Home / Science
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Is our universe inside a black hole?

Is our universe inside a black hole?

This is some pretty mind blowing information:

Our universe may exist inside a black hole. This may sound strange, but it could actually be the best explanation of how the universe began, and what we observe today. It's a theory that has been explored over the past few decades by a small group of physicists including myself.
Successful as it is, there are notable unsolved questions with the standard big bang theory, which suggests that the universe began as a seemingly impossible "singularity," an infinitely small point containing an infinitely high concentration of matter, expanding in size to what we observe today. The theory of inflation, a super-fast expansion of space proposed in recent decades, fills in many important details, such as why slight lumps in the concentration of matter in the early universe coalesced into large celestial bodies such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
But these theories leave major questions unresolved. . . .
Only in Sweden?

Only in Sweden?

Only in Sweden would someone worry that they might be breaking the law, contact the authorities to tell them what they are doing, and then get arrested for reporting themselves. This story seems especially strange given that there weren't dangerous levels of radiation involved. From the Associated Press:

. . . The 31-year-old Handl said he had tried for months to set up a nuclear reactor at home and kept a blog about his experiments, describing how he created a small meltdown on his stove.

Only later did he realize it might not be legal and sent a question to Sweden's Radiation Authority, which answered by sending the police.

"I have always been interested in physics and chemistry," Handl said, adding he just wanted to "see if it's possible to split atoms at home."

The police raid took place in late July, but police have refused to comment. If convicted, Handl could face fines or up to two years in prison.

Although he says police didn't detect dangerous levels of radiation in his apartment, he now acknowledges the project wasn't such a good idea. . . .
Do some parts of the moon have the same amount of water as the earth?

Do some parts of the moon have the same amount of water as the earth?

This is pretty neat news.

There is water inside the moon -- so much, in fact, that in some places it rivals the amount of water found within Earth. . . .

Those measurements show that some parts of the lunar mantle have as much water as Earth's upper mantle. . . .

The study also puts a new twist on the origin of water ice detected in craters at the lunar poles by several recent NASA missions. The ice has been attributed to comet and meteor impacts, but it is possible some of this ice could have come from the water released by eruption of lunar magmas. . . .
Jimmy Carter's Psychics

Jimmy Carter's Psychics

Remember the grief that Nancy Reagan got for using a psychic? Where is the outrage here:

Even with all of the press coverage of Jimmy Carter's latest book, "White House Diary," a strange and interesting nugget of history went ignored: Carter, as president, was enthralled by and impressed with the Central Intelligence Agency's use of parapsychology in intelligence gathering (the field and practice of parapsychology explores various psychic abilities).

Consider this entry in Carter's diary, from April 11, 1979:

"CIA briefing on unhappiness of King Hussein of Jordan [about agreements between Israel and Egypt], Idi Amin's government about to fall, and that a plane had crashed in Zambia. An American parapsychologist had been able to pinpoint the site of the crash. We've had several reports of this parapsychology working; one discovered the map coordinates of a site and accurately described a camouflaged missile test site. Both we and the Soviets use these parapsychologists on occasion to help us with sensitive intelligence matters, and the results are unbelievable."

(Carter alluded to another discussion about parapsychology in the White House situation room on May 8, 1980).

Writing in the present day, the former president reflected back on that entry in the book.

"The proven results of these exchanges between our intelligence services and parapsychologists raise some of the most intriguing and unanswerable questions of my presidency,” Carter notes in “Diary.” “They defy logic, but the facts are undeniable."

Mind-reading as intelligence-gathering? Sure, it was the 70s. Yet parapsychology's new-age reputation doesn't quite square with the historical and enduring stereotype of the CIA as filled with tight-lipped men-in-black. And when reached for comment by POLITICO, the CIA made it abundantly clear that they don't do that anymore. . . .
White House blocked science panel report on "Worst-case Oil Spill Estimate"

White House blocked science panel report on "Worst-case Oil Spill Estimate"

Not that I ever believed that this administration was science based, but it is interesting to see the difference in media reaction to claims that the Bush and Obama administrations put the kibosh on some sort of science report. The Obama actions did get some coverage, but not on the national evening news reports.

The White House blocked efforts by federal scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could have been, according to a panel appointed by President Obama to investigate the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission's staff reveals that in late April or early May the White House budget office denied a request from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make public the worst-case discharge from the blown-out well. The Unified Command — the government team in charge of the spill response — also was discussing the possibility of making the numbers public, the report says, citing interviews with government officials.

The White House didn't not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

But Jerry Miller, head of the White House science office's ocean subcommittee, told The Associated Press in an interview at a St. Petersburg, Fla., conference on the oil's flow that he didn't think the budget office censored NOAA. . . .
The Pill Makes Women More Attracted to Less Rugged Men

The Pill Makes Women More Attracted to Less Rugged Men

From the New York Daily News:

It gave women control over their own sex life, their fertility, their everything, it seems.

But now the Pill, the modern miracle of the 1960s, is being blamed in part on women's changing taste in men.

London's dailymail.co.uk reports that scientists have discovered in a new study how the hormones in the oral contraceptive suppress a woman's interest in masculine men and make boyish men more attractive.

The change may only occur for a handful of days each month but, given that the pill has been around for 40 years, it has more than likely been highly influential.

Consider the shift in tastes from rugged, manly stars of the 1950s and 1960s such as a young Sean Connery, Marlon Brando and Steve McQueen to the heartthrobs of recent years. The 1990s brought you good-looking men with great, well proportioned facial features such stars such as Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt.

Now, pretty boys such as Zac Efron and Chace Crawford are the sex symbols du jour. . . .

It is not new that scientists have known that a woman's taste in men changes over her menstrual cycle.

During the few days each month when women are fertile - the time of ovulation - they tend to prefer masculine features and men who are more assertive.

But research has shown that on days when women are not fertile, their tastes swing towards more feminine, boyish faces and more caring personalities.

If women are taking the Pill, however, they no longer have fertile days, which means they do not experience the hormonal changes that make them more attracted to masculine men. . . .
Sociobiology for why women want Sex

Sociobiology for why women want Sex

The discussion is here.

Meston and Buss have interviewed 1,006 women from all over the world about their sexual motivation, and in doing so they have identified 237 different reasons why women have sex. Not 235. Not 236. But 237. And what are they? From the reams of confessions, it emerges that women have sex for physical, emotional and material reasons; to boost their self-esteem, to keep their lovers, or because they are raped or coerced. Love? That's just a song. We are among the bad apes now. . . . .

"People just assumed the answer was obvious," Meston says. "To feel good. Nobody has really talked about how women can use sex for all sorts of resources." She rattles off a list and as she says it, I realise I knew it all along: "promotion, money, drugs, bartering, for revenge, to get back at a partner who has cheated on them. To make themselves feel good. To make their partners feel bad." Women, she says, "can use sex at every stage of the relationship, from luring a man into the relationship, to try and keep a man so he is fulfilled and doesn't stray. Duty. Using sex to get rid of him or to make him jealous." . . .
Obama ignores science & Back from the Brink?

Obama ignores science & Back from the Brink?

Obama ignoring science:

President Obama's push to force Americans into smaller cars ignores one big problem -- small cars are less safe than big cars. Ignoring this fact will cost lives.

Mr. Obama announced new miles-per-gallon regulations on May 19 that mandate that automobiles achieve 42 mpg by 2016. During last year's presidential campaign, Mr. Obama's Web site boasted that his positions on fuel economy were "science-based." Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, said on Jan. 15 that efforts "to reduce global warming and our dependence on foreign oil ... must be based on the science ...." Apparently, this faith in science does not apply to the science of auto safety.

The scientific evidence on car size and safety is overwhelming. The National Academy of Sciences, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the Congressional Budget Office, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and numerous academic studies are all in agreement on this point: Higher miles-per-gallon requirements lead to more deaths from car accidents . . .

On May 12, the White House withdrew the nomination of Chuck Hurley to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Mr. Hurley had a long record of backing hyperregulation as chief executive officer of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and as a board member of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running. Environmental groups reportedly opposed his nomination because he had said that increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards made cars less safe. Contradicting environmentalist orthodoxy carries a price.

A May 13 headline in the National Journal explained the politics of Mr. Hurley's political demise: "Enviros Forced NHTSA Nominee to Withdraw." This saga shows that even proponents of the nanny state take a back seat to greens in the Obama administration..


From the Washington Times:

President Obama declared Wednesday that "we have stepped back from the brink." Who knows what numbers brought him to that conclusion.

Fundamental economic statistics are worse than they were months ago. Any growth economists were predicting in December and January to start in midyear is expected to be weaker.

Consumer confidence and the stock market have been rising, but that is because the president and the press are no longer misleadingly bashing the economy and now are misleadingly cheering things on. Lawrence H. Summers, the president's chief economic adviser, was right when he said on March 13 that an "excess of fear" had driven down the economy and the stock market, but it was Mr. Obama who led the pack getting people to panic. For months, he hammered away that the economy was in an "unprecedented crisis." . . . .
The Key to human evolution: Men older than 50 having children?

The Key to human evolution: Men older than 50 having children?

The Times of London has this take on why mankind will slow its evolution:

Human evolution is grinding to a halt because of a shortage of older fathers in the West, according to a leading genetics expert.

Fathers over the age of 35 are more likely to pass on mutations, according to Professor Steve Jones, of University College London.

Speaking today at a UCL lecture entitled “Human evolution is over” Professor Jones will argue that there were three components to evolution – natural selection, mutation and random change. “Quite unexpectedly, we have dropped the human mutation rate because of a change in reproductive patterns,” Professor Jones told The Times.

“Human social change often changes our genetic future,” he said, citing marriage patterns and contraception as examples. Although chemicals and radioactive pollution could alter genetics, one of the most important mutation triggers is advanced age in men.

This is because cell divisions in males increase with age. “Every time there is a cell division, there is a chance of a mistake, a mutation, an error,” he said. “For a 29-year old father [the mean age of reproduction in the West] there are around 300 divisions between the sperm that made him and the one he passes on – each one with an opportunity to make mistakes.

“For a 50-year-old father, the figure is well over a thousand. A drop in the number of older fathers will thus have a major effect on the rate of mutation.” . . .
Evolution in action, Tasmanian Devils

Evolution in action, Tasmanian Devils

Tasmanian devils start breeding earlier after being hit by new disease.

A disease that threatens to wipe out the wild population of Tasmanian devils has triggered an abrupt change in their breeding habits, a study shows.

Devil facial tumour disease (DFTD) has led to the animals mating at an unusually young age and females having just one litter, say scientists.

The observed changes in the creatures' life cycle could affect the chances of saving the iconic species, they added.

The findings appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A team of Australian scientists said they believed it to be the first known case of an infectious disease leading to increased early reproduction in a species of mammal.

The researchers, lead by Dr Menna Jones from the University of Tasmania, analysed data from five sites where devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) populations had been studied before and after the arrival of the disease.

"Devils have shown their capacity to respond to this disease-induced increased adult mortality with a 16-fold increase in the proportion of individuals exhibiting precocious sexual maturity," they reported. . . . .
Wacky Movies: "The Happening"

Wacky Movies: "The Happening"

The movie "The Happening" is about plants releasing a toxin that causes people to commit suicide. The reason for this is that the plants are turning against us because of all the pollution that we have emitted -- apparently read "global warming."

In these days of melting ice caps and wild weather, Shyamalan poses an interesting question: What happens if the environment, spurred by centuries of pollution and disregard, turns against us?


Plants turn against us? Ugh? OK, it just can't be because of evolution that plants happen to emit a particular toxin. They are doing it to strike back at the evil humans. Well, I had better talk to the plants in the house here before it is too late for me.

Here is a listing of five reasons the movie is filled with junk science:

1. Plants Can Talk to Each Other -- "the foliage gets furious at the mere presence of humans"
2. Plants Can Sniper Enemies -- "the film seemed to imply that the plants were purposefully, knowingly going directly after humans"
3. Plants Can Wage War With Genetics
4. Plants Can Breathe Poison
5. Plants Can Hear Us
The Cosmic Ray Destroyed My Computer File

The Cosmic Ray Destroyed My Computer File

At least people have another excuse to use if their computer crashes and they lose their files.

How can distant supernovae, black holes and other cosmic events cause a desktop computer to crash?

The answer is that they produce cosmic rays, which produce high energy particles in the atmosphere that can occasionally hit RAM chips. The moving particles trail electrons, which can infiltrate chips' circuits and cause errors.

That's why computer chip giant Intel was in December awarded a US patent for the idea of building cosmic ray detectors into every chip (full patent). . . .


I guess we will soon be able to note that our computers have another neat feature: cosmic ray detector.
Sorry, never mind, the case of children's vaccines

Sorry, never mind, the case of children's vaccines

The hysteria about mercury in childhood vaccines went on despite "reams of scientific studies," but the pressure of lawsuits forced pharmaceutical companies to change how they make vaccines. Now a new TV drama is continuing the crusade, but I found this interesting:

For the last decade some parents and advocates for autistic children have championed the theory that a mercury-based vaccine preservative called thimerosal, developed in the late 1920s and used in many childhood vaccines until about seven years ago, is a primary cause of autism in young children.

Autism often is diagnosed in children between their first and fourth years, during the time that many children begin receiving regular rounds of vaccinations.

But reams of scientific studies by the leading American health authorities have failed to establish a causal link between the preservative and autism. Since the preservative was largely removed from childhood vaccines in 2001, autism rates have not declined. . . .


And people wonder why the pharmaceutical is under siege.
So how will they catch cheating on tests now?

So how will they catch cheating on tests now?

Has it just become nearly impossible to catch cheaters on tests? Will students have to have their eyes examined before taking the SATs? Foxnews has the following:

Scientists have taken the first step toward creating digital contact lenses that can zoom in on distant objects and display useful facts. For the first time, engineers have installed an electronic circuit and lights on a regular contact lens.
"Cell Phones May Be To Blame For Disappearing Bees"

"Cell Phones May Be To Blame For Disappearing Bees"

The Lancet estimate of 650,000 Iraqis Dying a Fraudulent Claim?

The Lancet estimate of 650,000 Iraqis Dying a Fraudulent Claim?

The "Bogus" Science of Secondhand Smoke

The "Bogus" Science of Secondhand Smoke

This person must be really hated among medical people, but my guess that he is sufficiently only that he is willing to go against the political correctness on the smoking issue. Look at his background: "former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes."

In any case, from an economist's point of view, the entire debate over secondhand smoke is largely besides the point when it comes to these regulations. The question an economist would ask is whether whatever harm from the secondhand smoke in born by the smoker, and the answer is that there is not a problem as long as someone owns the air. In a restaurant or other building someone clearly owns the air and bears the cost of allowing the air to have more smoke in it than their customers desire. Some people may like to smoke with their meals and they will pay to do it and others might want perfectly clean air. Even if you only had one restaurant in town, the restaurant owner has a strong incentive to give the customers who value the type of air the most what they want.

Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.

Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that children exposed to secondhand smoke will "eventually . . . develop cardiovascular disease and cancers over time."

Such claims are certainly alarming. But do the studies Carmona references support his claims, and are their findings as sound as he suggests?
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)