Archive for fevereiro 10th, 2011

Deus teria usado um Secador de Cabelo para Criar a Vida?!

quinta-feira, fevereiro 10th, 2011

God would have used a hair dryer to Create Life?!

Sabemos da famosa experiência de Urey que misturou os ingredientes da Terra primitiva bombardeando-os com descargas elétricas e surgindo como produtos alguns aminoácidos, os famosos “building blocks” (tijolinhos) de todos os corpos dos seres vivos, como nós, humanos. Mas faltou algo ali pois os aminoácidos de Urey não dão o passo seguinte, ou seja, a formação de proteínas e RNA. Desde então milhares de tentativas tem sido feitas. Agora um cientista (calculando que os vapores quentes incidindo sôbre os mesmos ingredientes ajuntados por rochas aglutinadoras seria a solução para o grande mistério),  tem conseguido tambem aminoacidos expondo os ingredientes sob um aparelho (technically known as an “internally heated, gas media pressure vessel”), que parece um secador de cabelo. Merece elogios, tôda tentativa é válida na busca por uma resposta que explique nossa existência.

Mas enquanto êle não consegue também fazer em labotatório que seus aminoácidos evoluam para proteínas e re-inventem o código genético, eu por meu lado continuo testando e buscando mais evidências para a Teoria da Matriz/DNA, a qual continua sugerindo que uma fórmula teria vindo desde átomos passando por galáxias e a qual estaria presente naquela sôpa primordial, sugerindo que ela é o elemento que está faltando nestas experiências. O leitor pode ficar de camarote assistindo nossa corrida nesta maratona para ver quem chega e acerta primeiro êste que é o maior mistério de todos os tempos. pois trata-se da explicação para a existência do mundo e de nós mesmos..Vejamos o artigo (em inglês, por enquanto, mas vou traduzi-l0 aqui em breve).

A mineralogist believes he’s discovered how life’s early building blocks connected four billion years ago

(Um mineralogista acredita que descobriu como os primeiros tijolinhos da Vida (os aminoácidos) se conectaram a bilhões de anos atrás)

Smithsonian magazine, October 2010

The Origins of Life

By Helen Fields

A hilly green campus in Washington, D.C. houses two departments of the Carnegie Institution for Science: the Geophysical Laboratory and the quaintly named Department of Terrestrial Magnetism. When the institution was founded, in 1902, measuring the earth’s magnetic field was a pressing scientific need for makers of nautical maps. Now, the people who work here—people like Bob Hazen—have more fundamental concerns. Hazen and his colleagues are using the institution’s “pressure bombs”—breadbox-size metal cylinders that squeeze and heat minerals to the insanely high temperatures and pressures found inside the earth—to decipher nothing less than the origins of life.

 Hazen, a mineralogist, is investigating how the first organic chemicals—the kind found in living things—formed and then found each other nearly four billion years ago. He began this research in 1996, about two decades after scientists discovered hydrothermal vents—cracks in the deep ocean floor where water is heated to hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit by molten rock. The vents fuel strange underwater ecosystems inhabited by giant worms, blind shrimp and sulfur-eating bacteria. Hazen and his colleagues believed the complex, high-pressure vent environment—with rich mineral deposits and fissures spewing hot water into cold—might be where life began.

Hazen realized he could use the pressure bomb to test this theory. The device (technically known as an “internally heated, gas media pressure vessel”) is like a super-high-powered kitchen pressure cooker, producing temperatures exceeding 1,800 degrees and pressures up to 10,000 times that of the atmosphere at sea level.

Em outras palavras, enquanto Miller usou cargas elétricas, Hazen está usando os mesmos ingredientes, porem com o internally heated, gas media pressure vessel.

In his first experiment with the device, Hazen encased a few milligrams of water, an organic chemical called pyruvate and a powder that produces carbon dioxide all in a tiny capsule made of gold (which does not react with the chemicals inside) that he had welded himself. He put three capsules into the pressure bomb at 480 degrees and 2,000 atmospheres. And then he went to lunch. When he took the capsules out two hours later, the contents had turned into tens of thousands of different compounds. In later experiments, he combined nitrogen, ammonia and other molecules plausibly present on the early earth. In these experiments, Hazen and his colleagues created all sorts of organic molecules, including amino acids and sugars—the stuff of life.

Hazen’s experiments marked a turning point. Before them, origins-of-life research had been guided by a scenario scripted in 1871 by Charles Darwin himself: “But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes….”

In 1952, Stanley Miller, a graduate student in chemistry at the University of Chicago, attempted to create Darwin’s dream. Miller set up a container holding water (representing the early ocean) connected by glass tubes to one containing ammonia, methane and hydrogen—a mixture scientists of the day thought approximated the early atmosphere. A flame heated the water, sending vapor upward. In the atmosphere flask, electric sparks simulated lightning. The experiment was such a long shot that Miller’s adviser, Harold Urey, thought it a waste of time. But over the next few days, the water turned deep red. Miller had created a broth of amino acids.

Forty-four years later, Bob Hazen’s pressure bomb experiments would show that not just lightning storms but also hydrothermal vents potentially could have sparked life. His work soon led him to a more surprising conclusion: the basic molecules of life, it turns out, are able to form in all sorts of places: near hydrothermal vents, volcanoes, even on meteorites. Cracking open space rocks, astrobiologists have discovered amino acids, compounds similar to sugars and fatty acids, and nucleobases found in RNA and DNA. So it’s even possible that some of the first building blocks of life on earth came from outer space.

Hazen’s findings came at an auspicious time. “A few years before, we would have been laughed out of the origins-of-life community,” he says. But NASA, then starting up its astrobiology program, was looking for evidence that life could have evolved in odd environments—such as on other planets or their moons. “NASA [wanted] justification for going to Europa, to Titan, to Ganymede, to Callisto, to Mars,” says Hazen. If life does exist there, it’s likely to be under the surface, in warm, high-pressure environments.

Back on earth, Hazen says that by 2000 he had concluded that “making the basic building blocks of life is easy.” A harder question: How did the right building blocks get incorporated? Amino acids come in multiple forms, but only some are used by living things to form proteins. How did they find each other?

In a windowed corner of a lab building at the Carnegie Institution, Hazen is drawing molecules on a notepad and sketching the earliest steps on the road to life. “We’ve got a prebiotic ocean and down in the ocean floor, you’ve got rocks,” he says. “And basically there’s molecules here that are floating around in solution, but it’s a very dilute soup.” For a newly formed amino acid in the early ocean, it must have been a lonely life indeed. The familiar phrase “primordial soup” sounds rich and thick, but it was no beef stew. It was probably just a few molecules here and there in a vast ocean. “So the chances of a molecule over here bumping into this one, and then actually a chemical reaction going on to form some kind of larger structure, is just infinitesimally small,” Hazen continues. He thinks that rocks—whether the ore deposits that pile up around hydrothermal vents or those that line a tide pool on the surface—may have been the matchmakers that helped lonely amino acids find each other.

Rocks have texture, whether shiny and smooth or craggy and rough. Molecules on the surface of minerals have texture, too. Hydrogen atoms wander on and off a mineral’s surface, while electrons react with various molecules in the vicinity. An amino acid that drifts near a mineral could be attracted to its surface. Bits of amino acids might form a bond; form enough bonds and you’ve got a protein.

Back at the Carnegie lab, Hazen’s colleagues are looking into the first step in that courtship: Kateryna Klochko is preparing an experiment that—when combined with other experiments and a lot of math—should show how certain molecules stick to minerals. Do they adhere tightly to the mineral, or does a molecule attach in just one place, leaving the rest of it mobile and thereby increasing the chances it will link up to other molecules?

Klochko gets out a rack, plastic tubes and the liquids she needs. “It’s going to be very boring and tedious,” she warns. She puts a tiny dab of a powdered mineral in a four-inch plastic tube, then adds arginine, an amino acid, and a liquid to adjust the acidity. Then, while a gas bubbles through the solution, she waits…for eight minutes. The work may seem tedious indeed, but it takes concentration. “That’s the thing, each step is critical,” she says. “Each of them, if you make a mistake, the data will look weird, but you won’t know where you made a mistake.” She mixes the ingredients seven times, in seven tubes. As she works, “The Scientist” comes on the radio: “Nooooobody saaaaid it was easyyyy,” sings Coldplay vocalist Chris Martin.

After two hours, the samples go into a rotator, a kind of fast Ferris wheel for test tubes, to mix all night. In the morning, Klochko will measure how much arginine remains in the liquid; the rest of the amino acid will have stuck to the mineral powder’s tiny surfaces.

She and other researchers will repeat the same experiment with different minerals and different molecules, over and over in various combinations. The goal is for Hazen and his colleagues to be able to predict more complex interactions, like those that may have taken place in the earth’s early oceans.

How long will it take to go from studying how molecules interact with minerals to understanding how life began? No one knows. For one thing, scientists have never settled on a definition of life. Everyone has a general idea of what it is and that self-replication and passing information from generation to generation are key. Gerald Joyce, of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, jokes that the definition should be “something like ‘that which is squishy.’”

Hazen’s work has implications beyond the origins of life. “Amino-acids-sticking-to-crystals is everywhere in the environment,” he says. Amino acids in your body stick to titanium joints; films of bacteria grow inside pipes; everywhere proteins and minerals meet, amino acids are interacting with crystals. “It’s every rock, it’s every soil, it’s the walls of the building, it’s microbes that interact with your teeth and bones, it’s everywhere,” Hazen says.

 After considering, for some time, how minerals may have helped life evolve, Hazen is now investigating the other side of the equation: how life spurred the development of minerals. He explains that there were only about a dozen different minerals—including diamonds and graphite—in dust grains that pre-date the solar system. Another 50 or so formed as the sun ignited. On earth, volcanoes emitted basalt, and plate tectonics made ores of copper, lead and zinc. “The minerals become players in this sort of epic story of exploding stars and planetary formation and the triggering of plate tectonics,” he says. “And then life plays a key role.” By introducing oxygen into the atmosphere, photosynthesis made possible new kinds of minerals—turquoise, azurite and malachite, for example. Mosses and algae climbed onto land, breaking down rock and making clay, which made bigger plants possible, which made deeper soil, and so on. Today there are about 4,400 known minerals—more than two-thirds of which came into being only because of the way life changed the planet. Some of them were created exclusively by living organisms.

Everywhere he looks, Hazen says, he sees the same fascinating process: increasing complexity. “You see the same phenomena over and over, in languages and in material culture—in life itself. Stuff gets more complicated.” It’s the complexity of the hydrothermal vent environment—gushing hot water mixing with cold water near rocks, and ore deposits providing hard surfaces where newly formed amino acids could congregate—that makes it such a good candidate as a cradle of life. “Organic chemists have long used test tubes,” he says, “but the origin of life uses rocks, it uses water, it uses atmosphere. Once life gets a foothold, the fact that the environment is so variable is what drives evolution.” Minerals evolve, life arises and diversifies, and along come trilobites, whales, primates and, before you know it, brass bands.

Helen Fields has written about snakehead fish and the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils for Smithsonian. Amanda Lucidon is based in Washington, D.C.

Read more:

Descoberta de Novo Sistema com Seis Planetas Abala Teoria Oficial

quinta-feira, fevereiro 10th, 2011

E como fica o modêlo astronômico da teoria da Matriz/DNA, agora? Nenhuma alteração. Nas suscessivas gerações de replicações do sistema original devem ocorrer diversidade de formas.

Inovação Tecnológica 

Sistema com seis planetas surpreende astrônomos

Redação do Site Inovação Tecnológica – 03/02/2011


Ele não é apenas um sistema planetário como nunca se viu antes.

O que o telescópio espacial Kepler agora revelou foi um sistema planetário que ninguém esperava encontrar.

Há 2.000 anos-luz da Terra, a estrela agora batizada de Kepler-11 é bem parecida com o Sol.

Mas os planetas ao seu redor transformam em poeira cósmica os modelos de formação de planetas considerados válidos até hoje.

São seis planetas identificados até agora ao redor da Kepler-11, variando entre 2,3 e 13,5 vezes a massa da Terra – os maiores têm dimensões comparáveis a Urano e Netuno.

Cinco deles têm períodos orbitais entre 10 e 47 dias, o que significa que a órbita de todos eles fica dentro de uma região que cabe dentro da órbita de Mercúrio. É um sistema planetário absolutamente compactado.

O sexto planeta é maior e só um pouco mais distante, com um período orbital de 118 dias e uma massa ainda indeterminada – se estivesse em nosso Sistema Solar, orbitaria entre Mercúrio e Vênus.


Nenhum modelo de formação planetária apontaria a possibilidade de tal adensamento de planetas na proximidade das estrelas. E menos ainda com a sua composição provável, muito semelhante à de Urano e Netuno, que ficam muito mais distantes da nossa estrela.

Não é para menos. As teorias de formação de planetas foram feitas tendo como base de estudo unicamente o Sistema Solar, que era o único que os cientistas conheciam até poucos anos atrás. À medida que novos exemplos de sistemas planetários são encontrados, torna-se mais fácil elaborar teorias melhores.

“O sistema planetário Kepler-11 é incrível”, disse Jack Lissauer, membro da equipe científica do telescópio Kepler. “Ele é incrivelmente compacto, ele é incrivelmente plano e há um número surpreendentemente grande de planetas grandes orbitando perto da sua estrela”.

“Não sabíamos que tais sistemas poderiam existir,” resume ele.

As densidades dos planetas (derivadas da massa e do raio) fornecem pistas sobre suas composições. Todos os seis planetas têm densidades mais baixas do que a da Terra, provavelmente formados por uma misturas de rochas e gases, possivelmente incluindo água.

A parte rochosa responde pela maior parte da massa dos planetas, enquanto o gás responde pela maior parte do seu volume.

“Parece que os dois mais internos poderiam ser formados principalmente de água, possivelmente com uma fina pele de gás, hélio-hidrogênio, por cima, como mini-Netunos,” disse Jonathan Fortney, outro membro da equipe. “Os mais afastados têm densidades inferiores à da água, o que parece indicar atmosferas significativas de hélio-hidrogênio.”

Cérebros quentes

Isto é surpreendente, porque um planeta pequeno e quente não deveria conseguir manter uma atmosfera tão leve.

“Estes planetas são muito quentes por causa de suas órbitas próximas, e quanto mais quente eles são, mais gravidade precisam para manter a atmosfera,” explicou Fortney.

“Meus alunos e eu ainda estamos trabalhando nisso, mas nossas hipóteses são de que todos estes planetas provavelmente começaram com uma atmosfera de hélio-hidrogênio mais massiva, e nós vemos os restos dessas atmosferas naqueles mais distantes. Os mais próximos provavelmente já perderam a maioria dela.”

Mudança Magnética do Planeta Ameaça Continentes ao Desaparecimento?

quinta-feira, fevereiro 10th, 2011

Artigo publicado esta semana (transcrito abaixo) causou certo furor e uma certa correria à Internet buscando-se informações. O jornalista-autor cita várias fontes çientificas como referência mas muitos defensores da Ciência dizem que não existe embazamento cientifico (basta ler os 300 comentários que já seguem o artigo e várias respostas publicadas em outros veículos de comunicação).


Vamos tentar ler tudo a respeito antes de formular nossa opinião, porque a denuncia é muito séria.  

Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms

Superstorms can also cause certain societies, cultures or whole countries to collapse. Others may go to war with each other.

Terrence Aym

Feb-04-2011 00:50

(CHICAGO) – NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…

Now “it” is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world’s weather.

Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun’s magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet’s own magnetic field.

When the field shifts, when it fluctuates, when it goes into flux and begins to become unstable anything can happen. And what normally happens is that all hell breaks loose.

Magnetic polar shifts have occurred many times in Earth’s history. It’s happening again now to every planet in the solar system including Earth.

The magnetic field drives weather to a significant degree and when that field starts migrating superstorms start erupting.

The superstorms have arrived

The first evidence we have that the dangerous superstorm cycle has started is the devastating series of storms that pounded the UK during late 2010.

On the heels of the lashing the British Isles sustained, monster storms began to lash North America. The latest superstorm — as of this writing — is a monster over the U.S. that stretched across 2,000 miles affecting more than 150 million people.

Yet even as that storm wreaked havoc across the Western, Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern states, another superstorm broke out in the Pacific and closed in on Australia.

The southern continent had already dealt with the disaster of historic superstorm flooding from rains that dropped as much as several feet in a matter of hours. Tens of thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed. After the deluge tiger sharks were spotted swimming between houses in what was once a quiet suburban neighborhood.

Shocked authorities now numbly concede that much of the water may never dissipate and have wearily resigned themselves to the possibility that region will now contain a new inland sea.

But then only a handful of weeks later another superstorm; the megamonster cyclone Yasi, struck northeastern Australia. The damage it left in its wake is being called by rescue workers a war zone.

The incredible superstorm packed winds near 190mph. Although labeled as a category-5 cyclone, it was theoretically a category-6. The reason for that is storms with winds of 155mph are considered category-5, yet Yasi was almost 22 percent stronger than that.

 A cat’s cradle

Yet Yasi may only be a foretaste of future superstorms. Some climate researchers, monitoring the rapidly shifting magnetic field, are predicting superstorms in the future with winds as high as 300 to 400mph.

Such storms would totally destroy anything they came into contact with on land.

The possibility more storms like Yasi or worse will wreak havoc on our civilization and resources is found in the complicated electromagnetic relationship between the sun and Earth. The synergistic tug-of-war has been compared by some to an intricately constructed cat’s cradle. And it’s in a constant state of flux.

The sun’s dynamic, ever-changing electric magnetosphere interfaces with the Earth’s own magnetic field affecting, to a degree, the Earth’s rotation, precessional wobble, dynamics of the planet’s core, its ocean currents and—above all else—the weather.

Cracks in Earth’s Magnetic Shield

The Earth’s northern magnetic pole was moving towards Russia at a rate of about five miles annually. That progression to the East had been happening for decades.

Suddenly, in the past decade the rate sped up. Now the magnetic pole is shifting East at a rate of 40 miles annually, an increase of 800 percent. And it continues to accelerate.

Recently, as the magnetic field fluctuates, NASA has discovered “cracks” in it. This is worrisome as it significantly affects the ionosphere, troposphere wind patterns, and atmospheric moisture. All three things have an effect on the weather.

Worse, what shields the planet from cancer-causing radiation is the magnetic field. It acts as a shield deflecting harmful ultra-violet, X-rays and other life-threatening radiation from bathing the surface of the Earth. With the field weakening and cracks emerging, the death rate from cancer could skyrocket and mutations of DNA can become rampant.

Another federal agency, NOAA, issued a report caused a flurry of panic when they predicted that mammoth superstorms in the future could wipe out most of California. The NOAA scientists said it’s a plausible scenario and would be driven by an “atmospheric river” moving water at the same rate as 50 Mississippi rivers flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Magnetic field may dip, flip and disappear

The Economist wrote a detailed article about the magnetic field and what’s happening to it. In the article they noted:

“There is, however, a growing body of evidence that the Earth’s magnetic field is about to disappear, at least for a while. The geological record shows that it flips from time to time, with the south pole becoming the north, and vice versa. On average, such reversals take place every 500,000 years, but there is no discernible pattern. Flips have happened as close together as 50,000 years, though the last one was 780,000 years ago. But, as discussed at the Greenland Space Science Symposium, held in Kangerlussuaq this week, the signs are that another flip is coming soon.”

Discussing the magnetic polar shift and the impact on weather, the scholarly paper “Weather and the Earth’s magnetic field” was published in the journal Nature. Scientists too are very concerned about the increasing danger of superstorms and the impact on humanity.


Superstorms will not only damage agriculture across the planet leading to famines and mass starvation, they will also change coastlines, destroy cities and create tens of millions of homeless.

Superstorms can also cause certain societies, cultures or whole countries to collapse. Others may go to war with each other.

A Danish study published in the scientific journal Geology, found strong correlation between climate change, weather patterns and the magnetic field.

“The earth’s climate has been significantly affected by the planet’s magnetic field, according to a Danish study published Monday that could challenge the notion that human emissions are responsible for global warming.

“‘Our results show a strong correlation between the strength of the earth’s magnetic field and the amount of precipitation in the tropics,’ one of the two Danish geophysicists behind the study, Mads Faurschou Knudsen of the geology department at Aarhus University in western Denmark, told the Videnskab journal.

“He and his colleague Peter Riisager, of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), compared a reconstruction of the prehistoric magnetic field 5,000 years ago based on data drawn from stalagmites and stalactites found in China and Oman.”

In the scientific paper “Midday magnetopause shifts earthward of geosynchronous orbit during geomagnetic superstorms with Dst = -300 nT” the magnetic intensity of solar storms impacting Earth can intensify the effects of the polar shift and also speed up the frequency of the emerging superstorms.
Pole reversal may also be initiating new Ice Age

According to some geologists and scientists, we have left the last interglacial period behind us. Those periods are lengths of time—about 11,500 years—between major Ice Ages.

One of the most stunning signs of the approaching Ice Age is what’s happened to the world’s precessional wobble.

The Earth’s wobble has stopped

As explained in the geology and space science website, “The Chandler wobble was first discovered back in 1891 by Seth Carlo Chandler an American astronomer.

The effect causes the Earth’s poles to move in an irregular circle of 3 to 15 meters in diameter in an oscillation. The Earth’s Wobble has a 7-year cycle which produces two extremes, a small spiraling wobble circle and a large spiraling wobble circle, about 3.5 years apart.

For the conclusion of this article, visit:

Also, as a response to comments, Terrence added this:

Related article added Feb-08-2011: Yellowstone Supervolcano, New Ice Age Could Topple US Government – Terrence Aym




Superstorms and magnetic poles

by Jonathan DuHamel on Feb. 07, 2011,

Last month I wrote an article entitled “Earth’s Magnetic Poles, Reversing or Not?” I noticed that yesterday it receive an unusually large number of hits. Why the sudden interest?

Upon searching, I found an article in the Salem, Oregon News by Terrence Aym titled “Magnetic Polar Shifts Causing Massive Global Superstorms.” In this story Aym claims that shifts in Earth’s magnetic poles and changes in the magnetic flux of the Sun caused the recent storms we have been experiencing in the last few days. Aym’s story is nothing but science fiction.

In the article, Aym refers to a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, titled, “Midday magnetopause shifts earthward of geosynchronous orbit during geomagnetic superstorms with Dst = -300 nT.” (You can read the paper here. Warning, it is very dense.) The paper concerns electromagnetic disturbance of the Earth’s magnetosphere caused by solar magnetic storms. The paper contains the words, “superstorm” and “space weather.” Aym also writes about the wandering magnetic poles, which I discussed in my article. These phenomena have nothing to do with weather in the Earth’s atmosphere. I guess that Aym Googled “superstorm” and found the paper. Either through misunderstanding of the scientific paper or in a deliberate attempt to conflate unrelated phenomena into a sensational, apocalyptic story, Aym writes “Now it is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world’s weather.” He also confuses slight wobbling of the magnetic pole and shifts in the magnetosphere with wobbling of the Earth’s rotational axis and shifts in the Earth’s orbit. Quite different phenomena. He then goes on to predict all manner of disasters. Sheer nonsense.

Aym adds some verisimilitude to his story by almost correctly stating: “A Danish study published in the scientific journal Geology, found strong correlation between climate change, weather patterns and the magnetic field.” This refers to a theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation. (Svensmark, H. 2007. Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges. Astronomy & Geophysics 48: 1.18-1.24. Svensmark’s book, The Chilling Stars, is a popularized version of his research.) The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines. The strength of Earth’s magnetosphere controls how much cosmic radiation reaches the atmosphere. But this work is about climate, not weather.

Aym’s story has the attributes of a B-grade disaster movie on the Syfy channel, scientific fact be damned.