genedigger
Member
ya'll evolved from apes and this thread is proof for the responses here are ape like
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
- Thread starter Weird
- Start date
- Status
genedigger
Member
last week i saw a fish walking on tv.that was all the proof i needed.
Did you also know that humans are more genetically related to chimpanzee than chimpanzee are to gorilla? We split from a chimp-like ancestor @8mya
Exactly.... Chimps n apes didn't stop evolving, they just evolved in the way their genetics and environment took them. I don't see why what we humans do is some 'peak' of evolution that other species would aspire to... Are they fucking up their planet? No, is the short answer.
As Sheldon said, the only necessary things are to take in nourishment, expell waste and metabolise oxygen. Everything else is optional.
So we can write books, make art and do amazing technological things... But another animal may say " big fuckn deal"
As Sheldon said, the only necessary things are to take in nourishment, expell waste and metabolise oxygen. Everything else is optional.
So we can write books, make art and do amazing technological things... But another animal may say " big fuckn deal"
I am a petroleum Engineer i sit on land based drilling rigs as Gas company rep operating day to day activities from surface to well completion it pays rather well Day rate 2250.00
i have worked in lots of places North pole to Russia , Yemen,to Kuwait . Iraq
got offered to work cross shift with a buddy in Thailand off shore
Down fall is your never home hard on family especially kids .
As for Engine you are correct that is a 500 cubic inch BME top fuel Nitro blown engine 6000 HP going into 2004 mustang SFI spec 4.99 certified or quicker chassis more or less a top fuel funny car
i should correct the HP rating is set for 6000 hp capable of 8000 fuel pressure pending
Mad Lab
Member
for being so into science, you sure do state more incorrect things than correct.
Indisputable huh? we didnt come from apes, we came from another common ancestor, now what? Indisputable?
you seem like a brainwashed 'ape' that didnt receive good information.
Do i believe in evolution? I believe its likely, and based on the evidence we have collected so far its the best theory out there.
Is it disputable? absolutely, any scientist will admit that regardless of how much they think it is the absolute truth based on there own personal beliefs.
now this is evolution
ACCELERATION PUT INTO PERSPECTIVE
* One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic-inch Hemi engine
makes more horsepower (8,000 HP) than the first 4 rows of cars at the Daytona 500.
* Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes
11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747
consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.
* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce
enough power to merely drive the dragster's supercharger.
* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the
supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a
near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic
lock at full throttle.
* At the stoichiometric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for
nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F.
* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular
white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen,
dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust
gases.
* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug.
This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.
* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed
during a pass. After 1/2 way, the engine is dieseling from compression plus
the glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be
shut down by cutting the fuel flow.
* If spark momentarily fails early in the run,
unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with
sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split
the block in half.
* Dragsters reach over 300 MPH before you have
completed reading this sentence.
* In order to exceed 300 MPH in 4.5 seconds,
dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4 G's. In order to reach 200 MPH
well before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8
G's.
* Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540
revolutions from ! light to light!
* Including the burnout, the engine must only
survive 900 revolutions under load.
* The redline is actually quite high at 9500 RPM.
* THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is
paid off, the crew worked for free, & for once, NOTHING BLOWS UP, each
run costs an estimated $1,000 per second.
0 to 100 MPH in .8 seconds (the first 60 feet of the run)
0 to 200 MPH in 2.2 seconds (the first 350 feet of the run)
6 g-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land)
6 negative g-forces upon deployment of twin ‘chutes at 300 MPH
An NHRA Top Fuel Dragster accelerates quicker than any other land vehicle on earth quicker than a jet fighter plane . . . quicker than the space shuttle.
The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is
4.420 seconds for the quarter-mile (2004, Doug Kalitta). The
top speed record is 337.58 MPH as measured over the last 66'
of the run (2005, Tony Schumacher).
Putting this all into perspective:
You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter
twin-turbo powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel
dragster is staged & ready to launch down a quarter-mile strip as you
pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette
hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line & pass the
dragster at an honest 200 MPH. The 'tree' goes green for both of
you at that moment.
The dragster launches & starts after you. You keep
your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears
your eardrums & within 3 seconds the dragster catches & passes you.
He beats you to the finish line, a quarter-mile away from where you just
passed him. Think about it - from a standing start, the dragster had
spotted you 200 MPH & not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road
when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race!
That's acceleration !
ACCELERATION PUT INTO PERSPECTIVE
* One Top Fuel dragster 500 cubic-inch Hemi engine
makes more horsepower (8,000 HP) than the first 4 rows of cars at the Daytona 500.
* Under full throttle, a dragster engine consumes
11.2 gallons of nitro methane per second; a fully loaded 747
consumes jet fuel at the same rate with 25% less energy being produced.
* A stock Dodge Hemi V8 engine cannot produce
enough power to merely drive the dragster's supercharger.
* With 3000 CFM of air being rammed in by the
supercharger on overdrive, the fuel mixture is compressed into a
near-solid form before ignition. Cylinders run on the verge of hydraulic
lock at full throttle.
* At the stoichiometric 1.7:1 air/fuel mixture for
nitro methane the flame front temperature measures 7050 degrees F.
* Nitro methane burns yellow. The spectacular
white flame seen above the stacks at night is raw burning hydrogen,
dissociated from atmospheric water vapor by the searing exhaust
gases.
* Dual magnetos supply 44 amps to each spark plug.
This is the output of an arc welder in each cylinder.
* Spark plug electrodes are totally consumed
during a pass. After 1/2 way, the engine is dieseling from compression plus
the glow of exhaust valves at 1400 degrees F. The engine can only be
shut down by cutting the fuel flow.
* If spark momentarily fails early in the run,
unburned nitro builds up in the affected cylinders and then explodes with
sufficient force to blow cylinder heads off the block in pieces or split
the block in half.
* Dragsters reach over 300 MPH before you have
completed reading this sentence.
* In order to exceed 300 MPH in 4.5 seconds,
dragsters must accelerate an average of over 4 G's. In order to reach 200 MPH
well before half-track, the launch acceleration approaches 8
G's.
* Top Fuel engines turn approximately 540
revolutions from ! light to light!
* Including the burnout, the engine must only
survive 900 revolutions under load.
* The redline is actually quite high at 9500 RPM.
* THE BOTTOM LINE: Assuming all the equipment is
paid off, the crew worked for free, & for once, NOTHING BLOWS UP, each
run costs an estimated $1,000 per second.
0 to 100 MPH in .8 seconds (the first 60 feet of the run)
0 to 200 MPH in 2.2 seconds (the first 350 feet of the run)
6 g-forces at the starting line (nothing accelerates faster on land)
6 negative g-forces upon deployment of twin ‘chutes at 300 MPH
An NHRA Top Fuel Dragster accelerates quicker than any other land vehicle on earth quicker than a jet fighter plane . . . quicker than the space shuttle.
The current Top Fuel dragster elapsed time record is
4.420 seconds for the quarter-mile (2004, Doug Kalitta). The
top speed record is 337.58 MPH as measured over the last 66'
of the run (2005, Tony Schumacher).
Putting this all into perspective:
You are driving the average $140,000 Lingenfelter
twin-turbo powered Corvette Z06. Over a mile up the road, a Top Fuel
dragster is staged & ready to launch down a quarter-mile strip as you
pass. You have the advantage of a flying start. You run the 'Vette
hard up through the gears and blast across the starting line & pass the
dragster at an honest 200 MPH. The 'tree' goes green for both of
you at that moment.
The dragster launches & starts after you. You keep
your foot down hard, but you hear an incredibly brutal whine that sears
your eardrums & within 3 seconds the dragster catches & passes you.
He beats you to the finish line, a quarter-mile away from where you just
passed him. Think about it - from a standing start, the dragster had
spotted you 200 MPH & not only caught, but nearly blasted you off the road
when he passed you within a mere 1320 foot long race!
That's acceleration !
Mad Lab
Member
So Mad i think you are wrong
The Human Genome Project, supposedly disproved the possibility of all humans being descended from one man and woman. But what does the science really show?
World: “Adam versus claims from genetics”
Does genomic information show scientifically that Adam is not our collective ancestor?
Claims that chimpanzee and human DNA are 96 to 99% identical are used by evolutionists as “proof” that chimps and humans are descended from a common ape-like ancestor. The Human Genome Project—according to the interpretations of evolutionists—scientifically disproved the possibility of all humans being descended from one man and one woman. But what does the science really demonstrate? Westminster Theological Journal recently published an informative essay by Westminster Theological Seminary professor Vern Poythress, who has a Th.D. as well as a Harvard Ph.D. in mathematics, refuting these claims.
The statistical similarity between chimp and human DNA relates primarily to the portions of DNA that code for proteins, ignoring the vast amount of DNA that has been commonly called “junk DNA,” sections that now appear to have regulatory and other functions. Furthermore, understanding how DNA is compared reveals the chimp-human similarity is not all it seems. DNA consists of millions of “bases”—four kinds of molecules that act like the letters in a code. But contrary to the impression given in television programs, sequencing DNA is not a matter of simply lining up long strings with millions of bases to see what matches.
sequence1The letters in this short sequence symbolizing a bit of DNA code stand for the bases: guanine, cytosine, adenine,quence of such bases encode not only the instructions for the manufacture of all the proteins in a living organisms but the instructions regulating the use of those proteins and much more. Some sections of DNA strands being compared match like this, often because the same sorts of protein molecules are needed in living organisms. Because DNA consists of millions of bases, sequencing technology breaks it into short segments for comparison and then much match up the pieces to be compared, effectively ignoring the segments that differ greatly. IMAGE: Westminster Theological Journal through www.worldmag.com
sequence2When sequences being compared differ by only a different base here and there, those variations are called “substitutions.” IMAGE: Westminster Theological Journal through www.worldmag.com
sequence3When one stretch of the DNA being compared contains a sequence absent from the other, the difference is called an indel, meaning “insertion-deletion.” Implicit in the terminology is the assumption that the DNA of each diverged from a common ancestral form. IMAGE: Westminster Theological Journal through www.worldmag.com
As a result of technological limitations, comparisons between chimp and human DNA focus on areas that are similar. Thus, as Dr. Poythress explains, chimp and human DNA only appear “99%” identical if:
repeated sequences are ignored
only sections that “align naturally” are compared,
and the only differences noted are single base-pair substitutions.
Thus, extra sequences of DNA—commonly called “insertions” and “deletions”—are ignored. When they are included among the differences, the figure becomes “96%.” Note that even these names—insertions and deletions—imply an assumption of evolutionary modifications by which the DNA of a common ancestor was gradually modified over time. But the science cannot look back to the genome of an imagined evolutionary ancestor. And a great deal of DNA, when chimps and humans are compared, simply does not correspond at all and is therefore completely absent from the oft-quoted statistics. Furthermore, despite evolutionary insistence that the chimp is our closest relative, gorilla and orangutan DNA is more similar to ours than chimpanzee is.
Furthermore, though not covered in Poythress’s essay, when the DNA sequences are compared more objectively without pre-selecting sequences and filtering the data, the chimp and human genomes are only about 70% similar.
Even more important than an awareness of the limitations on the statistical similarity between chimp and human DNA is the ability to understand how evolutionists interpret what genetic similarity there actually is. Biblical creationists understand that this is a consequence of having a common Designer who wisely designed humans and animals to function on earth. Poythress explains:
The most striking genetic similarities between humans and chimps lie in many of the protein coding regions within the DNA. That is understandable from the standpoint of design, because proteins are the backbone of chemical machinery inside a cell. Cells have to have machinery for metabolism, for cell division, for translating DNA into proteins, for dealing with toxins, and for responding to the environment. The machinery has to accomplish many of the same things in cells of many kinds, so it should not be surprising that there are similarities among proteins not only between man and chimpanzee but throughout the world of living things.
The notion that genetic similarities prove shared evolutionary ancestry is a consequence of naturalistic Darwinian assumptions superimposed on the data. Evolutionists assume chimps and humans share an evolutionary ancestry and interpret all data according to that assumption.
As Poythress says, “Darwinism says that all kinds of living things came into being by purely gradualistic processes. In the popular mind, and indeed also among many scientists, Darwinism also involves the additional assumption that the process of change over time was unguided and purposeless—in other words, God, if He exists, is absent.”
Yet nothing about the science can confirm that God did not act to create humans and animals as Genesis chapter one reports, without evolution. And nothing about the science can demonstrate the evolutionary claim that the origin of life was blindly naturalistic and purposeless. Poythress explains, “That claim overreaches the evidence and the competence of science. It is really a philosophical and religious claim.” Thus, atheism is a sort of “religion.”
Evolutionists assert that population genetics and molecular clocks cannot possibly point back to just two original people 6,000 years ago. Poythress points out that the calculations which this claim is based on assume that the human genome has always had constant rates of mutation and recombination. Population studies further depend on assumptions about the average lifespans of people. Yet Scripture indicates that lifespans changed dramatically after the global Flood. The notion that humanity could not have originated with two created people is rooted in unverifiable assumptions imposed upon the science.
Given the effects of sin’s curse on humanity, the dramatic changes in lifespan over a few thousand years, and the population bottleneck that occurred when the global Flood reduced the genomic variety in the human population to those genes in the eight people on the Ark, the uniformitarian assumptions on which evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists base their conclusions that the human population could not have been traced back to Adam and Eve are faulty.
Thus the science in no way “proves” human ancestry from an ape-like ancestor or the impossibility of human ancestry from Adam and Eve. As to the age of the earth, while Poythress writes nothing in his essay to suggest millions of years, in his opinion, the small variations (“gaps”) in the genealogical lists in the Old and New Testaments make it impossible to know how long ago God created man. However, a comparison of genealogical lists reveals that, while there are a few places where God chose to include and exclude certain people, only some genealogies contain information about time. And those lists, from which we (and Archbishop Ussher) derive calculations about the timeline of history, consist of numerically interlocked data rendering the inclusion or exclusion of a particular person—as far as the timeline goes—irrelevant. As Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones explains in Chronology of the Old Testament:
The Scripture precisely lists the age of each patriarch (i.e. Arphaxad = 35 years old) when the next patriarch (i.e. Salah) is born. Thus, even if the next patriarch in the recorded genealogy was a great-grandson rather than a son, this procedure of giving the age of one patriarch when the next is born fixes the two men’s lives relative to each other. In so doing, it provides an exact continuous chronology across this time span.1
The father’s (ancestor’s) name is mathematically interlocked to the chosen descendant; hence no gap of time or generation is possible.2
Furthermore, Jude 14 corroborates the Old Testament genealogies, informing us that Enoch was a member of the seventh generation from Adam. Scripture does not contradict itself. Biblical history therefore does reveal that God created Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago. And the scientific evidence of hominid fossils, genomic analysis, and population studies only appear to “prove” evolution if the data are interpreted expressly by presuming evolution happened. Such reasoning is circular. Science does not disprove Scripture
The Human Genome Project, supposedly disproved the possibility of all humans being descended from one man and woman. But what does the science really show?
World: “Adam versus claims from genetics”
Does genomic information show scientifically that Adam is not our collective ancestor?
Claims that chimpanzee and human DNA are 96 to 99% identical are used by evolutionists as “proof” that chimps and humans are descended from a common ape-like ancestor. The Human Genome Project—according to the interpretations of evolutionists—scientifically disproved the possibility of all humans being descended from one man and one woman. But what does the science really demonstrate? Westminster Theological Journal recently published an informative essay by Westminster Theological Seminary professor Vern Poythress, who has a Th.D. as well as a Harvard Ph.D. in mathematics, refuting these claims.
The statistical similarity between chimp and human DNA relates primarily to the portions of DNA that code for proteins, ignoring the vast amount of DNA that has been commonly called “junk DNA,” sections that now appear to have regulatory and other functions. Furthermore, understanding how DNA is compared reveals the chimp-human similarity is not all it seems. DNA consists of millions of “bases”—four kinds of molecules that act like the letters in a code. But contrary to the impression given in television programs, sequencing DNA is not a matter of simply lining up long strings with millions of bases to see what matches.
sequence1The letters in this short sequence symbolizing a bit of DNA code stand for the bases: guanine, cytosine, adenine,quence of such bases encode not only the instructions for the manufacture of all the proteins in a living organisms but the instructions regulating the use of those proteins and much more. Some sections of DNA strands being compared match like this, often because the same sorts of protein molecules are needed in living organisms. Because DNA consists of millions of bases, sequencing technology breaks it into short segments for comparison and then much match up the pieces to be compared, effectively ignoring the segments that differ greatly. IMAGE: Westminster Theological Journal through www.worldmag.com
sequence2When sequences being compared differ by only a different base here and there, those variations are called “substitutions.” IMAGE: Westminster Theological Journal through www.worldmag.com
sequence3When one stretch of the DNA being compared contains a sequence absent from the other, the difference is called an indel, meaning “insertion-deletion.” Implicit in the terminology is the assumption that the DNA of each diverged from a common ancestral form. IMAGE: Westminster Theological Journal through www.worldmag.com
As a result of technological limitations, comparisons between chimp and human DNA focus on areas that are similar. Thus, as Dr. Poythress explains, chimp and human DNA only appear “99%” identical if:
repeated sequences are ignored
only sections that “align naturally” are compared,
and the only differences noted are single base-pair substitutions.
Thus, extra sequences of DNA—commonly called “insertions” and “deletions”—are ignored. When they are included among the differences, the figure becomes “96%.” Note that even these names—insertions and deletions—imply an assumption of evolutionary modifications by which the DNA of a common ancestor was gradually modified over time. But the science cannot look back to the genome of an imagined evolutionary ancestor. And a great deal of DNA, when chimps and humans are compared, simply does not correspond at all and is therefore completely absent from the oft-quoted statistics. Furthermore, despite evolutionary insistence that the chimp is our closest relative, gorilla and orangutan DNA is more similar to ours than chimpanzee is.
Furthermore, though not covered in Poythress’s essay, when the DNA sequences are compared more objectively without pre-selecting sequences and filtering the data, the chimp and human genomes are only about 70% similar.
Even more important than an awareness of the limitations on the statistical similarity between chimp and human DNA is the ability to understand how evolutionists interpret what genetic similarity there actually is. Biblical creationists understand that this is a consequence of having a common Designer who wisely designed humans and animals to function on earth. Poythress explains:
The most striking genetic similarities between humans and chimps lie in many of the protein coding regions within the DNA. That is understandable from the standpoint of design, because proteins are the backbone of chemical machinery inside a cell. Cells have to have machinery for metabolism, for cell division, for translating DNA into proteins, for dealing with toxins, and for responding to the environment. The machinery has to accomplish many of the same things in cells of many kinds, so it should not be surprising that there are similarities among proteins not only between man and chimpanzee but throughout the world of living things.
The notion that genetic similarities prove shared evolutionary ancestry is a consequence of naturalistic Darwinian assumptions superimposed on the data. Evolutionists assume chimps and humans share an evolutionary ancestry and interpret all data according to that assumption.
As Poythress says, “Darwinism says that all kinds of living things came into being by purely gradualistic processes. In the popular mind, and indeed also among many scientists, Darwinism also involves the additional assumption that the process of change over time was unguided and purposeless—in other words, God, if He exists, is absent.”
Yet nothing about the science can confirm that God did not act to create humans and animals as Genesis chapter one reports, without evolution. And nothing about the science can demonstrate the evolutionary claim that the origin of life was blindly naturalistic and purposeless. Poythress explains, “That claim overreaches the evidence and the competence of science. It is really a philosophical and religious claim.” Thus, atheism is a sort of “religion.”
Evolutionists assert that population genetics and molecular clocks cannot possibly point back to just two original people 6,000 years ago. Poythress points out that the calculations which this claim is based on assume that the human genome has always had constant rates of mutation and recombination. Population studies further depend on assumptions about the average lifespans of people. Yet Scripture indicates that lifespans changed dramatically after the global Flood. The notion that humanity could not have originated with two created people is rooted in unverifiable assumptions imposed upon the science.
Given the effects of sin’s curse on humanity, the dramatic changes in lifespan over a few thousand years, and the population bottleneck that occurred when the global Flood reduced the genomic variety in the human population to those genes in the eight people on the Ark, the uniformitarian assumptions on which evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists base their conclusions that the human population could not have been traced back to Adam and Eve are faulty.
Thus the science in no way “proves” human ancestry from an ape-like ancestor or the impossibility of human ancestry from Adam and Eve. As to the age of the earth, while Poythress writes nothing in his essay to suggest millions of years, in his opinion, the small variations (“gaps”) in the genealogical lists in the Old and New Testaments make it impossible to know how long ago God created man. However, a comparison of genealogical lists reveals that, while there are a few places where God chose to include and exclude certain people, only some genealogies contain information about time. And those lists, from which we (and Archbishop Ussher) derive calculations about the timeline of history, consist of numerically interlocked data rendering the inclusion or exclusion of a particular person—as far as the timeline goes—irrelevant. As Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones explains in Chronology of the Old Testament:
The Scripture precisely lists the age of each patriarch (i.e. Arphaxad = 35 years old) when the next patriarch (i.e. Salah) is born. Thus, even if the next patriarch in the recorded genealogy was a great-grandson rather than a son, this procedure of giving the age of one patriarch when the next is born fixes the two men’s lives relative to each other. In so doing, it provides an exact continuous chronology across this time span.1
The father’s (ancestor’s) name is mathematically interlocked to the chosen descendant; hence no gap of time or generation is possible.2
Furthermore, Jude 14 corroborates the Old Testament genealogies, informing us that Enoch was a member of the seventh generation from Adam. Scripture does not contradict itself. Biblical history therefore does reveal that God created Adam and Eve about 6,000 years ago. And the scientific evidence of hominid fossils, genomic analysis, and population studies only appear to “prove” evolution if the data are interpreted expressly by presuming evolution happened. Such reasoning is circular. Science does not disprove Scripture
Astronomers Find a Dusty Galaxy That Shouldn't Exist
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...nce-galaxies-space/?google_editors_picks=true
An object from the very early universe is bafflingly rich with dust that theory says shouldn't have formed yet.
Peering back in time to find the very earliest objects in the universe, an international team of astronomers has discovered a galaxy that shouldn't be there at all.
Share
Share on emailEmail
More »
The problem, the scientists report Monday in Nature, is that while the tiny galaxy dates from just 700 million years or so after the big bang, it's far more dusty than something this young and small has any right to be.
It's surprising, says Daniel Marrone, a University of Arizona expert on galaxy formation who wasn't involved in the research, because although dust is essential for the formation of planets and other solid material, the cosmos started out with no dust at all. In the aftermath of the big bang, the universe consisted only of hydrogen and helium gas (along with dark matter, but that's invisible).
The dusty galaxy is just one of the recent surprises astronomers have found. "Last week," says Marrone, "we learned of an incredibly massive black hole in the early universe. Now we have this average galaxy with significant amounts of dust. We've had this cartoon picture of the early universe, but it's clear that we really don't know what's going on."
What Astronomers Think They Know
The gas in the post-big bang universe condensed to form the first stars, which forged heavier elements, including carbon, silicon, and oxygen, then died and released those elements into space. It was from these that the first particles of dust formed.
Those first stars had already lived and died by the time this newly discovered galaxy, known as A1689-zD1, was up and running, so the universe was hardly dust free at that point. But most of the dust should have been in large, bright galaxies that formed lots of stars. A1689-zD1 is relatively small and dim—no bigger than the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy that orbits the Milky Way.
Few early galaxies have been spotted, because even the brightest among them is far away and thus relatively dim. To get around that problem, astronomers use the magnifying effect of gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity says the gravity from an object closer to Earth can warp light rays from a more distant one. (Einstein thought we'd never actually observe this so-called gravitational lensing, but he was dead wrong about that.)
In this case, the Nature paper's lead author, Darach Watson, of the deliciously named Dark Cosmology Centre at the University of Copenhagen, used the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile's Atacama Desert to look at a massive cluster of galaxies called Abell 1689. The cluster's gravity magnified A1689-zD1 by a factor of nine, says Watson, which allowed him and several colleagues to gauge its distance from Earth and thus how long ago its light began traveling in our direction.
The VLT can see starlight but not dust, so Watson called on a colleague who was using the dust-sensitive ALMA radio telescope (see "Cosmic Dawn" in National Geographic magazine). "She had a look," says Watson, "and bingo!"
Like Marrone, Watson was taken aback by how dusty A1689-zD1 turned out to be. In bigger galaxies with more massive, short-lived stars, dust can pile up quickly since giant stars explode violently as supernovae after just a few million years. In smaller galaxies, most of the dust should emerge from the more gentle deaths of smaller stars that live for billions of years. So maybe A1689-zD1's dust comes from supernovae after all, says Watson. "But they'd have to produce the maximum possible dust," he says, to account for what ALMA sees, "and the dust can't be destroyed."
The only way to find out for sure is to uncover more galaxies like A1689-zD1. Unfortunately, they're extremely difficult to find—and the one other example astronomers have is almost entirely dust free, so it's impossible to say which type is more common. "We don't have any other candidates at this point," says Watson.
With ALMA, completed two years ago, and a new generation of giant optical telescopes now under construction, however, they're likely to find more of these galaxies before long. The very early universe doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment—but that's almost certainly going to change.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...nce-galaxies-space/?google_editors_picks=true
An object from the very early universe is bafflingly rich with dust that theory says shouldn't have formed yet.
Peering back in time to find the very earliest objects in the universe, an international team of astronomers has discovered a galaxy that shouldn't be there at all.
Share
Share on emailEmail
More »
The problem, the scientists report Monday in Nature, is that while the tiny galaxy dates from just 700 million years or so after the big bang, it's far more dusty than something this young and small has any right to be.
It's surprising, says Daniel Marrone, a University of Arizona expert on galaxy formation who wasn't involved in the research, because although dust is essential for the formation of planets and other solid material, the cosmos started out with no dust at all. In the aftermath of the big bang, the universe consisted only of hydrogen and helium gas (along with dark matter, but that's invisible).
The dusty galaxy is just one of the recent surprises astronomers have found. "Last week," says Marrone, "we learned of an incredibly massive black hole in the early universe. Now we have this average galaxy with significant amounts of dust. We've had this cartoon picture of the early universe, but it's clear that we really don't know what's going on."
What Astronomers Think They Know
The gas in the post-big bang universe condensed to form the first stars, which forged heavier elements, including carbon, silicon, and oxygen, then died and released those elements into space. It was from these that the first particles of dust formed.
Those first stars had already lived and died by the time this newly discovered galaxy, known as A1689-zD1, was up and running, so the universe was hardly dust free at that point. But most of the dust should have been in large, bright galaxies that formed lots of stars. A1689-zD1 is relatively small and dim—no bigger than the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy that orbits the Milky Way.
Few early galaxies have been spotted, because even the brightest among them is far away and thus relatively dim. To get around that problem, astronomers use the magnifying effect of gravity. Einstein's general theory of relativity says the gravity from an object closer to Earth can warp light rays from a more distant one. (Einstein thought we'd never actually observe this so-called gravitational lensing, but he was dead wrong about that.)
In this case, the Nature paper's lead author, Darach Watson, of the deliciously named Dark Cosmology Centre at the University of Copenhagen, used the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile's Atacama Desert to look at a massive cluster of galaxies called Abell 1689. The cluster's gravity magnified A1689-zD1 by a factor of nine, says Watson, which allowed him and several colleagues to gauge its distance from Earth and thus how long ago its light began traveling in our direction.
The VLT can see starlight but not dust, so Watson called on a colleague who was using the dust-sensitive ALMA radio telescope (see "Cosmic Dawn" in National Geographic magazine). "She had a look," says Watson, "and bingo!"
Like Marrone, Watson was taken aback by how dusty A1689-zD1 turned out to be. In bigger galaxies with more massive, short-lived stars, dust can pile up quickly since giant stars explode violently as supernovae after just a few million years. In smaller galaxies, most of the dust should emerge from the more gentle deaths of smaller stars that live for billions of years. So maybe A1689-zD1's dust comes from supernovae after all, says Watson. "But they'd have to produce the maximum possible dust," he says, to account for what ALMA sees, "and the dust can't be destroyed."
The only way to find out for sure is to uncover more galaxies like A1689-zD1. Unfortunately, they're extremely difficult to find—and the one other example astronomers have is almost entirely dust free, so it's impossible to say which type is more common. "We don't have any other candidates at this point," says Watson.
With ALMA, completed two years ago, and a new generation of giant optical telescopes now under construction, however, they're likely to find more of these galaxies before long. The very early universe doesn't make a lot of sense at the moment—but that's almost certainly going to change.
Bonobo genetic code shows apes closely related to humans, chimpanzees.
WASHINGTON -- Behold the bonobo, our ape cousin that's kinder and gentler than the chimp or, well, us. Now scientists have mapped the primate's DNA, and some researchers say that may eventually reveal secrets about how the darker side of our nature evolved.
Scientists have found that we are as close genetically to the peace-loving but little-known bonobo as we are to the more violent and better understood chimpanzee. It's as if they are siblings and we are cousins, related to them both equally, sharing some traits with just bonobos and other characteristics with just chimps.
Bonobos and humans share 98.7 percent of the same genetic blueprint, the same percentage shared with chimps, according to a study released Wednesday by the journal Nature. The two apes are much more closely related to each other – sharing 99.6 percent of their genomes – said study lead author Kay Prufer, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. "Humans are a little like a mosaic of bonobo and chimpanzee genomes."
Bonobos and chimps have distinctly different behaviors that can be seen in humans, with bonobos displaying what might be thought of as our better angels, said Duke University researcher Brian Hare. Bonobos make love, not war. Chimps have been documented to kill and make war. Bonobos share food with total strangers, but chimps do not. Bonobos stay close to their mothers – who even pick out their sons' mates – long after infancy like humans. But chimps tend to use tools better and have bigger brains, like humans.
`'Is the bonobo genome the secret to the biology of peace?" asked Hare, who was not involved in the new research. "They have done something in their evolution that even humans can't do. They don't have the dark side we do.
"If we only studied chimps, we'd get a skewed view of human evolution," he said.
Bonobos, chimps and humans shared a single common ancestor from about 6 million years ago, Prufer said. Chimps and bonobos shared the same common ancestor until about a million years ago, when the Congo River formed. Then the bonobos developed on one side of the river, the chimps the other. They became different species, even though scientists didn't realize that until about 90 years ago.
Bonobo heads are slightly smaller and their teeth are arranged differently. In behavior, bonobos are far more tolerant, more social. They are inordinately sexual. Instead of releasing tension by fighting, they couple repeatedly, Hare said. Bonobos are ruled by alpha females, chimps by males.
In some ways – especially when looking at the physiology of the brain – it's as if a bonobo is a juvenile chimp that doesn't develop, Hare said. Chimps get more violent as they age; bonobos don't.
While the scientific name for bonobos is Pan paniscus, "they should be Peter Pan," Hare said. "They never grow up and we have lots of data to support this idea. Much of their psychology seems to be frozen."
Some researchers say Hare has romanticized the bonobo too much. Emory University researcher Bill Hopkins says he has more bonobo scars than chimp scars on his body. Sure, bonobos will bite, but they won't kill, Hare said.
Bonobos are endangered and only live around the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo. "Ironically," Hare said, "bonobos are from the place where people are at their worst."
WASHINGTON -- Behold the bonobo, our ape cousin that's kinder and gentler than the chimp or, well, us. Now scientists have mapped the primate's DNA, and some researchers say that may eventually reveal secrets about how the darker side of our nature evolved.
Scientists have found that we are as close genetically to the peace-loving but little-known bonobo as we are to the more violent and better understood chimpanzee. It's as if they are siblings and we are cousins, related to them both equally, sharing some traits with just bonobos and other characteristics with just chimps.
Bonobos and humans share 98.7 percent of the same genetic blueprint, the same percentage shared with chimps, according to a study released Wednesday by the journal Nature. The two apes are much more closely related to each other – sharing 99.6 percent of their genomes – said study lead author Kay Prufer, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. "Humans are a little like a mosaic of bonobo and chimpanzee genomes."
Bonobos and chimps have distinctly different behaviors that can be seen in humans, with bonobos displaying what might be thought of as our better angels, said Duke University researcher Brian Hare. Bonobos make love, not war. Chimps have been documented to kill and make war. Bonobos share food with total strangers, but chimps do not. Bonobos stay close to their mothers – who even pick out their sons' mates – long after infancy like humans. But chimps tend to use tools better and have bigger brains, like humans.
`'Is the bonobo genome the secret to the biology of peace?" asked Hare, who was not involved in the new research. "They have done something in their evolution that even humans can't do. They don't have the dark side we do.
"If we only studied chimps, we'd get a skewed view of human evolution," he said.
Bonobos, chimps and humans shared a single common ancestor from about 6 million years ago, Prufer said. Chimps and bonobos shared the same common ancestor until about a million years ago, when the Congo River formed. Then the bonobos developed on one side of the river, the chimps the other. They became different species, even though scientists didn't realize that until about 90 years ago.
Bonobo heads are slightly smaller and their teeth are arranged differently. In behavior, bonobos are far more tolerant, more social. They are inordinately sexual. Instead of releasing tension by fighting, they couple repeatedly, Hare said. Bonobos are ruled by alpha females, chimps by males.
In some ways – especially when looking at the physiology of the brain – it's as if a bonobo is a juvenile chimp that doesn't develop, Hare said. Chimps get more violent as they age; bonobos don't.
While the scientific name for bonobos is Pan paniscus, "they should be Peter Pan," Hare said. "They never grow up and we have lots of data to support this idea. Much of their psychology seems to be frozen."
Some researchers say Hare has romanticized the bonobo too much. Emory University researcher Bill Hopkins says he has more bonobo scars than chimp scars on his body. Sure, bonobos will bite, but they won't kill, Hare said.
Bonobos are endangered and only live around the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo. "Ironically," Hare said, "bonobos are from the place where people are at their worst."
http://wknofm.org/post/brian-greene-mathematics-theoretical-physics-quantum-mechanics-and-more
Brian Greene on Mathematics, Theoretical Physics, Quantum Mechanics, and More
By Jonathan Judaken & Justin Willingham
Through a remarkable series of theoretical and observational breakthroughs, science has given a sharp insight into the universe's earliest moments and future. Author and physicist Brian Greene joins host Dr. Jonathan Judaken for an in-depth discussion.
Einstein once said, “Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Einstein could have been talking about author and physicist Brian Greene. The Washington Post has called Brian Greene “the single best explainer of abstruse scientific concepts in the world.” He is the bestselling author of The Fabric of the Cosmos, The Hidden Reality, as well as his breakout work, The Elegant Universe, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in General Nonfiction, won Britain’s top prize for a book on science, and has sold more than a million copies worldwide.
His books have been made into PBS television NOVA mini-series, and Greene continues to find new ways to bringing the latest science to wider audiences in compelling ways, including multiple TED Talks and an appearance on NPR's TED Radio Hour.
Host Dr. Jonathan Judaken talks to Greene, Co-founder and Director of Columbia’s Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics about exploring string theory’s implications for theories of cosmology, the search for gravitational waves, quantum mechanics, "super string theory" (or "M-Theory"), the Big Bang, understanding how theoretical physics makes a difference to ordinary people who only live in four dimensions, and more.
Greene is coming to Memphis on March 5, 2015 to give a free lecture at Rhodes College titled, “The Cosmos: From the Big Bang to the End of Time.” For information, visit the Rhodes College Communities in Conversation website.
35 minute talk by Brian Greene
http://cpa.ds.npr.org/wkno/audio/2015/02/2015-02-26cpbriangreene.mp3
Brian Greene on Mathematics, Theoretical Physics, Quantum Mechanics, and More
By Jonathan Judaken & Justin Willingham
Through a remarkable series of theoretical and observational breakthroughs, science has given a sharp insight into the universe's earliest moments and future. Author and physicist Brian Greene joins host Dr. Jonathan Judaken for an in-depth discussion.
Einstein once said, “Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Einstein could have been talking about author and physicist Brian Greene. The Washington Post has called Brian Greene “the single best explainer of abstruse scientific concepts in the world.” He is the bestselling author of The Fabric of the Cosmos, The Hidden Reality, as well as his breakout work, The Elegant Universe, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in General Nonfiction, won Britain’s top prize for a book on science, and has sold more than a million copies worldwide.
His books have been made into PBS television NOVA mini-series, and Greene continues to find new ways to bringing the latest science to wider audiences in compelling ways, including multiple TED Talks and an appearance on NPR's TED Radio Hour.
Host Dr. Jonathan Judaken talks to Greene, Co-founder and Director of Columbia’s Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics about exploring string theory’s implications for theories of cosmology, the search for gravitational waves, quantum mechanics, "super string theory" (or "M-Theory"), the Big Bang, understanding how theoretical physics makes a difference to ordinary people who only live in four dimensions, and more.
Greene is coming to Memphis on March 5, 2015 to give a free lecture at Rhodes College titled, “The Cosmos: From the Big Bang to the End of Time.” For information, visit the Rhodes College Communities in Conversation website.
35 minute talk by Brian Greene
http://cpa.ds.npr.org/wkno/audio/2015/02/2015-02-26cpbriangreene.mp3
But here is my guess on evolution that what most think of God or Jesus is in fact Alien when looking at the signs in Egypt paintings carvings etc they stress on flying objects and or flying men coming from the sky i believe these to be actual visitors from another Galaxy and the ones that actually bumped us along the way meaning possibly changing our DNA and yes possibly using a chimp or monkey as well as some of theres ????
and this is why were so closely related to the monkey
and thru time they have come back to check up on our progress hence since 1950's to present day there has been more sightings of UFO 's
with the major advancements achieved in really last 15 - 20 years then ever in history
I truly believe that Governments are in contact with these beings on a regular bases. and there giving out some info at a slow an steady rate think about it last 20 years was a boom in tech from cell phones to computors have you really not noticed things have slowed down now since them ???
So in reality these beings have been molding us for 100's of years
and this is why were so closely related to the monkey
and thru time they have come back to check up on our progress hence since 1950's to present day there has been more sightings of UFO 's
with the major advancements achieved in really last 15 - 20 years then ever in history
I truly believe that Governments are in contact with these beings on a regular bases. and there giving out some info at a slow an steady rate think about it last 20 years was a boom in tech from cell phones to computors have you really not noticed things have slowed down now since them ???
So in reality these beings have been molding us for 100's of years
genedigger
Member
its funny how man wrote down history telling us there were gods or many gods or that there was creation.why do we not want to believe it?why would someone thousands of years ago when survival was so much harder waste their time telling us what they have about history?why would they waste there measly little existence carving these stories on clay or whatever other material was around?when daily life was so much harder why did people waste their time telling the stories they did and trying so hard to record it for us?all the info of our present culture would be lost if the power went off.how come we arent trying to show in great detail our find of evolution?no one in 500 years when theres no more electricty is going to know we believed this as a culture.its funny how much of history from different cultures is eerily similiar yet we try so hard to debunk history instead of saying ,wow these people wasted there whole existence to tell us what they believed in,and what do we do?oh its all crap we evolved.
Midwest sticky
Resident Smartass & midget connoisseur
A lot of people say that those carvings,art and figurines are of birds, I'm not saying that's what I believe....
To control/manipulate the masses ?
yup other then rape and pillage what else did they have to worry about being concured by the romans ??? or Egypt or Mongolia they really were sheep being herded most them had no meaning to life i mean they were only SLAVES when you really think about it so yeah they day dreamed and thought of stupid ideas or gods that would save them but in reality none ever did they lived a no body and died the same
where do you think the bible came up with all the slavery in it or attack another nation and use them as slaves
where do you think the bible came up with all the slavery in it or attack another nation and use them as slaves
- Status
