This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Science Thread

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.

 
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.”

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

 
Impressive science but appalling ethics.
Mick
 
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
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
 
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?
 
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?
 

Could this ring be the Great Attractor ?

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...