Q1 As usual top brands bragging about space-expansion without any
conclusions but expanding in number of lines only.
SPACE IS A MIRAGE NOT TRICKY AS NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY."LiveScience
The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study
suggests
By Robert Lea published June 21, 2023
New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the
expansion of the universe could be an illusion.
Astronomers use the light from distant stars, such as the Helix Nebula seen
here, to measure the apparent expansion of the universe. New research
suggests there may be more to the picture that we're not seeing.
The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, a potentially
controversial new study suggests.
This rethinking of the cosmos also suggests solutions for the puzzles of
dark energy and dark matter, which scientists believe account for around
95% of the total energy and matter in the universe but remain shrouded in
mystery.
The novel new approach is detailed in a paper published June 2 in the
journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, by University of Geneva professor of
theoretical physics Lucas Lombriser.
Scientists know the universe is expanding because of redshift, the
stretching of light's wavelength towards the redder end of the spectrum as
the object emitting it moves away from us. Distant galaxies have a higher
redshift than those nearer to us, suggesting those galaxies are moving ever
further from Earth.
More recently, scientists have found evidence that the universe's expansion
isn't fixed, but is actually accelerating faster and faster. This
accelerating expansion is captured by a term known as the cosmological
constant, or lambda.
The cosmological constant has been a headache for cosmologists because
predictions of its value made by particle physics differ from actual
observations by 120 orders of magnitude. The cosmological constant has
therefore been described as "the worst prediction in the history of
physics."
Cosmologists often try to resolve the discrepancy between the different
values of lambda by proposing new particles or physical forces but
Lombriser tackles it by reconceptualizing what's already there.
"In this work, we put on a new pair of glasses to look at the cosmos and
its unsolved puzzles by performing a mathematical transformation of the
physical laws that govern it," Lombriser told Live Science via email.
In Lombriser's mathematical interpretation, the universe isn't expanding
but is flat and static, as Einstein once believed. The effects we observe
that point to expansion are instead explained by the evolution of the
masses of particles — such as protons and electrons — over time.
In this picture, these particles arise from a field that permeates
space-time. The cosmological constant is set by the field's mass and
because this field fluctuates, the masses of the particles it gives birth
to also fluctuate. The cosmological constant still varies with time, but in
this model that variation is due to changing particle mass over time, not
the expansion of the universe.
In the model, these field fluctuations result in larger redshifts for
distant galaxy clusters than traditional cosmological models predict. And
so, the cosmological constant remains true to the model's predictions.
"I was surprised that the cosmological constant problem simply seems to
disappear in this new perspective on the cosmos," Lombriser said.
A recipe for the dark universe
Lombriser's new framework also tackles some of cosmology's other pressing
problems, including the nature of dark matter. This invisible material
outnumbers ordinary matter particles by a ratio of 5 to 1, but remains
mysterious because it doesn't interact with light.
Lombriser suggested that fluctuations in the field could also behave like a
so-called axion field, with axions being hypothetical particles that are
one of the suggested candidates for dark matter.
These fluctuations could also do away with dark energy, the hypothetical
force stretching the fabric of space and thus driving galaxies apart faster
and faster. In this model, the effect of dark energy, according to
Lombriser, would be explained by particle masses taking a different
evolutionary path at later times in the universe.
In this picture "there is, in principle, no need for dark energy,"
Lombriser added.
"The paper is pretty interesting, and it provides an unusual outcome for
multiple problems in cosmology," García, who was not involved in the
research, told Live Science. "The theory provides an outlet for the current
tensions in cosmology."
*However, García urged caution in assessing the paper's findings, saying it
contains elements in its theoretical model that likely can't be tested
observationally, at least in the near future.*
Originally published on LiveScience.com.
Q2 Alfred Russel Wallace deserves better
DAVID LLOYD
*, JULIAN WIMPENNY and ALFRED VENABLES
School of Biosciences (Microbiology), Cardiff University, Main Building,
Museum Avenue,
Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3AT, Wales, UK
*Corresponding author (Fax, +44 (0)2920 874305, Email, [email protected])
During 2009, while we were celebrating Charles Darwin and his The origin of
species, sadly, little was said about
the critical contribution of Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) to the
development of the theory of evolution. Like
Darwin, he was a truly remarkable nineteenth century intellect and polymath
and, according to a recent book by Roy
Davies (The Darwin conspiracy: origins of a scientifi c crime), he has a
stronger claim to the Theory of Evolution
by Natural Selection than has Darwin. Here we present a critical comparison
between the contributions of the two
scientists. Sometimes referred to as ‘The other beetle-hunter’ and largely
neglected for many decades, Wallace had a
far greater experience of collecting and investigating animals and plants
from their native habitats than had Darwin.
He was furthermore much more than a pioneer biogeographer and evolutionary
theorist, and also made contributions
to anthropology, ethnography, geology, land reform and social issues.
However, being a more modest, self-deprecating
man than Darwin, and lacking the latter’s establishment connections,
Wallace’s contribution to the theory of evolution
was not given the recognition it deserved and he was undoubtedly shabbily
treated at the time. It is time that Wallace’s
relationship with Darwin is reconsidered in preparation for 2013, the
centenary of Wallace’s death, and he should be
recognized as at least an equal in the Wallace–Darwin theory of evolution.
Darwin had also had an interest in beetles at about
the same stage in his career. In 1827 he withdrew from
Edinburgh and entered Christ’s College, Cambridge
University to study theology, although his preferences then
were riding and shooting. A craze at the time, encouraged
by his cousin William Darwin Fox, was collecting beetles.
Fox introduced him to the eclectic Reverend John Steven
Henslow, a professor of botany, a beetle expert and teacher
in mathematics and theology. Darwin joined Henslow’s
natural history course and became his favourite pupil. He
did well in his fi nal examinations in theology but scraped
through in Mathematics, classics and physics. He had to stay
in Cambridge until June 1831 so he planned to study natural
history in Madeira with a friend after graduating and, in the
meantime, joined a geology course with Adam Sedgwick
and later went with him to map strata in Wales (Desmond
and Moore 1991; Browne 2002).
This, then, was Darwin’s intellectual background, which
clearly gave him a pretty broad education in the topics
most suited to his life as collector and explorer during his
fi ve-year voyage charting the coastline of South America
with Captain Robert FitzRoy on HMS Beagle. He differs
from Wallace in some important aspects. First, as has been
widely noted, there were signifi cant class differences in
their backgrounds. Darwin was scion of wealthy upper-class
parents, but second, at this time, religion was a dominant part
of life. A creationist approach to living things was literally
gospel. Darwin studied theology as an entrée to a probably
successful career. He married Emma, a profoundly religious
woman who became extremely uneasy at the intellectual
directions her husband was taking.
On the other hand, Wallace was a free-thinker, quite
open-minded and free from any religious baggage. His
perambulations during the most formative years had
exposed him to a wide range of skills, fi tting him ideally
for the challenges and hardships to come in exploring and
collecting samples. His addiction to reading widely in
scientifi c and philosophical works fed a voracious appetite
for knowledge so that, both physically and mentally, he was
ready for future dangerous adventures.
It is hard to summarize the characters of these two giants
of natural history. To some extent, Darwin had the less
challenging life and was less prepared for the rigours of fi ve
years on the Beagle. He was a slim athletic fi gure, prone to regular bouts
of sea sickness, a fact that probably helped
his scientifi c endeavours since he was always eager, on the
slightest pretext, to leave the ship wherever it made shore, to
explore and to collect specimens. Neither, at least at fi rst, was
he as prepared through reading and research as was Wallace.
Finally, in the long run, Darwin’s career as an explorer was
quite brief. On return from the Beagle expedition he became
sick, possibly from Chagas’s disease though there is some
doubt about this, which left him debilitated for the rest of
his life. Darwin left for South America on the Beagle in
December 1831, returning to Falmouth in October 1836.
Wallace, together with Henry Bates, started in 1847
to plan an expedition to Brazil, having secured fi nancial
backing and agreements to buy any samples returned to
the UK. They set sail a year later in April 1848. The fi rst of
his expeditions associated with Bates involved a four-year
exploration (1848–1852) along the Amazon and Negro
rivers, and led to a regular despatch of items to London
dealers as well as his fi rst exposure to the tropical world.
Unfortunately, when Wallace was on his way home, fi re on
the ship in mid-ocean destroyed most of his most treasured
samples, and very nearly cost him his life.
>From 1854 to 1862, Wallace embarked on a longer
voyage of exploration. From Java, Borneo, Celebes, the
Aru Islands, New Guinea to Bali he covered 14 000 miles
(web citation). During this time, with the help of Ali, his
local expert, he collected a vast array of items of which over
125 000 were brought back to Britain. These included
83 200 beetles, 8050 birds, 13 100 butterfl ies and moths,
and 310 mammals; among these, 7 complete hides of orangutans
(Fichman 2004). Wallace’s expeditions to Brazil and
later to the Malaysian archipelago lasted, from start to fi nish,
a total of 20 years. It is hard not to conclude that Wallace had,
in all, much more experience in exploring and collecting and
throughout, more opportunity to compare small differences
in species composition from widely different environments
than had Darwin. This was to have a profound infl uence on
his own theories of evolution and the origin of species.
He relished the opportunity to live among the diverse
inhabitants of the islands he explored, all of whom he
treated with courtesy and respect. Throughout this period
he overcame many trials including tropical storms, leeches,
insect bites ‘covered from head to foot in infl amed lumps’,
infections with boils and malaria. It was also a time of great
inspiration leading to the production of ideas that would
shake the foundations of the nineteenth century scientifi c
world. As well as monumental taxonomic achievements, he
became father of the blossoming science of biogeography,
and discovered the geographical demarcation between
the Asian and Australian fauna, known ever since as ‘The
Wallace Line’, and that we now realize is a consequence
of tectonic movement and continental drift. It took more
than a century before geological discoveries made clear the
deep underlying mechanisms involved (Wallace 1880; Raby
2001; Slotten 2004; Michaux 2008).
It is apparent that right from the start of his career as an
explorer–collector, Wallace was engaged in thinking about
the origins of living things. He was greatly infl uenced by
the Victorian work on evolution, Vestiges of the natural
history of creation (Chambers 1844) and in the autumn of
1847 he wrote to his friend Henry Bates, proposing that
they undertake a collecting expedition to the River Amazon
on which they could gather facts ‘towards solving the
problem of the origin of species’. The resulting expedition
to the Amazon and Negro Rivers, and subsequently to the
Malaysian archipelago, enabled him to collect and describe
a vast number of different biological specimens, and to
analyse their geographical distributions. Integration of this
information revealed simple and obvious answers about the
evolution of species and led, in 1855, to the publication of
a paper (fi gure 2) containing the so-called ‘Sarawak Law’,
which states that ‘every species has come into existence
coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely
allied species’ (Wallace 1855).
The paper drew on examples from the fossil record,
the geographical distributions of related organisms and
the existence of ‘rudimentary organs’ to demonstrate that
species have arisen by modifi cation and divergence from
previously existing species: ‘two or three distinct species
may have had a common antitype, and each of these may
again have become the antitypes from which other closely
allied species were created’. Somewhat ironically (in
view of Darwin’s association), the paper refers to the case
of the Galapagos Islands where the existence of a fl ora
and fauna, distinct from but related to allied forms on the
South American continent has ‘not hitherto received any,
even conjectural explanation’. Wallace went on to suggest
that that the islands had been fi rst colonized by mainland
species through the agency of wind and currents, and that
a suffi cient period had elapsed for the original species
to die out and be replaced by ‘modifi ed prototypes’. The
separate islands would have acquired their distinctive biota
in a similar manner, ‘either on the supposition that the same
original migration peopled the whole of the islands with the
same species from which differently modifi ed prototypes
were created, or that the islands were successively peopled
from each other, but new species [having] been created in
each [island] on the plan of the pre-existing ones’. As a
broad-brush explanation for the Galapagos biota, this would
not be contradicted by modern-day biologists.
It has been noted by Michaux (2000) that this paper can
now be seen as a statement of Wallace’s theory of evolution,
but as he lacked a mechanism by which the transformations
could occur, he presents it very cautiously, not using the term
‘evolution’ and using the term common ‘antitype’ instead of
common ‘ancestor’. Quoting Michaux: ‘However, all the
342 David Lloyd, Julian Wimpenny and Alfred Venables
J. Biosci.Darwinian themes are clearly portended – gradualism,
utility, adaptation to different environments, allopatric
speciation, imperfection of the fossil record and so forth.’
However, for whatever reason, the paper was almost totally
ignored by the scientifi c community (Raby 2001; Slotten
2004; Davies 2008).
In a further paper, appearing early in 1858, Wallace came
much closer to a direct advocation of evolution, showing by
cogent argument the absurdity of the view that permanent
varieties could arise naturally, yet the species from which
they were derived had to have been specially created. He
called upon naturalists to agree that varieties and species
differed only by degree, as a result of common descent.
The inference was that the formation of varieties and their
indefi nite divergence was the raw material for evolution
(Wallace 1858). But, as mentioned above, Wallace’s
evolutionary theory had a very serious gap – there was
no mechanism by which new varieties could replace the
parental forms.
Unknown to Wallace, Charles Darwin had understood
the required mechanism for some years. Following his
return from the Beagle voyage, he had given much thought
to the evolution of species and in 1844 he had drafted an
abstract of his views, which he showed to Joseph Hooker
but made no attempt to publish. In this, he described the
tendency for organisms to produce variants, and reasoned
that advantageous variations would be more likely to
survive in the struggle for existence. However, he seemed
to think that this process would be confi ned to small isolated
populations, as on islands, and would result merely in a
species adapting to changing conditions. The continued
modifi cation and divergence to produce a range of species
that exploited different habitats was not proposed. Indeed,
Brackman (1980) gives an autobiographical quote from
Darwin in which, referring to his 1844 abstract, he says ‘at
the time, I overlooked one problem of great importance: …
the tendency of organic beings descended from the same
stock to diverge in character as they become modifi ed ’.
Following 1844, Darwin laboured long on the
advancement of his evolutionary theory, for example,
making very detailed studies of variation in domesticated
animals, but there is no record of his having shown his
progress to anyone. As we shall see, this changed following
the publication of Wallace’s Sarawak Law in 1855.
Had a newcomer to evolutionary biology examined the
literature during 1855–58, he or she might have concluded
that the leading evolutionary theorist of the time was
Wallace and not Darwin. The reaction of Charles Lyell to
the Sarawak Law paper emphasizes this point – following
its publication he visited Darwin to warn him that Wallace
was getting very close to solving the ‘species problem’, and
to urge him to move quickly to establish his priority. Though
Darwin never acknowledged the Sarawak Law paper, a
graduate student, Lewis McKinney (1966) found a copy of
it in his collected papers. It had been heavily annotated by
Darwin who had obviously recognized its importance. In
response, Darwin began to write his Origin of species, but
made no move to publish anything quickly.
Wallace wrote to Darwin in late 1856 – the fi rst of several
letters over a short period extending to June 1858. None
of these survive, but we know from Darwin’s reply that in
the fi rst letter (which Darwin would have received in the
spring of 1857) Wallace had asked him what he thought
of the ‘Sarawak Paper’. A little later, in September of that
year, Darwin wrote a synopsis of his theory of evolution by
natural selection and sent it to an American, Dr Asa Gray,
who appears to have been more an acquaintance rather than
a friend, with the request not to reveal its content to any other
person. This synopsis included the principle of modifi cation
and divergence to fi ll available niches and was, in essence,
the theory of evolution as subsequently published in the
Origin of species.
Darwin later credited the writings of Malthus as the clue
he needed to discover natural selection, and early in 1858,
while suffering from malaria, Wallace had leisure to think
deeply and went through the same mental process. Thus, he
arrived at the mechanism of natural selection, though he did
not give it that name. This completed Wallace’s theory of
evolution; he wrote it out and posted it to Darwin from the
island of Ternate on 9 March when the fi rst available ship
arrived. McKinney (1966) has drawn attention to another
letter, which still exists, and was sent by Wallace on the
same boat, on the same day, to Frederick Bates (fi gure 3).
The letter corroborates the dates of posting; it carries the
cancellation marks for the various stages of its journey
from Ternate and arrived in the Leicester post offi ce for
delivery on 3 June. The letter to Darwin should therefore
have been delivered on the same day or very soon after, but
he claimed not to have received it until 18 June. The fact
that he had, in the meantime, written to Hooker on 8 June to
say that he had fi nally solved the frustrating problem of how
species diverged in nature, looks a little suspicious in these
circumstances.
Wallace had requested that his paper should be forwarded
to Charles Lyell, and Darwin duly complied on 18 June,
including a letter that expressed some anguish at his having
been scooped. Faced with a delicate situation, Lyell and
Hooker decided to arrange a joint presentation of Wallace’s
and Darwin’s theories at the next (and imminent) meeting of
the Linnaean Society. The fact that Darwin had no prepared
manuscript was an obvious diffi culty with this course, but
was circumvented by his submission of his 1844 sketch
together with extracts from his 1857 letter to Asa Gray.
Protocol should have dictated that Wallace’s paper be read
fi rst but Lyell and Hooker arranged to have it presented after
that of Darwin. It is often stated, or implied, that Wallace That Wallace
almost certainly solved the problem of
divergence before Darwin did is, perhaps, not surprising.
Wallace had much the greater experience in the fi eld of
biogeography, which was so fundamental to unravelling the
relationships between species. But, even more importantly,
he had the advantage that, unlike Darwin, he was looking
actively for evidence of evolution while in the fi eld, and
Figure 3. The envelope–letter from Ternate posted by Wallace to Bates,
arrived via Singapore and London to Leicester on 3 June 1858:
another on the same ship went to Darwin.
346 David Lloyd, Julian Wimpenny and Alfred Venables
J. Biosci. 35(3), September 2010
could therefore tailor his data collection appropriately.
By contrast, Sulloway (2009) has recently argued most
persuasively that during the voyage on The Beagle Darwin
was still a creationist in attitude; this blunted his appreciation
of the evolutionary signifi cance of the Galapagos fauna to
the extent that he failed to collect a single tortoise specimen
and neglected to label his fi nch specimens with their exact
islands of origin.
One absorbing aspect of the Darwin–Wallace discussion
is the differences in personality and circumstances between
these giants of biology at that time. As was discussed earlier,
the difference in lifestyles between Darwin and Wallace was
marked. The former, a product of wealth and privilege, lived
with his family in Down House in an English countryside
which was easily accessible to the intellectual heart of the
British Empire. Wallace, on the other hand, was to all intents
and purposes a maverick and an outsider. Darwin was, for
much of his life, driven by the desire to become known as
the person who solved the mystery of the evolution of new
species. No one doubts his massive contributions to this
fi eld, but whereas he shared and published his fi ndings in
other areas of biology, he kept his data and conclusions on
evolution to himself – this was his province, to be shared
with no others. Wallace was also consumed by a passion to
unravel the secrets of evolution, but not in such a possessive
way. When the data led him to conclusions, he published
them for others to share and use. He wrote to Darwin to ask
what the great man thought of his ideas, little suspecting that
Darwin was not so much a collector of ideas on evolution
but a hoarder who was unlikely to give anything back.
Darwin’s obsession with his priority in the fi eld of
evolution was also manifested in the early editions of his
Origin of species where there was no acknowledgement
of his debt to other enormously infl uential antecedent
biologists, most notably Erasmus Darwin, Edward Blyth,
Robert Chambers and Patrick Matthew (the fi rst to write
about ‘natural means of selection’). Darlington (1959) has
commented on these matters in a detailed survey.
On the other hand, Wallace appears to have been driven
by curiosity rather than a desire for fame and reputation. In
keeping with this, he was an incredibly generous, modest
man, only too ready to cede reputation to a person such as
Darwin whom he regarded with great respect. Wallace’s polite
deference towards Darwin during his long sojourn in the East
Indies has been emphasized in an extensive primary (Wallace
1876, 1880, 1908) and secondary literature (Smith 1991;
Slotten 2004; Smith and Beccaloni 2008). His relationship
with the famous son of a famous dynasty at the centre of
power and infl uence and close to the intellectual triangle
of London, Oxford and Cambridge, seemed to have been
regarded as a huge honour by the young man from Usk.
During his years in the fi eld, Wallace was living a handto-
mouth existence, not only when travelling from island to
island in the Far East, but for several years after his return
to London in 1862; a letter from Darwin without doubt
helped his plea to be granted a small pension. His vivid and
infectious enthusiasm for the beauty of the living world is
typifi ed by his Herculean efforts that brought two live birds
of paradise back to England. Keeping them fed with a supply
of ship’s cockroaches was in itself a full-time task, and the
extraordinary lengths to which Wallace went to secure
their safe voyage is splendidly recounted by Raby (2001).
Finding a new home in the Zoological Society of London,
these prized symbols of his fantastic and exotic voyages
served as a vivid image in the public imagination of the vast
uncharted world of nature (fi gure 4).
Darwin died in April 1882 at the age of seventy-three,
and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Wallace ‘That
perennial afterthought in the Darwinian story’ was a
pall-bearer (Desmond and Moore 1991). The son, George
Darwin, had considered it ‘gracious’ to ask Wallace to bring
up the rear behind Spottiswoode, the President of the Royal
Society, and Lubbock, President of the Linnean, Hooker and
Huxley. During and after the 1880s, Wallace wrote very little
on science or natural history, with the exception of reviews.
In these later works the breadth and depth of his original
thinking became evident. He questioned the assumptions
upon which Victorian values were based, and never
accepted the principles of free-enterprise capitalism. His
main preoccupation became land reform, as existing laws of
land allocation benefi ted only the rich landowners. He also
became increasingly interested in the social implications of
evolutionary theories. Raby (2001) points out that Wallace’s
radical socialist ideals were inculcated during his teenage
experiences of the working conditions and deprivation in
industrial South Wales and later in London. Fichman (2004)
further asserts that Wallace’s deep humanist values and
sense of obligation to the exploited masses had long become
fundamental to his personality and way of life.
He lectured widely, toured America, and enjoyed his
family circle. Continuing to publish right up to his ninetieth
year, Wallace daringly enquired into a broad range of
controversial topics including phrenology, mesmerism and
spiritualism, and entertained the possibility of the existence
of extraterrestrial life. He was also vociferously against the
smallpox vaccination campaign.
Many have maintained that these wider interests detract
from his earlier mainstream biological reputation, but it must
be realized that the climate of Victorian times was so very
different from today. In that era of polymath accomplishment,
possibilities for making significant contributions across an
eclectic range of interests contrasts with the focused demands
of specialist expertise now. Much of medical practice was
hardly scientific, and certainly not evidence-based. Thus,
a century ago, a degree of scepticism about the safety
of newly implemented procedures was fully justifi able. WAS HE A BAD ASS
AS WRITTEN? KR IRS 181123
malay archipelago was read by me too and I have it Theoretically one only
may win
Q3 (1) Double meaning are spoken nowadAYS BY LADIES ALSO THAT TOO
IN tv SOCIAL PROGRAMS
q3 (2) cAN ANY ONE SEE THROUGH THE FISH; IF WE DECIDE FROM OUR
PERCEPTION ALONE YES AND NO; BUT FISH AND SNAKE HAVE EYES DESIGNED BY THE
CREATOR. KR IRS 181123
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: 'gopala krishnan' via Thatha_Patty <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 at 20:51
Subject: CULTURAL QA 11-2023-17
To: Patty Thatha <[email protected]>, Iyer <
[email protected]>, Kerala Iyer <[email protected]>
CULTURAL QA 11-2023-17
All the BELOW QA are from Quora DIGEST to me on 17-11-2023.
QUORA ANSWERS NEED NOT BE 100% CORRECT ANSWERS.
Compiled and posted by R. Gopala Krishnan, 80, on 17-11-2023.
Q1 Does space expand in all directions?
A1 Silk Road, AI Expert 9h
Space is a tricky thing. It's not like a balloon that you can blow up and
see it get bigger.
Space is more like the raisins in a loaf of bread that's baking in the oven. As
the bread bakes, the raisins move away from each other, but they don't
really change their size.
That's how space works, too.
Everything in the universe is moving away from everything else, but space
itself doesn't have a size or a shape.
We know all this when we look at the light from distant galaxies, which is
stretched by the expansion of space.
This stretching makes the light redder, and we call this the redshift. The
more red shifted the light is, the faster the galaxy is moving away from us.So,
if we measure the redshifts of galaxies in different directions, we can
compare how fast space is expanding in those directions.
Scientists have done that, using different methods and different data sets.
They have looked at hundreds of galaxy clusters, which are the biggest
things in the universe held together by gravity.
They have looked at thousands of supernovas, which are exploding stars that
can be seen across the cosmos.
They have looked at cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the
leftover heat from the Big Bang.
And they have found that, within the limits of their measurements, space
expands at the same rate in all directions.
So, Space is expanding isotropically, which means it doesn't care which way
you look.
It's just doing its thing, making everything farther apart. But don't
worry, you won't notice it in your everyday life.The expansion of space
only affects things that are very far away from each other, like galaxies
and galaxy clusters.
Things that are close together, like planets and stars and people, are held
together by gravity and other forces that are much stronger than the
expansion of space.
Q2 Who is the most badass scientist that has ever lived?
Gary Meaney, passionate fan of all things animal4y
In my opinion, Alfred Russell Wallace would be up there.
Born in 1823, in Wales, this Englishman is one of the most famous
naturalists in history. He co-invented the idea of natural selection along
with Darwin, and discovered the biogeographical border now known as the
Wallace Line. A whole region of Indonesia, Wallacea, is named after him.
In 1848, he decided to embark on an expedition to the then-mysterious
Amazon rainforest, with nobody else except for his friend Henry Walter
Bates, later discoverer of Batesian mimicry. This was extremely daring, and
yet Wallace survived a full four years collecting specimens in the Amazon -
Bates spent a further seven before returning to England.
During the last year of his trip, Alfred’s brother Edward joined the two
friends in the Amazon. Tragically, they both caught yellow fever - Edward
died, but Wallace recovered and soldiered on.
On the voyage home, in 1852, Wallace was aboard the brig Helen. After 26
days at sea, the ship caught fire, and sank. Not only was this a terrifying
near-death experience for him, but the vast majority of his most
interesting and valuable specimens were lost.
In a letter to his friend, Richard Spruce, he describes poignantly the
losses:
My collections however were in the hold and were irrevocably lost. And now
I begin to think, that almost all the reward of my four years of privation
and danger were lost. What I had hitherto sent home had little more than
paid my expenses and what I had in the “Helen” I calculated would realise
near £500 [nearly $40,000]. But even all this might have gone with little
regret had not far the richest part of my own private collection gone also.
All my private collection of insects and birds since I left Pará was with
me, and contained hundreds of new and beautiful species which would have
rendered (I had fondly hoped) my cabinet, as far regards American species,
one of the finest in Europe.
You’d think that such a catastrophe, the ruin of one’s entire life work,
would be pretty demotivating for a man. Not so for Wallace; in that same
letter, written just two months after the shipwreck, he considers going to
the Andes next, or the Philippines.
Eventually, he settled on Indonesia and the surrounding regions - one of
the least-explored places in the world at the time. During this expedition,
which started in 1854, Wallace was incredibly prolific, collecting:
110,000 insects 7,500 shells 8,050 bird skins 410 mammals and
reptiles
Not only this, but he is credited with the discovery of over 5,000 species!!
That’s got to be a world record. In any case, the conditions on the trip
were, as you’d imagine, far from luxurious. Most of the time, Wallace slept
in tiny wooden huts, and ate what the natives did - including fruit bat.
One time, he and several local friends had to altercate with a huge python
which entered Wallace’s hut. It was allegedly over 4 metres in length, and
he described it as being “well capable of swallowing a dog or a child.”
This plate shows the python being unceremoniously extracted from the roof
of the hut.
The python’s skin is preserved today in a museum owned by the Linnean
Society. The skins collected by Wallace and his loyal sidekick Ali (who
later voluntarily adopted the surname Wallace) were under constant threat
of loss. Many rotted, and on some islands they were plagued by ravenous
stray dogs in the night who stole their specimens.
Small animals were a big problem too. In 1858, four years into his trip,
Wallace fell terribly ill with an attack of malarial fever. The illness was
severely debilitating and he was confined to lie in his hut on a remote
Indonesian isle for some time.
And, believe it or not, it was during this time - of all times - that Wallace
conceived the theory of evolution by natural selection, completely
independent of Darwin! He wrote about it to Charles Darwin, who -
unbeknownst to Wallace - had long been developing the same hypothesis in
secret, for fear of ridicule.
The two naturalists corresponded for years, and later became friends, or at
least pen pals. Eventually, after a staggering 8 years in what was then a
godforsaken, unexplored corner of the world, Alfred Russell Wallace decided
to return to England in 1862, having become a rich man from selling his
prized specimens.
Seven years after coming home, Wallace wrote his world-famous book, perhaps
the greatest of all the great Victorian travelogues - The Malay
Archipelago. I myself have read it, and strongly recommend it. The book was
enormously popular when it was published and is one of the only books which
has never gone out of print, at least for anything like 150 years.
Again, his remarkable prolificness is clear - he, up until his death, wrote
over 1,000 articles and 22 books; many of them defending the theory of
natural selection from creationist skeptics. Many of his books are also
still available today.
Although he was not quite done travelling through wildernesses (he later
explored the Rocky Mountains in Colorado), Wallace largely settled down
after the end of his eight-year adventure. He died in 1913, at the age of
90, of natural causes.
I think it’s clear to see that Alfred Russel Wallace was a man of many
virtues - courageous, determined, optimistic, modest and above all very
hard-working. His brushes with death in remote jungles make him, for me,
one of history’s most badass scientists.
Profile photo for Gopalkrishna Vishwanath
Q3 What are some of funny double meaning words?
A3 Gopalkrishna Vishwanath, Retired Structural Engineer & language and
internet/social media enthusiast.13h
Windows.
Why is it funny?
Read this joke.
The wife texts the husband on a cold winter morning. “Windows Frozen. Won’t
open”
The husband texts back : “Gently pour some lukewarm water over it and
gently tap the edges with a hammer.”
The wife texts back 10 minutes later: “That didn’t work. Computer really
messed up now.”
Q3 If humans don't see air, can fish see water?
A3 Ali O. AlShamsi, Investor, Trader, Fin Tech Entrepreneur Updated
6yThis is an interesting question. The short answer is fish do not see
water. Look at those adorable eyes.
The brain tries to filter out vision obstacles like a nose or filter out or
constant vision noise like air. Our brains filter air, so anything with
similar information, like air, will be filtered. Same with white noise,
body noise, and smells. The brain filters this information to save
processing power to focus and survive.
Seeing air, we can’t use color as reference information for it, so we use
refractive indices. Water has a slightly higher refractive index than air,
so we can see it.
et we evolved on land to filter out air taste, smell, noise, and look. Fish
and sea creatures evolved the same way.
So the answer is no. They do not see, taste, hear or smell water because it
is a constant environment noise.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/1676829075.2842165.1700234500588%40mail.yahoo.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/1676829075.2842165.1700234500588%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZootB90-m7yM1c_epUJ6%2BRkj0HR6S2o%2B0qwvp9j3zWD-pQ%40mail.gmail.com.
