Cosmic inflation: 'Spectacular' discovery hailed - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Anything from household gadgets to the Large Hadron Collider (note: political science topics belong in the Environment & Science forum).

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#14380856
ThereBeDragons2 wrote:]Backed by mathematics and centuries of scientific discovery.


Topped off with a liberal sprinkling of crap! Image Look TBD2, your 'associates' on this thread have given up now, so why don't you? Then I'll be able to say 'My work here is done!'
#14380859
OllytheBrit wrote:Topped off with a liberal sprinkling of crap!
Math and science are not "crap" except in your delusional fantasy world.

OllytheBrit wrote:Look TBD2, your 'associates' on this thread have given up now, so why don't you? Then I'll be able to say 'My work here is done!'
So your purpose in this thread was just to drive everyone off with your staggering ignorance.
#14380862
ThereBeDragons wrote:Math and science are not "crap" except in your delusional fantasy world.

So your purpose in this thread was just to drive everyone off with your staggering ignorance.


I look on it as fulfilling an obviously-needed public service. Don't you fret though TBD - defeat is not disgrace, as they say. Image
#14381013
You certainly have an interesting set of win conditions.

Now in science we generally require you to present evidence disproving a theory, but you've disproved it in your head by simply thinking "that sounds to weird to be true".

Certainly people everywhere are waking up to the lie of empiricism and are adopting your system of "if I don't like it it isn't true." Congratulations on your stunning victory via stunning ignorance!
#14381022
OllytheBrit wrote:'they're doing research' Like 'If only we had more research funding we could find out all the answers to life, the universe and everything. It might take a while though.' (which is what I meant by 'jobs for life' - that's their motive.)

Well, they ought to have 'jobs for life', because they are doing precisely that, they are finding the answers that people want to know about.

OllytheBrit wrote:Tell me this: Why Mars, which is at the far end of the universe? Why not one step at a time, and begin with closer planets? I'll tell you why - it's because Mars is the one with mystique, and bound to promote more public interest. You might have another theory though??? :?:

Firstly, Mars is not at the 'far end of the universe', it's the planet right next to this one!

It's also because the existence of boron and molybdenum on Mars form part of the building blocks of life on Earth, and that is something that is confirmed by the presence of those elements on Mars.

Like this:
Guardian UK, 'Life on earth 'began on Mars'', 29 Aug 2013 (emphasis added) wrote:Image
Sunrise over the Gale crater on Mars. Was this where life began? Photograph: Stocktrek Images, Inc/Alamy.

Evidence is mounting that life on Earth may have started on Mars. A leading scientist has claimed that one particular element believed to be crucial to the origin of life would only have been available on the surface of the red planet.

Professor Steven Benner, a geochemist, has argued that the "seeds" of life probably arrived on Earth in meteorites blasted off Mars by impacts or volcanic eruptions. As evidence, he points to the oxidised mineral form of the element molybdenum, thought to be a catalyst that helped organic molecules develop into the first living structures.

"It's only when molybdenum becomes highly oxidised that it is able to influence how early life formed," said Benner, of the Westheimer Institute for Science and Technology in the US. "This form of molybdenum couldn't have been available on Earth at the time life first began, because three billion years ago, the surface of the Earth had very little oxygen, but Mars did.

"It's yet another piece of evidence which makes it more likely that life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite, rather than starting on this planet."

All living things are made from organic matter, but simply adding energy to organic molecules will not create life. Instead, left to themselves, organic molecules become something more like tar or asphalt, said Prof Benner.

He added: "Certain elements seem able to control the propensity of organic materials to turn to tar, particularly boron and molybdenum, so we believe that minerals containing both were fundamental to life first starting.

"Analysis of a Martian meteorite recently showed that there was boron on Mars; we now believe that the oxidised form of molybdenum was there too."


Another reason why life would have struggled to start on early Earth was that it was likely to have been covered by water, said Benner. Water would have prevented sufficient concentrations of boron forming and is also corrosive to RNA, a DNA cousin believed to be the first genetic molecule to have appeared.

Although there was water on early Mars, it covered much less of the planet. "The evidence seems to be building that we are actually all Martians; that life started on Mars and came to Earth on a rock," said Benner, speaking at the Goldschmidt 2013 conference in Florence, Italy. "It's lucky that we ended up here nevertheless, as certainly Earth has been the better of the two planets for sustaining life. If our hypothetical Martian ancestors had remained on Mars, there might not have been a story to tell."


And:
wiki (emphasis added) wrote:The most important role of the molybdenum in living organisms is as a metal heteroatom at the active site in certain enzymes.[55] In nitrogen fixation in certain bacteria, the nitrogenase enzyme, which is involved in the terminal step of reducing molecular nitrogen, usually contains molybdenum in the active site (though replacement of Mo with iron or vanadium is also known). The structure of the catalytic center of the enzyme is similar to that in iron-sulfur proteins: it incorporates a Fe4S3 and multiple MoFe3S3 clusters.[56]

In 2008, evidence was reported that a scarcity of molybdenum in the Earth's early oceans was a limiting factor for nearly two billion years in the further evolution of eukaryotic life (which includes all plants and animals) as eukaryotes cannot fix nitrogen, and must therefore acquire most of their oxidized nitrogen suitable for making organic nitrogen compounds, or the organics themselves (like proteins) from prokaryotic bacteria.[57][58][59] The scarcity of molybdenum resulted from the relative lack of oxygen in the early ocean. Most molybdenum compounds have low solubility in water, but the molybdate ion MoO42− is soluble and forms when molybdenum-containing minerals are in contact with oxygen and water. Once oxygen made by early life appeared in seawater, it helped dissolve molybdenum into soluble molybdate from minerals on the sea bottom, making it available for the first time to nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and allowing them to provide more fixed usable nitrogen compounds for higher forms of life. In 2013, Steven Benner suggested it was possible that boron and molybdenum catalyzed the production of RNA on Mars with life being transported to Earth via a meteorite around 3 billion years ago.[60]

Although oxygen once promoted nitrogen fixation via making molybdenum available in water, it also directly poisons nitrogenase enzymes. Thus, in Earth's ancient history, after oxygen arrived in large quantities in Earth's air and water, organisms that continued to fix nitrogen in aerobic conditions were required to isolate and protect their nitrogen-fixing enzymes in heterocysts, or similar structures protecting them from too much oxygen. This structural isolation of nitrogen fixation reactions from oxygen in aerobic organisms continues to the present.

Though molybdenum forms compounds with various organic molecules, including carbohydrates and amino acids, it is transported throughout the human body as MoO42−.[61] At least 50 molybdenum-containing enzymes were known by 2002, mostly in bacteria, and their number is increasing with every year;[62][63] those enzymes include aldehyde oxidase, sulfite oxidase and xanthine oxidase.[5] In some animals, and in humans, the oxidation of xanthine to uric acid, a process of purine catabolism, is catalyzed by xanthine oxidase, a molybdenum-containing enzyme. The activity of xanthine oxidase is directly proportional to the amount of molybdenum in the body. However, an extremely high concentration of molybdenum reverses the trend and can act as an inhibitor in both purine catabolism and other processes. Molybdenum concentrations also affect protein synthesis, metabolism and growth.[61]

In animals and plants a tricyclic compound called molybdopterin (which, despite the name, contains no molybdenum) is reacted with molybdate to form a complete molybdenum-containing cofactor called molybdenum cofactor. Save for the phylogenetically-ancient molybdenum nitrogenases discussed above, which fix nitrogen in some bacteria and cyanobacteria, all molybdenum-using enzymes so far identified in nature use the molybdenum cofactor.[64] Molybdenum enzymes in plants and animals catalyze the oxidation and sometimes reduction of certain small molecules, as part of the regulation of nitrogen, sulfur and carbon cycles.[65]

So there you go. That's how research is delivering a decent return on investment. I don't mind if some of my tax money goes toward finding those things out.

OllytheBrit wrote:'signature of the "big bang' Image - looks like they've got you already - you're starting to space-babble.

I don't know, I think that if it were possible to 'win' this thread, I've just won it. The boundaries between military-science-fiction and reality are being blurred on a daily basis, by the relentless march of progress.

There could be Mars colonies one day, I bet.

[Soundtrack]
#14383235
mikema63 wrote:An enemy of science is an enemy of all humanity.

Well stated. Almost sig worthy.

Anyway, this is fascinating stuff to be sure. I've always been a proponent of the oscillating universe theory myself because it seems to make sense that there would a cycle to such things as opposed to any definitive beginning or end. It also seems consistent with other natural forces that take place on the smaller scale. The potential "multiverse" theory seems like it would fit in along those lines as well.
#14383253
At the risk of repeating myself, I'll bet they can't believe it that they can dream up such puerile - theoretical, if you please, and a complete absence of any evidence - drivel and it will go unquestioned and unchallenged by otherwise intelligent individuals. On the other hand, I can quite understand the motivation of those in the 'industry' in defending it - if my future employment and mortgage were on the line, I would too. One day, in their arrogant attention-seeking, empire-building, or reputation-seeking ambitions, they'll announce something so bizarre that even you gullible lot will step back and think 'What they hell are they talking about?' Still it's your self-respect at stake, not mine.
#14383267
OllytheBrit wrote:More non-provable, ridiculous nonsense from the 'space industry'! Every preposterous utterance is dafter than the one before - but hey, at least it keeps the 'research grants' ( Image ) coming!! Jobs for life - that's what it's all about squire, jobs for life. 'Very momentous indeed'! Image

Let me guess it: any solid measures definitely confirming theoretical predictions that go against some few thousands of years old book will be said to be "unprovable" and its authors will be said to be manipulative liars seeking to get research grants to buy caviar and foie gras?
#14383278
ThereBeDragons wrote:Astronomy is a science where there are no experiments, only observations. Observational science is still science. Theories are created based on observations, and these theories make predictions which are later investigated. Whether they turned out to be accurate or not helps validate or invalidate the theory.


I'll go along with that! It's just that (as I've said) their 'observations' are so bloody ridiculously off-the-wall, and I get the distinct impression they're just exploiting our credulity - or in the vernacular, taking the piss, - that's all.

Harmattan wrote:Let me guess it: any solid measures definitely confirming theoretical predictions that go against some few thousands of years old book will be said to be "unprovable" and its authors will be said to be manipulative liars seeking to get research grants to buy caviar and foie gras?


What? Can you say that in English!

I do like that CGI, Rei. Wish I could get it as wallpaper for my tablet.

Varax wrote:Anyway, this is fascinating stuff to be sure. I've always been a proponent of the oscillating universe theory myself because it seems to make sense that there would a cycle to such things as opposed to any definitive beginning or end. It also seems consistent with other natural forces that take place on the smaller scale. The potential "multiverse" theory seems like it would fit in along those lines as well.


'oscillating universe' - where's a rolling eyes smiley when you need one?
Last edited by Cartertonian on 28 Mar 2014 10:18, edited 2 times in total. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged
#14383494
OllytheBrit wrote:At the risk of repeating myself, I'll bet they can't believe it that they can dream up such puerile - theoretical, if you please, and a complete absence of any evidence - drivel and it will go unquestioned and unchallenged by otherwise intelligent individuals. On the other hand, I can quite understand the motivation of those in the 'industry' in defending it - if my future employment and mortgage were on the line, I would too.

I think this idea of economic motivation that you are bringing is wrong, because all the people involved in that kind of research have qualifications that mean that if they were all fired tomorrow, they'd just get jobs in different industries and still be rolling in the money.

What would change for them? Basically nothing would change for them in terms of wealth.

OllytheBrit wrote:I do like that CGI, Rei. Wish I could get it as wallpaper for my tablet.

You have to have more comments to make on it than that.
#14384743
OllytheBrit wrote:At the risk of repeating myself,

Yes, you are repeating yourself. These points have already been addressed in detail.

Ibid wrote:theoretical, if you please, and a complete absence of any evidence - drivel and it will go unquestioned and unchallenged by otherwise intelligent individuals.

Scientific theory is precisely based off of evidence, if it isn't then it isn't considered one. The idea that such theories go "unquestioned and unchallenged" is laughable, the whole point in establishing such theories is precisely that they are based off of evidence that is then checked by other scientists as part of the peer-review process. If new evidence arises that discounts the old theory, or the old theory was found to be based on faulty evidence then the theory is changed accordingly or even discarded entirely. This has happened many times and in the case of cosmology as our instruments become more powerful and our capacity to explore outer space increases the new data is taken into account.

Ibid wrote:One day, in their arrogant attention-seeking, empire-building, or reputation-seeking ambitions, they'll announce something so bizarre that even you gullible lot will step back and think 'What they hell are they talking about?' Still it's your self-respect at stake, not mine.

What are you on about? If a scientist tries to put something forward as being a new theory and it is clearly utter rubbish then it will be called out as such and debunked. You on the other hand don't even seem to make an effort understanding how the scientific process works and why contributing to our understanding of the natural world has helped us prosper as a species.

Ibid wrote:'oscillating universe' - where's a rolling eyes smiley when you need one?

The oscillating universe theory was first put forward by Einstein and has since then been expanded as the cyclic cosmological model.

Oh, and your smile privileges were revoked on account of your continuing poor demeanor. But that's ok, you can have mine:



Ummon wrote:Everyone takes themselves so seriously on this forum they leave themselves open to trolls

True, but sometimes it's fun to use trolls as a scratching post.
Last edited by Varax on 31 Mar 2014 04:13, edited 1 time in total.
#14384747
I'm personally not a big fan of the cyclic model, as it implies that the force driving the accelerations expansion will just turn off.

I have to admit that the scratching post image made me laugh.

Oily, you never did say what you were actually a proponent of, come out and fess up to it!

If people have that impression then they're just […]

^ this is the continuation of the pre-1948 confli[…]

A millennial who went to college in his 30s when […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Interesting video on why Macron wants to deploy F[…]