To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters
(REUTERS) – Kenyan Eluid Kipchoge, who on Saturday became the first man to run a marathon in less than two hours, is one of 11 nominees for the IAAF male athlete of the year, athletics’ governing body said on Monday.Kipchoge, who finished a special marathon in Vienna in one hour, 59 minutes and 40 seconds that will not be recognized for world record purposes, also was nominated for his London Marathon course record.Ten winners from the recent world athletics championships in Doha also are under consideration for the global honor: Americans Donovan Brazier (800m), Christian Coleman (100m), Sam Kendricks (pole vault), Noah Lyles (200m), Christian Taylor (triple jump).Also, Uganda’s Joshua Cheptegei (10,000m, world cross country title), Kenya’s Timothy Cheruyiot (1,500m), Bahamas’ Steven Gardiner (400m), Sweden’s Daniel Stahl (discus) and Norway’s Karsten Warholm (400m hurdles).Female nominees will be announced today.Fans may vote online on the IAAF’s social media platforms.Athletes of the year will be announced live on stage at the World Athletics Awards 2019 in November.
Image Courtesy: PTI/RediffAdvertisement d333zNBA Finals | Brooklyn Vsv3r3Wingsuit rodeo📽Sindre E6ugj( IG: @_aubreyfisher @imraino ) 3qri7Would you ever consider trying this?😱x35Can your students do this? 🌚m5oRoller skating! Powered by Firework Last week, Team India bowler Pragyan Ojha announced his retirement from all formats of the game. The Hyderabad cricket team star didn’t become a regular member of the international squad, but the four years he spent donning the Men in Blue jersey, Ojha was mostly under the leadership of the legendary Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Revered among fans as one of the best captains of the Indian cricket team, MS Dhoni didn’t miss any appraisal from Ojha either, as the spinner referred him as “Bowler’s Captain”.Advertisement Image Courtesy: PTI/RediffPragyan Ojha made his internatioanl debut in an ODI against Bangladesh in 2008, just a year after MS Dhoni took the role of captain for Team India. The 18 ODI and 24 Test cap holder, Ojha had the experience of going shoulder to shoulder with Dhoni across all formats, and revealed that the former captain was a mentor for the Indian bowling squad on field.In a recent interview, Ojha recalled his five years of international career, when he was in his best form, and was under Dhoni’s captainship. When asked about MS Dhoni, Ojha complimented the iconic wicket keeping batsman for his understanding with the bowlers.Advertisement “He (Dhoni) was a bowler’s captain. I strongly believe that a bowler should have a captain who understands him.” Ojha told reporters.Dhoni is renowned for his reserved and calm headed approach, which in turn was a boon for the bowlers, as Ojha stated the same.Advertisement “A lot of bowlers praise Dhoni because of the dimensions he gives you, things that he helps you with like placing the field, keeping your mind clear which are important when you play high-intensity games,” the 33 year old added.Ojha’s last international appearance was in 2013, where he played in Sachin Tendulkar’s farewell Test match against West Indies, striking a marvellous 10 wicket haul. He was also prolific in the Indian Premier League sides Deccan Chargers and Mumbai Indians, and won the purple cap in the 2010 season, a year after he won the title with DC.Dhoni, who is on a hiatus from international cricket since the 2019 world cup, will be back in action in the 2020 Indian Premier League.Also read-See the thoughtful retirement letter Pragyan Ojha penned after signing out from professional cricketDate revealed for MSD’s IPL 2020 training camp to begin! Advertisement
SAN DIEGO–With a violent swing of the bat, Giants pitcher Chris Stratton delivered the type of two-strike, two-out hit most of the club’s position players have struggled to produce this season.Stratton’s second-inning double cleared the bases as three of his teammates raced home to give the Giants the early lead.It was the perfect tone-setter for a team trying for a sweep. But Stratton soon found himself in a troubling situation, and he didn’t escape it in an 8-4 Giants loss.Those three runs …
Every school child has seen artwork of planets evolving from a disk of dust and gas around a star like our sun, but there’s a missing link in the story. How did the dust particles stick together?Once a clump of material is massive enough, it can attract more material by its own gravity. The moon, for instance, pulls meteors in. They stay there and don’t bounce off, except in the unusual case of a high-speed glancing blow. From the well-understood law of gravity, a planetary body needs to be about 1-10 km in diameter to grow by accretion. From there, this “planetesimal,” according to theory, would experience runaway growth as long as there is material around to feed it. Getting the body to this size is the problem. Smaller bodies do not have sufficient gravity to pull in neighboring material. A disk around a star, however, starts out with dust and ice grains much smaller, even microscopic in size. It is estimated that the original dust particles in the primordial solar nebula were a tenth of a micrometer in diameter, too small to see. How could these grow into planetesimals a mile across?This problem is not new. Planetary evolutionists have wrestled with it repeatedly. In the February issue of Icarus,1 Sin-iti Sirono of Nagoya University, Japan, tries to identify the requirements for colliding particles to stick together rather than bounce or smash each other apart. He certainly respects the problem; in his introduction, he asks with a Japanese accent, “There is a immense gap of 13 orders of magnitude between the grain size and the size of a planet. How planets are formed across this gap?” Behold the missing link of planetary evolution.Accretion is a complex problem with many variables. Think of firing a bullet at a rock. A small bullet might form a crater, catastrophically disrupt the rock, or merge with the rock, if the rock is porous and able to absorb the blow. What physical laws govern the outcome? Sirono, after a great deal of modeling and computation, arrives at three constraints:The target must have low compressive strength relative to shear strength and tensile strength.Impact velocity must be 0.4% the speed of sound of the medium.The bodies must be made of materials that allow the “restoration of damage” effect. This is an automatic “repair” mechanism that occurs if a ruptured material can rebound such that interatomic forces can partially heal the breach, as if little magnets in the pieces pull them back together.It should be evident with a little thought that other variables can also be important. To visualize this, imagine two astronauts, Chuck and Tom, having a snowball fight in the cargo bay of a space shuttle. Let’s say they both have good timing and aim; they always make their snowballs collide in the space between them. Since gravity is not a factor in the weightlessness of space, what factors would make the snowballs stick together (accrete) instead of bouncing off each other or fragmenting into smithereens? Here are a few of the variables:Temperature. Soft, wet snowballs are more likely to stick than hard, icy ones.Density. Low-density snowballs are more likely to stick than packed ones. The compressive strength of snowballs can vary by a factor of 1000, Sirono says: “As the density of an aggregate goes lower, the strength becomes lower and vice versa. For example, the strength range due to density variations is more than three orders of magnitude for a bed of snow.” So if our astronauts tightly pack their snowballs, they well be less likely to stick, but also more subject to disruption.Relative size. A small snowball might stick more readily to a large one, than would two of equal size. Sirono’s simulations suggest that the threshold ratio for optimum chance of sticking is 3/10 or lower.Glancing angle. A small impactor is more likely to stick to a target in a direct bulls-eye hit rather than a glancing blow.Differentiation. Let’s say Chuck and Tom throw rocks coated with snow. They might accrete if the relative velocity is low and the snow coating absorbs some of the energy.Glue. If our astronauts have access to some kind of adhesive with which to saturate their weapons, the snowballs might glue themselves together. Sirono thinks interstellar organic molecules might just do the trick. He cites earlier work that suggests organics might comprise a significant fraction of the material (silicate:ice:organic mass ratio of 1:1:1.6), and that the organics might form a viscoelastic fluid between the particles. “It may be possible that the organic materials play a role of glue which connects grains and fragments,” he suggests.If our astronauts perfect the art of getting their snowballs to stick together, new problems arise as the wad of snowballs grows. Earlier models often assumed that the properties of an accreting mass scaled uniformly upward, but Sirono reminds us that the aggregate of particles is subject to new forms of catastrophic rupture. Sirono explains,There are voids and cracks inside a large aggregate that significantly lowers the strength of an aggregate. Tensile stress concentrates in regions around the cracks, and fracturing starts from contacts between such grains. An aggregate will be broken by much smaller stresses than those expected by direct extrapolation from interaction forces between grains.So until the aggregate is large enough for gravity to compress and homogenize the insides, it is even more subject to disruption than were the original starting grains. Even if a lucky aggregate forms, all Tom needs to do is lob a high-speed ice ball at it and it could splinter into small fragments again. Better luck next time.It seems, therefore, that many special conditions are required to keep the hopeful aggregate growing up to a size where gravitational accretion can take over. Sirono does not estimate how likely this is to occur in a real stellar nebula. He just points out that any accretion needs to obey the laws of physics.1Sin-iti Sirono, “Conditions for collisional growth of a grain aggregate,” Icarus Volume 167, Issue 2, February 2004, Pages 431-452, doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2003.09.018.Observation 1: planets around a star, with a little dust. Observation 2: a lot of dust around a star, with no planets. What are appropriate conclusions based on this data?There are two possibilities. One is that the second star is a young star with a dust disk that is on the way to becoming a new solar system, and the first is an old star with mature planets. But there’s another possibility. Maybe the first star has widely spaced, mature planets with stable orbits and few collisions, and the second star started out with mature planets in erratic orbits, which since collided and ground each other to dust. The conclusion you reach has a lot to say about your world view and your respect for observation.While no one can rule out all possibility of dust and ice grains sticking together, the probability seems rather low. Sirono invokes several ad hoc conditions to increase the odds. Maybe if they are as soft as silly putty and infused with some sort of organic glue, with the right angle of attack, slow enough collision speed and the right temperature, they just might stick instead of bouncing off each other. But the organic glue cannot get too warm, because Sirono says, “It has been found that the shear modulus of the organics decreases by five orders of magnitude as temperature increases from 200 to 300 K.” This means the glue loses its elasticity real fast as the temperature rises: “The consequence of decrease in elasticity by a factor of 10 is severe fragmentation,” he says. For particles in the warmer parts of the nebula, this seems to be a problem, yet we observe Mercury in our solar system baking in the heat of the sun, and gas giants bigger than Jupiter in even closer orbits around other stars. Also, even if the conditions are lucky enough for the particles to start sticking to each other, they become even more subject to disruption as the aggregate grows.Perhaps Sinoro’s constraints don’t seem too outlandish, and one can envision scenarios in which all the right conditions might be met. It could be argued that out of uncounted myriads of particles, some might reach the threshold of runaway gravitational accretion. All it takes is a few to get a planetary system, right? (Actually, our solar system is filled with many thousands of gravitationally accreting bodies, like asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects, comets, and small moons, in addition to the planets and larger moons. Some of them appear to have been busted apart by collisions.)Regardless, the fact remains that no one has observed grains accrete into a planetesimal, but astronomers have abundantly observed the opposite: bodies fragmenting into smaller bodies and dust. Small bodies show abundant evidence of cratering and erosion, even the recently-photographed comet Wild-2 (see 01/02/2004), a fact that surprised scientists because this was supposed to be a pristine object from the quiet deep freeze of the outer solar system. We observe ongoing processes of fragmentation, catastrophic collision, erosion to dust and de-evolution, but accretion exists only in the minds of theorists. Which principle is more in accord with the second law of thermodynamics?One would think that scientists would err on the side of conservatism, and not make claims beyond the evidence. But the disruption view implies starting conditions that are philosophically repugnant to a naturalist: if the planets were already there, they must have been created. So strong is the urge to have a universe that evolves upward from a bang to galaxies to planets to life, that philosophical naturalists will sneak glue and fudge and whatever else is needed to fill in the gaps. You can believe that the dust around Vega is a young solar system in the making, but be sure your model particles obey the laws of physics. After all, a naturalist should respect the laws of nature, by definition. Better yet, perform realistic lab experiments. We’ll wait till you get particles that stick before worrying you with all the other problems, such as the Kuiper capers (10/05/2003), small moon mysteries (09/29/2003), turbulent stress in planetesimals and in scientist minds (09/22/2003), the rarity of sunlike solar systems (07/21/2003), declining popularity of the planetesimal hypothesis (06/03/2003), migration woes (05/16/2003), the war of the worlds (04/17/2003), the tweak Olympics (11/22/2002), etc., and so forth, and so on.(Visited 41 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
“Birds can perform amazing tasks beyond the reach of cats and dogs,” begins an article in the BBC News. So pay a little respect. You can still call your boss a bird brain, but had better quickly explain why that is a compliment. See also the longer article on MSNBC News. In a related article, Jessica Ebert wrote in Nature1 that “bird-brain terminology” is undergoing a reformation. The century-old naming convention of brain parts in birds resulted from a belief that birds were primitive, possessing simple brains capable only of instinct. The distinction between bird and mammal brain capabilities is artificial, scientists now realize: “Signalling molecules and neurotransmitters operate similarly in the brains of birds and mammals. And researchers agree that birds can learn: crows can pass on tool-making skills, for example.” A consortium of neurobiologists has revamped the nomenclature to give bird brains the respect they deserve.1Jessica Ebert, “Reformation of bird-brain terminology takes off,” Nature 433, 449 (03 February 2005); doi:10.1038/433449b.Can your pet cat or dog sing? Fly? Talk? Migrate across the world? Solve a puzzle as fast as a bird? Don’t let the small size fool you. Birds are compressed packages of extreme design that are a wonder to behold. The diversity of skills found among birds is mind-boggling. A dinosaur couldn’t figure all this out if it wanted to, even if it knew how to select those rare lucky mutations.(Visited 30 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
(Visited 115 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 At least 40 baleen whales and other species of marine mammals fossilized in a dry desert of Chile have been explained with a “toxic bloom” theory. Does it explain all the findings?The discovery was a sensation when announced in 2011 (see 11/14/11): fossil whale skeletons inland from the coast of Chile, perfectly preserved in dense numbers. “There’s never been a find of this size, or of this diversity, anywhere in the world,” one spokesman said on a video clip posted by the BBC. (although for density and size, it needs to compete with other well-known sites like the La Brea tar pits). The Cerro Ballena (“whale hill”) website, sponsored by the Smithsonian, has a map showing the individual fossils and their locations, along with photographs, videos and other information.Now that scientists have documented some 40 specimens and carted them off to labs, they have a theory to explain how they got where they are, published in the Royal Society Proceedings B (open access). About 6.5 to 9 million years ago, they believe, there was a series of toxic blooms of algae (probably dinoflagellates that cause the well-known “red tides” today). Whales and other large marine mammals ingesting infected fish probably died and were washed ashore. Moreover, since the whales were found at four levels, this probably happened multiple times over an estimated period of 16,000 years. New Scientist, Science Magazine, Live Science and the BBC News have echoed this explanation.The theory needs to account for several unusual facts:The whales were mostly found in a belly up position, mostly in the same direction along a line parallel to the coast.Many of the whales were articulated and complete.Along with baleen whales, the fossil graveyard includes sharks, seals, dolphins (including “dolphins that evolved a walrus-like face”), and “bizarre aquatic sloths.”The fossils are encased in fine-grained sediment. There is orange soil in places that might be remnant of toxic algae, but the researchers are not sure.Some of the bones seem to have marks made by crabs. “Given the unique food resource provided by marine mammal carcasses, it is not surprising to find scavenging traces on individual balaenopterid bones that we attribute to crabs,” the authors say.Hundreds more fossils may exist in the graveyard. The researchers only had two weeks to excavate before a stretch of the Pan-American Highway was built over the site.The site today is on the edge of one of the driest deserts in the world: the Atacama Desert.In order to explain why the carcasses would have been slowly buried by sand, the theory claims that there were no large land predators at the time. Still, they would have needed to be washed up high enough to escape the ravaging effects of marine predators (worms, bacteria, etc.) and seabirds. It would seem normal high tides would be incapable of getting the whale carcasses high enough above the surf; perhaps storm surges did it. Unless sand buried them quickly during the surge, though, it’s not clear how they would have been buried by sand in time to become fossilized. But then, how did crabs get to the bones? Why would this mechanism occur four times in a few thousand years (1/200 the assumed 3.5 million years of the deposit), and not more? None of the articles mentioned these or other problems with the theory. Instead, they presented the theory as a triumph of science. “This is an awesome snapshot of deep time,” a Stanford marine biologist said, even though he had just remarked that the findings “are revealing something that we didn’t know anything about.”While we can all be amazed and delighted over this discovery, we must deplore the uncritical treatment by the media. They seem incapable of thinking logically or asking the tough questions that reporters ask of politicians. They just regurgitate the explanation scientists give, never thinking to themselves, “That doesn’t make sense.” They rarely go off and compare this site with other sites, like the Peru location that has 346 whale fossils buried in diatomaceous earth (2/02/04). Reporters just stumble about from story to story, copying the thinking of the shamans, doing little more than rewriting some of the boilerplate text in their own words.The official explanation could be correct; nobody knows, because no humans were there. Several aspects don’t add up, as mentioned above. There doesn’t appear to be any reason to postulate four distinct episodes, just because they are found in layers. A single storm surge or flood can deposit multiple layers. If “hundreds” more whales exist in the deposit, it becomes less credible to imagine placid red tides killing that many large marine mammals and depositing them high above the highest tides, where they sat in the open air long enough for crabs to gnaw on their bones, but the bones never scattered till they were buried in sand. This happened at least 4 times?Reporters toss around the “millions of years” like word salad. But millions of years doesn’t help. It makes the story less credible. Are we to believe that all these fossils were deposited in 16,000 years, just one half of one percent of the assumed age of the deposit? What happened the other 99.5% of the time? Were there no red tides for millions of years? No storm surges? There should be over 200 times as many whale graveyards in those strata if that much time elapsed and this was a routine occurrence.Learn to ask questions the reporters never ask. Think logically, rather than taking their words on faith. Faith is supposed to be a no-no in science, isn’t it? Scientists and reporters treat faith the way Finagle treats miracles: “Don’t believe in faith; rely on it.”
“Their support has gone a long way in ensuring the successful growth of the Africa Open. It’s wonderful news for all of us that have grown to love this tournament that we will be coming to the Africa Open’s home for the next five years.” “It was a real dogfight for most of the day,” Oosthuizen said after securing victory. Two-shot victoryIn 2011 it took a playoff for Oosthuizen to win, but this time around he won by two shots after three strong rounds and an outstanding performance in the second round in which he fired an 11-under-par 62, sinking nine birdies and an eagle three on the par-five sixth. Tjaart van der Walt pushed Oosthuizen all the way. He matched the 2010 Open champion with a 69 in the first round, carded a 64 in response to Oosthuizen’s 62, and then shot a 65 to Oosthuizen’s 67 in the third round to enter the final round on even terms. His victory in the event, which was also co-sanctioned by the Sunshine Tour, marked the first time he has been successful in a European Tour title defence. It was also his fourth title on the Tour and his ninth career victory. “I remember watching Tjaart when I was an amateur, and it was just great seeing him play to his potential today. He played really well. He’s one of those who won’t go away. He’s not going to mess it up. He’s too consistent for that.” Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See: Using SAinfo material On Sunday, the outcome wasn’t decided until the 71st hole, when Oosthuizen nailed a 35-foot putt for birdie to move two shots clear. SponsorshipOn Sunday, it was also was announced that the East London Golf Club will host the Africa Open for the next five years, thanks to a sponsorship from the Buffalo City municipality. Louis Oosthuizen (-27) 69, 62, 67, 67, 265Tjaart van der Walt (-25) 69, 64, 65, 69, 267Retief Goosen (-24) 65, 68, 66, 69, 268Jaco van Zyl (-23) 71, 65, 67, 66, 269Alistair Forsyth (Sco) (-22) 69, 66, 68, 67, 270Richard Sterne (-20) 69, 69, 64, 70, 272Danny Willett (Eng) (-19) 67, 68, 65, 73, 273Lee Craig (Sco) (-18) 68, 67, 68, 71, 274Lyle Rowe (-18) 73, 68, 65, 68, 274Matthew Baldwin (Eng) (-17) 72, 64, 70, 69, 275Magnus Carlsson (Swe) (-17) 69, 66, 70, 70, 275Emiliano Grillo (Arg) (-17) 73, 66, 71, 65, 275Peter Karmis -17 68, 70, 69, 68, 275 9 January 2012 Sixth place went to South Africa’s Richard Sterne, who had spent almost a year on the sidelines because of back problems. In an encouraging return to action, he finished on 20-under 272. Third placeRetief Goosen, the 2009 champion, played steadily and turned in rounds of 65, 68, 66, and 69 to claim third place on 24-under-par 268. In addition, it was Oosthuizen’s sixth top-eight finish on the European Tour in succession, which serves to underline his growing maturity as a consistent top contender. “The Africa Open has benefited East London on an economic level, golf development has been given a wonderful boost since the inception of the Africa Open and our professional golfers have a wonderful opportunity to compete for great prize money and a chance to win European Tour membership.” “The dedication from Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality since they joined as sponsors in 2009 has been commendable,” Oosthuizen told the European Tour. Jaco van Zyl ended fourth on 23-under 269, while Alistair Forsyth of Scotland was the first foreign finisher, taking fifth with a total of 22-under-par 270. Two-time US Open champion Retief Goosen said: “I think it’s a win-win situation for everyone and I want to congratulate both Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency. LEADERBOARD (South African unless otherwise stated) For Van der Walt, it was a case of so near yet so far again; it was the ninth runner-up finish of his 15-year career which has yet to produce a victory. Tournament recordHe finished on a superb tournament record 27-under-par 265, with Van der Walt ending two shots adrift on 25-under-par 267. South Africa’s Louis Oosthuizen successfully defended his Africa Open title at East London Golf Club on Sunday to move to the top of the European Tour’s Race to Dubai standings.
Note: This was originally my Sunday newsletter. Occasionally, I post them here when people email me in large numbers. This was one of those newsletters that generated a big response.I want to offer you an exercise. It’s one that I have done a number of times, always right before a breakthrough. It’s one I am keen to repeat with a greater frequency than I have in the past.Most of us don’t spend enough time deciding what we really want. We are too busy living to spend time deciding what living means, or how to do so in way that is in line with our definition of success, happiness, a good life, and a life well lived.You cannot decide what you want by looking at your task list. The things that you have told yourself you must do have very little to do with what you want. In fact, just looking at all things that sit undone can cause you to believe that these are the things that you should be doing. If you can die happily with a task left undone and unaddressed, you can live happily with it undone and unaddressed.You also can’t decide what you want by looking at your projects, your short term goals, or the many roles you play. Unless the project is “my life,” it’s just a collection of tasks. Short term goals are important, but they’re likely just milestones on the way to something bigger. But what is that “something bigger?”To answer the question, “What do I want,” you have to move up to the highest vantage point available to you, a place where you can see further, a view with the greatest perspective. From that higher place, you can answer the question, “What do I want?”To live a life of purpose and meaning, you have to supply that purpose and meaning. You have to decide why you are here and what you are going to do with your time. Your life belongs to you alone. This fact is easy to forget when you don’t spend the necessary time to decide what you want, and when you end up living a life that is at odds with the life you see in your mind—and what you feel in your heart.If the idea of “what you want” seems nebulous to you, that is my intention. I have no idea what you really want. No one else does either. This is something you have to decide for yourself, even if it is one of the most difficult questions you have to answer.If you want to know what you really want, go some place quiet, where you can be alone. Make that quiet place outdoors, if you can. Write down the answer to the question, “What do I want?” Just write without having to be right. Explore what you surface and decide what it means for you. What you come up with probably fall into the categories of being more, doing more, having more, and contributing more.Once you know what you want, you can start to build the plans to achieve it. Essential Reading! Get my 3rd book: Eat Their Lunch “The first ever playbook for B2B salespeople on how to win clients and customers who are already being serviced by your competition.” Buy Now
LATEST STORIES Is Luis Manzano planning to propose to Jessy Mendiola? MOST READ PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games PLAY LIST 02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte SEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completion JJ Redick added 20 points for Philadelphia, which improved to 17-3 at home while winning its fourth in the last five.Wesley Matthews had 18 points to pace short-handed Dallas, which fell to 3-18 on the road. The Mavericks were without Dirk Nowitzki (rest), Devin Harris (back) and J.J. Barea (ankle). Rookie guard Jalen Brunson came off the bench to contribute 13 points, 11 rebounds and eight assists.The 76ers, who led by as many as 19 points in the second half, were seemingly in total control until Luka Doncic’s 3-pointer with just over a minute remaining cut the lead to 101-97. The lead still was four when Dwight Powell made one of two free throws for the Mavericks with 50 seconds left.“We gave ourselves a chance to win it,” Mavericks coach Rick Carlisle said.But Embiid, with “M-V-P! M-V-P!” chants raining down from the sold-out crowd, drained two foul shots with 28 seconds remaining to give Philadelphia breathing room.ADVERTISEMENT LOOK: Joyce Pring goes public with engagement to Juancho Triviño Philadelphia 76ers’ Ben Simmons (25) hangs on the rim after a dunk as Jonah Bolden (43) and Dallas Mavericks’ Luka Doncic (77) look on during the first half of an NBA basketball game, Saturday, Jan. 5, 2019, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum)PHILADELPHIA — Joel Embiid and Ben Simmons carried the load without Jimmy Butler. And when Butler returns, the 76ers stars expect Philadelphia to keep rolling.Embiid had 25 points and 12 rebounds, and Simmons added 20 points, 14 rebounds and 11 assists in Philadelphia’s 106-100 victory over the Dallas Mavericks on Saturday night.ADVERTISEMENT Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. TS Kammuri to enter PAR possibly a day after SEA Games opening Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting View comments Pelicans deal Cavaliers 9th straight loss Hotel management clarifies SEAG footballers’ kikiam breakfast issue Embiid hit two key free throws late for Philadelphia, which was without Butler for the second straight game due to an upper respiratory infection. The four-time All-Star wasn’t around to address a published report that said he recently challenged coach Brett Brown in a disrespectful way about his role in the offense.Brown downplayed the incident before the game, and both Embiid and Simmons expressed the belief afterward that the three stars can coexist.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine football chiefSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completion“Everybody is trying to fit in,” Embiid said. “We are going to keep working on it. We are inching toward it, and we are going to get there.”Simmons added: “Jimmy’s been great, amazing for me.” SEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completion Philadelphia acquired Butler last month with an eye on making a run to the NBA championship. But meshing Butler with stars Simmons and Embiid hasn’t always been easy, which Brown acknowledged.“There’s nobody trying to figure this out more than I am,” Brown said.BRUNSON’S RETURNBrunson, who played collegiately at nearby Villanova, was honored before the game by the Philadelphia Sports Writers Association as its Amateur Athlete of the Year after helping the Wildcats to their second national title in three years last April. Brunson’s dad, Rick, a well-traveled NBA guard who played collegiately at Temple, sat courtside to watch his son’s best game of his young career.“He was terrific all around,” Carlisle said. “He looked right at home. I was happy for him. I thought he did a lot of good things.”UP NEXTDallas: Host Lakers on Monday night.Philadelphia: Host Washington on Tuesday night. “Once again, we had to make the game interesting,” Embiid said.The 76ers had a 30-point advantage dwindle to three points before pulling out a 132-127 victory at Phoenix on Wednesday in their previous game.Philadelphia methodically pulled away, increasing a 31-26 first-quarter advantage to 59-51 at the half. The 76ers made 10 of 20 field goals in the third quarter, settling for an 87-70 lead to start the fourth.Nowitzki didn’t play on the second night of a back-to-back after going scoreless in the Mavericks’ 114-93 loss at Boston on Friday night. Nowitzki missed all 10 of his shots, including eight from 3-point range, while failing to score for just the ninth time in his 21-year career. He needed two points to become the Western Conference player with the most points on Boston’s home court.TIP-INSMavericks: DeAndre Jordan bruised his left hand in the first half but returned. . Doncic had 14 points but shot 4 for 16 from the field, including 1 for 8 from 3-point range.76ers: Philadelphia is 17-8 since acquiring Butler from the Minnesota Timberwolves in November. … Simmons reached a triple-double for the sixth time.BUTLER BABBLEBrown dismissed the Butler report before Saturday’s game.“I didn’t feel like any of that crossed the line,” Brown said. “He’s vocal. He’s all in and he has opinions, but it’s instigated by me. None of this should surprise anybody. He’s got opinions. He wants to be heard. And he should be heard.” Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next