Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 24    Average: 3.9/5]
41 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 6107
Rating: 3.9
Category: Science
Date: 03/06/13 10:02 PM

41 Responses to Brian Cox Makes A Cloud Chamber… SCIENCE!

  1. Profile photo of blackcatseye
    blackcatseye Female 30-39
    685 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 7:03 pm
    Link: Brian Cox Makes A Cloud Chamber... SCIENCE! - Cosmic rays--Wonders of Life, amazeballs again.
  2. Profile photo of klaxor
    klaxor Male 18-29
    646 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 10:27 pm
    Space is scary
  3. Profile photo of turbotong
    turbotong Male 18-29
    600 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 10:41 pm
    How did he jump to the conclusion that those are cosmic rays? (I don`t presume to know what is going on here, and his answer sounds possible, but it doesn`t seem fully supported by his demonstration.)
  4. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 11:09 pm

    Ok...He says that the idea of cosmic particles affecting evolution thru dna mutation is speculation, but...the little lines in the fog are caused by subatomic cosmic particles right? That part wasn`t speculation...or was it? Seems a little far out, but super cool if it`s true.

    "we don`t know, but you can dream..can`t ya?"
    BTW: I dream of Boobies
  5. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 11:11 pm
    Cosmic rays have been around forever and it`s just a theory that they change DNA, because we actually haven`t seen a cosmic ray do it.

    Not only that, but we have mechanisms inside our cells that repair damaged DNA. Otherwise we, and every other living thing, would be falling apart rather rapidly.

    Saying that cosmic rays cause evolution is just silly. Why? Because nearly all mutations are bad. Getting a beneficial mutation is like winning the lottery a million times in a row. The odds are just that astronomical.
  6. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4710 posts
    March 6, 2013 at 11:40 pm

    crakrjak - he openly states that part was just speculation. Unlikely but possible.
  7. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 12:23 am
    There is a very high concentration of cosmic particles up north, especially Oldham. This is what causes Brian to talk with that soft `regional` accent.
  8. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 3:17 am
    @CrakrJak

    "Saying that cosmic rays cause evolution is just silly. Why? Because nearly all mutations are bad. Getting a beneficial mutation is like winning the lottery a million times in a row. The odds are just that astronomical."

    Evolution is genetic mutation plus natural selection. Evolution is not genetic mutation on its own.

    All the bad mutations die out. All the good (or harmless) mutations survive and replicate. Rinse and repeat.

    You`ve had this explained to you over and over. Your failure to understand it at this point is deliberate.
  9. Profile photo of trippyhippy9
    trippyhippy9 Male 18-29
    559 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 4:58 am
    "just a theory"

    I`m not saying his hypothesis is correct, but I really hate it when people use this phrase. Gravity is just a theory. Germs are just a theory. Then you have Plate Tectonics Theory, Atomic theory, Theory of relativity...

    It is the equivalent of talking about money and saying "It`s just 10 trillion dollars".

    Do you talk about cancer like it is a common cold?

    Do you talk about computers as though they are toys, good only for amusement?

    It`s easy to trivialize things but it is important that you don`t.
  10. Profile photo of Corydoras87
    Corydoras87 Male 18-29
    642 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 5:43 am
    also it`s often confused what scientists mean by "theory" compared to what normal people mean when they say "I have a theory.."
  11. Profile photo of geckohead
    geckohead Female 50-59
    591 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 5:57 am
    I thought it was very cool.
  12. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 6:06 am
    If you ever come accross a man in the middle of the desert with his head underneath a blanket RUN AWAY!! He`s not making a cloud chamber!
  13. Profile photo of lovinitmtboy
    lovinitmtboy Male 18-29
    16 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 6:27 am
    Corydora- In science, a theory is an excepted hypothesis supported with mathemativs and imperical data. That is it has been supported with testing by many different people at different times. A law explains how something always works everytime. For instance, the law of gravity says two bodies will be attracted to each other. Einstiens "theory" of relativity and gravitational waves explains why they attract.
  14. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 6:41 am
    Musuko: "Evolution is genetic mutation plus natural selection. Evolution is not genetic mutation on its own."

    Which decrease the odds even more that anything `beneficial` would survive.

    You see, what has been explained to you was a bunch of imagined sh|t to begin with, with more imagined sh|t tacked onto it. NONE of it has been directly observed in nature.

    The nature of nature is actually to make things extinct. What you seem to think of as `beneficial` actually makes things specialized. Specialized species get backed into a corner and die off when the world around them changes.

    Good examples: Pandas, Tasmanian Tigers, Red Wolves and many others. Adaptation most often leads to dead ends. 99.99% of all species that have lived on earth are now extinct.

    The species that`ve lasted on earth, are the ones that haven`t specialized. Crocodiles, Nautilus, Jellyfish and Horseshoe Crabs.
  15. Profile photo of Laran
    Laran Male 40-49
    467 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 6:43 am
    He is talking about the cygnus x3 rays being blasted directly toward earth.
    a theory exists that they are possibly responsible for changes in DNA.
  16. Profile photo of lovinitmtboy
    lovinitmtboy Male 18-29
    16 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 6:56 am
    CrakrJak Lets review for a moment how cancer is caused. Carcinogens emit gamma rays and alpha particles (also in cosmic radiation) that hit the DNA structure and cause the mutation that destroys the natural cell death process (mitosis). If you think any mutation is astronimcal, what do you think are the chances of that one very specific mutation? And then compare that to the number of people diagnosed with cancer. Im thinking your "astronimcal" number would be much smaller if you knew how many cells were in the body. :/
  17. Profile photo of mervviscious
    mervviscious Male 40-49
    1794 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 7:24 am
    that was so cool...
  18. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 7:36 am
    @CrakrJak

    "Which decrease the odds even more that anything `beneficial` would survive."

    But not to nil.

    The earth is old as balls. There has been a LOT of time.

    CrakrJak, you`re arguing that evolution doesn`t create benefits for species, and drives them to extinction, as if it`s a dumb system. You`re right...it IS dumb, as in "lacking in intelligence". There is no hand at the tiller. Evolution is a blind mechanic of nature, and it doesn`t have any intentions or goals.

    "NONE of it has been directly observed in nature."

    Yes it has. Again, your ignorance of this at this point can only be deliberate.

    Incidentally, why do you demand "directly observed" evidence? If a doctor tells you your blood test shows you have an infection, do you disbelieve them because they haven`t looked directly at the bacteria?
  19. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 7:37 am
    @CrakrJak

    "Which decrease the odds even more that anything `beneficial` would survive."

    But not to nil.

    The earth is old as balls. There has been a LOT of time for very rare things to happen many times.

    CrakrJak, you`re arguing that evolution doesn`t create benefits for species, and drives them to extinction, as if it`s a dumb system. You`re right...it IS dumb, as in "lacking in intelligence". There is no hand at the tiller. Evolution is a blind mechanic of nature, and it doesn`t have any intentions or goals.

    "NONE of it has been directly observed in nature."

    Yes it has. Again, your ignorance of this at this point can only be deliberate.

    Incidentally, why do you demand "directly observed" evidence? If a doctor tells you your blood test shows you have an infection, do you disbelieve them because they haven`t looked directly at the bacteria?
  20. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 7:44 am
    @CrakrJak

    Anyway, this is all moot. You`re an idiot on the internet. I`m an idiot on the internet. But the difference between us is that I`m humble enough to admit that and wise enough to listen to what the people who AREN`T idiots have to say.

    Why do you have such a bug up your butt about evolution (and gay marriage) anyway? What the hell has it got to do with you?

    As far as I`m aware, you`re single, so marriage doesn`t affect you...and you`re single, so the propogation of your genes (therefore evolution) doesn`t affect you either.

    *why* do these things bother you so much to the point where you constantly make yourself look like a fool here? Is it masochism?
  21. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 7:48 am
    I love crackjak`s posts, he never fails to make me laugh.
  22. Profile photo of Kain1
    Kain1 Male 18-29
    1473 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 7:58 am
    @CrakrJak: Mutations explained.
  23. Profile photo of Suicism
    Suicism Male 18-29
    3625 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 8:04 am
    The wonders of alcohol.. too.
  24. Profile photo of Mikeoxsbiggg
    Mikeoxsbiggg Male 30-39
    1502 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 8:12 am
    The evidence for evolution is astronomical.
  25. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 8:18 am
    Lets review for a moment how cancer is caused. Carcinogens emit gamma rays and alpha particles (also in cosmic radiation) that hit the DNA structure and cause the mutation that destroys the natural cell death process (mitosis).
    Really? I can`t let this one go, because it`s mostly wrong. Carcinogens are all radioactive now? And the programmed cell death process is called apoptosis; mitosis is essentially asexual reproduction. Cancer doesn`t just have one cause, there are MANY different causes of cancer, such as mutations, deletions, and amplifications of certain genes. I could go into a more in-depth description involving oncogenes and tumor suppressors, but for now suffice to say that carcinogens aren`t all radioactive, it`s just malfunctioning DNA for the most part.
  26. Profile photo of carmium
    carmium Female 50-59
    6381 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 8:24 am
    Sorry, Crakr; you can`t come off like a Bible literalist or whatever it is you are around here. Far more educated people than you or I are going to dump all over you and explain how things really are, whether you like it or not. One of my favorite things about IAB and its regulars, actually.
  27. Profile photo of Dover78
    Dover78 Male 18-29
    224 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 9:01 am
    Cancer is like a BSOD for your DNA.
  28. Profile photo of lovinitmtboy
    lovinitmtboy Male 18-29
    16 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 9:13 am
    Patchgrabber, I am sure you are much more familiar with cancer and biology than I. However, I was not "mostly wrong" and you misquote me saying "all carcinogens are radioactive." What I stated (carcinogens emit gamma rays and alpha particles) is a true statement. I was attempting to bridge this concept with cosmic rays relation to genetic mutation. I was not attempting to summarize all cancerous mutations under one process.
  29. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 9:30 am
    What I stated (carcinogens emit gamma rays and alpha particles) is a true statement.
    But not all carcinogens are radioactive, so they cannot all produce radiation, only the ones that are radioactive. Anything radioactive is a carcinogen but not all are radioactive, kind of like how all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.
  30. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:00 am
    @patchgrabber

    He didn`t say all carcinogens. He said carcinogens.

    In the same way as if I say "men are in my house" I`m not meaning all men.

    Admit that you`re wrong.
  31. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 10:18 am
    @CrakrJak

    "Cosmic rays have been around forever"

    Has proof of that been directly observed in nature? Have we sent a time machine back in time to check that they existed a billion years ago?

    How come you demand that level of proof with evolution, but not with other scientific concepts such as cosmic rays?
  32. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 11:24 am
    @musuko: After re-reading his comment I suppose I had interpreted it incorrectly. He seems to have been describing a particular scenario, I was reading it as him describing all carcinogens.
  33. Profile photo of fancythat
    fancythat Male 30-39
    1950 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 11:43 am
    You have to admit, the only reason that box is there is because God put it there.


    Let the trolling begin!
  34. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    March 7, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    @Musuko42.
    Yes, we do have a time machine that allows us to look back in time. The radiation that reaches us from the farthest stars is literally coming from the beginning of time and has taken since then to get here. Whenever you look at a star you are looking at it as it was a very long time ago. The nearest star to earth (apart from the Sun) is Proxima Centuari which is 4.2 light years away so when you look at it you see it as it was 4.2 years ago. Other stars are millions of light years away and so you see them as they were millions of years ago. With modern microwave detectors you can see back to a few hundred years after the big bang, quite literally the beginning of time.
  35. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 4:47 am
    @An-egg

    "Whenever you look at a star you are looking at it as it was a very long time ago."

    No you`re not. You`re detecting photons today that appear to be coming from a distant source long ago. Sensibly, we can interpret that as evidence that a star emitted that photon long ago. It is "indirect" evidence.

    The kind of "indirect" evidence that CrakrJak accepts for ancient cosmic rays, but then rejects when it comes to evolution; for evolution alone he demands "direct" evidence, and the "indirect" evidence just will not do.

    That was the point I was making: he seems perfectly happy to accept indirect evidence for ancient cosmic rays, but not happy to accept indirect evidence for evolution. Why?
  36. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 4:48 am
    @An-egg

    Note that I`m not denying the existence of ancient cosmic rays: I`m questioning CrakrJak`s differing requirements for proof when it comes to scientific concepts for which he has a personal bias and grudge.
  37. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36187 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 6:11 am

    I didn`t see any damn cloud.
  38. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 7:00 am
    I think most people would regard looking at something as pretty direct evidence. The speed of light can be directly measured. I don`t buy your "indirect" argument.
  39. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 7:18 am
    Also, when I made the first comment I was going to add that physics, contrary to popular belief is not set in stone. Any physics lecturer worth his salt will readily admit that everything he is teaching you is probably wrong. Physicists are trained to look for mistakes, inconsistencies and failures in physics so that it can be improved.

    Sticking dogmatically to a theory and refuting any argument with "You`re a crazy" sounds more like something a church would do than science.

  40. Profile photo of Musuko42
    Musuko42 Male 18-29
    2850 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 7:42 am
    @An-egg

    *pinches nose*

    CrakrJak claimed that cosmic rays have been around since forever.

    We have direct observable evidence that they are here, now. And they are moving in directions and speeds that indicate that they originated from distant points in the distant past.

    However, our knowledge of their past comes from our observation of their present state, NOT their past state: we can`t view that for obvious reasons. By this I mean that it is "indirect" evidence.

    The reason I pointed all that out is because CrakrJak pooh-poohs exactly that kind of evidence when it comes to evolution, yet accepts that kind of evidence (as do the rest of us) when it comes to other things.

    Get it through your head: I AM NOT SAYING THAT COSMIC RAYS DO NOT EXIST.

    You clearly haven`t been in these kinds of discussions on IAB long, because if you were you`d be well aware of my stance on things.
  41. Profile photo of An-egg
    An-egg Male 30-39
    885 posts
    March 8, 2013 at 8:03 am
    When we see anything, the image that we see is the light that was previously created by or more usually reflected or scattered from the thing that we see. We do not see what is there now, we see the thing as it was when the light was emitted. Seeing things is a primary source of gaining knowledge, there is nothing implied or inferred or indirect about it. Light from stars is one kind of cosmic ray. When you look at a star you see it as it was when the light was emitted. You directly look back in time every time you look at anything.

    There is no inference, you do not see the light as it is now, you see the star as it was then.

    I hope I`m making this easy enough for you to follow so you don`t have to resort to shouting about how other people blindly refuse to accept your theories without direct evidence. Seeing a thing is about as direct as it gets.

Leave a Reply