arXiv blog

The Extraordinary Tale of Red Rain, Comets and Extraterrestrials

For years, claims have circulated that red rain which fell in India in 2001, contained cells unlike any found on Earth. Now new evidence that these cells can reproduce is about to set the debate alive

kfc 09/01/2010

  • 52 Comments

Panspermia is the idea that life exists throughout the universe in comets, asteroids and interstellar dust clouds and that life of Earth was seeded from one or more of these sources. Panspermia holds that we are all extraterrestrials.

While this is certainly not a mainstream idea in science, a growing body of evidence suggests that it should be carefully studied rather than casually disregarded.

For example, various bugs have been shown to survive for months or even years in the harsh conditions of space. And one of the more interesting but lesser known facts about the Mars meteorite that some scientists believe holds evidence of life on Mars, is that its interior never rose above 50 degrees centigrade, despite being blasted from the Martian surface by an meteor impact and surviving a fiery a descent through Earth's thick atmosphere.

If there is life up there, this evidence suggests that it could survive the trip to Earth.

All that seems well established. Now for the really controversial stuff.

In 2001, numerous people observed red rain falling over Kerala in the southern tip of India during a two month period. One of them was Godfrey Louis, a physicist at nearby Cochin University of Science and Technology. Intrigued by this phenomena, Louis collected numerous samples of red rain, determined to find out what was causing the contamination, perhaps sand or dust from some distant desert.

Under a microscope, however, he found no evidence of sand or dust. Instead, the rain water was filled with red cells that look remarkably like conventional bugs on Earth. What was strange was that Louis found no evidence of DNA in these cells which would rule out most kinds of known biological cells (red blood cells are one possibility but ought to be destroyed quickly by rain water).

Louis published his results in the peer-reviewed journal Astrophysics and Space in 2006, along with the tentative suggestion that the cells could be extraterrestrial, perhaps from a comet that had disintegrated in the upper atmosphere and then seeded clouds as the cells floated down to Earth. In fact, Louis says there were reports in the region of a sonic boom-type noise at the time, which could have been caused by the disintegration of an object in the upper atmosphere.

Since then, Louis has continued to study the cells with an international team including Chandra Wickramasinghe from the University of Cardiff in the UK and one of the leading proponents of the panspermia theory, which he developed in the latter half of the 20th century with the remarkable physicist Fred Hoyle.

Today Louis, Wickramasinghe and others publish some extraordinary claims about these red cells. They say that the cells clearly reproduce at a temperature of 121 degrees C. "Under these conditions daughter cells appear within the original mother cells and the number of cells in the samples increases with length of exposure to 121 degrees C," they say. By contrast, the cells are inert at room temperature.

That makes them highly unusual, to say the least. The spores of some extremophiles can survive these kinds of temperatures and then reproduce at lower temperatures but nothing behaves like this at these temperatures, as far as we know.

This is an extraordinary claim that will need to be independently verified before it will be more broadly accepted.

And of course, this behaviour does not suggest an extraterrestrial origin for these cells, by any means.

However, Wickramasinghe and co can't resist hinting at such an exotic explanation. They've examined the way these fluoresce when bombarded with light and say it is remarkably similar to various unexplained emission spectra seen in various parts of the galaxy. One such place is the Red Rectangle, a cloud of dust and gas around a young star in the Monocerous constellation.

It would be fair to say that more evidence will be required before Kerala's red rain can be satisfactorily explained. In the meantime, it looks a fascinating mystery.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1008.4960: Growth And Replication Of Red Rain Cells At 121oC And Their Red Fluorescence


TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

175 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Well known contamination

If they have moved their hypotheses beyond the usual prediction, which has been specifically put on the table as the reply to "the red rain" work, it doesn't show up in the press release.

A gene sequencing should be simple, if the organism is reproducing and available in quantity.

If they don't try to test, it is because it has moved into pathological science. (Note, going on the press release here. Since no one else writes on this it is likely considered "still crap", so not something to waste time reading.) Specifically Wickramasinghe has a long standing reputation to work on transpermia, despite there never been any verifiable observations.

Reply

davidpetraitis

2 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: Well known contamination

The press release did mention "no evidence of DNA" in the cells. So how gene sequencing that Torbjorn suggested would be achieved is a mystery (to me at least).

Actually there are many questions that arise from the cells ability to reproduce. Hopefully, as there become more of these cells, the energetic and reproductive pathways can be studied. And other researchers can duplicate the results.

I remain intrigued.
David

Reply

Jjesse285

1 Comment

  • 9 Days Ago
  • 01/29/2012

Re: Well known contamination

If that the case then why hide it from the people's of the thinking mind!

Reply

gblaze44

96 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

no DNA

Well they did say they had not found any DNA in the samples.

What was strange was that Louis found no evidence of DNA in these cells which would rule out most kinds of known biological cells

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: no DNA

The same error in reasoning exists in theoretical physics. Ralston-Dodland of the University of Kansas theoretically presented that the speed of light in vacuum could change due to the existence of magnetic field.

An Astronomer of the University of Toronto  Prof. Kronberg "refuted" this prediction by failing to observe such effect in his astronomical observation.

Empirical scientists never understand that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist by experiments. It is just a simple logic which even elementary school student will understand which these high powered empirical scientists such as physicists do not understand.

Nevertheless to show that something exists is easier. All we have to do is to search and hit.

Consider how stupid empirical science is on this. If one tires to write a program Halt which reads a program P and its data D and decide if the program RP run on D will terminate or not, he will face serious difficulty. Whatever he tires will not work. But as he cannot try all possible programs for Halt, he cannot not show that such program does not exist.

It was Alan Turing and Kurt Godel who showed that it is impossible to write such program without trying "all" possibilities and fail in all which of course is impossible. It goes as follows:

1. Assume we can write a program H which reads a program P and runs this program on P as data. Assume H can decide by terminating computation if P(P) terminates or not for all programs P.

2. Using H we can write a program HT such that
HT(P) gos into infinite loop when H(P) says that
P(P) terminates and it terminates when H(P) says that P(P) does not terminate. Now what happeneds to HT(HT)? We have an obvious contradiction which says that HT(HT) terminates when it does not terminate and vice verse.

Now if the desired Halt exists then we can write
H(P) as Halt(P,P).

This requires a little more sophistication in thinking than simple minded empirical reasoning and plug in number equational mechanical thinking.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

cyberpageman

53 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: no DNA

A paper by Godfrey Louis and Santhosh Kumar entitled "The Red Rain Phenomenon of Kerala and its Possible Extraterrestrial Origin" appeared in http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0601/0601022v1.pdf  It says, in part, "the electron microscopic study of the red particles shows fine cell structure indicating their biological cell like nature. EDAX analysis shows that the major elements present in these cell like particles are carbon and oxygen. Strangely, a test for DNA using Ethidium Bromide dye fluorescence technique indicates absence of DNA in these cells." 

Lack of fluorescence of ethidium bromide does not prove that DNA or RNA are absent.  Ethidium bromide requires a double-stranded DNA helix or folded RNA helix to fluoresce.  If the DNA or RNA is denatured or degraded, the dye will not react with it.

They ask, "These particles have much similarity with biological cells though they are devoid of DNA.  Are these cell-like particles a kind of alternate life from space?"  Since they have not proved there is no DNA or RNA, the answer for now is, "no."

Reply

UncleAl

407 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Growable = knowable

Cut the crap: High finesse accelerator mass spec. C-12/C-13/C-14 isotope ratios tell its origin.

Grow it, grind it (add fluoride to disable enzymes), fractionate it - membrane lipids, amino acids, polysaccharides, nucleic acids; proteinomics, genomics... and the colorant.  "Mythbusters" had no problem IDing rat piss on soda cans by MALDI protein mass spec.  Nothing evades chemistry, even if biochemistry is clueless.  Nothing.

If Kerala got two months of red rain, the net mass of delivered "organism" is tonnes.  An extraterrestrial  hyperthermophile does not reproduce frozen in space.

"fluoresce when bombarded with light and say it is remarkably similar to various unexplained emission spectra seen in various parts of the galaxy"  The most abundant polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon on Earth is dicoronylene.  It is refractory industrial waste clogging hydrotreaters, hundreds of tonnes/year worldwide.  It is brick red and it is seen in space.

Does the red "organism" dissolve in 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene with greenish yellow fluorescence?  That would be a kick - a refinery hydrotreater went high order near its time for scheduled maintenance, its micronized exploded ejecta then seeding clouds.

Reply

Advertisement

AKT

453 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

> Cut the crap: High finesse accelerator mass spec. C-12/C-13/C-14 isotope ratios tell its origin.

The only "crap" here is the blind trust in accelerator experiments.

1. SR is inconsistent. For example, all thought experiments used to frame SR are claimed to be invalid as there is no causality between the emission of light and reception of it according to the light cone interpretation of SR. Einstein's thought experiment which established the loss of simultaneity also establishes that under the assumption of the Constancy of the Speed of Light, simultanity exists inter frame-wisely. Etc. etc.

2. Relativistic mechanics is inconsistent. Einstein wrongly assumed that in p=mv, v is time variant. m is relativistic mass and so v in m must be constant. This leads to the false equation of E =mc^2. Ultimately we have contradictions such as 

   1). The direction of force  and that of   resulting acceleration will not agree in relativistic mechanics.

    2). E = mc^2 claims that E is relativistic variant. E = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 and E^2/c^2 + (pc)^2 being relativistic invariant proves that E is relativistic invariant.

So, after all, QFT and the standard model are all pure nonsense. wasting taxpayers money for the lie of contemporary physics?


Best regards

AKT

Reply

UncleAl

407 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

"The only "crap" here is the blind trust in accelerator experiments."

1) Google
"accelerator mass spectrometry"  120,000 hits

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator_mass_spectrometry

3) idiot

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

This is not a scientific dialogue which is expected here. What has to be clarified is that the theory used to interpret the accelerator experiment results are valid or not.

I have shown that they are invalid as they can not discern what is true and what is false. The theory used predicts both that E is relativistic invariant and it is not. We normal educatable people do not use this kind of theory.

Mr. Al seems to be a person who is incapable of making any coherent discussion. He also hides behind others. He seems to have no reasoning of his own.

Certainly as a product of a nation who on the one hand persecuted Oppenheimer and Bohm for their Marxists view and on the other hand financed and orchestrated Marxists revolution in Russia, intellectual integrity is never an issue for him.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

Unfortunately, we're not talking about accelerator technology, or SR... And your phrase "the same errors in thinking" isn't a useful comparison in any semantically meaningful sense. Sorry, in the proper venue I'd like to see what you're proposing be more fully analyzed -- but this isn't that venue. And, also unfortunately, most of the venues in which you've RAISED the issue haven't been the "proper" venue either -- your overall approach is seriously invalidating your specific contribution.

And given the "tenuous" nature of this, the original blog post, the "not pertinent" nature of your contribution makes it part of how "big portions of this discussion aren't moving in any useful direction".

Google "public speaking logical fallacies" for some tips on things (circular, etc) to avoid. I am very serious -- it would help forward what you're trying to accomplish. Just not HERE.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

All I can say here is that if you talk about something you should understand it first.

We interpret the experimental results of accelerator using quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics. I have presented solid arguments which show that both of them are complete bunk. This means everything you talk about accelerator experiments and contemporary physics is bunk. This logic is what even elementary school student will understand.

You talk about logic and what do you know about logic. This is the problem with this anti-rational culture of theoretical physics. The way physicists reason is completely off. They are mental. There is nothing more to be said. Ah, I may say one thing here. I bet that it is the upstart New World education which created this complete nonsense. This system created a society where grown up has problem with figuring what 6*7 is and most of them have no fraction. This corrupted inferior society and system have to rip off students. Education here is third rate business. Physics departments has to give impression to students that they learned and understood something. So, these stupid professors who are also the product of this corrupted system and thus know virtually nothing play a game of HW's and projects. In the decent old world we call it spoon feeding or baby sitting. As they cannot make things which they themselves do not understand understood by students, they just gross the theory which was mostly framed in Europe and gave examples. They make students plug in numbers to these bloody formulas which none of them really understand and tell the students that they get number correct. This is what decent thinkers call proof by "examples".

It is evidently wrong to assume that when m is relativistic mass v in m is time variant. So,

F = dp/dt = vdm/dt + mdv/dt

is complete nonsense. From this nonsense Einstein concluded that E = mc^2 = (m0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2.

From this nonsense, we have the following nonsense:

1. The direction of force applied and the direction of acceleration resulted are not the same.

2. As E^2/c^2 + p^2 is relativistic invariant, by middle school mathematical calculation of eliminating p in the invariant using

E = (m0^2)^2 + (cp)^2,

we come up with that E is relativistic invariant. But E = mc^2 conclude otherwise.

After this only mentally ill physicists will listen to anything which uses relativistic mechanics.

The whole bizarre scene is just like Nazi Germany or Soviet Union. The fundamental assumptions of the community is absolutely wrong and yet people keep worshipping the wrong assumptions and outcome because they are so much brain washed and they are so scared to see that everything is flat wrong. A Cambridge cosmologist recently said that questioning relativity theory meant academic suicide in his book "Faster than the speed of light".

I reckon that the situation is more serious in academia as there is  no accountability here. It is a totalitarian state. At least in politics, Nazis and Bolshevik were defeated.


Best regards,

AKT

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

I still remember, as a freshman at MIT, that first semester Physics class where we went through the mental exercise of estimating the number of leaves on a tree. With the announced goal of achieving "a correct number" with a "margin of error" and "within an order of magnitude". I.e., "close enough".

What you continue to do is "throw out the baby with the bathwater" -- because you REFUSE to allow for the reality of the situation: SR came about as an attempt to explain the difference between our physical models WITHOUT SR, and the results of measurements we were making. Am I wrong?

And the whole POINT is that WITHOUT SR we WERE getting reeeally close results, they were just "off" by enough to be irritating, not enough to say "well, throw THAT out, and start over."

So, yes, accelerator-based characterizations of particle identities ARE valid and viable, because the "margins of error" associated with "use SR" vs "DON'T use SR", at the levels used for particle identification, are down in the noise level and are not significant, or meaningful, or worthy of any attention at all.

It Doesn't Matter, in this particular context, and in MOST contexts. It has been voted "most unlikely" in regards influencing the price of coffee in this next six months.

"Old School" DOES have its values and viewpoints. AND change happens. Sorry.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

This is not a scientific response to any of the issues I raised. The matter is fatal to all contemporary theoretical physics. The most fundamental theories of contemporary physics, namely Relativistic kinematics and relativistic mechanics are both inconsistent. 

I reckon that MIT teaches student to worship a theory which claims that E is a relativistic invariant and it is not at the same time.

MIT was the HQ of infamous eugenics. This pseudo science promoted violent racial attack on racial minorities on the West Coast. It also justified Holocaust in Europe. This "small technical college in America" never publicly apologised for their role in promoting racism and genoside. After the WWII, MIT moved on as if nothing happened. They became "liberal" institution.

MIT is known for faking experiment to discredit cold fusion in the 1980's too. I presume that this also is a part of the value systems of this institution.

Intellectual integrity is at stake here.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

Advertisement

AKT

453 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

> So, yes, accelerator-based characterizations of particle identities ARE valid and viable, because the "margins of error" associated with "use SR" vs "DON'T use SR", at the levels used for particle identification, are down in the noise level and are not significant, or meaningful, or worthy of any attention at all.


I wonder how you interpret accelerator experiments to "establish" E=mc^2 without using SR.

Moreover, according to Einstein, the reason why we do not observe major difference between classical interpretation and relativistic interpretation is because of the lack of power in our accelerator.

So, I simply do not understand where you are at.

One thing I am certain is that the so called verification of SR by accelerator experiments is viciously circular. It goes as "As SR is correct SR is correct". So, nothing about SR is verified.

This does not mean that classical interpretation is correct either. To begin with, I do not know what is the classical interpretation here at all. Can you tell me how it goes. It is my understanding that physicists use QFT to interpret the accelerator experiments. This theory is based upon relativistic mechanics and Quantum mechanics.

It was Einstein who correctly said that in  physics it is the theory which tells experimentalists what kind of experiments to do. B. Russell pointed out that the falsification of a physical theory uses the theory to be falsified. This suggests that the connection between experiments and theory is not as coherent as it should be. Indeed, I have shown that the connection is viciously circular when it comes to QFT (SR). It goes as "As QFT (SR) is correct QFT (SR) is correct". Contemporary cosmology gave a spin on this. The "discovery" of dark matter made GR never fails. Whenever anomalies appear in the application of GR we can always "resolve" the problem by calculating the dark matter to compensate the discrepancy. The vicious circle keeps going perpetually here. According to academic physicists that the "successfully" calculated dark matter is the evidence of the "existence" of dark matter. This is precisely the same kind of nonsense as the empirical "verification" of e=mc^2.

According to Popper, such theory is not physical theory. He correctly pointed out that all physical theories must fail empirically at some stage, aka falsifiability. He correctly separated mathematics and physics on this ground. Mathematical theory never fails empirically as long as it is consistent.

It is my view that there is something fundamentally wrong with classical electrodynamics and this caused the chain of errors leading to the 20Th Century  physics.

I do not know what is your background but using 20Th Century physics without fully understanding it will be bad for your health. If you learn it critically, you will be finding that it is all pure nonsense. Please keep using theories which you do not understand and saying that but it works for your application.

I bet this is the founding philosophy of the small technical college in America.


Best regards,

AKT

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

> It is refractory industrial waste clogging hydrotreaters, hundreds of tonnes/year worldwide.  It is brick red and it is seen in space.

What is astounding about astronomy is that those who cannot answer simplest questions on astronomy make these stretched out sweeping statement. If anyone is undeucatable, it must be astronomers.

Main stream explains that until a star turns into pure iron it keeps fusing from hydrogen to heavier elements. They say when it reaches iron star, fusion stops and the star collapses onto itself by the gravity. They call it super nova explosion. They say in this very short period of implosion, elements heavier than iron are produced and spread all over the space around.

I asked these arrogant astronomers then why is it that we have elements lighter than iron spread all over the space. When I asked some astronomers if it is possible that average size stars when they implode they can destroy near by stars. I was told that it is most unlikely.

What do they know about the universe? They use inconsistent theories such as the standard model to "explicate" the universe.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

geostar1024

9 Comments

  • 509 Days Ago
  • 09/16/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

> Main stream explains that until a star turns into pure iron it keeps fusing from hydrogen to heavier elements.

This isn't quite accurate.  Fusion in the core of a massive star ceases when the core becomes iron.  This happens long before the entire star would become iron (which is not possible anyway; the temperature and confinement conditions for fusion reactions leading to iron are only found in the core of the star).  Note that the upper layers of the star are fusing lighter elements, and at the surface, there is a layer of unfused hydrogen as well.  When the supernova occurs, the upper layers of the star are blown away from the core, and are thus distributed over the the surrounding space (during the explosion, elements heavier than iron are produced, of course, which are also scattered into space along with the lighter elements).

> They use inconsistent theories such as the standard model to "explicate" the universe.

Certainly, the Standard Model fails to answer certain basic questions like the origin of mass.  Be that as it may, it has been enormously successful in making any number of predictions for particle interactions, which have been subsequently verified by experiments at accelerators all over the world.  It's not perfect, but it works well enough in most areas for the moment, so we use it until we can find something better.  This has been the case with most scientific models throughout history.

Reply

rsanchez1

213 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

> An extraterrestrial  hyperthermophile does not reproduce frozen in space.

Do you know something about extraterrestrial hyperthermophiles that you're not sharing with the rest of the world?

That being said, I do agree that they should do the kind of analysis you described to get a better idea of what they're dealing with.

Reply

UncleAl

407 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermophile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrophile

A cell membrane that survives 120 C (e.g., archaeol and caldarchaeol phytanyl ether lipids) would be useless cold, frozen solid.  Fluid cellular contents that survive 120 C would be useless at 0 C and lower, frozen solid.  Biochemistries that enable hyperthermophiles freeze out around 60 C.

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/asteroid_worldbook.html
"The average temperature of the surface of a typical asteroid is -100 degrees F (-73 degrees C)"

Hyperthermophiles cannot be psychrophiles.  If you disagree, provide a counterexample published in the refereed literaure.

Reply

rsanchez1

213 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

I guess what I was trying to say is that if these things are truly extraterrestrial, it's entirely possible they behave completely differently compared with organisms we know on Earth, or they may be composed of different materials with different properties than what we typically associate with cells and living organisms. This is why I also agreed with your call for more analysis to determine the red rain's origin and learn what it really is instead of just speculating on an extraterrestrial origin.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

>Hyperthermophiles cannot be psychrophiles.  If you disagree, provide a counterexample published in the refereed literaure.

As a mathematician with numerous publications in the top mathematical journals and top research monograph series, I would question the credibility of "peer reviewed" journals.

It is a well know head ache among scientists that the peer reviewed system has been disfunctional. It works not to maintain standard but to block critical discussions. It does even more damage. In the "publish or perish" numerical eveluation system of the upstart American scientific community, many reserachers are stressed out to the point where they even steal results and ideas form the papers they are reviewing while blocking the papers.  Considering that in these days of NEOCON academia, one has to publish minimum 30 papers to say afloat, it is not surpising that this is happening.

In theoretical physics, peer reviewed journals did anything to block David Bohm whose work is likely way more important than the entire Nobel Prise work in QM. It is a typical excuse by physics community that the blame should be placed upon America's mass hysteria against Marxism. It is the physics community itself who is solely responsible for the injustice placed upon David Bohm. It also dismissed Einstein's relativity theory out of hand without any decent reasoning until politically Einstein's work was picked. After this, no critical discussion on relativity theory was allowed in theoretical physics.

(1). It is clear that SR is inconsistent as it is framed upon the thought experiments which involves the emission of light and reception of it: According to the light cone interpretation of SR all of these thought experiments are invalid because there is no causality between the emission of light and reception of it.

(2) The relativistic theory of photons is invalid as it contradicts SR at the length contraction formula

d= sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) d'.

Einstein's idea to suppress the rest mass of photons work all right only for the problem of diverging relativistic mass and energy. Length contraction involves no relativistic mass and so this assumption does not resolve the problem of length contraction under the assumption v=c.

(3). Relativistic mechanics is invalid because in p=mv, m is a relativistic mass and so v here is not time variant. It is constant. This means that

F = dp/dt = vdm/dt + mdv/dt ..... (X)

is false. This causes the contradiction that F and the acceleration have different direction.

(4). Einstein used (X) to derive

E = sqrt(m0_c^2)^2 + (pc)^2 = mc^2. ..... (Y)

SR establishes that E^2/c^2 + p^2 is relativistic invariant. This with (Y) by eliminating p establishes that E is relativistic invariant. Bur E = mc^2 establishes otherwise.

(5) The transformation theory of waves establishes that v_g = c^2/w where v_g is group speed and w is phase speed. This means that unless v_g = w =c, either phase speed or group speed must exceed c. De Broglie made a poor excuse for this inconsistency. He said as waves carry energy with group speed, let w exceed c. This is a typical arguments of empiricists who cannot think straight. SR is a theory about vacuum which rejects medium. Thus there is no room for energy of waves which requires wave medium. Granted that we allow the consideration of energy of waves in SR in abstract sense without making commitment to the medium, we still have a contradiction. Consider sound wave in the air in this abstract setting. it has the same value for v_g and w but it is not c.

None of the "peered review journals of theoretical physics" informed the scieitific community that SR is inconsistent, relativistic mechanics and thus E=mc^2 are bunk. As far as I can see, these journals did "anything" to hide the truth about the trouble of contemporary physics. They are liars.

Even in this blog, we see this disturbing  conduct of the defenders of the academic physics. Personal attack and coercion are not substitute to well reasoned discussion.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

Advertisement

gblaze44

96 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

The most abundant polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon on Earth is dicoronylene. It is refractory industrial waste clogging hydrotreaters, hundreds of tonnes/year worldwide. It is brick red and it is seen in space.

My question is if it's so common and is produced at hundreds of tonnes a year, Shouldn't this have been detected before? I'm curious if samples were checked from other lakes in the area? I would also check industries that produce dicoronylene and see if the local water table shows the same reddish chemical.

Reply

UncleAl

407 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

It depends upon who is looking and how they are looking.  I offered a plausible origin for large masses of finely divided exotic red stuff with unusual high temperature properties.

Extraterrestial object will have isotope ratios diverging from terrestrial sources.  The Earth is strongly isotope-fractionated even versus other planets (by infrared spectroscopy of volatiles) and space debris (meteorites).  H-1/H-2 and C-12/C-13/C-14 are particulary sensitive to origin.  Be-10 is exquisitly sensitive to cosmic ray intensity integrated over time,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium-10

Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.  Biology has clearly failed.  Counting atoms by mass spectrometry requires high finesse (baseline separation of sharp signals by mass) to separate isobars, elements with same atomic mass numbers, e.g., C-14 (14.003241988) and N-14 (14.003074005), differing by 12 parts-per-millon difference/average.  Isolate the "space alien," thermally graphitize it, then accelerator mass spec.  A few mg of graphite net does the trick.  Accelerator mass spec is the SOP to perform carbon dating.  Everything is in place.  No analytical process anomalies remain.

As I began my first post, "cut the crap."  Definitive exclusions are easily obtained by those skilled in the art.  The confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance by AKT and its ilk amply demonstrate that an idiot is not half way to being an idiot-savant.  Empirical reality is the only reality.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/reality.png

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

> As I began my first post, "cut the crap."  Definitive exclusions are easily obtained by those skilled in the art.  The confluence of overwhelming ignorance with overweening arrogance by AKT and its ilk amply demonstrate that an idiot is not half way to being an idiot-savant.  Empirical reality is the only reality

As the history of communication by Mr. Al shows it is quite clear that he is incapable of making  material scieitific point at all. His posts consist of list of links to obscure web pages and self-degrading personal attacks such as calling other poster in person as "uneducatable" moron.

I have made it very clear that the intelligence of empirical scientists is less than that of meta physicians such as mathematicians and logicians. The "geniuses" of theoretical physics would not even pass the qualifying exams for pure maths ph.d. program.  This is not arrogance or ignorance. This is a fact! Standard is different.

Theoretical physicists still cannot give answers to the fatal error of the relativistic mechanics in which the direction of force applied and that of the acceleration caused by the force do not agree. It is a simple mathematical result coming from the false assumption of relativity theory.  I pointed out that the problem is that they assumed that in relativistic mechanics in which we consider the accleration, F = dmv/dt. This is false because m is relativistic mass which involves inter frame speed v which is "constant". Relativistic mechanics wrongly assumes that this v is time variant. If it is then m cannot be relativistic mass. it is just as simple as this.

More seriously the same error in assumptions of the relativity theory leads to a fatal contradiction of relativistic energy being relativistic invariant and relativistic variant at the same time.

Pointing this out is not "arrogance" as  Mr. AL thinks. This is a fact even a secondary school science student will readily understand. That the physicists cannot understand is due to arrogance. Nobody in the entire world call themselves "geniuses" or "king of science".  claiming my pointing this out being "arrogance" is the  real arrogance  of denial here. These arrogant idiots think that they can get away with this problem by behaving like this. Scientific honesty is an essential for scientific development.

As long as they keep avoiding the issue, I will remind them where the problem is.

After all, empiricists such as Mr. Al, trapped in the stupidity of empiricism never understand what empiricism is. Remember the "Emperor's new cloth". Among philosophers it is a well know fact that empirical truth is contingent truth meaning that the truth hood of it changes as our empirical knowledge accumulates. This what Sir Karl Popper called the falsifiability of physical theories. According to the simple mind of empiricists like Mr. Al, empirical truth is the only "REALITY". Empiricism has nothing to do with reality, it has nothing to do with truth. It is just an agreement on what we call truth at this moment.



It was Prof. Wittgenstein who pointed out that to understand what "A cow lying on the ground" means one has to understand what "A cow standing on the ground". Understanding is holistic. We understand things in the context of many things.

It was Gerald Gentzen who defined first order predicate calculus in completely finite language following the philosophy of finitism. He showed that to understand it requires "transfinite" induction.  His precise proof of the consistency of the first order calculus used transfinite induction.

The same problem with number theory. The famous Fermat last theorem on natural numbers was solved only using infinite numbers. It had to use analytic number theory.

In set theory, axiomatic set theory  which is a theory of bottom up constructed sets, Hausdorff showed that we need to assume the existence of large Cardinal which is a set so large that we cannot create by bottom up process from empty set.


There is nothing surprising for mathematicians for all of this. It is a mathematical common sense.

The problem with empiricists is that they do not understand this simplest fact! To understand empirical reality requires transcendental understanding. Empiricism can not be understood by die hard empiricists. It can be understood only in the context of trans-empirical reality.

Mr. Al clearly has difficulty in understanding that we cannot write a program Halt which takes program P and data D and determine if P(D) terminates or not. This is not empirical but way more absolute fact. This is  an absolute reality in which we have to live. If F = ma or not, is not about absolute reality. It is about our guess on reality. Calling this reality is nothing but moronic stupidity.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

> Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.  Biology has clearly failed.  Counting atoms by mass spectrometry requires high finesse (baseline separation of sharp signals by mass) to separate isobars, elements with same atomic mass numbers, e.g., C-14 (14.003241988) and N-14 (14.003074005), differing by 12 parts-per-millon difference/average.  Isolate the "space alien," thermally graphitize it, then accelerator mass spec.  A few mg of graphite net does the trick.  Accelerator mass spec is the SOP to perform carbon dating.  Everything is in place.  No analytical process anomalies remain.

This claim of course depends upon the assumption that QM is valid and there is a legitimate classical limit to the macro world from QM.

As far as what is happening in theoretical physics is concerned, neither of these assumptions are credible. Credibility will not come from coercion and intimidation. Ha, intimidation. What do these who try to intimidate know? They did not even know that v in relativistic mass is constant. They took derivative of this v to obtain false conclusion E = mc^2. They did not even see that this would make the direction of force and the resulting acceleration disagree. They did nit know that this makes E both relativistic invariant and relativistic variant.

Let me bring the issue back to QM. These "geniuses" of QM did not know that there are two mutually conflicting concept of uncertainty principle. The standard Heisenberg-Neumann uncertainty principle is about the mutual interfarence of noncommuting measurement which can be completely formalised in von Neumann's formulation of QM using functional analysis and probability theory.

Aside from this uncertainty principle, QM uses yet another uncertainty principle without knowing it is different from the Heisenberg-Neumann uncertainty principle. They use the uncertainty inherent in measuring the number of cress of waves. This is used to establish the energy-time uncertainty principle. The experts in QM did not understand that in standard QM, time is not measurable. It is not a self-adjoint operator. So, it is not a physical quantity to be measured. Time-energy uncertainty thus is not a quantum mechanical issue at all. This is a part of classical wave mechanics issue.

Quantum mechanists can not think straight. They claim that energy-time and momentum-location uncertainty are the most fundamental uncertainty of QM. What do they know about QM?

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

profquatermass

57 Comments

  • 517 Days Ago
  • 09/08/2010

Re: Growable = knowable

> An extraterrestrial hyperthermophile
> does not reproduce frozen in space.

True. But why do people still think 'Space' is cold? Quite a lot of it is pretty hot too.

Get this - we have a object in Space call a Star (you may know it as 'the Sun') that generates billions of degrees of heat every second. This heat travels through Space and heats up any object it touches.

Reply

Tony D

1 Comment

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Prions

Prions, the cause of Mad Cow Disease don't have DNA do they?

Reply

syb

32 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: Prions

There is some debate, but it would be fair to say the prevailing theory is that a prion is a disease causing protein.  The pathology of prions comes from the fact that there is a nearly ubiquitous protein in alot of cell types that has a poorly described function.  When this protein gets misfolded it is a prion, it grows in a fiber form and causes brain malfunction.  No DNA seems to be necessary, but prions are still quite mysterious.

Reply

Advertisement

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Prions

I could easily be wrong (synthesizing across multiple boundaries) but I believe that prions are currently understood to be proteins that have two predominant "attactors" in "fold" space, one of which is functional/benign, and the other which is "badly folded", non-functional and actually "contagious" to some extent. Apparently, the presence of a "badly folded" protein during the formation of new protein thermo-dynamically biases that new protein to fold in the same non-functional way. However, the protein itself doesn't meet enough criteria to qualify as "alive", and certainly isn't capable of "self-assembly".

Reply

huynhbc

17 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

The Extraordinary Tale of Red Rain

What's a scary tale ; I just imagine those unknown bacterias from space got into plants, animals....and most of all human when they start have hybrids affect it would be devastating .....maybe sometimes they found strange looking animals in the forrests or in the ocean .But maybe those extraterrestrials materials hybrid us human after all????? - Best regards,

Reply

cripdyke

52 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

duration problem

I, too, consider this a very interesting mystery. I'd like to know, for instance, more about the environment of reproduction than merely temperature.

However one simple fact leads me to almost entirely discount any tale of extraterran origins: the rain fell for 2 months. No comet can break up and send its pieces to disintegrate in our atmosphere over a large period of time...but always and only within a radius of, say, 100km. Such a breakup would scatter the red rain much farther.

Of course, if extraordinary evidence is assembled, I am willing to believe an extraterran origin, but there has been nothing so far that can begin to offset the problems presented by the rain pattern.

I look forward to the solving of many mysteries, but I cannot judge a "mystery" the state of evidence regarding the hypothesis of panspermia-related origins for the red "cells".

Keep me informed - I expect new developments in both criticism and the original research.

Reply

syb

32 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: duration problem

As a biologist, let me assure you that a cell sized and shaped organism that reproduces, lives off LB and doesn't appear to have any nucleic acid template (DNA or RNA) is a revolutionary discovery in and of itself.

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: duration problem

Are DNA and RNA essential requirement for reproduction? As a recursion theorist, this question has been bothering me for a long time. We can readily write programs which reproduces itself without copying it and we can even write programs which mutate in their reproduction.

Best regards,

AKT

Reply

doanwon

76 Comments

  • 524 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2010

Re: duration problem

Agreed, this is interesting and exciting.  Forget the focus on panspermia and extraterestrials.  For years people have wondered whether life can occur elsewhere in the universe.  The biggest question is why there is only one form of life on earth--DNA based, and why there haven't been new forms of life even if the conditions on Earth is so favorable.  Perhaps this may be the answer people have been looking for.  I will be tuned in for sure. 

Reply

cripdyke

52 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: duration problem

@syb & @doanwon

Sorry if that didn't come across, but yes, this is revolutionary without the panspermia bit. that's why I critique that focus. There's no reasonable hypothesis that could account for the event that is consistent with a space origin.

And yet the biology is *so* compelling. Having put yourself forward as a biologist, syb, I'll be expecting some good analysis from you when further info comes in!

--)->

Reply

Advertisement

Netizen

131 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Erie parallels in 1950's sci-fi "The Blob"

A meteorite is found by a farmer while still hot, and the heat causes this stuff to grow and ooze out of the meteorite. Heat causes its cells to multiply exponentially.

This often considered b-rated plot sounds exactly like what is happening. Cool this "red rain" and it's inert; heat it up and it starts to multiply. Have researchers dared to let it "incubate" at 121^C for weeks or months while observing its growth? If each cell doubles in a certain period, the growth will become exponential and that is not necessarily a good thing if cautionary tales are any indicator of real life possibilities.

Reply

luddite

407 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: Erie parallels in 1950's sci-fi "The Blob"

Did you forget the Andromeda Strain? That movie really made the case for the possibility of extraterrestial microbial contamination, and what counter measures may already be in place to try and isolate its effects. Regardless of whether it's transmitted through airborne particles or through human contact, an outbreak of this nature would have a devastating effect on us all.

Reply

rkomatsu

52 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Food and energy

Where are these bugs getting their food / energy from? If they are reproducing (rather than just splitting), they are getting nutrients / energy from the "environment". What is this environment? Is it part of their supposedly extraterrestrial goo? In this case, Uncle Al is right, just test for isotope content. If they are somehow getting nutrients from our environment, then the isotope content will converge to our environment's ratios.

Reply

radicalbyte

1 Comment

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: Food and energy

..I'd hazard a guess that it uses thermal energy to reproduce...

Reply

Brian H

60 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Food and energy

Yabut -- it needs STUFF. Chemicals to assemble, food. Cells do not live by energy alone, much less reproduce.

Reply

danquixote

11 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Red rain cells

Any chance these unidentified red hi-temp cells are really from an undersea thermal vent environment here on earth? People have been finding all manner of weird organisms lately, when looking in places like superheated thermal mineral-water vents, volcanic acid pools, deep-shaft mines, even in tar pits. I'm not opposed to considering an extraterrestrial origin, but there are some critters already found that are at least this bizarre, here on earth.

Reply

bitrex

2 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: Red rain cells

My thoughts as well. In reading a little more about it, I found reports from the same period of local well collapses and small sinkholes appearing. Which may be unrelated or even typical for the region. But I would find some kind of geological explanation more logical given the apparently localized nature. Perhaps some material was ejected, taken up by the wind and carried back down by rain. But I'm just speculating. If it is a novel organism, it's outstanding no matter where it's from.

Reply

Advertisement

rimorob

1 Comment

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Culturing the cells

Unfortunately, I couldn't download the paper from arxiv.  I wonder how they were able to culture these cells.  Most Earthling microbes are notoriously difficult to culture, because they often require a) community partners (other microbes) and b) defined media (certain special nutrients) to reproduce.  The fraction of bacteria/archea which the scientists can culture is tiny (in single percentage points, at most) and restricted largely to universalist organisms like E. coli.  So, the question is: how did the authors manage to find the right defined medium to enable cell division? 

Reply

bitrex

2 Comments

  • 523 Days Ago
  • 09/02/2010

Re: Culturing the cells

"Red rain samples (500µl) were inoculated into the 5ml of sterile Luria Bertani (LB) medium (containing, sodium chloride, 10g; peptone,10g; yeast extract, 5g; ditilled water 1liter, pH-7.0). Inoculated samples were separately autocalved for 0.5, 1 hour, 1:30 hour, 2 hours at 121oC." - From the paper in question, in case that helps you. My apologies if cross-posting that is against the TOS for some reason. That was cut and paste. I managed not to correct a couple typos, even though such things aggravate me.

Reply

Brian H

60 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: Culturing the cells

Aha, so that answers my post above. Yeast extract would give all the nutrients one could desire. 

Reply

Phineas

127 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Collect Micrometeorites

Just hose off your roof and sample the water from your downspout. Sift the sediment with a neodymium magnet to find iron micrometeorites. No kidding. Now all you have to do is look for space-sperm.

If you're skeptical, google "micrometeroites, downspout, and collect". Fun read.

Reply

flared0ne

395 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Naturally-evolved "nanotechnology"??

Given that OUR solar system's Oort cloud technically overlaps with our adjacent neighbor(s) Oort cloud(s), the implication is that anything resembling life, which EVER evolved to be capable of "self-assembly" in that environment, WILL probably be present in OUR Oort "biome".

And given the energetics involved, the underlying "scaffolding" is highly unlikely to be proteins of any kind. Which would seem to rule out any "panspermia" theoria other than perhaps hypothesizing it as some catalytic precursor which would probably be self-erasing due to consumption by its successor... DOES sound to me like someone who specializes in "self-assembly" issues with nanotechnology would be interested in pursuing this.

Oddly enough, the VERY first thing that came to mind when I first read through this post was the 2001 movie "Evolution", with David Duchovny and Orlando Jones. Particularly the part about exposure to fire triggering (exponential) growth.

We should perhaps be thankful that the origin-point for this red material isn't prone to forest fires -- but it might be time to buy stock in "Head And Shoulders" shampoo anyway...

(one of these days I will LEARN to always <ctrl><C> my lengthier responses, so when the system gives me an access failure I don't LOSE it all. The PREVIOUS response was more ...satisfying... somehow.)

Reply

mhenriday

31 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

I can see it before my eyes :

A man dressed in a ecclesiastical gown rises and opines : «... whether, in the vast shaky state of the law of development, as laid down by Darwin, any one can be so enamoured of this so-called law, or hypothesis, as to go into jubilation for his great great grandfather having been an red cell not containing DNA», at which another participant rises and replies....

Henri

Reply

AKT

453 Comments

  • 522 Days Ago
  • 09/03/2010

Re: I can see it before my eyes :

Take it easy. These biologists are not calling themsleves "king of science".

The king odf science call commoners "stupid" because we do not undertsand a work of geneius which predicts that E is a relativistic invariant and it is not at the same time.

Some of them such as Mr. Al are so brain washed that they claim that empirical fact is the only reality. As Hume stated empirical truth has nothing to do with reality. Realism and empiricism are entirely different philosophies.

This man from MIT with white robe said that there is lettle difference between classical interpretation of accelerator experiments and relativistic interpretation of them. Apparently he does not see that acclerator experiments assume QFT which assumes quantum mechanics and SR.


Best regards,

AKT

Reply

Advertisement

jriser

1 Comment

  • 279 Days Ago
  • 05/04/2011

Re: I can see it before my eyes :

99.999999% of your comments have nothing to do with the topic.  Why should anyone take you seriously?  All you did was harp on about your unrelated agenda.  I actually agree with some of your thinking, but you doggedly try to apply it to fields and technologies that have nothing to do with your complaints.  You obnoxiously attack people for proposing scientific tests to understand and analyze this story.  I have serious doubts about much of accepted theory.  I think many theoretical physicists are begging the question essentially by proposing theories that may never truly be verifiable.  They may be logical fallacies.  They seem to often use analysis based off their theories as evidence for their theories.  But this doesn't discount empirical observation or operation.  You seem to want operate simply off thought experiments and abstraction while criticizing those whose theories do as well but who are attempting to verify them with experimentation.  They may be wrong and their results may be skewed by their desire to prove themselves right, but at least they are making the attempt.  At any rate, I think you would be better served if you tried to stay on topic and actually understood the technology before making rash assumptions and connections because of your prejudices.  Accelerator mass spectrometry is based on incredibly solid and verifiable science.  The poster who suggested it did so aptly.  You seem to have confused it with attempts like the LHC to prove string theory and other questionable facets of theoretical physics and responded with anger due to your biases and history. 
Your hypocrisy through this thread was rather staggering as you complained about the response of accepted science to unpopular theories, yet hastily attacked others for suggesting ideas.  Furthermore, the proper response to questionable theories is neither to abandon experimentation nor respond with derision of your own or pseudoscience.  Healthy, respectful, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY,relevant debate is the proper response.  You seem intelligent enough, but you revealed ignorance about areas relevant to this topic and responded with a bunch of non sequitur rambling that usually did more to expose your skewed agenda than advance an interesting and fruitful debate about the subject at hand. 

Reply

brentrobot

12 Comments

  • 521 Days Ago
  • 09/04/2010

Hey freeze it in some water, put it under vacuum, blast it with a bunch of radiation and see if it survives.

Reply

dante2428

1 Comment

  • 504 Days Ago
  • 09/21/2010

No mystery

Proper biologists figured out in a few weeks it was algae spores: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4224

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement