|
Post by paul on Feb 28, 2013 10:31:10 GMT 9.5
I was amused to follow the logic here:
"In their study Bromham and colleagues found there were at least 350 species of grasses that are naturally salt tolerant.
But when they mapped out the relationship of these species to the rest of the grass family, they were surprised at what they found.
"We expected, when we looked for those 350 species, that they'd be clustered together in family groups," says Bromham.
"[Instead] we found those species are scattered throughout the grass family."
Rather than salt-tolerant species developing a few times and then leading to a whole group of descendants with this trait, the researchers found salt tolerance evolved at least 70 separate times in the history of grasses.
Salt tolerance is a complex trait, says Bromham, but the finding that a diverse range of lineages can give rise to it, suggests it can arise quite easily.
"You don't need a big suite of traits that are very unusual to get salt tolerance," she says.
"It looks to us that normal physiology can be tweaked to become salt tolerant and that's why it can arise quite often."
But, Bromham says, the fact most salt-tolerant species are not in groups of salt-tolerant relatives suggests the trait is fleeting.
"It seems like salt tolerance can evolve fairly easily, but, on the whole, it doesn't stay around in evolutionary time," she says.
Bromham says this is possibly because salt tolerance comes at a cost to plants, and this could be the reason why it is so challenging to develop commercially viable, salt-tolerant plants.
Crop challenges Unfortunately, the study was not able to pin down which traits resulted in the most persistent salt tolerance.
"Our results aren't going to directly lead to new crop plants but it might shed some light on why it's been so difficult to breed salt-tolerant crops," says Bromham."
I wonder if some other hypothesis might fit the data better.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Feb 28, 2013 12:48:03 GMT 9.5
>So what mechanism would distribute grass seed tolerant of salt? Since the mechanism is so dispersed it may be that it was managed. Perhaps it was a similar process to that by which cavemen supposedly produced bred heavy-yielding plants from poor wild species. "'During this domestication ancient humans subjected common agronomic traits to artificial selection, thereby increasing the seed or fruit size, synchronisation of growth and flowering, loss of seed dispersal, changes in plant architecture and other characteristics comprising the 'domestication syndrome'. www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1394938/Cavemen-grew-GM-modified-rice-10-000-years-ago.html#ixzz2M9zK8dmLRussian scientists at a particular institute have been unable to reproduce that process in 150 years of continuous effort. Perhaps cavemen were smarter. Or perhaps it was just smarter people - regardless of where they lived.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 1, 2013 7:38:48 GMT 9.5
>they have modes of perception that I lost long ago Yesterday I was discussing with a hydrogeologist the nature of the Great Artesian Basin that covers about 10 000 square miles under Australia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_BasinI had been looking at the only coordinated data for rainfall and water levels at the so-called recharge areas. The data in no way supported the idea that recharge occurred there. So I asked him about it. He knew the problem and said that the theory was that only very great rains could cause the recharge and that those had never been recorded - occurring perhaps once in 1000 years. Thus the fact that the best data contradicted the theory did not even make a dent on the theory's support.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 2, 2013 6:46:58 GMT 9.5
> I have wondered about the alternate water source possibilities for water myself! Like could this have been salt water prior to it being fresh! The origin of water is a great problem for conventional science. For example the ocean beds are about 250 million years old. Where was that water before then? Here is a Scientific American article : There are basically three possible sources for the water. It could have (1) separated out from the rocks that make up the bulk of the earth; (2) arrived as part of a late-accreting veneer of water- rich meteorites, similar to the carbonaceous chondrites that we see today; or (3) arrived as part of a late-accreting veneer of icy planetesimals, that is, comets. www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-do-we-know-about-theAs we can see "late-accreting veneer of icy planetesimals" arrived about the time the ocean beds were formed - and they stopped coming when the oceans were filled. It may not be a surprise that the presence of gold on the surface has the same explanation - delivered by comets. www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14827624 (According to the theory of planetary formation and the logic of gravity, all of the heavy elements should have sunk deep into the planet) Returning to water, the "recharge springs" in the Great Artesian Basin contain Helium 3 and that is not associated with biological processes but rather the magma of the Earth. Hence at least some of the GAB water is being fed from internal magmatic processes. There are other sources too, including biological oxidation of hydrocarbons using sulphates and nitrates as oxygen sources producing sulphide (metal ore deposits) and nitrogen as by-products - hence some shale gases in the US being up to 80% nitrogen. (While the Earth has 80% nitrogen in its atmosphere some other planets have none - is that why there is so much more water on this planet?) Thus these bugs produce oil, water and metal ore in one process. The wonders of evolution! One set of bugs supports most of modern civilisation. The bugs that produced the first oxygen atmosphere are even more wondrous in their existence.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Mar 13, 2013 19:52:50 GMT 9.5
It seems that Neanderthals (with larger brains than modern humans) became extinct because their eyes became too big. (It seems that adaptation to the environment can wipe out a species) "As Neanderthals had larger eye, researchers believe more of their brain was devoted to seeing in the long, dark nights in Europe, at the expense of high-level processing, according to the BBC. ... The research team wanted to explore the idea that the ancestor of Neanderthals left Africa and had to adapt to the longer, darker nights and murkier days of Europe. The result was that Neanderthals evolved larger eyes and a much larger visual processing area at the back of their brains. The humans that stayed in Africa, on the other hand, continued to enjoy bright and beautiful days and so had no need for such an adaption. Instead, these people, our ancestors, evolved their frontal lobes, associated with higher level thinking, before they spread across the globe. Eiluned Pearce of Oxford University decided to check this theory. She compared the skulls of 32 Homo sapiens and 13 Neanderthal skulls and found that Neanderthals had significantly larger eye sockets - on average 6mm longer from top to bottom. Although this seems like a small amount, she said that it was enough for Neanderthals to use significantly more of their brain to process visual information. Since Neanderthals evolved at higher latitudes, more of the Neanderthal brain would have been dedicated to vision and body control, leaving less brain to deal with other functions like social networking, she explained to BBC News. Prof Chris Stringer, an expert in human origins at the Natural History Museum in London but also involved in the research, also agreed. "We infer that Neanderthals had a smaller cognitive part of the brain and this would have limited them, including their ability to form larger groups. If you live in a larger group, you need a larger brain in order to process all those extra relationships," he said. " zeenews.india.com/news/science/neanderthals-large-eyes-might-have-led-to-their-extinction_835026.htmlThus adaptation of eyes to the local environment (if it actually happened at all) reduced slightly the brain capacity of the Neanderthals (if that happened at all) and directed more brain function to sight (if that happened at all) and thereby reduced brain activity for other activities (if that happened at all) and thereby prevented group activity (if that happened at all) and they died out (if that happened at all there being significant Neanderthal genetics in modern man). Is that really science?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 3, 2013 8:01:34 GMT 9.5
One of the wonders of science is the lunar tides. The moon pulls the water towards it on one side of the Earth and pushes it away on the other.
But the Moon is said to have 1/6th of the gravity of the Earth, and if the Earth mass operates gravitationally from the centre of the Earth, and the Moon is 240 000 miles away, then a simple calculation shows that the pull of the Moon on the Earth's is water about 0.00005 times the force of the Earth gravity.
Since the Earth's gravity is about 32 ft/sec/sec the effect of the Moon on the Earth's surface is about 0.002 ft/sec/sec
How then would the Moon produce a measurable tide?
Such is high school science.
Actually the Moon's gravity is similar to the Earth's hence has an atmosphere, hence the presence of dust clouds when the astrononauts were on the Moon. But the greater gravity is still too low to produce the tides.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 3, 2013 9:48:43 GMT 9.5
-> and if the Earth mass operates gravitationally from the centre of the Earth
Mystic and scientist, James Churchward tells that ancient writings state that gravity originates at the frictional point where the earth's crust meets the next layer down. He also stated that in the centre of the molten core is a small vacuum. Can't remember the details but both centrifugal and centripetal forces are at play so that all that originates from the four elements is recycled - pushed out into the atmosphere and then pulled back in again. The Sun plays an important part in this cycle.
Can't help but relate this to the Mosaic pavement and its 'guardian' boarder (above which is the Light). And VITRIOL
Could the fact that the moon is 'dead' affect the process above?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 3, 2013 11:12:51 GMT 9.5
>ancient writings state that gravity originates at the frictional point where the earth's crust meets the next layer down. That may be so, but there are certainly plenty of reports of ufos using some sort of beam to lift large objects and people, possibly indicating the capacity to generate localised gravity fields. And that reminds me that there are places on the Earth where cars run uphill with the engine stopped. "a slope in northeastern Gansu province where water runs uphill, according to a report in the Hong Kong Standard (8 Nov 1998). The 200ft (60m) slope at an angle of 15 degrees was discovered by army officer Zhao Guobiao in a desert region of Yugur County. " www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/175/gravity_anomalies.html"The largest mystery is that the effect pulsates temporally. If in a place e.g. a bottle rolled still uphill, sometimes some minutes later it does not work any longer, but in another place instead." www.fosar-bludorf.com/archiv/rocca_eng.htmThis last is interesting. It suggests that gravitational fields can fluctuate markedly in short periods of time. Note also that the spirit level is also affected by the field giving an incorrect reading, and a pendulum demonstrates that a variation in the gravitational field "At the via dei Laghi however the oscillation duration amounted to the average 0.9788 seconds, whereby the measuring error due to the measuring procedure amounts at the most to only 0.002 seconds. Thus it is proven that a pendulum at the via dei Laghi swings significantly more slowly, which is explainable only by a gravitation deviation, so the gravitation there is around approximately 3.2% smaller than in Berlin." Where the gravity field of the Moon varies markedly there is assumed to be high density mass concentrations (mascons) below the surface. I do not know if that has been tested. The term mascons was invented for the Moon so presumably similar variations have not been observed on Earth. Why not? >He also stated that in the centre of the molten core is a small vacuum. A hollow centre? >Could the fact that the moon is 'dead' affect the process above? Not that I can imagine.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 3, 2013 12:56:17 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Carl Sagan on Jun 3, 2013 17:58:22 GMT 9.5
There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.
At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes — an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense.
In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 3, 2013 18:03:13 GMT 9.5
... Science is a self-correcting process.... With the theory of Relativity it seems that a century is not enough for the self-correction.
|
|
|
Post by Isaac Asimov on Jun 3, 2013 18:42:22 GMT 9.5
... Science is a self-correcting process.... With the theory of Relativity it seems that a century is not enough for the self-correction. Much in science is pragmatically heuristic.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 4, 2013 9:20:33 GMT 9.5
This forum might be described as pragmatically heuristic ( - I had to look up that word) - we serve to find out or encourage investigation into areas that will provide practical results. The extra-ordinary experiences sometimes related here might suggest that such searches can prove fruitful.
|
|
|
Post by Tree of Knowledge on Jun 4, 2013 21:15:58 GMT 9.5
This forum might be described as pragmatically heuristic ( :) - I had to look up that word) - we serve to find out or encourage investigation into areas that will provide practical results. The extra-ordinary experiences sometimes related here might suggest that such searches can prove fruitful. Fruitful if credibly tested.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Jun 5, 2013 10:40:56 GMT 9.5
How does one test love to see if it really is love?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 5, 2013 11:02:59 GMT 9.5
>How does one test love to see if it really is love?
An excellent question but a bit complicated.
As we know love energies exist on every level (plane) of existence - with manifestations ranging from chemistry, physical reproduction, emotional relationship, mental closeness, heart harmony, conjoined wills, and on upwards.
So the first task is to measure the plane (and sub-plane) on which the "love" exists.
The next is consider the quality of energy - e.g. which rays are present. Rays 2, 4, 6 are particularly good transmitters of love but also 5 and 7 have some resonance.
Then we might consider the intent behind the energy. For example some beings use love energies to achieve self-oriented goals.
We might also consider the types of entity involved and the presence or absence of higher agenda.
For all this we might need the fabled Masonic science starting with the mysterious ladder veiled by Jacob's Ladder
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 5, 2013 11:06:28 GMT 9.5
>>How does one test love to see if it really is love?
And here is the non-technical approach:
Set the target energies in a visualised space and then visualise bringing a sheet of paper near the target energies. Put different words on the paper and see what happens when the paper approaches the target energies. Suitable words may include: God's love, soul love, emotional attachment, etc
Thus providing we can name the energy we can test for its presence.
If we struggle to name the energy then the more complex process above may help.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Clement on Jun 5, 2013 15:53:40 GMT 9.5
"Speculation is perfectly all right, but if you stay there you've only founded a superstition. If you test it, you've started a science."
|
|
|
Post by mumbo-jumbo on Jun 5, 2013 16:00:55 GMT 9.5
>>How does one test love to see if it really is love? And here is the non-technical approach: Set the target energies in a visualised space and then visualise bringing a sheet of paper near the target energies. Put different words on the paper and see what happens when the paper approaches the target energies. Suitable words may include: God's love, soul love, emotional attachment, etc Thus providing we can name the energy we can test for its presence. If we struggle to name the energy then the more complex process above may help. What has this subjective and pretentious mumbo-jumbo got to do with the "Processes of science" thread?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Jun 5, 2013 20:38:32 GMT 9.5
Try the experiment and you may discover the answer.
|
|