No one talking about the dramatic new theory that changes the view of gravity from a fundamental force to one that is a result of entropy? Fixes Dark Matter and Dark Energy!
The Following User Says Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
There are other, more fundamental disappointments. Verlinde’s model allows gravitational mass to emerge, but there is no mention of inertial mass, or why those two are the same. (This is Einstein’s equivalence principle.) For another, many of the intricate assumptions that Verlinde makes can only get the numbers to work out if they apply the Hubble expansion rate as it is today, despite the fact that the Universe’s expansion rate has changed dramatically over its history. He’s also assumed that dark energy was always the dominant form of energy in the Universe in order to make this framework valid, but the truth is that for billions of years, dark energy was negligible. In other words, some of the key cornerstones of modern cosmology — like the large-scale formation of structure or the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background — aren’t sufficiently explained by this work.
Any one else catch this story about using crisper on a human?
I think this advancement could be on the scale of immunization, antibiotics, and blood transfusions. It's amazing how quickly this technology is moving, and the shear opportunities that exist.
I wonder what effect the Trump-Presidency/Republican Government will have on research in this area. In 2001 George Bush restricted federal funding for stem cell research. Could we see a similar restriction on DNA editing?
__________________
"And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."
“I don’t think we will survive another 1,000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet,” Hawking said Tuesday during a talk at Britain’s Oxford University Union.
“I don’t think we will survive another 1,000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet,” Hawking said Tuesday during a talk at Britain’s Oxford University Union.
Good thing we can leave this problem to our future generations. As long as I'm six feet under I have no problem with this!
“I don’t think we will survive another 1,000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet,” Hawking said Tuesday during a talk at Britain’s Oxford University Union.
Earth always perseveres. It's inhabitants not always. We can barely predict the weather more than a few days in advance so predicting something 1000 years away is kind of silly.
“I don’t think we will survive another 1,000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet,” Hawking said Tuesday during a talk at Britain’s Oxford University Union.
Quote:
"Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years," Hawking said in the speech,"By that time we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the human race."
Humans are a product of planet earth, we are fragile and don't belong nor can we survive in deep space long enough to reach other star systems even if future propulsion technologies go very fast.
Maybe I'm skeptic but unless we humans want to live on a dead planet (Mars) in a glass hut I see it that we eventually will die out on our own beautiful home. Possibly in a 100 million years a future earth life form will show off our fossils in museums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
Earth always perseveres. It's inhabitants not always. We can barely predict the weather more than a few days in advance so predicting something 1000 years away is kind of silly.
To be fair, Hawking is talking about human survival on planet earth, not the earth's survival.
Last edited by Snuffleupagus; 11-18-2016 at 05:22 AM.
“I don’t think we will survive another 1,000 years without escaping beyond our fragile planet,” Hawking said Tuesday during a talk at Britain’s Oxford University Union.
I have felt this way for a long time.
I kind of resent the idea though that the best way to survive is to find another planet to inhabit and likely ruin. Instead of gawking at the stars, I think the key to survival is more in biology and ecology. Figure out how to cure illnesses, live cleanly, protect our natural system, be peaceful... etc. It's crazy to me that "finding another planet" is seen as the solution to the problems we created.
I mean sure, colonizing a new planet and upsetting its natural balance sounds more exciting than finding clean renewable energy and ways of incorporating a a more organic lifestyle into modern living. But for survival of the species, finding a new planet should be plan B IMO.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I just read Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson. It is a great story about a multi-generational ship traveling to habitable worlds around Tau Ceti (10 light years away). The ship can travel at 0.10 c. I won't give away any plot details, but the main theme of the book is that "no starship voyage will work".
So, you know, Fermi’s paradox has its answer, which is this: by the time life gets smart enough to leave its planet, it’s too smart to want to go. Because it knows it won’t work. So it stays home. It enjoys its home. As why wouldn’t you? It doesn’t even bother to try to contact anyone else. Why would you? You’ll never hear back. So that’s my answer to the paradox. - Freya
I was critical of some of the science in the story, as were other writers (Baxter, Benford, Miller) in a review of the book:
In a sense this is the point of the novel, that even if we reach the stars we will find only dead or hostile worlds: ‘I mean, they [alien worlds] are all going to be dead or alive, right? If they’ve got water and orbit in the habitable zone, they’ll be alive. Alive and poisonous . . . What’s funny is anyone thinking it [interstellar colonisation] would work in the first place’ (chapter 3). And as Greg noted in his essay this reflects recent misgivings expressed by Paul Davies and others about the habitability by Earth life of exoplanets.
Is this reasonable? And is Robinson correct that this could be the solution to Fermi’s famous paradox?
Joe Miller thinks that an Andromeda Strain-like organism, inimical to Earth biology, is no more or less likely than ET organisms which simply find Earth biology indigestible. We don’t know, but the possibility that ET biology would be simply oblivious to Earth biology is a plausible situation, though not treated very much in SF because it is not very dramatic!
All from this blog about interstellar exploration:
In Centauri Dreams, Paul Gilster looks at peer-reviewed research on deep space exploration, with an eye toward interstellar possibilities. For the last nine years, this site has coordinated its efforts with the Tau Zero Foundation, and now serves as the Foundation's news forum.
I kind of resent the idea though that the best way to survive is to find another planet to inhabit and likely ruin. Instead of gawking at the stars, I think the key to survival is more in biology and ecology. Figure out how to cure illnesses, live cleanly, protect our natural system, be peaceful... etc. It's crazy to me that "finding another planet" is seen as the solution to the problems we created.
I mean sure, colonizing a new planet and upsetting its natural balance sounds more exciting than finding clean renewable energy and ways of incorporating a a more organic lifestyle into modern living. But for survival of the species, finding a new planet should be plan B IMO.
Hey, if your bedroom becomes too dirty and unkempt, you just go out and find a new one!
While agree with you, there are also things beyond our control, like ice ages, planet killing asteroids, and pathogens, viruses etc. We may be able to solve those problems eventually but having 2 homes improves long term survivability drastically.
Did the whole Universe start off from a really massive black hole? Was the Big Bang just a big burp? This theory is starting to make some noise in the scientific and astrophysics community.
No comprendo.
