T. McGrath

On 8/11/2018 at 2:25 PM, MathGeek said:

Need to separate the science from the speculation.  The science is that more human activity tends to make mammals more nocturnal.

The speculation is that there is something bad about that.

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

Then  what's your problem with the article? They observe more nocturnal behavior and speculate about possible bad effects.

"The consequences of this shift are still unclear, but scientists suspect it could threaten the survival of several animal populations."

Do you even bother to read what you write?  You are both talking about speculation and suspicion and yet have the audacity to claim it has something to do with science.  Do either of you even know what science is about?  Science is not about speculation or suspicion.

35 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

There are two papers - one on bats, including wild bats in an uncontrolled but closely observed environment. The other is on tracking wild tiger movements in habitats fragmented by humans. These are looking at end behaviours which are measurable and provide evidence.  How could you provide evidence for any behaviour which is not measurable? It would not be considered evidence by you! Evidence is only provided on the end results of behaviours surely!

I've read the second paper you posted on the management of the wild tigers.  It was a good paper.  Specifically because they did not attempt to associate any behavior to the tigers.  They simply mapped the movements of the tigers, their surrounding terrain and vegetation, and based their recommendations on those findings only.  The paper does not attempt to attribute any human behaviors to the tigers.

26 minutes ago, jimmydasaint said:

There are two papers - one on bats, including wild bats in an uncontrolled but closely observed environment. The other is on tracking wild tiger movements in habitats fragmented by humans. These are looking at end behaviours which are measurable and provide evidence.  How could you provide evidence for any behaviour which is not measurable? It would not be considered evidence by you! Evidence is only provided on the end results of behaviours surely!

You have two separate links in your prior post, but they are to the same URL.  The URL regarding the study of wild tiger movements did not make it into that post.  If you post it, I will take a look at it.

When attempting to understand what motivates an animal I try to understand the animal first.  "End behavior" is a misnomer since you are not referring to humans, it should be "end actions" instead.  Simply looking at the end action, or "end behavior," tells you nothing about the motivation of the animal.  If a bear mauls a hiker, for example, your "end behavior" would be that the bear was aggressive.  When the reality may have been that the bear was surprised or acting in what the bear may have perceived as self-defense.  We simply have no idea, and nobody should be claiming that they do.  Which is where that special couching of the language comes in handy.

EDIT:  Check that, I found your post with the tiger study.  I just didn't scroll far enough up.  I'm reading it now.

1 minute ago, jimmydasaint said:

All behaviour is human behaviour? I am now worried! Did you read the two pieces of evidence that were presented by me, including the figures? I would certainly read them prior to such erroneous and hasty posting.  Do you know that circadian rhythms in mammals are controlled in the same way as humans and that melatonin is similarly involved.  Did you know that oxytocin receptors in some mammals determine nurturing behaviour of the young, which may be similar to humans? (I don't know if papers are out about this phenomenon in humans).

I gave you evidence = please take time to read and consider it.  All behaviour is not human behaviour and we certainly get a lot of clues about human behaviour from animal studies (e.g. Pavlov's dogs).

Oh, and Science is about theory/hypothesis followed by observation and analysis. Falsification is a method for reaching objective truths; hence the carefully couched language of most scientific papers.

Yes, all behaviors are human behaviors.  We often apply them to other animals, but the fact remains that we have absolutely no clue what motivates any other species other than our own.  As I said, I read the original paper.  However, I have not read the other paper you posted on the behavior of bats.  No doubt it will be similar to all the other behavioral studies where they create a controlled environment, observe the behavior of the animal, and then draw some conclusions about the behavior of the animal based upon the statistics of their observations.

I do agree that the paper needs to use "carefully couched language."  In the case of the original paper "seems to..." is a perfectly acceptable way of not really drawing any conclusion whatsoever.  "Seems to..." is purely subjective.  So anyone can infer anything they like.

1 minute ago, jimmydasaint said:

I see A meta-analysis is an overall view based on other analyses by other researchers.  This marks a review of trends about "nocturnality".

The original paper can be share here:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1232

Also, because you want evidence, there is evidence of bat behaviour being affected by streetlight illumination, here:

null

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2664.12206

I've read the paper.  If you scroll up, you will see that I provided the URL.

It can be claimed that all the animals north of the Arctic Circle "trend toward nocturnality" after every Summer Solstice.  "Nocturnal" is very much determined by where you are on the planet and the time of year.  All behavior is human behavior, they are just attempting to apply human behavior to non-humans and that is why it will always fail.  It is pure BS.

It should be easy to understand that animal brains do not function the same way as human brains.  Animals with an extremely good sense of smell, for example, are going to be more driven by that sense than humans could ever be.  So to impose any kind of human trait or behavior on anything other than human is silly.  When they attempt to pass it off as science, then it becomes stupid and offensive.  Because this is not what science is about.

5 hours ago, Itoero said:

There is a lot of evidence, that's why they made the article. The effect of humans on ecosystems is well known. There are 'positive' and negative effects.

So where is this evidence?  You only think the effects of humans on the ecosystems are well known.  There is no evidence of that either.  Science is about producing evidence.  If you want indoctrination instead of science there is always the public school system.

2 hours ago, jimmydasaint said:

Wow! What a remarkably obtuse answer!

From a quick glance, this looks like a meta-analysis of 76 published studies (all of which are likely to have been peer-reviewed). The opinion reached by at maximum 76 teams of researchers who use the scientific method are likely to be better than you sitting at your computer and trying to rubbish their work. Don't talk complete garbage.  Also, if you are a troll, you are likely to get caught early with your stubborn and near-sighted nonsense.

 

So where is this supposed data?  At what latitude and time of the year did they make these observations, and for how long?  You know, actual evidence?  Making up some BS about how a chimpmunk refuses to cross a man-made road then drawing the conclusion that it MUST be because of the impact of humanity doesn't cut it as far as evidence is concerned.

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Can you give a us link to that meta-analysis? My post was just based on anecdotal talks with hunters but it agreed with you.. 

I apologise my post as based on many conversations of hunters, take away the hunters and deer become very friendly daytime inhabitants of golf courses and housing developments...

Anecdotes do not qualify as evidence either.  Animal behavior can be observed, but to attempt to draw any conclusions based upon those observations is completely invalid.  There is absolutely no way any observer can determine what another animal is thinking, why they behave a particular way, or what is influencing their behavior.  It is entirely conjuncture and anthropomorphism.

To use your example, if you take away the hunters deer become over-populated and are forced to resort to inhabit golf courses and housing developments in order to find food.  That is equally as invalid of a conclusion as you assuming they are becoming suddenly very friendly.  The reality is that we do not know what is influencing their behavior.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

So you know what they know. Those are some impressive powers you have.

Yea, it is called reading the paper.  You might try it sometime.  Here is the link:  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1232

On 8/7/2018 at 5:19 AM, zapatos said:

Sorry, you don't just get to lob a pile of coyote poop and run off. If you want to disparage a claim that includes evidence, you need to provide some counter evidence.

First you have to have actual evidence.  All they have are supposition and conjecture, and they know it.  Which is why their so-called conclusions begins with "seems to..."  This is nothing more than anthropomorphism, attempting to impose human characteristics and behaviors into animals they observe.  It is total BS.

Total bunk.  A great example of really bad pseudo-science.

The actual paper should be the reference to this thread, not the Guardian.

Radar Evidence of Subglacial Liquid Water on Mars - Science, July 25, 2018, DOI: 10.1126/science.aar7268

Furthermore, "discovered" is not the correct term.  "Interpreted" would be more accurate.  Based upon the radar information in a 20 km wide, 100 km long area they are interpreting the data to mean that liquid water may be present at a depth of ~1.5 km.

There is something a bit odd, however.  All the data collected and every reference made is dated 2015 or earlier.  Why did it take three years to publish the paper? 

What is wrong with these people?  Are they stuck in the 1960s?  Blazars and quasars are what the ignorant call Active Galactic Nuclei.  Blazar and quasar were merely placeholders for something we had no idea how to describe at the time.  There was only a brief period (between 1963 and 1969) when we had no idea what these objects were.  By the 1970s they knew the source were active galaxies, and thus began calling them Active Galactic Nuclei.  Then we have the above paper, which is a throw back to 50 years ago.

In December 2016 the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/71/90, declaring 30 June "International Asteroid Day"  in order to "observe each year at the international level the anniversary of the Tunguska impact over Siberia, Russian Federation, on 30 June 1908, and to raise public awareness about the asteroid impact hazard."  Since then it really has become an International Asteroid Awareness Week, with events planned in numerous countries beginning June 25th and extending until June 30th.

NEWS ALERT: ASTEROID DAY 2018
From Luxembourg to Tanzania, Australia to China, and throughout Latin America, Europe and US — more than 2,000 events planned for June 28-30.

LUXEMBOURG, SILICON VALLEY — Asteroid Day, the official United Nations’ day of global awareness and education about asteroids, has announced worldwide events for the week of 25-30 June. Co-founded by astrophysicist and famed musician Dr. Brian May of the rock group Queen, Apollo 9 Astronaut Rusty Schweickart, Filmmaker Grig Richters, and B612 President Danica Remy, Asteroid Day began with two major events in 2015, and has grown to more than 2000 self-organized events worldwide.

...

Source:  http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/press-releases/2018/06/news-alert-asteroid-day-2018

A complete list of planned International Asteroid Day events by country can be found at:  https://asteroidday.org/

On 12/11/2017 at 8:33 AM, Janus said:

And the only mission to Mercury was a fly-by. 

There were actually two missions to Mercury.  The 1973 launch of Mariner 10 made its closest approach to Mercury in 1975 as it flew by.  Then there was the MESSENGER (MErcury Space, Surface ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging) probe, launched in August 2004 and made its first flyby of Mercury in 2008.  The MESSENGER probe made a total of three flybys of Mercury, two flybys of Venus, and a flyby of Earth between 2008 and 2011 before settling into orbit around Mercury.  The spacecraft remained in orbit around Mercury between 2011 and 2015, before it ran out of fuel and crashed into Mercury in 2015.

See also Mercury's Secrets Revealed by Soon-to-Crash Spacecraft

According to the Standard Model of particle physics neutrinos are supposed to be massless.  If you start giving mass to neutrinos then explaining how neutrinos are able to travel at the speed of light becomes problematic.

Isn't a wormhole a black hole at either end, with a conjoined singularity?  How could a wormhole not have an event horizon?  If black holes don't exist, what was that accretion disc orbiting in Cygnus X-1?  I'm willing to discuss the possibility that we may not know precisely what happens after the matter collapses beyond its Schwarzschild radius, but the fact that matter does indeed collapse at least to that point is irrefutable.  We have witnessed too many core collapse supernovae and measured stars orbiting extremely massive, yet invisible, objects to simply dismiss black holes out of hand.

Since they are talking about hot ionized gas, shouldn't they be calling it plasma?  I suppose I should be happy they are referring to it as an "active galactic nuclei" and not a "quasar" or "blazar" from the 1960s, before we knew what they were.  Which many still do.

I was very surprised by the outflow being measured at only a few thousands of kilometers per second.  That close to the event horizon I was expecting much faster relativistic speeds.  I was expecting closer to supernovae speeds (10,000 km/s), or even faster since the plasma is only a few light-days away from the event horizon.

They made some really nice observations.  Thanks for sharing.

56 minutes ago, beecee said:

Wasn't the hypothetical notion that Jupiter and Saturn may have migrated inwards and then again outwards in those violent early days of the solar system, due to the discovery and observations of the many exoplanets that were "hot Jupiters" ? 

The discovery of those "hot Jupiters" was certainly the impetus behind the theory that our gas giants also moved inward initially.  I do not recall seeing anything on the subject until after 1995. 

The theory would explain many things, such as the small size of Mars and of course the asteroid belt.  If the theory is valid, then we were very fortunate.  Those other "hot Jupiters" did not have a Saturn to pull them back out again.  They suggest that Jupiter initially formed somewhere beyond the frost line, > ~3 AU, and then migrated inward until it got to about where Mars is now (~1.5 AU).  When Saturn got into a certain orbital resonance with Jupiter it managed to pull Jupiter back out to its current location of 5.2 AU.

This would also cause Uranus and Neptune to first move inward, and then outward.  How all this planetary movement effected the creation and orbits of the Galilean satellites and other "natural" satellites (as opposed to captured) I don't think will ever be known, but it is certainly interesting to speculate.

Abstract

The four massive Galilean satellites are believed to have formed within a circumplanetary disk during the last stages of Jupiter's formation. While the existence of a circum-Jovian disk is supported by hydrodynamic simulations, no consensus exists regarding the origin and delivery mechanisms of the building blocks of the forming satellites. The opening of a gap in the circumsolar disk would have efficiently isolated Jupiter from the main sources of solid material. However, a reservoir of planetesimals should have existed at the outer edge of Jupiter's gap, where solids were trapped and accumulated over time. Here we show that the formation of Saturn's core within this reservoir, or its prompt inward migration, allows planetesimals to be redistributed from this reservoir toward Jupiter and the inner Solar System, thereby providing enough material to form the Galilean satellites and to populate the Main Belt with primitive asteroids. We find that the orbit of planetesimals captured within the circum-Jovian disk are circularized through friction with gas in a compact system comparable to the current radial extent of the Galilean satellites. The decisive role of Saturn in the delivery mechanism has strong implications for the occurrence of massive moons around extrasolar giant planets as they would preferentially form around planets within multiple planet systems.

Source:  Saturn's Formation and Early Evolution at the Origin of Jupiter's Massive Moons - The Astronomical Journal, Volume 155, Number 5, May 2018 (free issue)

I thought this paper was very interesting.  I've read lots of material about how Saturn and Jupiter migrated towards the inner solar system during the early formation days of our solar system, but that material focused only on the movement of planets.  This is the first paper I've read that focused on the Galilean satellites and how they could have formed.

18 hours ago, beecee said:

Not sure if this is in the right section or not, so perhaps a mod can move it if required?

Some people that frequent science forums, [obviously the best type] will inevitably say they have a new theory about some aspect of the universe/life etc.They put there ideas in various forcefull ways full of confidence and much bravado, seemingly ignorant of the fact that professional scientists are forever testing and retesting incumbent theories: Afterall that's there job....sometimes they are in error, sometimes they may make mistakes [BICEP2] but surely that is part of the human makeup and should be expected from time to time. Anyway I believe that all those that believe they have something better then the incumbent theory/model should first be required to tick off all the following points.

Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite compli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support: 

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it. 

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories, and of course make sure you know the incumbent model you are thinking of over throwing perfectly.

Well said.

I would like to add that having good reference material to support one's assertions also helps.  New ideas are always more palatable when others have had similar ideas that can be referenced.  At the very least the reference material may demonstrate where this new theory originates or whether it has merit or is fundamentally flawed.  One's references can either strengthen or weaken a theory.

Just now, beecee said:

Hi T McGrath....

Which seems to suggest that the equations used to calculate these upper limits are faulty/wrong, and/or the equations as is, are neglecting some as yet unknown or unseen "property" of the  degenerate mass ?

But how would that remain as unseen?

I would not say that the limits established by Chandrasekhar and  Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff were "wrong."  Just not complete.  I have absolutely no doubt that the maximum mass of a non-rotating, non-magnetic white dwarf is precisely as Chandrasekhar calculated it to be.  Chandrasekhar did not take into consideration a rapidly rotating or a highly magnetic white dwarf when calculating the maximum mass of a white dwarf.  Therefore, his answer is not "wrong," it just does not include all the possibilities.

Compared to its red giant companion, any neutron star or white dwarf in an ~83-day orbit will be virtually invisible to us.  We can obviously detect the mass of the object from its gravitational effects on its companion, which is what they did, but there is no way we would be able to "see" it.

All they know for certain is that the red giant is being orbited by an unseen companion with a mass between 2.5 − 5.8 M_☉.  They are simply guessing that this object may be a black-hole.  This unseen mass is within the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit, although it has been recently suggested that the maximum mass for a neutron star can only be 2.16 M_☉.  Another possibility that they have not considered is that this unseen mass may be a rapidly rotating and/or highly magnetic white dwarf.

Recent discoveries have placed the maximum mass of white dwarfs well beyond Chandrasekhar limit of 1.44 M_☉.  New estimates of rapidly rotating and/or highly magnetic white dwarfs places their maximum mass between 2.3 and 2.8 M_☉.

Sources:
Using Gravitational-Wave Observations and Quasi-Universal Relations to Constrain the Maximum Mass of Neutron Stars - The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 852, Number 2, January 2018. (free preprint)
Nearby Supernova Factory Observation of SN 2007if: First Total Mass Measurement of a Super-Chandrasekhar-Mass Progenitor - The Astrophyisical Journal, Volume 713, Number 2, March 2010 (free issue)
Significantly Super-Chandrasekhar Limiting Mass White Dwarfs as Progenitors for Peculiar Over-Luminous Type Ia Supernovae - arXiv :  1509.09008, September 2015
 

Anyone who wasn't a Roman was considered a "barbarian" by the Romans.  The meaning of the word "barbarian" today is very different from what it meant then.  If their language and/or culture was different from Rome, then they are considered "barbarians" by the Romans.  It doesn't mean that they were technologically inferior to Rome.

The Romans also lost between 15,000 and 20,000 in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (which isn't very far east from that bog in Denmark) 2,009 years ago, where Varus lost three Roman legions to those German "barbarians."

The last half of the first paragraph of the introduction of the paper says it all:

Quote

How they grew to such mass so early after the Big Bang is a profound puzzle for physics. They must have grown at super-Eddington rates for a long period of time; or they originate from massive seed black holes that formed during the dark early ages by direct collapse (Bromm & Loeb, 2003; Pacucci et al., 2015).

Direct collapse would appear to be the only way you can get a 20 billion solar mass super massive black hole in under a billion years, but they have yet to explain the mechanism behind the super-Eddington collapse rates.

On 5/16/2018 at 9:46 AM, Banzai said:

Well guys thanks for your replies.  Here is the 'said' video on YouTube, mind you the people are speaking in a language other than English... but the actions should speak for themselves. Let me know what you guys think after watching it in its entirety... it also has been reported that people have not been able to enter the cave, even with assisted equipment... as to the where abouts of the cave, I believe according to the language spoken, it may be in southeast Asia somewhere.  I wanted to forward the video to an expert scientist but don't know where or whom to send such inquiries. Also let me know if any of you could get an expert scientist to chime in. Thanks again!

Here is the link to the video:

Https://youtu.be/4jBZg3-1QBs

According to the person speaking, he says that locals also reported that if one were to enter this cave, one would start to bleed from the nose and ears... and could lose conciousness..

It is not a spoof.  The language being spoken in the video is Hmong, which would suggest the cave is located in southeast Asia.  There are other examples of caves that have very different atmospheres than can be found on the surface.  For example, the Movile Cave in Romania.  That cave only has a concentration of oxygen between 7% and 10%, and carbon dioxide levels that are 100 times surface levels.  The cave in Romania also has high concentrations of methane and hydrogen sulfide.  Which may explain why you do not see anyone in your video actually entering the cave without protection.

Whenever discussing stars we also need to take into consideration all the other "stuff" that formed in addition to the star.  I have no doubt that the first Population III stars would have had planets, asteroids, comets, and everything else we find in solar systems.  However, it has been suggested that these first stars would have been massive, anywhere from 100 to 1,000 solar masses.  If that is true then these first stars would have had very short lives indeed.  Perhaps just a few million years.  While that may be sufficient time to produce the first 26 elements on the Periodic Table, it is far too short a time for life to develop.  At best life would just be getting started, only to be wiped out by the resulting hypernova when the Pop III star dies.

I think life has its best shot beginning with Pop II stars.  The metal-poor stars in the halo of our Milky Way, for example, have been dated to 12+ billion years.  Since we only have one example to go by, it is rather difficult to say with any certainty how long it takes to evolve beyond primordial life.  I would imagine that it very much depends on the conditions.  On Earth it took just over 700 million years before life first appeared, and then another 3.3+ billion years before we get to the Cambrian.  That is a long time for a planet to remain relatively stable.  Too long for any star with greater than just a couple of solar masses.

Given that Pop. III stars would have been short lived, the Pop. II stars would have formed shortly after the Pop. III stars.  Certainly within the first billion years after the Big Bang.  Therefore, I would not rule out the possibility of life being 12.8+ billion years old.

Source:
The Formation of First Stars. I. The Primordial Star-forming Cloud - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 564, Number 1, 2002 (free preprint)

23 minutes ago, beecee said:

One wonders if there are any with our name on it. 

It has been suggested that we may experience a Tunguska-sized event every 300 years.  Considering the NEOs that we have discovered, then lost, only to be rediscovered again just a few days to a few weeks before it passes Earth, I would have to say our mitigation choices are going to be rather limited.  I think we should give up on the gravity tractor, solar sails, or any other long-term mitigation scheme and focus on what can be done in a matter of days - other than evacuating the effected area.

Source:
Earth in the Cosmic Shooting Gallery - The Observatory, Volume 125, 2005