|
Post by moonstone on Oct 19, 2008 16:42:56 GMT -5
What an amazing coincidence. We've been talking about volcanoes from the archaeological and anthropological perspectives, as well as enjoying volcano art. As I was getting out and about around the tubes this afternoon, I found a nifty article on volcanoes from the science perspective. In turn, that got me thinking that we really need a thread where we can talk about science and stuff, so ... here goes. It turns out that scientists have literally breathed new life into that old "volcano in a bottle" high school science experiment theory of how life formed on Earth. blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/forgotten-exper.html?npu=1&mbid=yhpBada stumbled across the original experiment by accident when a colleague of Miller's mentioned having seen a box of experimental samples in Miller's office. Bada, who inherited Miller's scientific possessions after his death in 2007, found the box — literally labeled "1953-1954 experiments" — in his own office.
Inside it were samples taken by Miller from a device that spewed a concentrated stream of primordial gases over an electrical spark. It was a high-powered variation on the steady-steam apparatus that earned him fame — but unlike that device, it appeared to have produced few amino acids, and was unmentioned in his landmark 1953 Science study, "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions."
But Miller didn't have access to high-performance liquid chromatography, which lets chemists break down and classify samples with once-unthinkable levels of precision. And when Bada's team reanalyzed the disregarded samples, they found no fewer than 22 amino acids, several of which were never seen by Miller in a lifetime of primordial modeling .... "These findings add to a growing body of literature suggesting that areas near volcanoes could have been hotspots of organic chemistry on early Earth," he said. Leman continued, "These findings will likely inspire a next generation of prebiotic chemists, much as Miller's original experimental results have inspired the field for more than fifty years."
|
|
|
Post by Fairweather on Oct 19, 2008 19:24:58 GMT -5
Hey, Moon, excellent idea! I saw this but didn't get around to reading it. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by moonstone on Oct 19, 2008 20:36:55 GMT -5
Hey, Moon, excellent idea! I saw this but didn't get around to reading it. Thanks! My pleasure, katie. I'm so glad you like my idea.
|
|
|
Post by Fairweather on Oct 21, 2008 12:37:48 GMT -5
Here's a goody: a mountain range under the icecap of East Antarctica that, scientists say, should not be there at all. news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081021/sc_livescience/hugemountainrangeshouldnotbethereIt always tickles me when science comes up against some anomaly like this (no pun intended, Moon). It never seems to occur to them that they really don't know all there is to know about this wonderful third rock from the sun of ours--and the mountain range IS obviously there, so it seems pretty obvious to me, at least, that since it IS there it SHOULD be there-- but alas, I 'ave not ze scientific mind, non.
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Oct 21, 2008 12:51:30 GMT -5
Here's a goody: a mountain range under the icecap of East Antarctica that, scientists say, should not be there at all. news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081021/sc_livescience/hugemountainrangeshouldnotbethereIt always tickles me when science comes up against some anomaly like this (no pun intended, Moon). It never seems to occur to them that they really don't know all there is to know about this wonderful third rock from the sun of ours--and the mountain range IS obviously there, so it seems pretty obvious to me, at least, that since it IS there it SHOULD be there-- but alas, I 'ave not ze scientific mind, non. Thanks Katie. This is fantastically INN-teresting, as you say. Like you, something that massive that is there, should be there. That was a somewhat 'unscientific' statement someone made. My question is, why do they think it shouldn't be there?
|
|
|
Post by Fairweather on Oct 21, 2008 13:58:02 GMT -5
The article doesn't address that cryptic quote, Laura; it's almost like one of those throwaway lines the candidates toss out in the midst of some other important issue, but the media, of course, seizes on the non sequiter and blows it up. I'm at a loss to account for why the range shouldn't been there, unless it has something to do with that mention of the tectonic plates, which--if I recall my very limited study of geology in school--create mountains sometimes when two plates push each other skyward, an opposite to what happens during an earthquake.
|
|
|
Post by Fairweather on Oct 21, 2008 14:00:51 GMT -5
Hey, Moon, love the new avatar. Didya know the original moon pie (the REAL one) was invented by a guy down in Chattanooga, TN?
A moon pie and an RC cola. Hillbilly heaven.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone on Oct 21, 2008 14:07:05 GMT -5
Hey, Moon, love the new avatar. Didya know the original moon pie (the REAL one) was invented by a guy down in Chattanooga, TN? A moon pie and an RC cola. Hillbilly heaven. I didn't, but now I do. It's a really great legend and even has a dog in it. The guy supposedly said he'd like a cookie as big as the moon. I might be a little biased, being both of those things, but who could argue with that philosophy?
|
|
|
Post by Fairweather on Oct 21, 2008 14:12:18 GMT -5
Not me. <G>
|
|
|
Post by puhlease on Oct 21, 2008 17:29:51 GMT -5
I love this topic! In another life, I majored in geology and found volcanology and plate tectonics to be far more interesting than petroleum geology or paleontology. I will have to make time to read both those articles as well as the "dinosaur dance floor" article about all the neat stuff they just discovered in Utah. We had our 6-week field camp in Montana, studying all kinds of stuff, but the structural geology in the Rocky Mountains was amazing.
Also I used to have a bumper sticker that read "Subduction Leads to Orogeny" It's not nearly as dirty as it sounds. Actually has to do with how mountains are built.
|
|
|
Post by g1 on Oct 21, 2008 19:37:34 GMT -5
I love this topic! In another life, I majored in geology and found volcanology and plate tectonics to be far more interesting than petroleum geology or paleontology. I will have to make time to read both those articles as well as the "dinosaur dance floor" article about all the neat stuff they just discovered in Utah. We had our 6-week field camp in Montana, studying all kinds of stuff, but the structural geology in the Rocky Mountains was amazing. Also I used to have a bumper sticker that read "Subduction Leads to Orogeny" It's not nearly as dirty as it sounds. Actually has to do with how mountains are built. Well, golly, I was almost a geo major way back when, and all about geomorphology too. But the only jobs were with oil companies and mining companies etc and I really didn't fancy doing that for a career. Though I'd probably be losing quite a bit more of my 401K if I had gone that route. Some headline writer is apparently entertaining him/herself at the expense of the geologists. By my reading of the Antarctic mountain range story, the question is more about how and when it got there, not "not supposed to be there." So it's much like the old "scientists say that bumblebees aren't supposed to fly" thang. No scientist ever said that, they just didn't have an explanation of how the bumblebee was (quite obviously) flying back in the day...
|
|
|
Post by moonstone on Oct 21, 2008 19:41:09 GMT -5
I love this topic! In another life, I majored in geology and found volcanology and plate tectonics to be far more interesting than petroleum geology or paleontology. I will have to make time to read both those articles as well as the "dinosaur dance floor" article about all the neat stuff they just discovered in Utah. We had our 6-week field camp in Montana, studying all kinds of stuff, but the structural geology in the Rocky Mountains was amazing. Also I used to have a bumper sticker that read "Subduction Leads to Orogeny" It's not nearly as dirty as it sounds. Actually has to do with how mountains are built. Well, golly, I was almost a geo major way back when, and all about geomorphology too. But the only jobs were with oil companies and mining companies etc and I really didn't fancy doing that for a career. Though I'd probably be losing quite a bit more of my 401K if I had gone that route. Some headline writer is apparently entertaining him/herself at the expense of the geologists. By my reading of the Antarctic mountain range story, the question is more about how and when it got there, not "not supposed to be there." So it's much like the old "scientists say that bumblebees aren't supposed to fly" thang. No scientist ever said that, they just didn't have an explanation of how the bumblebee was (quite obviously) flying back in the day... I agree with that. All it shows is that these guys still have some work to do. After all, by now I think we're all pretty much over the surprise of finding out the earth is not flat.
|
|
|
Post by pattycake on Dec 20, 2008 18:51:17 GMT -5
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28314648/Some upcoming meteor showers. I hadn't heard of these before, but I regularly try to observe the Perseids. Looks like these will be best viewed from the western US.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone on Dec 20, 2008 19:21:52 GMT -5
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28314648/Some upcoming meteor showers. I hadn't heard of these before, but I regularly try to observe the Perseids. Looks like these will be best viewed from the western US. Okay. I marked my own calendar for January 3, but knowing my luck, it will be snowing, just like it is right now. Sheesh. We've had more than 31 inches of snow so far in December, and no end in sight. The record was only 26 inches. But, anyway, back to the meteors. One or two sightings a minute is a lot of meteors. So, for our west coast contingent -- like I always say, don't forget to duck.
|
|
|
Post by puhlease on Dec 21, 2008 21:36:45 GMT -5
I always love it when I'm surprised by a huge, streaking, trailing meteor when I'm not specifically out watching for them. Those are the best!
|
|
|
Post by Fairweather on Jan 2, 2009 17:54:45 GMT -5
Twelve thousand nine hundred years ago, three things happened, virtually simultaneously: most of the so-called Ice Age megafauna (including mammoths, sabertoothed cats, and giant ground sloths) died out; the Clovis culture of the desert Southwest, which produced among other things those marvelous flint blades called Clovis points, vanished; and the warmer conditions that accompanied the end of the last Ice Age backtracked, producing glacial conditions that persisted for some fifteen hundred years. Now, scientists at the University of Oregon have offered a theory for these occurrences: the explosion of a comet over that particular area. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101490.html?wpisrc=newsletterI was both a bit freaked out and amused by the talk of nanodiamonds, though.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone on Jan 2, 2009 17:59:27 GMT -5
Twelve thousand nine hundred years ago, three things happened, virtually simultaneously: most of the so-called Ice Age megafauna (including mammoths, sabertoothed cats, and giant ground sloths) died out; the Clovis culture of the desert Southwest, which produced among other things those marvelous flint blades called Clovis points, vanished; and the warmer conditions that accompanied the end of the last Ice Age backtracked, producing glacial conditions that persisted for some fifteen hundred years. Now, scientists at the University of Oregon have offered a theory for these occurrences: the explosion of a comet over that particular area. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101490.html?wpisrc=newsletterI was both a bit freaked out and amused by the talk of nanodiamonds, though. Me, too. I wonder how many nanodiamonds do you suppose you have to have to make a carat?
|
|
|
Post by g1 on Jan 2, 2009 22:36:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by moonstone on Jan 2, 2009 23:14:33 GMT -5
Well. I beg your pardon, sir. I can't speak for Katie, but I resemble that remark.
|
|
|
Post by Fairweather on Jan 3, 2009 12:30:30 GMT -5
Square cut or pear shape/these rocks don't lose THEIR shape. . .But this pear-shaped gal has always preferred sapphires and emeralds. ;D
|
|
|
Post by g1 on Jan 3, 2009 12:44:54 GMT -5
Oh dear... so little time, so many...
|
|
|
Post by moonstone on Jan 3, 2009 14:40:09 GMT -5
In light of the recent exchange on this topic, perhaps I should clarify my own earlier comment, which was intended metaphorically, in the true spirit of the comment to which I responded. At least, I believe so. I don't want anyone to get the idea I'm a "material girl." All the diamonds I've ever had in my life put together don't add up to anything like a carat. Furthermore, like Katie, I'm more of a sapphire girl and colored gemstone gal. But, if we're talking pears, then it may be appropriate to consider this pear-shaped diamond, the Cullinan I, which for many years was the largest cut diamond in the world, at more than 500 carats. This sceptre, of course, belongs to the Crown Jewels of Great Britain. So, evidently size does matter, if you happen to be a queen.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Jan 3, 2009 16:20:49 GMT -5
I'm not a bauble kind chickie either-they would look funny on my skinny fingers. ;D Getting back to other science that I tried to post earlier: Yellowstone anyone? ?
|
|
|
Post by Fairweather on Jan 3, 2009 16:53:16 GMT -5
I'm not a bauble kind chickie either-they would look funny on my skinny fingers. ;D Getting back to other science that I tried to post earlier: Yellowstone anyone? ? This bit, Jamie? news.aol.com/scienceAbout four hundred small earthquakes, none of more magnitude than a 3.5, in Yellowstone in the past few days, but worrisome because A) Yellowstone DOES have small tremblors fairly frequently but B) never this many in this short a time. What is causing the concern, if I'm putting this all together right, is that Yellowstone, in the caldera of an ancient volcanic explosion, is still sitting atop an absolutely mind-bogglingly huge pool of magma--volcanic material--that could cause the biggest blast in many many millenia should it blow--enough to cause a catastrophic extinction similar to what happened in the age of dinosaurs, if not worse. This alarmingly high number of small quakes could be a signal it's about to go up. Scary stuff, for certain. I saw a piece about this on either Nat Geo or Discovery Science awhile back. The scariest part is there's not a da*mned thing we could do to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone on Jan 3, 2009 19:18:39 GMT -5
I'm not a bauble kind chickie either-they would look funny on my skinny fingers. ;D Getting back to other science that I tried to post earlier: Yellowstone anyone? ? This bit, Jamie? news.aol.com/scienceAbout four hundred small earthquakes, none of more magnitude than a 3.5, in Yellowstone in the past few days, but worrisome because A) Yellowstone DOES have small tremblors fairly frequently but B) never this many in this short a time. What is causing the concern, if I'm putting this all together right, is that Yellowstone, in the caldera of an ancient volcanic explosion, is still sitting atop an absolutely mind-bogglingly huge pool of magma--volcanic material--that could cause the biggest blast in many many millenia should it blow--enough to cause a catastrophic extinction similar to what happened in the age of dinosaurs, if not worse. This alarmingly high number of small quakes could be a signal it's about to go up. Scary stuff, for certain. I saw a piece about this on either Nat Geo or Discovery Science awhile back. The scariest part is there's not a da*mned thing we could do to stop it. I hadn't seen this information, so thank you. I do remember seeing the Nat Geo special or something similar, where they simulated how an eruption might occur, and I've been to Yellowstone and observed the magnitude of that caldera. I also remember seeing something about poisonous gases leaking from under the surface killing a herd of something -- maybe buffalo, or elk. The prospect of a massive eruption of this caldera is exceptionally frightening; it would quite probably abrogate any further need to worry about global warming ... or anything else, for that matter. But anyway, Yellowstone is in Wyoming. If it's going to blow the state to proverbial smithereens, then let's hope it at least has the good grace to wait until D!ck Cheney gets home.
|
|