I'd venture to say that, while the oceans are more depleted now than before, there are also a bevy of new species that have yet to be found. I think it might be flourishing more than some think, especially at deeper levels.
That said, mapping the ocean is a double-edged sword. It might open up previously-untouched areas to heavy fishing and resource depletion.
I didn't read the article, but-
I don't think the mapping will have anything to do with fishing per se.
This will be deep water exploration, beyond any fishing depths. We need to know how deep life goes, what kind of life is there, what is the geology like down there, etc.
There is a loose argument to be made that the whole ocean is an ecosystem, and we might discover something down there that affects the fish population and thereby effects the fishing industry, but that is not the goal, I don't think.
A natural compound found in some fruits, nuts and red wine may enhance exercise training and performance, demonstrates newly published medical research from the University of Alberta.
"We were excited when we saw that resveratrol showed results similar to what you would see from extensive endurance exercise training," says Dyck, who works in the Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry as a researcher in the department of Pediatrics and the department of Pharmacology. "We immediately saw the potential for this and thought that we identified 'improved exercise performance in a pill.'
I'm waiting for them to get to element 121, physically studying Superactinides is probably the best opportunity to search for improvements that could be made to the periodic table model, if something doesn't line up with current theories.
We you first look a valency in school it is probably the easiest question to jump to that doesn't have an easy answer. Does the table widen again in row 8? What does that look like? There are well developed ideas but no observation yet.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Their latest offering is something called “shape dynamics.” (If you’ve never heard of shape dynamics, that’s OK—neither have most physicists.) It could, of course, be a dead end, as most bold new ideas in physics are. Or it could be the next great revolution in our conception of the cosmos. Its supporters describe it as a new way of looking at gravity, although it could end up being quite a bit more than that. It appears to give a radical new picture of space and time—and of black holes in particular. It could even alter our view of what’s “real” in the universe.
Back in 1915, Einstein showed how gravity and geometry were linked, that what we imagine as the “force” of gravity can be thought of as a curvature in space and time. Ten years earlier, Einstein had shaken things up by showing that space and time are relative: What we measure with our clocks and yardsticks depends on the relative motion of us and the object being measured.
But even though space and time are relative in Einstein’s theory, scale remains absolute.
If we double the size of everything, then we’re also doubling the size of the yardsticks—which means the actual measurements we make don’t change. This suggests that “size” isn’t real in any absolute sense; it’s not an objective quantity. With shape dynamics, says Gryb, “we’re taking this very simple idea and trying to push it as far as we can. And what we realized—which was a surprise to me, actually—is that you can have relativity of scale and reproduce a theory of gravity which is equivalent to Einstein’s theory—but you have to abandon the notion of relative time.”
Intriguingly, shape dynamics reproduces all of the peculiar effects found in general relativity: Massive objects still warp the space around them, clocks still run more slowly in a strong gravitational field, just like in Einstein’s theory. Physicists call this a “duality”—a different mathematical description, but the same end results.
In most situations, shape dynamics predicts what Einstein’s theory predicts. “For the vast majority of physical situations, the theories are equivalent,” Gryb says. In other words, the two frameworks are almost identical—but not quite.
Singularities don’t sit well with physicists. They’re usually seen as a sign that something is not quite right with the underlying theory.
But according to shape dynamics’ proponents, the theory does away with singularities—a definite selling point.
The region inside the event horizon, which had seemed tiny, now appears huge. What had been the surface of the collapsing star is now the “sky,” and rather than shrinking, it’s getting larger. The space inside the event horizon “is the mirror image” of the space that our traveller left behind, outside the horizon, Gryb says.
In shape dynamics, falling into a black hole seems an awful lot like falling into a rabbit hole and discovering a strange new world on the other side, just like Alice did in Wonderland. The only problem is that we can’t see down the rabbit hole.
