The Science Thread

[mullokintyre]

There is no doubt that some science suggests that Oz in particular is going to warm up.
In this visualisation of the continents relative position over the next 250 million years by about 90 million years from now, Australia will have squeezed PNG and Indonesia up to the North and become connected with SE Asia.

 

[basilio]

Maybe the Universe isn't quite how it appears. Science learns next things every day. Very intriguing picture.

Newly discovered cosmic megastructure challenges theories of the universe​

A 1.3bn light year-sized ring discovered by PhD student in Lancashire appears to defy the cosmological principle assumption


Hannah Devlin Science correspondent
@hannahdev
Fri 12 Jan 2024 07.15 AEDTLast modified on Fri 12 Jan 2024 09.26 AEDT

Astronomers have discovered a ring-shaped cosmic megastructure, the proportions of which challenge existing theories of the universe.
The so-called Big Ring has a diameter of about 1.3bn light years, making it among the largest structures ever observed. At more than 9bn light years from Earth, it is too faint to see directly, but its diameter on the night sky would be equivalent to 15 full moons.

The observations, presented on Thursday at the 243rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society in New Orleans, are significant because the size of the Big Ring appears to defy a fundamental assumption in cosmology called the cosmological principle. This states that above a certain spatial scale, the universe is homogeneous and looks identical in every direction.
“From current cosmological theories we didn’t think structures on this scale were possible,” said Alexia Lopez, a PhD student at the University of Central Lancashire, who led the analysis. “We could expect maybe one exceedingly large structure in all our observable universe.”

Newly discovered cosmic megastructure challenges theories of the universe

A 1.3bn light year-sized ring discovered by PhD student in Lancashire appears to defy the cosmological principle assumption

www.theguardian.com

 

[mullokintyre]

Maybe the Universe isn't quite how it appears. Science learns next things every day. Very intriguing picture.

Newly discovered cosmic megastructure challenges theories of the universe​

A 1.3bn light year-sized ring discovered by PhD student in Lancashire appears to defy the cosmological principle assumption

The editor should be sacked.
Upon first reading the above sentence, it was difficult to determine whrthrt yhe ring was in Lancashire or the students were in Lancashire.
A more correct editor mifgt have said 'PhD students in Lancashire have discovered a 1.3bn light year-sized ring .....
No ambiguity there.

Hannah Devlin Science correspondent
@hannahdev
Fri 12 Jan 2024 07.15 AEDTLast modified on Fri 12 Jan 2024 09.26 AEDT

Astronomers have discovered a ring-shaped cosmic megastructure, the proportions of which challenge existing theories of the universe.
The so-called Big Ring has a diameter of about 1.3bn light years, making it among the largest structures ever observed. At more than 9bn light years from Earth, it is too faint to see directly, but its diameter on the night sky would be equivalent to 15 full moons.

The observations, presented on Thursday at the 243rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society in New Orleans, are significant because the size of the Big Ring appears to defy a fundamental assumption in cosmology called the cosmological principle. This states that above a certain spatial scale, the universe is homogeneous and looks identical in every direction.
“From current cosmological theories we didn’t think structures on this scale were possible,” said Alexia Lopez, a PhD student at the University of Central Lancashire, who led the analysis. “We could expect maybe one exceedingly large structure in all our observable universe.”

Newly discovered cosmic megastructure challenges theories of the universe

A 1.3bn light year-sized ring discovered by PhD student in Lancashire appears to defy the cosmological principle assumption

www.theguardian.com

Surely they are not saying the the science isn't settled after all!.
Mick

 

[basilio]

"A 1.3bn light year-sized ring discovered by PhD student in Lancashire appears to defy the cosmological principle assumption "

Mick the sentence expects the reader to have a basic understanding that 1.3b light year sized ring is not going to be in the local Costco car park. If they don't understand that frankly they won't even bother to read the rest of the story.

 

[mullokintyre]

Mick

 

[basilio]

Wouldn't it be great to grow human kidneys or other organs for transplants ? W

Wonder no longer. We are there. (Where is the Ethics committee when you need it ?)

Pigs With Human Brain Cells and Biological Chips: How Lab-Grown Hybrid Life Forms Are Bamboozling Scientific Ethics​

By Julian Koplin
January 5, 2024

In September, scientists at the Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health announced they had successfully grown “humanized” kidneys inside pig embryos.

The scientists genetically altered the embryos to remove their ability to grow a kidney, then injected them with human stem cells. The embryos were then implanted into a sow and allowed to develop for up to 28 days.

The resulting embryos were made up mostly of pig cells (although some human cells were found throughout their bodies, including in the brain). However, the embryonic kidneys were largely human.

This breakthrough suggests it may soon be possible to generate human organs inside part-human “chimeric” animals. Such animals could be used for medical research or to grow organs for transplant, which could save many human lives.

But the research is ethically fraught. We might want to do things to these creatures we would never do to a human, like kill them for body parts. The problem is, these chimeric pigs aren’t just pigs—they are also partly human.

If a human–pig chimera were brought to term, should we treat it like a pig, like a human, or like something else altogether?
Maybe this question seems too easy. But what about the idea of creating monkeys with humanized brains?

Pigs With Human Brain Cells and Biological Chips: How Lab-Grown Hybrid Life Forms Are Bamboozling Scientific Ethics

If a human–pig chimera were brought to term, should we treat it like a pig, like a human, or like something else altogether?

singularityhub.com

 

[mullokintyre]

Wouldn't it be great to grow human kidneys or other organs for transplants ? W

Wonder no longer. We are there. (Where is the Ethics committee when you need it ?)

Pigs With Human Brain Cells and Biological Chips: How Lab-Grown Hybrid Life Forms Are Bamboozling Scientific Ethics​

View attachment 168845
By Julian Koplin
January 5, 2024

View attachment 168846
In September, scientists at the Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health announced they had successfully grown “humanized” kidneys inside pig embryos.

The scientists genetically altered the embryos to remove their ability to grow a kidney, then injected them with human stem cells. The embryos were then implanted into a sow and allowed to develop for up to 28 days.

The resulting embryos were made up mostly of pig cells (although some human cells were found throughout their bodies, including in the brain). However, the embryonic kidneys were largely human.

This breakthrough suggests it may soon be possible to generate human organs inside part-human “chimeric” animals. Such animals could be used for medical research or to grow organs for transplant, which could save many human lives.

But the research is ethically fraught. We might want to do things to these creatures we would never do to a human, like kill them for body parts. The problem is, these chimeric pigs aren’t just pigs—they are also partly human.

If a human–pig chimera were brought to term, should we treat it like a pig, like a human, or like something else altogether?
Maybe this question seems too easy. But what about the idea of creating monkeys with humanized brains?

Pigs With Human Brain Cells and Biological Chips: How Lab-Grown Hybrid Life Forms Are Bamboozling Scientific Ethics

If a human–pig chimera were brought to term, should we treat it like a pig, like a human, or like something else altogether?

singularityhub.com

Impressive science but appalling ethics.
Mick

 

[basilio]

This story is almost 5 years old. The research underpinned the above project

Wait, What? The First Human-Monkey Hybrid Embryo Was Just Created in China

The ethics of growing human-animal hybrids are unclear. But creepiness aside, scientists do have two reasons for wading into these uncomfortable waters.

singularityhub.com

 

[SirRumpole]

A revival of supersonic passenger flight edges closer.

Faster than sound air travel is banned, but NASA's new quiet supersonic plane is hoping to change that

The debut of NASA's X-59 quiet supersonic aircraft is hoped to revolutionise commercial air travel in the US, paving the way for flights that can travel faster than the speed of sound.

www.abc.net.au

 

[mullokintyre]

Something that has been creeping up in science is the number of science papers that have had to be detracted.
From IFL Science

The worst part about the result is the big increase in plain fraudulent papers.

Retractions are not a new phenomena, as can be seen from past articles.
This article from Science in 2018

Nearly a decade ago, headlines highlighted a disturbing trend in science: The number of articles retracted by journals had increased 10-fold during the previous 10 years. Fraud accounted for some 60% of those retractions; one offender, anesthesiologist Joachim Boldt, had racked up almost 90 retractions after investigators concluded he had fabricated data and committed other ethical violations. Boldt may have even harmed patients by encouraging the adoption of an unproven surgical treatment. Science, it seemed, faced a mushrooming crisis.

and the one below from Chemistry World

Retraction watch is a site that tries to highlight these papers.
One of the most scary things is that there are numerous papers that have been retracted, but are still cited in other papers.
The big question is, how many of the papers doing the citing would be retracted themselves based on their dependence on the original citation?
As can be sen from the link below, there are huge numbers of papers that cite a previous paper even AFTER the retraction!
We are often told , trust the science, but as with everything else, a bit of skepticism is a prerequisite.
From Retraction Watch

 

[wayneL]

Something that has been creeping up in science is the number of science papers that have had to be detracted.
From IFL Science
View attachment 169871

The worst part about the result is the big increase in plain fraudulent papers.
View attachment 169874
Retractions are not a new phenomena, as can be seen from past articles.
This article from Science in 2018

and the one below from Chemistry World
View attachment 169875

Retraction watch is a site that tries to highlight these papers.
One of the most scary things is that there are numerous papers that have been retracted, but are still cited in other papers.
The big question is, how many of the papers doing the citing would be retracted themselves based on their dependence on the original citation?
As can be sen from the link below, there are huge numbers of papers that cite a previous paper even AFTER the retraction!
We are often told , trust the science, but as with everything else, a bit of skepticism is a prerequisite.
From Retraction Watch
View attachment 169878

I've been harping on about this sort of thing for nearly 30 years, especially in my field of interest.

Admittedly science in my field is notoriously difficult to conduct, but honestly, 90% of it is total garbage with great glaring mistakes in experiment design, or just downright fraudulent to push one or another agenda/ideology. Vis a vis some mistakes are actually intentional to perpetuate an agenda.

Trust the science? Pffft, only if you manage to find the good science.

 

[SirRumpole]

I've been harping on about this sort of thing for nearly 30 years, especially in my field of interest.

Admittedly science in my field is notoriously difficult to conduct, but honestly, 90% of it is total garbage with great glaring mistakes in experiment design, or just downright fraudulent to push one or another agenda/ideology. Vis a vis some mistakes are actually intentional to perpetuate an agenda.

Trust the science? Pffft, only if you manage to find the good science.

I suppose the fact that the fakes are being exposed and retracted is a good sign yes?

 

[wayneL]

I suppose the fact that the fakes are being exposed and retracted is a good sign yes?

Indeed.

The problem is, people (even veterinarians) in my industry at least, take the initial publication and run with it, perpetuating the nonsense to the detriment of the animals.

 

[SirRumpole]

Amelia Earhart's plane may have been found.

Deep sea explorers believe they've captured a sonar image that could unravel one of aviation's greatest mysteries

After countless searches for Amelia Earhart's plane, Deep Sea Vision's sonar images may be the latest clue for solving the decades-old mystery.

www.abc.net.au

 

[mullokintyre]

An interesting bit of news that nmay be relevant in the Nuclear/uranium thread.
From Mutant Wolves resist Cancer

After nearly 40 years, mutated wolves roaming the deserted streets of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) appear to have developed cancer resistance, according to Princeton evolutionary biologist and ecotoxologist, Cara Love - who has been studying how the Chernobyl wolves have survived for generations while facing exposure to radioactive particles, Sky News reports.
And with no humans around, wildlife such as wolves and horses has flourished.
In 2014, Love and a team of researchers visited the CEZ, and attached radio collars to the wolves in order to track them. She said they were able to obtain "real-time measurements of where [the wolves] are and how much [radiation] they are exposed to."
What's more, after taking blood samples, the team discovered that the wolves were exposed to upwards of 11.28 millirem of radiation daily for their entire lives - more than 6x the legal safety limit for a human. Love found that the wolves' immune systems displayed similar properties to cancer patients undergoing radiation treatment - including specific parts of the animals' genetic information that appears resilient to increased cancer risk.

A lot of research in humans has found mutations that increase cancer risk - with the presence of the variant BRCA gene making it more likely a woman might develop breast or ovarian cancer, for example.
But Ms Love's work has sought to identify protective mutations that increase the odds of surviving cancer. -Sky

Love presented her findings at the annual meeting of the Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology in Seattle, Washington, last month.

After the atom bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2, various studies were commenced on the effects of radiation , both short and long term, were established (ref National Library Medicine ).
Some of the long term affects are discussed in This Columbia University study .

Though exposure to radiation can cause acute, near-immediate effect by killing cells and directly damaging tissue, radiation can also have effects that happen on longer scale, such as cancer, by causing mutations in the DNA of living cells. Mutations can occur spontaneously, but a mutagen like radiation increases the likelihood of a mutation taking place. In theory, ionizing radiation can deposit molecular-bond-breaking energy, which can damage DNA, thus altering genes. In response, a cell will either repair the gene, die, or retain the mutation. In order for a mutation to cause cancer, it is believed that a series of mutations must accumulate in a given cell and its progeny. For this reason, it may be many years after exposure before an increase in the incident rate of cancer due to radiation becomes evident.
Among the long-term effects suffered by atomic bomb survivors, the most deadly was leukemia. An increase in leukemia appeared about two years after the attacks and peaked around four to six years later. Children represent the population that was affected most severely. Attributable risk—the percent difference in the incidence rate of a condition between an exposed population and a comparable unexposed one — reveals how great of an effect radiation had on leukemia incidence. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation estimates the attributable risk of leukemia to be 46% for bomb victims.

For all other cancers, incidence increase did not appear until around ten years after the attacks. The increase was first noted in 1956 and soon after tumor registries were started in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to collect data on the excess cancer risks caused by the radiation exposure. The most thorough study regarding the incidence of solid cancer (meaning cancer that is not leukemia) was conducted by a team led by Dale L. Preston of Hirosoft International Corporation and published in 2003. The study estimated the attributable rate of radiation exposure to solid cancer to be significantly lower than that for leukemia—10.7%. According to the RERF, the data corroborates the general rule that even if someone is exposed to a barely survivable whole-body radiation dose, the solid cancer risk will not be more than five times greater than the risk of an unexposed individual.
Regarding individuals who had been exposed to radiation before birth (in utero), studies, such as one led by E. Nakashima in 1994, have shown that exposure led to increases in small head size and mental disability, as well as impairment in physical growth. Persons exposed in utero were also found to have a lower increase in cancer rate than survivors who were children at the time of the attack.

That last sentence is interesting. It raises the interesting ethical question. Could babies be given a greater chance of not getting cancer by exposed to some level of radiation prior to birth?
Mick

 

[wayneL]

An interesting bit of news that nmay be relevant in the Nuclear/uranium thread.
From Mutant Wolves resist Cancer

After the atom bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2, various studies were commenced on the effects of radiation , both short and long term, were established (ref National Library Medicine ).
Some of the long term affects are discussed in This Columbia University study .


That last sentence is interesting. It raises the interesting ethical question. Could babies be given a greater chance of not getting cancer by exposed to some level of radiation prior to birth?
Mick

Interesting. But yikes who would want to be among the first to take that risk?

 

[SirRumpole]

Maybe the Universe isn't quite how it appears. Science learns next things every day. Very intriguing picture.

Newly discovered cosmic megastructure challenges theories of the universe​

A 1.3bn light year-sized ring discovered by PhD student in Lancashire appears to defy the cosmological principle assumption


Hannah Devlin Science correspondent
@hannahdev
Fri 12 Jan 2024 07.15 AEDTLast modified on Fri 12 Jan 2024 09.26 AEDT

Astronomers have discovered a ring-shaped cosmic megastructure, the proportions of which challenge existing theories of the universe.
The so-called Big Ring has a diameter of about 1.3bn light years, making it among the largest structures ever observed. At more than 9bn light years from Earth, it is too faint to see directly, but its diameter on the night sky would be equivalent to 15 full moons.

The observations, presented on Thursday at the 243rd meeting of the American Astronomical Society in New Orleans, are significant because the size of the Big Ring appears to defy a fundamental assumption in cosmology called the cosmological principle. This states that above a certain spatial scale, the universe is homogeneous and looks identical in every direction.
“From current cosmological theories we didn’t think structures on this scale were possible,” said Alexia Lopez, a PhD student at the University of Central Lancashire, who led the analysis. “We could expect maybe one exceedingly large structure in all our observable universe.”

Newly discovered cosmic megastructure challenges theories of the universe

A 1.3bn light year-sized ring discovered by PhD student in Lancashire appears to defy the cosmological principle assumption

www.theguardian.com

Could this ring be the Great Attractor ?

Great Attractor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SirRumpole]

Some simple science toys to keep the kids amused.

 

[mullokintyre]

Could this ring be the Great Attractor ?

Great Attractor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Damn, my cover is blown!
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

Australian made rocket set to launch to orbit in April.

First glimpse of historic rocket set to launch Australia into the space age

A Queensland-built rocket will strive to reach orbit from the northern town of Bowen in what company bosses say is the first locally made craft to lift-off from Australian soil.

www.abc.net.au