Archives for : Science

Not everything on the internet is true?

Posted by :David Manly On : May 12, 2014
0

Category: Animals, Science

Tags:, , ,

2

After I saw The Amazing Spider-Man 2 – which wasn’t horrible, and had some decent moments (especially for a comic book fan like myself) – I was going to write a post about just how scientifically accurate Spider-Man is. Namely, could such a creature exist?

After the obvious answer of “NO,” I came upon a video from the makers of Animation Domination entitled: Scientifically Accurate Spider-Man.

WARNING, there is some graphic language and images, so you may need to sign in to view it.

However, I had a few questions after watching the video. While I am no entomologist, I do know more than your average person about insects and some of these “scientifically accurate facts” the video kept flailing about did not seem right to me. And by the might of Google, I found a post written about how inaccurate that very video is, written by a friend of mine from the science communication world – Gwen Pearson AKA Bug Girl.

Her post details what is right, wrong and plain weird about the lyrics in the song, and it is a brilliant read. You can find it here: http://membracid.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/scientifically-accurate-spider-man-is-not-accurate/

Gwen raises an interesting point, as when she initially wrote about Spider-Man, she admits she cut some corners to make it more interesting to non-entomologists. But by doing so, you lose some of the science-ness. Jargon is a great thing in certain circles, but if you aren’t in on it, then readers will rapidly lose interest and then you have failed as a science communicator.

It is tough to walk the fine line between established fact and preventing it from being bogged down with the nitty-gritty of science. Personally, I love the nitty-gritty science, but that’s me. And I primarily don’t write for me. I write for a farmer in Saskatchewan, a waitress in Tulsa, a receptionist in Darwin and everyone in-between. I write to communicate science, animals, the weird and wonderful, and the general oddity of everyday life so that anyone can read it and hopefully learn something, or go “huh, I didn’t know that.”

Whenever someone says they learned something or thought it was interesting, I’m right as rain.

But the Internet is a fountain of knowledge, but also a dangerous pit of misinformation, and requires every reader be knowledgeable that anyone can publish anything online and that doesn’t mean it is right.

But that said, these cartoon are really entertaining, do contain some real information and I am talking about them on my blog. So, I guess that counts as a win.

Only skin deep

Posted by :David Manly On : April 22, 2014
1

Category: Science, superheroes

Tags:, , , , , ,

With Captain America: The Winter Soldier movie now out in theaters for a few weeks (it is quite good and I recommend everyone go see it), I have had the Marvel Universe on the brain. I find myself giddy with anticipation over the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy film, which opens in August, and ravenous for any news about the Avengers sequel next year, entitled Avengers: Age of Ultron.

And with Marvel thoughts running around rampant in my brain, I began to dwell on the upcoming multiple mini-series that will premiere on Netflix next year, featuring Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, Daredevil and Luke Cage, eventually culminating in a giant team-up event called The Defenders. There is so much news and excitement coming in the next few years that the comic fan in me cannot stand it!

But the scientist in me began to ponder about superpowers, namely of these so-called “street level” heroes and if they could actually exist. Luke Cage, also known as Power Man, is one of the most durable superheroes in the Marvel Universe, thanks to his unique set of powers that allow him to have superhuman strength, and most notably, unbreakable skin due to being exposed to a variant of the Super Soldier serum that created Captain America.

Luke Cage started out in a street gang, but due to some events with a girlfriend of a friend, he was framed for heroin possession and locked up in Seagate Prison. There, he was “volunteered” for experiments, which resulted in his superpowers. He started a group called “Heroes for Hire,” which was a for-profit superhero business, and eventually joined the Avengers and headlined the New Avengers.

According to the official Marvel comics database, Cage’s powers are that his skin is steel-hard and his muscles and bone tissue are super-dense and resistant to damage. “He can withstand conventional handgun fire at a range of four feet and cannot be cut by the sharpest of blades, although in the event of required surgery, his skin can be lacerated by an overpowered medical laser. He can withstand up to one-ton impacts or blasts of 150 pounds of TNT without serious injury, and is impervious to temperature extremes and electrical shocks. His recovery time from injury or trauma is usually one-third that of an ordinary human.”

But what about the skin on everyone else?

Skin is separated into different layers: the epidermis, dermis and subcutis (or hypodermis).

The epidermis is the outermost layer, which has the nerve cells, melanin (which creates the colour of your skin), and immune cells to protect against infection. The epidermis heals itself very quickly and leaves no scars, unlike the lower layers. While the epidermis is what is shown to the world, it really varies in thickness across your body – from 1.5 millimetres (mm) on the palm of your hands to only 0.5 mm on your eyelids.

The dermis is right below the epidermis and is much thicker, up to 1.5 mm thick, which makes up around 90 percent of the total thickness of the skin. It is used mainly to help regulate body temperature and blood supply. The dermis is also where blood vessels are, along with hair follicles, sweat glands and many more. Because it is below the epidermis, it doesn’t heal as quickly, so when it is injured, special cells come and fill up the hole that are not as sensitive or flexible, which create scars.

The last layer, the subcutis or hypodermis, is where fat is stored and serves as a way to protect the organs, regulate body temperature and use fat as an emergency energy reserve for the body.

In total, the average skin thickness is 2.5 millimetres thick … but how thick would it have to be to, like Luke Cage, survive the shot of a conventional handgun fired at a range of four feet?

According the Federal Bureau of Investigation, all handguns must be capable of 12 inches of penetration in order to run the greatest chance of injuring vital organs and incapacitate the subject in order to be used by agents in the field. The 12-inch guideline accommodates for the presence of bones, vital organs, etc., as most people are far less than 12 inches thick. In fact, I’m only about 7.5 – 8 inches thick at my torso; so being shot by a bullet that can penetrate over 1.5 times that is more than enough. So, that seems like a pretty good baseline to start with.

Penetration power of a handgun is usually achieved by firing it at a block of ballistics gel, which estimates tissue density and viscosity (or how solid and liquid a substance is) to estimate the force of the shot. While the gel simulates muscle tissue, which has a density of 1.06 kg/litre, fat has a density of 0.92 kg/litre. Therefore, since skin is a mix of both, as well as some extras thrown in, the density is probably around 1-1.1 kg/litre. Therefore, while ballistics gel is not optimal to gauge skin penetration, it serves as a good ballpark figure. Therefore, if the FBI requires that its handguns be able to penetrate a minimum of 12 inches of ballistics gel, it is time for some math.

12 inches = 30.48 centimetres = 304.8 millimetres

And average skin thickness = 2.5 mm

If we divide the thickness of the handgun penetration into ballistics gel by the average skin thickness, we can calculate how much thicker your skin would need to be in order to be at the maximum end of the minimum FBI ballistics requirements.

304.8/2.5 = 121.92, or roughly 122 times the thickness of skin.

What that means is that hypothetically, if your skin were to be 123 times thicker than normal (around 307.5 mm thick), you might be able to survive being shot by a bullet from the end of an FBI standard issue handgun, but it would still hurt. Probably a lot. You would probably be better off wearing a bulletproof vest, which slows down bullets extremely quickly to a survivable level, or simply not getting shot at all.

Sources

http://marvel.com/universe/Cage,_Luke

http://training.seer.cancer.gov/melanoma/anatomy/

http://www.histology.leeds.ac.uk/skin/skin_layers.php

http://greent.com/40Page/general/fbitest.htm

http://www.scrollseek.com/training/densitiesofdifferentbodymatter.html

Nerd and proud

Posted by :David Manly On : April 2, 2014
0

Category: Science

Tags:,

It has been a while since my last post, but it has been pretty busy here with Science Online, then my entire house got sick by some sort of super-virus for weeks on end (it kept going from person to person like a carousel), but all is well now. The virus has since been eliminated, everyone is healthy and we can get back to “normal” … or , what passes for normal on this blog, anyway.

I came upon a few video clips of Wil Wheaton (Wesley from Star Trek: The Next Generation and all around nerd king) talking about what being a nerd means, and how finding something you love – whether it is Doctor Who, football or science – is nothing to be afraid or ashamed of.

Give it a watch and please share this message with anyone who, at any point in their lives, have been criticized by others for liking something with a passion that others don’t.

The science of Smaug the Terrible

Posted by :David Manly On : December 12, 2013
2

Category: biomechanics, dragons, Science

Source

Earlier this year, when the television show Game of Thrones came back on air, I wrote a blog post about how (if possible) dragons could exist. But, Game of Thrones is not the only medium where dragons dwell.

I am, of course, talking about the second Hobbit film, The Desolation of Smaug (pronounced sm-OWW-gh) which features a gigantic fire-drake with an ego to match who is known by many names: Smaug the Golden, Smaug the Impenetrable, Smaug the Magnificent, Smaug the Tremendous, Smaug the Terrible, Smaug the Stupendous, The Dragon Dread, Trāgu, Lord Smaug.

But could dragons exist? Read on and find out!

**

In fantasy, dragons are practically omnipresent – good guys train them, bad guys abuse their power, they horde gold, kidnap princesses, murder thousands of people … or are simply a myth in the world’s history.

But, that is in a fantasy world – what about on Earth (or an Earth-like planet)? Could dragons exist?

According to Professor John R. Hutchinson of The Royal Veterinary College in London, UK, the discussion all comes down to size and gravity. When a land animal increases in mass, gravity quickly dominates all its activities because of the various pressures it exerts on the animal’s body (but an animal in water is a very different story, just compare an elephant – the largest animal on land – with a blue whale, the largest animal in the ocean).

Now imagine an animal the size of a dragon – one long-dead in Game of Thrones was described as possessing jaws so big that it could swallow a mammoth whole and eclipse whole towns with its shadow. For much an animal to exist, it would need large bones to support its weight and muscles to move it, not to mention huge stores of energy to move and support such a large creature.

“Inevitably, the range of extreme activities that animals can do decreases as they get larger,” says Hutchinson. “So elephants don’t jump or gallop, whereas mice do; and large flying birds don’t whiz around like hummingbirds.”

One of the most identifying characteristics of a dragon is its ability to fly, but the problem of size rears its ugly head once again. As flying animals get bigger, their wing size needs to increase just as much, if not more.

“[A dragon] would need immense wings to support its weight,” said Hutchinson. “A lot of weight is wasted in that heavy tail and hind legs as well as the bulky head, too — those don’t help the dragon fly well at all. So at best such a smallish dragon would be a clumsy flier, and would have a hard time taking off.”

“If we move to a 500, let alone a 5,000 kilogram dragon, flight basically becomes out of the question in Earth’s gravity. So, one needs to invoke magic to explain a flying dragon.”

Therefore, in a world without magic, it looks like a dragon of any size would not be able to grow to such mythic proportions as described in various fantasy stories. But, what about if dragons were built like birds?

The largest bird found today is the California condor, with an average weight of 10 kilograms, a length of just over 4 feet and a wingspan of over 10 feet having been recorded (which is two and a half times its length!).

Conservatively, let us say that a dragon weighs 50 kg, and if it follows the same construction and weight distribution as a condor, than it would clock in at just over 20 feet in length and a wingspan over 50 feet.

Large? Sure. But theoretically possible.

But bigger dragons, like those described in Game of Thrones would be more like 500 kg, which would make their length 200 feet (or about two-thirds of a football field) with a wingspan of 500 feet (or the height of a 50-storey building!)

Suffice to say, even if it could exist, the physics alone would not allow such an animal to move, much less have enough energy to fly.

While dragons would not be able to fly or reach such massive size described across the globe, what about the other impressive characteristic of a dragon – its ability to spew fire?

According to Hutchinson, dragon fans will be disappointed once again.

While some animals, such as bombardier beetles, can excrete a hazardous and incendiary-type of fluid from their bodies on rare occasions for defense, fire-breathing it is not.

“Intensely hot flame takes massive amounts of energy to produce and to be hot enough to damage flesh, it would thus cook the dragon from the inside out anyway,” he adds. “I don’t see a realistic way that a very large animal could breathe some sort of fire-like substance. Tiny animals might get away with something like that on a small scale with chemical cocktails, but a huge animal would neither be able to fuel the energy needed to breathe fire nor avoid scorching itself. Again, magic (or a good imagination) is the only option to allow for such a creature.”

With fire-breathing going up in a puff of smoke along with monstrous size and ability to fly, what are we left with to satiate our need for dragons?

Source

Komodo dragons and Pterosaurs.

Komodo dragons are the largest living reptile on the planet, growing up to 10 feet and 150 kilograms, able to run up to 20 kilometres per hour and dive up to 15 feet. While not able to breathe fire, Komodo dragons do have a bad bite, filled with dangerous bacteria and venom – which they use to incapacitate and even kill prey with a single bite.

Pterosaurs, on the other hand, were flying dinosaurs existing millions of years ago. Hutchinson says that they could weigh 50 to 250 kilograms, have wingspans up to 36 feet and when standing, could be up to 18 feet (thanks to Brian Switek, paleontological guru for help with those numbers). Sadly, as with all dinosaurs, they have long since gone from this world.

“We have had large sort-of-dragon-like animals in the past in the form of pterosaurs or even sort-of-giant eagles and vultures, but a real dragon in the sense of classic or modern fantasy just ain’t going to ever happen.”

Sadly, science tells us that dragons are merely a fantasy, but it doesn’t stop millions of people loving them. Just because dragons are an impossible flight of fancy on Earth, in the lands of Westeros and Middle Earth, anything is possible.

"Man of Steel" shows its rust

Posted by :David Manly On : June 19, 2013
1

Category: destruction, gravity, Man of Steel, Movie review, Science, Superman

This weekend, I saw what is expected to be one of the big “blockbuster” hits of the summer, Man of Steel.

Keep in mind that I will be discussing key plot points and specific moments from the film, so there will be spoilers ahead.

The story of Superman is very well known, and the movie doesn’t break any huge new ground in originality – Superman is an exile on Earth and must (literally and figuratively) rise to the occasion when his adopted home is in trouble. But his origin story does get a bit of a buff, as is the director’s (Zack Snyder) and producer’s (Christopher Nolan) right.

What is new to the franchise is in the first 30-ish minutes of the film when you really get a sense of the Kryptonian civilization. And boy is there a lot of talking – and a giant dragonfly/lizard hybrid.

Jor-El, played by Russel Crowe, grabs the MacGuffin (the Kryptonian Codex) and sends young Kal-El to Earth with it imbued within his cells. We are later told that the codex contains the information for the entire Kryptonian civilization within it.

Here is my first gripe – and this is taking for granted that everything you see in the movie is possible, such as interstellar travel, flight, etc.

But if Clark has every Kryptonian within his cells, he’d have their DNA. And how can billions of people’s DNA exist within every single cell of an individual? Wouldn’t the cells simply die from too much “stuff” in their cells, even if the DNA were inactive? Or wouldn’t the cellular machinery just destroy the foreign matter?

This is, of course, taking for granted that Kryptonian cells and their DNA behave similarly to that of humans.

And this leads to my biggest issue with the movie – the Kryptonian powers on Earth.

In the movie, we are told that Kryptonian powers on Earth are caused by our sun being younger than the one on Krypton, and that their Kryptonian cells will absorb the radiation from our yellow sun, granting them “Godlike” powers. We are also told that the gravity is weaker on Earth than it is on Krypton, which implies that flight (or super-bounding, as the case may be) and super-strength will be possible.

Now in the comics, Clark is super-strong pretty much from the outset, even as a baby.

But in the movie, Clark grows up on Earth, and we see his powers (X-ray vision, super-hearing and heat vision) develop when he is in elementary school, I guess around grade 5 or so. We *are* told that the other students think he is weird because “his mom won’t let him play with anyone.” But it is never made clear because he is super-strong, or because he is an alien, and the Kent’s don’t want anyone to get to close – lest they discover his secret.

He learns, from his parents, how to control them and focus only on one thing at a time. Therefore, based on that information, the solar radiation seems to take around 10 years or so to affect Kryptonian biology and grant super-powers.

Remember that, it becomes important later.

When Zod and his cronies arrive on Earth, they are equipped with airtight battle suits. We know this because they explicitly say that Earth’s atmosphere is dangerous to them. And due to the change in gravity from their home planet of Krypton, each soldier is super-strong. We see them flip trucks into houses and throw Ma Kent like a rag doll.

Zod, in all his glory. Source

So, this would seem to hint that their prison ship had Krypton-like gravity. Ok, fine. Moving on.

But why didn’t the increased gravity affect Clark and Lois when they were brought upon the ship? We do know that Lois needed a breathing apparatus to survive the Kryptonian “atmosphere” and that Clark became weak because of that – so if the ship did have stronger gravity, wouldn’t Clark and Lois have to struggle to adapt to it?

And, if this is how they are so strong, how is Clark super-strong?

He wasn’t on Krypton long enough to get used to the gravity. He was there for what appears less than a day. And even if the ship that carried him did have artificial gravity, you would think that after 33 years on Earth, his body would have acclimated to the decreased gravity of Earth (like he did with the atmosphere).

So, if the lesser gravity isn’t the cause of the super-strength and flight of Superman, it must be the solar radiation from our yellow sun.

During a battle with Zod, Clark damages Zod’s helmet, causing the Earth air to ‘infect’ Zod, granting him super hearing and x-ray vision.

But how did the solar radiation affect Zod so quickly? It happened practically instantaneously – his helmet was damaged, he tore it off and voila, sensory overload caused by the sudden onset of super-powers.

His laser vision, however, only appeared at the final battle after much longer exposure to Earth’s yellow sun. But only his head was exposed to the sun, except for the last few minutes of the battle, when he tore his battle suit off. How much solar radiation could he possibly absorb through his head in one day?

And how did the sun affect Zod so quickly, but it took Clark about 10 years or so to gain X-ray vision, super-hearing and heat vision? The same thing happened with Faora (the female henchman), so it obviously was not strictly a Zod thing.

And if Zod was super-strong, super-fast, able to withstand super-punches that would make a normal person’s head explode like a watermelon being hit with a hammer, how was Superman able to snap Zod’s solar radiation enhanced bones in his neck?

Wouldn’t the enhancements bestowed upon the Earth’s yellow sun create super-bones? You can’t have Zod have all the super-powers that Superman does, except for that without a reason.

Granted, in the comics, Clark does get bones broken by other super-powered beings, such as Doomsday. But that only happens when he is dramatically out-powered and out-classed, not when someone has the exact same power set.

I am not saying that I disliked the movie in any sense of the word, but when you establish a certain mythology (the same or different than in the comics), there is only a certain amount that can fall under “suspension of disbelief.” Things still need to be explained, and the rules of the universe spelled out.

Source

There are other science-light areas of the movie that bothered me – like Clark defeating the gravity beam by sheer force of will, the gravity weapon itself, the gateway to the phantom zone being conveniently close enough to the planet to be damaged by the explosion, etc.

But, during the visually stunning final battle, one thing struck me more than anything else – isn’t Superman supposed to PROTECT people?

Think about the countless battles that occurred in Metropolis. Did Superman save more than a handful of people? Did he seem to care at all about the safety and security of the citizens in the office buildings, the crowds in the street … anything?

The amount of wanton destruction during the final battle was insane. Countless buildings were torn apart by nigh-invincible beings with super powers battling it out with blatant disregard for human life.

How many buildings fell during the battle? How many office floors and infrastructure was damaged?

Superman is supposed to be one of the bravest and selfless superheroes in the galaxy – willing to sacrifice himself for anyone else, to lay down his life if necessary. Sure people die all the time, and he cannot possibly protect everyone.

Wouldn’t Superman try to save at least some people? We do see him save some people on the oil rig, the school bus as a child, and a few others – but after that, Superman does not appear to care about anyone else.

He does care about those four people in the final scene with Zod and Lois Lane, but do those few lives counter-balance the hundreds of thousands that died and the millions that were most likely injured in the battles of Smallville and Metropolis?

And couldn’t Superman have moved the battles to a less densely populated area, like the middle of the ocean or the Arctic? Or destroyed the gravity machine in Metropolis, thereby preventing the damage is causes, instead of the one in the middle of Indian Ocean (which is totally isolated), since they are linked?

No, because it wouldn’t have been as pleasing to the moviegoer.

And that is the whole argument in a nutshell: It is a movie, and is strictly popcorn entertainment. But just because it is, doesn’t mean it cannot make sense and abide by the rules of the universe that has been created – or is that asking too much?

In defense of others

Posted by :David Manly On : May 14, 2013
6

Category: emails, friend, Science, women

Earlier this week, a friend sent me a short email with a newspaper article attached describing a new branch of scientific research that was quite interesting. The article was well written, easily accessible and extremely interesting – a true joy to read. However, there was one large issue – not with the content or photos within the article, but with what my friend wrote in the email.

In the text of the email, which had the article attached, was one sentence: “I think this girl is too pretty to be a scientist.”

Go back and read that sentence again if you don’t mind and let it sink in.

My friend said that the researcher in the photo was “too pretty” to be believed to be a real scientist. What does attractiveness have to do with being a good researcher?

I asked my friend what was meant, and I was told the reasons why. I had a slight hope that the comment was meant as a joke initially, but based on their explanation, it was clear that they genuinely meant it!

So, I wrote an email reply, which I have pasted here, in full.

NOTE: I have elected to keep out the name of my friend, as well as their gender 

______

Hi,

Honestly, I do not even know where to begin with that comment you sent me.

Firstly, I want to thank you for sending me that article, it was really interesting. But my issue is not with that, but the comment you sent along with the article, that the woman in the photo was “too pretty” to be a scientist.

This is a huge issue to me, and has really surprised me that you genuinely think that way. Why would a woman’s physical appearance have anything to do with her intelligence or ability to perform really cool and interesting research?

Are you implying that only “ugly” people can do science? Or that attractive people have better options in life than to explore the mysteries that surround us?

Why does someone’s appearance dictate his or her level of intelligence?

I ask these questions not to attack you, but to illuminate the problems associated with such a bizarre comment. You may have meant the comment innocuously, but even so, even saying such a thing concerns me.

See, this type of discussion is one that has been brought up numerous times, and has been a large talking point in the Science Online conferences that I have attended. Female researchers and scientists (both using their real names and pseudonyms) have shared their stories about comments on their blogs/articles discrediting them because of their gender, their perceived “attractiveness,” their relationship status and more  – all of which is total B.S.

I have had the distinct pleasure to know and befriend dozens upon dozens of female scientists and/or researchers of every background you can imagine from countless nationalities, demographic backgrounds and expertise. But one thing stays the same – they are all incredible. Every single one deserves countless praise and support for doing what they do and dealing with this type of bias.

I admit that this type of discussion has never cropped up in my comments in my blog or any of the other writings I have done, but I do have some idea how it feels. I think most people have been singled out at one point in their lives by something: a personality quirk, a passion, an outfit, a hairstyle, the people you choose to associate with, and countless others.

Singling someone out for his or her gender, attractiveness, sexual orientation or the like is just silly. If you don’t like someone personally, that’s one thing. But, to spit venom at them simply because of who they are or whom they choose to be is cowardice in my book.

How would you feel if you had people commenting on your writing saying that you cannot be trusted because of your gender, sprouting insulting words at you, saying that you are crazy, incompetent or worse.

Would you be able to handle it?

Judging someone by his or her perceived attractiveness (which is subjective and varies from person to person anyway) is ridiculous. If you’re going to comment on a researcher, comment on their work, methodology and the like, not if you’d like to get them into bed or not.

That kind of attitude is disgusting, inappropriate, old fashioned and sexist. I thought you were better than to fall into such petty traps as those.

Cheers,

David

______
Originally, I held off on posting this, until I got a response from my friend that convinced me otherwise.
This is what my friend wrote:
David,
I am sorry – I did not mean anything by that comment. But I can see how it came off that way, and that was wrong of me.
Did I judge that girl by her appearance? Yes I did, as we all do when we see someone walking down the street. It is wrong, silly and juvenile, but I will not shy away from something we all do.
What I will try to do is think of what others would think of my comments made to myself before making them heard.
It is a small step in trying to change, but I hope that is enough.
______
I leave this question to you – Is pointing out the problem enough, or should I (and everyone) make people realize the problem and be the better for it?
If my friend does what he/she said, that’s one small step in the right direction.
But is it enough?

Just a little quiz

Posted by :David Manly On : April 28, 2013
2

Category: Biology, Pew Research Center, quiz, Science, Smithsonian Magazine

Source

 As regular readers of this blog are aware – I am a very big proponent of science education.

Not only because it is a subject I enjoy learning about, but also because it helps me understand the world around me and taught me how to think analytically. My education in science has dictated much of my career path, from me pursuing it in university with the idea to become a zoology professor to getting my Masters of Journalism degree so I could learn to share my enthusiasm for the subject with others.

Not that I know everything there is to know about science – that is one of the beauties of the subject. Every day more experiments are published, theories explored and ideas thought up. Every day more knowledge gets added to the fields of science, and it constantly changes – you could even say it evolves.

I try to keep on top of most of it, and I usually succeed in my major fields of interest: biology, zoology, ecology and the like.

Earlier this week, I stumbled upon an online quiz from the Pew Research Center, in co-operation with Smithsonian Magazine. The Pew center define themselves as “a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.”

Their online quiz was designed to test scientific knowledge for a random samples of Americans.  While the main study is completed, you can still take the test and see how well you did comparatively.

While the test was designed for the U.S., it is a good way to gauge your knowledge on various fields of science – from nanotechnology to climatology.

You can take the quiz here: http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/science-knowledge/

And once you do, please let me know how you did! Either in the comment section below, Facebook, Twitter, Google +, email, etc…

Here be dragons!

Posted by :David Manly On : March 30, 2013
2

Category: Animals, biomechanicsm dragons, Game of Thrones, Science



Source

On Sunday March 31, 2013, the epic series Game of Thrones returns to HBO, with a rabid fan base already behind it. Full disclosure – I am a huge fan of the show and books in which they are based, and the show is probably one of the best on television, in my opinion.

The show takes place in Westeros, an Earth-like analogue with a wide array of people living, loving, fighting and killing to achieve what everyone wants – power. Some want it, while others are afraid to lose it and others are content just to stir the pot and see what happens. The show is equal parts political drama, medieval period piece and fantasy. In fact, the fantasy part is fairly muted at the beginning, but only increases in occurrence after one notable event at the end of the first season/book.

**Beware, very mild spoilers ahead for season and book one of Game of Thrones**

The event in question involves one of the most prevalent fantasy creatures – dragons.

In Westeros, dragons have been dead for hundreds of years, along with the magic that accompanied them. However, once the dragons come back, magic awakens as well.

But, that is in a fantasy world – what about on Earth (or an Earth-like planet)? Could dragons exist?

According to Professor John R. Hutchinson of The Royal Veterinary College in London, UK, the discussion all comes down to size and gravity. When a land animal increases in mass, gravity quickly dominates all its activities because of the various pressures it exerts on the animal’s body (but an animal in water is a very different story, just compare an elephant – the largest animal on land – with a blue whale, the largest animal in the ocean).

Now imagine an animal the size of a dragon – one long-dead in Game of Thrones was described as possessing jaws so big that it could swallow a mammoth whole and eclipse whole towns with its shadow. For much an animal to exist, it would need large bones to support its weight and muscles to move it, not to mention huge stores of energy to move and support such a large creature.

“Inevitably, the range of extreme activities that animals can do decreases as they get larger,” says Hutchinson. “So elephants don’t jump or gallop, whereas mice do; and large flying birds don’t whiz around like hummingbirds.”

One of the most identifying characteristics of a dragon is its ability to fly, but the problem of size rears its ugly head once again. As flying animals get bigger, their wing size needs to increase just as much, if not more.

“[A dragon] would need immense wings to support its weight,” said Hutchinson. “A lot of weight is wasted in that heavy tail and hind legs as well as the bulky head, too — those don’t help the dragon fly well at all. So at best such a smallish dragon would be a clumsy flier, and would have a hard time taking off.”

“If we move to a 500, let alone a 5,000 kilogram dragon, flight basically becomes out of the question in Earth’s gravity. So, one needs to invoke magic to explain a flying dragon.”

Therefore, in a world without magic, it looks like a dragon of any size would not be able to grow to such mythic proportions as described in various fantasy stories. But, what about if dragons were built like birds?

The largest bird found today is the California condor, with an average weight of 10 kilograms, a length of just over 4 feet and a wingspan of over 10 feet having been recorded (which is two and a half times its length!).

Conservatively, let us say that a dragon weighs 50 kg, and if it follows the same construction and weight distribution as a condor, than it would clock in at just over 20 feet in length and a wingspan over 50 feet.

Large? Sure. But theoretically possible.

But bigger dragons, like those described in Game of Thrones would be more like 500 kg, which would make their length 200 feet (or about two-thirds of a football field) with a wingspan of 500 feet (or the height of a 50-storey building!)

Suffice to say, even if it could exist, the physics alone would not allow such an animal to move, much less have enough energy to fly.

While dragons would not be able to fly or reach such massive size described across the globe, what about the other impressive characteristic of a dragon – its ability to spew fire?

According to Hutchinson, dragon fans will be disappointed once again.

While some animals, such as bombardier beetles, can excrete a hazardous and incendiary-type of fluid from their bodies on rare occasions for defense, fire-breathing it is not.

“Intensely hot flame takes massive amounts of energy to produce and to be hot enough to damage flesh, it would thus cook the dragon from the inside out anyway,” he adds. “I don’t see a realistic way that a very large animal could breathe some sort of fire-like substance. Tiny animals might get away with something like that on a small scale with chemical cocktails, but a huge animal would neither be able to fuel the energy needed to breathe fire nor avoid scorching itself. Again, magic (or a good imagination) is the only option to allow for such a creature.”

With fire-breathing going up in a puff of smoke along with monstrous size and ability to fly, what are we left with to satiate our need for dragons?

Komodo dragons and Pterosaurs.

Komodo dragons are the largest living reptile on the planet, growing up to 10 feet and 150 kilograms, able to run up to 20 kilometres per hour and dive up to 15 feet. While not able to breathe fire, Komodo dragons do have a bad bite, filled with dangerous bacteria and venom – which they use to incapacitate and even kill prey with a single bite.

Pterosaurs, on the other hand, were flying dinosaurs existing millions of years ago. Hutchinson says that they could weigh 50 to 250 kilograms, have wingspans up to 36 feet and when standing, could be up to 18 feet (thanks to Brian Switek, paleontological guru for help with those numbers). Sadly, as with all dinosaurs, they have long since gone from this world.

“We have had large sort-of-dragon-like animals in the past in the form of pterosaurs or even sort-of-giant eagles and vultures, but a real dragon in the sense of classic or modern fantasy just ain’t going to ever happen.”

Sadly, science tells us that dragons are merely a fantasy, but it doesn’t stop millions of people loving them. Just because dragons are an impossible flight of fancy on Earth, in the land of Westeros, anything is possible.

Short and sweet

Posted by :David Manly On : March 9, 2013
0

Category: black holes, communication, Dinosaurs, Einstein, gravity, paleontology, Physics, Science, Science Online 2013, sharks, T. rex

Every since Science Online 2013 ended, I have been very busy with a variety of things including work, developing some super-secret side-projects and more. But being busy is often a double-edged sword.

While these projects are developing and turning into some fantastic stuff that I am sure you all will enjoy – it has left me with little time to read the ever-increasing amount of books I endlessly accumulate and post on this blog.

But, take heed loyal reader, as I have not forsaken you.

Over the past week and a half, I’ve been communicating with experts in various fields, and asking them questions that can come up in normal conversation – for example: How can black holes exist if we cannot see them? Or, how hot is magma locked in the Earth’s core?

The process is simple – I ask an expert in a field four questions. They pick two and answer each in four sentences of less so that anyone can understand.

I hope to continue this series going, so if you have any ideas for experts or questions to ask, please do so in the comments!

Man, that’s heavy
 
The first expert is David Shiffman, a shark conservationist and ecologist graduate student in Florida. He blogs regularly at Southern Fried Science and tweets at @WhySharksMatter.

Question 1: Since it is right there in your Twitter handle, I must ask – Why do shark matter?

Answer: Many species of sharks are top predators in their food chains. Top predators can influence their ecosystem both by regulating populations of prey, and by influencing the behavior of prey. In short, they help keep ocean ecosystems healthy.

Question 2: How can whales grow so big in the water, but the biggest animal on land (the elephant) is only a fraction of that?

Answer: The answer to this is simple- gravity. There’s a limit to how big things can get on land because after a certain point they get too heavy. Water provides increased buoyancy. Blue whales are bigger than the biggest land dinosaurs ever were.

Short, stocky and strong

This leads perfectly into our next expert, Brian Switek, a freelance science writer who spends his life getting to know anything and everything he can about dinosaurs. He blogs at National Geographic and is on Twitter as @Laelaps.

Question 1: Who would win in an arm wrestle, an average man or a T. rex?

Answer: There would be no question. Tyrannosaurus rex would win. Estimates based on bio-mechanics indicate that the arm of T. rex was about three and a half times more powerful than that of the average person. The arms of T. rex were short and stocky, but very powerful.

Question 2: How did mammals survive the extinction event 65 million years ago and the dinosaurs didn’t?

Answer: Actually, dinosaurs did survive. Avian dinosaurs – birds – escaped extinction and carry on the dinosaur legacy today. And even though mammals also survived, many mammal lineages died out in the catastrophe. Exactly why birds, mammals, and other creatures persisted while the non-avian dinosaurs died out, however, is a mystery that hinges on how climate change, volcanic activity, and asteroid impact translated into pressures that changed the world.

Invisible doesn’t mean it’s not there

The final expert is Matthew R. Francis, a physicist and science writer who writes at Bowler Hat Science and tweets at @DrMRFrancis.

Question 1: How do we know black holes exist if we cannot see them?

Answer: We can’t see black holes directly, but many of them are surrounded by matter – mostly gas stripped off stars or from other sources. When that gas falls toward the black hole, it forms a fast-rotating disk, that heats up and emits a lot of light in the form of X-rays and radio waves. So, even though black holes don’t emit any light of their own, they can be some of the brightest objects in the Universe.

Question 2: What does E=mc^2 actually mean in terms of everyday life?

Answer: “E= mc^2” literally tells us that mass is a form of energy, and anything with mass will have that energy even if it’s not moving. Most of the mass of your body is in the protons and neutrons in its atoms, but those are made up of the smaller particles known as quarks. The mass of a proton is a lot greater than the mass of the quarks that make it up; the rest of the mass comes from the energy that binds the quarks together. In other words, “E=mc^2” is responsible for most of the mass of your body!

Thank you very much to Brian, Matthew and David for all their help, time and effort – and remember, if you have any ideas for experts or questions to ask, please let me know in the comments.

Science-ish

Posted by :David Manly On : June 15, 2012
0

Category: Aliens, Prometheus, Science, Splice, The Fly

Over the past week, I have seen two movies about “science,” but in reality, discuss much bigger topics.

The first one I saw was a movies from a few years ago, “Splice,” starring Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley. The plot is simple mad scientists gone rogue kind of tale – make a discovery, make something freaky, try to keep it a secret and live to regret that decision.


**WARNING – THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD!**

The science in the movie is kind of iffy – Brody and Polley, as genetic engineers, splice DNA from a variety of species to create a new life-form and harvest precious chemicals for the pharmaceutical industry. But, when they perish, they go Frankenstein and decide to add something else into the DNA melting pot – MAN.

Moving away from the ethical implications, the animals they splice together would never truly be compatible. According to the X-Rays in the credits, there are reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds, fish, etc… all in the mix.

Just … no.

And then, they create a new creature that looks like a bird mixed with a lamprey with human-esque eyes, which then gradually turns into something resembling a little girl with a cranial fissure bisecting her head and a very long tail with a stinger at the end. The creature, named “Dren” (get it? Nerd backwards) almost dies before they realize she has TWO sets of lungs, one of which is amphibious.

After a series of events, Dren quickly matures into a woman that Adrien Brody has sex with after learning that Sarah Polley used her DNA to make the hybrid.

Oh, and Dren sprouts wings like an archeopteryx.

Then, as if to make things worse, Dren then scampers off, kills Brody, switches gender, rapes Sarah Polley and dies. And then, surprise surprise, Sarah Polley ends up pregnant and ‘sells her soul’ and unborn child to the same pharmaceutical company that she was originally working for.

The movie ends with her saying, “What’s the worst that could happen?”

Normally, I can shut my brain off for stupid movies and just enjoy it, but I became more and more upset by this film as it slowly pranced along. It got to a point where I was yelling at the TV, “NO! Bad science!”

I believe what bugged me the most was that there are two types of science fiction movies: those based in a close-facsimile to our world (whether in the future or present-esque time) or one based in a different universe with superheroes, aliens, etc.

Splice was visibly in a world quite similar to ours, but pushed the boundaries of science and imagination into the other territory. It required too many intuitive leaps to make it believable.

Take another sci-fi movie based in a world similar to our own – The Fly, by David Cronnenberg and Jeff Goldblum.

You take one premise, that Goldblum’s character invents teleportation, and the rest of the movie builds upon that one premise. You learn all the “rules” of the experiment quickly and, when his DNA merges with that of a fly, it’s a believable. And his disgusting transformation needs no other scientific explanation.

The other movie I saw was Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus.”

A lot has been written on the movie from two very different perspectives – that it is a prequel to the Alien movies, and that it is its own movie. And, I don’t think either of those is quite right. I believe it is more of a hybrid of the two, since it has connections to the Alien series, but not quite a straight line.

The science in the movie is a bit more believable because it takes place in such a dystopian future on an alien world with bizarre beings. So, because of that, you’re able to distance yourself from the reality of our world and focus on the mysterious new one displayed on the silver screen.

You do get a bit of DNA/human evolution/creationism/evolution in the movie that muddies the waters, as well as so many hidden meanings regarding empowerment and the merits of life that could make your head spin.

But then there’s the xenomorph.

From all the blogs and commentaries I’ve read, it appears that we are witnessing the evolution of the xenomorph – the spot in the bottle that David finds, the “face lampreys,” the squid baby, giant face hugger and finally an early xenomorph.

And if you take a close look at creature that emerges from the Engineer at the end of the movie, it is similar to the alien we all know and move, but a bit more rudimentary. It is lacking some of the specific traits of the xenomorph that we all know and love.

I enjoyed the movie as a separate entity from Scott’s Alien franchise, but as a prequel lead-in, I can see why people are disappointed. It answers a few bigger questions from that universe, but adds so many more.

Two movies: One that deals with a human/multi-species hybrid that kills scientists and blurs the lines of acceptable science, while the other deals humankind’s search for answers about life, the universe and xenomorphs on an alien world in the far future.

But at least science is IN the movies, right?