but fortunately, you multiply that rarity times the zillion opportunities in the giant universe, and that equals some awesome sci-fi going down somewhere.

[count2infinity]

Good comparison of the amount of water on Earth's surface vs the amount of water on Europa (moon of Jupiter)

[shmenguin]

i take it that the water at the surface is frozen, but there might be heat coming from the moon's core that could make the deep trenches inhabitable?

[count2infinity]

i take it that the water at the surface is frozen, but there might be heat coming from the moon's core that could make the deep trenches inhabitable?

the outer surface is frozen, yes. But they believe that under a thick sheet of ice, there's liquid water due to internal heat.

[viva la ben]

I believe the theory is tidal forces create enough energy to have a liquid portion.

[Gaucho]

Some places we could go after we've thoroughly effed up this world:

[count2infinity]

Kepler-22 b and Tau Ceti e look nice.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Great Walls of America 'could stop tornadoes'

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26492720" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Building three "Great Walls" across Tornado Alley in the US could eliminate the disasters, a physicist says.

The barriers - 300m (980ft) high and up to 100 miles long - would act like hill ranges, softening winds before twisters can form.

They would cost $16bn (£9.6bn) to build but save billions of dollars of damage each year, said Prof Rongjia Tao, of Temple University, Philadelphia.

Spoiler:

Another leading tornado expert, Prof Joshua Wurman of the Center for Severe Weather Research, was equally dismissive of Prof Tao's proposal.

"Everybody I know is of 100% agreement - this is a poorly conceived idea," he told BBC News.

"From what I can gather his concept of how tornadoes form is fundamentally flawed. Meteorologists cringe when they hear about 'clashing hot and cold air'. It's a lot more complicated than that."

"Perhaps if he built his barrier on the scale of the Alps - 2,000-3,000m (9,800ft) high, it would disrupt it," he says.

"But clearly that would also cause a drastic change in climate."

[roland]

random science thought of the week...so it's a safe assumption that there's plenty of intelligent life scattered all across the universe. it's also a safe assumption that we're not going to be subject to some invasion by this alien species at any point.

BUT...it seems scientifically probable that somewhere in the universe, there is a solar system containing 2 planets (or 1 planet and 1 moon, or 2 moons) that are both in the galactic sweet spot that can support water, plant life and other weird creatures like us. so ultimately, it makes me happy in a twisted way, that somewhere out there, alien warfare is totally going down.

coming back to this... the more I think about it, the more I think that we're asking the wrong question about life in the universe. Everyone asks "where?" Assuming that somewhere out there, there is life right now, and that very well may be the case, but the timeline of the universe vs. earth vs. life on earth vs. humanity vs. a human's lifetime. It's almost like time on a logarithmic scale. The amount of time that humans have been on Earth is barely a wink when compared to the life time of the universe. So when I think about life in the universe, and I prefer to think that there have been hundreds and hundreds of "intelligent" life opportunities, but it's happened over such a huge timeline that it was either a really really long time ago, or won't happen until far into the future, long after we (humans) are all gone.

So what you're saying is, "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"

[count2infinity]

lol, essentially, yes.

[tifosi77]

So did anyone watch Neil DeGrasse Tyson's reboot of "Cosmos"? I thought it was pretty good, if lacking a little bit of the gravitas of the original with Carl Sagan. (Which was re-run in its entirety this weekend) And it got a bit preachy, too, at one point. But overall I'm excited for the next installment.

Towards the end of the first episode, NDT was talking about how awesome Sagan was. Yes, he was involved with every space mission in the first 40 years of our extra-planetary endeavors.... but he was a great man, as well. He pulled out Sagan's actually day planner from 1975, and flipped to a particular date, and it showed the day blocked out with "Neil Tyson". He then told the story about how he spent an entire day with the then-17 year old NDT, showing him around the Cornell lab and talking sciencey things. I thought that was remarkably cool.

[count2infinity]

Too preachy indeed...

[shafnutz05]

Seth McFarlane is an executive producer? wtf?

I read comments from Sagan's widow that this reboot would be much more political than the original edition, and I know Sagan had a tendency to preach on, so not sure if I am even going to give this a watch.

[columbia]

I'm going to record the repeat next weekend.

What was he too preachy about?

[PensFanInDC]

I'm going to record the repeat next weekend.

What was he too preachy about?

Science

[columbia]

That's kind of his job.

What was/is the specific complaint?

[PensFanInDC]

His job is to be preachy about science?

I didnt watch the show and have no idea if he did sound preachy or not. I can't give an informed opinion on the subject. My "science" comment was meant in humor.

[count2infinity]

spent a good bit talking about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

portrayed most of the church as evil, grimy, idiotic, terrible people. Now whether that's accurate or not doesn't really matter, it's still strange propaganda. It's a matter of recognizing that the church at the time was the authority on all things. Those that spoke out at the time were lunatics. We have the advantage of hindsight, and I think to portray all those that disagreed with Bruno (not just the church authority, but everyone) to be evil or idiotic is just disingenuous, especially considering the fact that Bruno really had no proof to back up his claims, he was just going off a vision he had.


Also spent the last 5-10 minutes of the program going on and on about Carl Sagan which was odd.

[tifosi77]

There are animated segments to dramatize certain parts of history. One story they went into was about an Italian mystic called Giordano Bruno, who publicly espoused a heliocentric view of the universe before even Kepler adopted the theory, and is believed to be the first person to posit that our solar system is but one of many, and that there may be other 'worlds' out there.

This all happened before Galileo and telescopes, and Bruno was no scientist. It was nothing more than a wild guess on his part, that, as the show states, could have easily been incorrect. But he defended his 'vision' to his death (burned at the stake by the Inquisition) after about 10 years of imprisonment. And, in the language of the show, gave others a target for further scientific exploration - if only to disprove his claims.

Anyway, that segment got pretty intensely...... well, anti-religion. At least I thought it was pretty tough stuff for a show being primarily broadcast on Fox. I mean, I certainly didn't mind the manner in which the story was being told, it just struck me as a bit of a heavy hand.