ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 94 of 207
« First < 44849091929394 95969798104144194 > Last »
The Lounge>Science is Cool....
Fish 09:43 PM 05-21-2012
This is a repository for all cool scientific discussion and fascination. Scientific facts, theories, and overall cool scientific stuff that you'd like to share with others. Stuff that makes you smile and wonder at the amazing shit going on around us, that most people don't notice.

Post pictures, vidoes, stories, or links. Ask questions. Share science.

This is in support of the Penny 4 NASA project. If you enjoy anything you learned from this thread, consider making a donation and signing the petition.

http://www.penny4nasa.org/

Why should I care?:


[Reply]
ThaVirus 09:41 PM 02-18-2014
Originally Posted by Fish:
Hell yeah, gurl...

Heh. Just saw that one today on Facebook.

If you're on FB and into that sort of thing, the page "I fucking love science" is pretty cool.
[Reply]
Fish 09:45 PM 02-18-2014
Originally Posted by ThaVirus:
Heh. Just saw that one today on Facebook.

If you're on FB and into that sort of thing, the page "I fucking love science" is pretty cool.
They're awesome. I've linked quite a bit of stuff from them actually. Definitely one of my favorite's on Facebook.
[Reply]
Fish 09:58 PM 02-18-2014
A lung you say? YES! Let me dial it in the computer here.. one moment... TA-DAAH! A replacement lung!

Human lung made in lab for first time

(CNN) -- For the first time, scientists have created human lungs in a lab -- an exciting step forward in regenerative medicine, but an advance that likely won't help patients for many years.

"It's so darn cool," said Joan Nichols, a researcher at the University of Texas Medical Branch. "It's been science fiction and we're moving into science fact."
If the lungs work -- and that's a big if -- they could help the more than 1,600 people awaiting a lung transplant. Lungs are one of many body parts being manufactured in the lab -- some parts, such as tracheas and livers, are even further along.

"Whole-organ engineering is going to work as a solution to the organ donor shortage," said Dr. Stephen Badylak, deputy director of the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

The researchers in Galveston, Texas, started with lungs from two children who'd died from trauma, most likely a car accident, Nichols said. Their lungs were too damaged to be used for transplantation, but they did have some healthy tissue.

They took one of the lungs and stripped away nearly everything, leaving a scaffolding of collagen and elastin.

The scientists then took cells from the other lung and put them on the scaffolding. They immersed the structure in a large chamber filled with a liquid "resembling Kool-Aid," Nichols said, which provided nutrients for the cells to grow. After about four weeks, an engineered human lung emerged.


Repeating the process, they created another lung from two other children who'd died.

The lab-made lungs look very much like the real thing, Nichols says, just pinker, softer and less dense.

Nichols said she thinks it will be another 12 years or so until they'll be ready to try using these lungs for transplants.

"My students will be doing the work when I'm old and retired and can't hold a pipette anymore," she said.

Before researchers experiment on humans, they'll try out lab-made lungs on pigs, she said.

Doctors have already had success transplanting patients with synthetic tracheas. The first procedure was done in 2011, and since then, six more have been done.

Two of the patients have died of causes unrelated to their tracheas, said David Green, CEO of Harvard Apparatus Regenerative Technology, which makes equipment used to make engineered body parts.
[Reply]
Fish 10:07 PM 02-18-2014
Earth selfie... courtesy of the ISS.... bump up the resolution to HD and fullscreen this shit.


[Reply]
Pants 10:12 PM 02-18-2014
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
Everyone know the future of secure communications is using Quantum theories. The problem has been that only scientific labs or huge businesses have enough quantum memory to run the math to encrypt and decrypt.

Now they have figured out a way to not use quantum memory.

http://phys.org/news/2014-02-quantum...-memories.html

Makes sense.
[Reply]
GloryDayz 10:20 PM 02-18-2014
Originally Posted by Fish:
Earth selfie... courtesy of the ISS.... bump up the resolution to HD and fullscreen this shit.

Rep for you fine Sir. Much awesomeness!
[Reply]
Fish 10:34 PM 02-18-2014
Monkey Avatar. Seriously you guys... Monkey Avatar...

And this is just the stuff we admit to.....

Master monkey's brain controls sedated 'avatar'

The brain of one monkey has been used to control the movements of another, "avatar", monkey, US scientists report.

Brain scans read the master monkey's mind and were used to electrically stimulate the avatar's spinal cord, resulting in controlled movement.

The team hope the method can be refined to allow paralysed people to regain control of their own body.

The findings, published in Nature Communications, have been described as "a key step forward".

Damage to the spinal cord can stop the flow of information from the brain to the body, leaving people unable to walk or feed themselves.

The researchers are aiming to bridge the damage with machinery.

Match electrical activity

The scientists at Harvard Medical School said they could not justify paralysing a monkey. Instead, two were used - a master monkey and a sedated avatar.

The master had a brain chip implanted that could monitor the activity of up to 100 neurons.

During training, the physical actions of the monkey were matched up with the patterns of electrical activity in the neurons.

The avatar had 36 electrodes implanted in the spinal cord and tests were performed to see how stimulating different combinations of electrodes affected movement.

The two monkeys were then hooked up so that the brain scans in one controlled movements in real time in the other.

The sedated avatar held a joystick, while the master had to think about moving a cursor up or down.

In 98% of tests, the master could correctly control the avatar's arm.

One of the researchers, Dr Ziv Williams, told the BBC: "The goal is to take people with brain stem or spinal cord paralysis and bypass the injury.

"The hope is ultimately to get completely natural movement, I think it's theoretically possible, but it will require an exponential additional effort to get to that point."

He said that giving paralysed people even a small amount of movement could dramatically alter their quality of life.

Reality or science fiction?

The idea of one brain controlling an avatar body is the stuff of blockbuster Hollywood movies.

However, Prof Christopher James, of the University of Warwick, dismissed a future of controlling other people's bodies by thought.

He said: "Some people may be concerned this might mean someone taking over control of someone else's body, but the risk of this is a no-brainer.

"Whilst the control of limbs is sophisticated, it is still rather crude overall, plus of course in an able-bodied person their own control over their limbs remains anyway, so no-one is going to control anyone else's body against their wishes any time soon."

Instead, he said this was "very important research" with "profound" implications "especially for controlling limbs in spinal cord injury, or controlling prosthetic limbs with limb amputees".

Realising that goal will face additional challenges. Moving a cursor up and down is a long way from the dextrous movement needed to drink from a cup.

There are also differences in the muscles of people after paralysis; they tend to become more rigid. And fluctuating blood pressure may make restoring control more challenging.

Prof Bernard Conway, head of biomedical engineering at the University of Strathclyde, said: "The work is a key step forward that demonstrates the potential of brain machine interfaces to be used in restoring purposeful movement to people affected by paralysis.

"However, significant work still remains to be done before this technology will be able to be offered to the people who need it."
[Reply]
Dave Lane 10:51 PM 02-18-2014
A new and daring cosmological model of the universe from a university in Taiwan describes the universe without a big bang – an eternal universe with NO beginning and NO end. This new and insane model for the universe is actually crazier than it sounds, so bear with me here while we delve into details.

Professor Wun-Yi Shu (from the National Tsing Hua University), has completely veered off of traditional cosmological thinking by proposing a universe that hypothetically explains our observations better than the current models. Shu means to do away with dark energy altogether, while at the same time explaining the acceleration of the universe more precisely. Shu proposes this model to answer some of the most puzzling questions in cosmology, such as the flatness problem (a problem pertaining to cosmological fine-tuning), and the horizon problem (which deals with the uneven temperatures in the universe) – all in one encompassing new model.



Shu’s cosmology includes a sweeping change of our understanding of the universe. Space, time, mass, and length can all be converted between themselves. The speed of light and the gravitational constant are both variable. Time has no beginning or end (neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity). The universe is a sphere instead of being flat (a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere called a 3-sphere) and other seemingly bizarre concepts. At some point in the universe’s history, time converts into space, while mass converts into length. Conversely, the opposite also at some point holds true. Length converts to mass and the universe contracts – eventually causing the conversion to take place again procuring another inflation/expansion event.

Shu argues that the big bang cosmological model does not adequately explain the expansion of the universe; thus forcing scientists to propose the existence of things such as dark energy to help fill the voids in our knowledge. According to the tests he has run using observations of Type Ia supernovae, his model of cosmology is a much better match for the available data. The nature of Shu’s cosmological model eliminates problems facing the big bang event because this model simply does not have one. Furthermore, the 3-sphere nature of Shu’s universe automatically eliminates the flatness and horizon problems – although I would be neglectful if I failed to mention that inflation has (for the most part), solved both of these problems.

Shu’s ‘steady state’ model of the universe has been published on ArXiv for review from his peers (although ArXiv itself is not a peer reviewed journal). Pending review, Shu’s model might gain some credence– or it will simply remain as an interesting (albeit insane) artifact of mathematics
[Reply]
J Diddy 10:57 PM 02-18-2014
Originally Posted by Dave Lane:
A new and daring cosmological model of the universe from a university in Taiwan describes the universe without a big bang – an eternal universe with NO beginning and NO end. This new and insane model for the universe is actually crazier than it sounds, so bear with me here while we delve into details.

Professor Wun-Yi Shu (from the National Tsing Hua University), has completely veered off of traditional cosmological thinking by proposing a universe that hypothetically explains our observations better than the current models. Shu means to do away with dark energy altogether, while at the same time explaining the acceleration of the universe more precisely. Shu proposes this model to answer some of the most puzzling questions in cosmology, such as the flatness problem (a problem pertaining to cosmological fine-tuning), and the horizon problem (which deals with the uneven temperatures in the universe) – all in one encompassing new model.

A depiction of a 3-sphere. Image from: Wikipedia
A depiction of a 3-sphere. Image from: Wikipedia
Shu’s cosmology includes a sweeping change of our understanding of the universe. Space, time, mass, and length can all be converted between themselves. The speed of light and the gravitational constant are both variable. Time has no beginning or end (neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity). The universe is a sphere instead of being flat (a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere called a 3-sphere) and other seemingly bizarre concepts. At some point in the universe’s history, time converts into space, while mass converts into length. Conversely, the opposite also at some point holds true. Length converts to mass and the universe contracts – eventually causing the conversion to take place again procuring another inflation/expansion event.

Shu argues that the big bang cosmological model does not adequately explain the expansion of the universe; thus forcing scientists to propose the existence of things such as dark energy to help fill the voids in our knowledge. According to the tests he has run using observations of Type Ia supernovae, his model of cosmology is a much better match for the available data. The nature of Shu’s cosmological model eliminates problems facing the big bang event because this model simply does not have one. Furthermore, the 3-sphere nature of Shu’s universe automatically eliminates the flatness and horizon problems – although I would be neglectful if I failed to mention that inflation has (for the most part), solved both of these problems.

Shu’s ‘steady state’ model of the universe has been published on ArXiv for review from his peers (although ArXiv itself is not a peer reviewed journal). Pending review, Shu’s model might gain some credence– or it will simply remain as an interesting (albeit insane) artifact of mathematics
If I wanted hunches without any evidence or verification I would read ol' weaselzipper.
[Reply]
tiptap 08:44 AM 02-19-2014
Originally Posted by Fish:
Yes, you're right. When I said the sun orbited the barrycenter of the universe, I meant that it orbited the barrycenter of just our solar system. I said it right the first few times, but confused "Universe" with "Solar system" in the post with the gifs. I meant the total center of mass of the planets in our solar system. Not the entire universe.

Technically, I also referenced the barrycenter of the Sun-Jupiter as well, which is different than the planet center of mass as it just compared the masses of two bodies.
I wasn't clear if it was a slip up or you were going to address geocentric's claims. But it is important to recognize that the same equations of gravity theories allow for what we refer to orbiting (in which smaller mass objects move over larger angular distances than the larger mass objects in ellipses) also allows parabolic and hyberbolic movements that means objects collide or have ever increasing distances between them.
[Reply]
tiptap 09:09 AM 02-19-2014
Originally Posted by Dave Lane:
A new and daring cosmological model of the universe from a university in Taiwan describes the universe without a big bang – an eternal universe with NO beginning and NO end. This new and insane model for the universe is actually crazier than it sounds, so bear with me here while we delve into details.

Professor Wun-Yi Shu (from the National Tsing Hua University), has completely veered off of traditional cosmological thinking by proposing a universe that hypothetically explains our observations better than the current models. Shu means to do away with dark energy altogether, while at the same time explaining the acceleration of the universe more precisely. Shu proposes this model to answer some of the most puzzling questions in cosmology, such as the flatness problem (a problem pertaining to cosmological fine-tuning), and the horizon problem (which deals with the uneven temperatures in the universe) – all in one encompassing new model.



Shu’s cosmology includes a sweeping change of our understanding of the universe. Space, time, mass, and length can all be converted between themselves. The speed of light and the gravitational constant are both variable. Time has no beginning or end (neither a big bang nor a big crunch singularity). The universe is a sphere instead of being flat (a higher-dimensional analogue of a sphere called a 3-sphere) and other seemingly bizarre concepts. At some point in the universe’s history, time converts into space, while mass converts into length. Conversely, the opposite also at some point holds true. Length converts to mass and the universe contracts – eventually causing the conversion to take place again procuring another inflation/expansion event.

Shu argues that the big bang cosmological model does not adequately explain the expansion of the universe; thus forcing scientists to propose the existence of things such as dark energy to help fill the voids in our knowledge. According to the tests he has run using observations of Type Ia supernovae, his model of cosmology is a much better match for the available data. The nature of Shu’s cosmological model eliminates problems facing the big bang event because this model simply does not have one. Furthermore, the 3-sphere nature of Shu’s universe automatically eliminates the flatness and horizon problems – although I would be neglectful if I failed to mention that inflation has (for the most part), solved both of these problems.

Shu’s ‘steady state’ model of the universe has been published on ArXiv for review from his peers (although ArXiv itself is not a peer reviewed journal). Pending review, Shu’s model might gain some credence– or it will simply remain as an interesting (albeit insane) artifact of mathematics
Ok this is a mathematical phase space that is the model. It takes the relationships of length and mass, tied Newtonianly/Einstein by gravity, and finds a phase space to set them as equivalent. Not unlike in Einstien's theories were one uses units were mass is tied to the total energy of a system. Since this model starts with present conditions, I would expect it to cascade forward and backwards unchanged. And while our present "Big Bang" models have trouble with expansion and dark matter and such, we headed down those models to account for Hubble's observations that the universe is expanding and the Hiss of the background radiation as evidence in the first place. The unevenness and the acceleration in expansion is seen as more of a perturbance from a smooth model with a distinct starting point of the relationship between parts of existence of Big Bang.

I suspect this higher dimensional theory captures the different relationships that the parts of existence may have in a multidimentional universe but does not embed the particular relationship of our specific universe. It is sort of like tying a knot. There are all kinds of knots and this new theory expresses the relationships of knots in general but the specific steps and the "knot" that results is our universe is not specified.
[Reply]
Dave Lane 09:11 AM 02-19-2014

[Reply]
Easy 6 06:38 PM 02-19-2014
Originally Posted by Fish:
Earth selfie... courtesy of the ISS.... bump up the resolution to HD and fullscreen this shit.

Excellent post, loved that.

It gives an excellent idea of just how populated the world is, ****ing lights everywhere, no wonder its so hard to find a chunk of water and woods around here to have to myself.

And the northern lights, that was the highlight, absolutely beautiful... they're like God decided to put on his own Pink Floyd laser light show, must be even better in space.
[Reply]
BigRedChief 08:11 PM 02-19-2014
Originally Posted by tiptap:
Ok this is a mathematical phase space that is the model. It takes the relationships of length and mass, tied Newtonianly/Einstein by gravity, and finds a phase space to set them as equivalent. Not unlike in Einstien's theories were one uses units were mass is tied to the total energy of a system. Since this model starts with present conditions, I would expect it to cascade forward and backwards unchanged. And while our present "Big Bang" models have trouble with expansion and dark matter and such, we headed down those models to account for Hubble's observations that the universe is expanding and the Hiss of the background radiation as evidence in the first place. The unevenness and the acceleration in expansion is seen as more of a perturbance from a smooth model with a distinct starting point of the relationship between parts of existence of Big Bang.

I suspect this higher dimensional theory captures the different relationships that the parts of existence may have in a multidimentional universe but does not embed the particular relationship of our specific universe. It is sort of like tying a knot. There are all kinds of knots and this new theory expresses the relationships of knots in general but the specific steps and the "knot" that results is our universe is not specified.
Wow, has anyone else published some theories similar to this. Pretty far out from the mainstream.
[Reply]
Holladay 11:46 AM 02-20-2014
Did Thannon Tharpe coin the term Barrycenter?

Now we can call this a football thread as well.
[Reply]
Page 94 of 207
« First < 44849091929394 95969798104144194 > Last »
Up