Recent comments in /f/askscience

SGTWhiteKY t1_j730yqm wrote

Reply to comment by Goodgoditsgrowing in Back in the late 90s, I remember hearing that scientists “cloned a sheep”. What actually happened with the cloning, and what advancements have been made as a result of that? by foxmag86

You got it backwards. They want to eliminate the natural variation to test many different formulas for their treatment. Without clones, it is impossibly to be completely sure if the effects of different formulas are caused by them being different formulas, or the each person’s body just reacted differently.

It would be incredible because you could choose a group of monkeys that have genetic traits you want to test, then clone all of them so that you have multiple of the exact same test environment to test different treatments. It would push medicine rapidly.

4

SuperSyrias t1_j72zks0 wrote

Reply to How could a high-altitude surveillance balloon be captured? by aggasalk

honestly, just have drones attach weights with magnets and glue. at some point the thing cant keep floating and will sink.

or have a helicopter put a net over it thats has weights.

or simply puncture the balloon. it wont explode and it wont immediately drop like dead weight.

−31

Zeraphym47 t1_j72p92g wrote

Reply to Back in the late 90s, I remember hearing that scientists “cloned a sheep”. What actually happened with the cloning, and what advancements have been made as a result of that? by foxmag86

You can legally clone your pet in many Asian countries like South Korea for example....you don't even wanna know what the usa and China are doing on black budget programs....the cloned animals have a very high rate if defect and their souls or personality whatever u wanna call it are never the same when cloned into inferior copied bodies.

−4

Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_j72jbac wrote

Reply to comment by Dodecahedrus in Ask Anything Wednesday - Physics, Astronomy, Earth and Planetary Science by AutoModerator

No, the answer to the first question is "there's no reason to think those numbers should match". Asking the question in the first place requires some kind of misunderstanding about the big bang and/or observable universe, but it can be hard to pin down exactly what that misunderstanding is.

But if a question actually included the words "expands at the speed of light", it would be easy to identify that misconception, because that's not at all how expansion works. It doesn't have a speed. It's like increasing the scale factor of the universe, everything getting further apart from everything else, and a uniform dilation preserves distance ratios between things, which means the recession velocity of an object must increase with distance. Two objects can be expanding away from each other at any speed you want as long as they are far enough apart.

The distance at which things expand away from us faster than C is around 14.5 billion lightyears (the hubble radius). So the objects in the observable universe that are further than that have been expanding away from us faster than C ever since they passed that distance.

The observable universe is defined as containing everything we could have ever observed, not things that we could still receive a signal from if emitted "right now" in cosmic time. That is once again the hubble volume, which is just a sphere with r = the hubble radius.

1