Airbrush

I heard the news several times on the radio this morning about the winners of the Physics Nobel Prize for the universe accelerated expansion. I didn't realize someone could win for something that was fairly well established over 10 years ago. I thought the discovery had to be the previous year. Oh well, better late than never.

IM Egdall, thanks for answering my question!

After seeing the wonderful 1.5 hour Kepler talk (see above) by Geoffe Marci, I want to thank Ceti Alpha V for posting it. Very good talk. The first 10 minutes you can skip, but after that the talk and fabulous question and answer following should not be missed. Regarding the question of transits we can see because by chance the star system is aligned with Keplers view, he said they can extrapolate to about 30% of all the 150,000 stars in Kepler's view are now known to probably have planets. They have already detected about 1,250 planetary systems, out of 150,000 stars, and that is a little less than 1% of the total number of stars in Kepler's field of vision. Although Kepler has been watching for about 2 years, the data so far analyzed is from about the first 6 months of watching since there is so much data to analyze which takes time. In several more years they will probably detect far more of the longer period Earth-sized planets in habbitable zones of larger and larger stars. Since most stars are smaller than our Sun, the habbitable zone of most stars will be closer to the star, and therefore we would see their shorter periods within the next year or two.

Does anyone else agree with Janus? "The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical universe. Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_science I don't totally understand this (empiracally determined constant), but Wikipedia differentiates between law and theory of science.

You are correct of course. Mine borrowed concepts from my dictionary and a little from wikipedia, and I came up with my abbreviated 5 step process. Let's say I invented a simplified scientific method. You are exactly precise. Is there something specifically wrong with my series? OK, so I left out important detail, but that detail is understood. My step 1 is your step 1&2. My step 2 is your step 3. Then your steps 4,5,6,7,&8 come between my step 2 and 3. You never mention "Laws of Science" an important step in the process. Well-tested theories become Laws of Science. Where did I go wrong, except to leave out understood detail? I think you are correct, but you missed Laws of Science, and I am also correct in my abbreviation for the non-scientist.

Scientific Method: 1. Wonder - what, where, when, why, how, etc 2. Hypothesis - a proposed explanation based on limited evidence, used as a starting point for further investigation 3. Theory - idea or set of ideas intended to explain something 4. Law of Science - theory has been tested and verified by independent investigators - the theory "works" 5. Laws of science may be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them Sources: my dictionary & wikipedia

As stated above, the Big Bang was not an explosion of any sort that we know about. It was an instantaneous expansion of matter/energy/space. It was always in motion from the very beginning. I would think it was like a chain reaction, like a nuclear explosion, which was surrounded by a total vacuum that sucked the matter outward at faster than light speed. It had to be some kind of "gateway" for so much matter to appear out of nowhere. I think white hole caused by colliding higher dimensions is a reasonable possibility.

"2. I don't agree with your interpretation of the wiki article. It describes the orientation factor as a simple geometry problem, but that doesn't lead one to make the kind of extrapolation you're suggesting." Thanks for the Youtube about Kepler. I hope to watch that when I have time. Then maybe I can ask you an intelligent question and find out exactly what I'm missing. If anyone else knows what Ceti Alpha V means by his point #2 above please help. There is a misunderstanding here. "3. The planets in the outer solar system seem to be too distant from the sun to be detected by Kepler (guess based on what I know of the transmit method)." Yes, the outer gas giants have long orbits, so it would take decades to see an outer gas giant make a single transit. Terrestrial planets, especially around smaller stars, will be easier to find because they have more frequent transits. And scientists are more interested in the smaller Earth-sized planets in the Goldilocks Zone.

Why don't you agree? The Wiki article said to the effect that for every transit detected, probably there are approximately 215 similar solar systems among that population of stars, but they are aligned so we cannot see transits. There may be more or less, and I would like to hear a plus or minus number, but that is besides the point. I stated "approx 200" because I didn't know exactly. Is approx 200 so far off from 215? Do you disagree with the Wiki article?

"...The probability of a random planetary orbit being along the line-of-sight to a star is the diameter of the star divided by the diameter of the orbit. For an Earth-like planet at 1 AU transiting a Sol-like star the probability is 0.465%, or about 1 in 215." In Wikipedia look under "Objectives and Methods" at about the middle paragraph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_mission So if we see an Earth-like planet at 1 AU transiting a Sol-like star, that means there are probably about 215 of those. For every transit we can see means the orbital plane of that solar system is aligned, by chance, with us, and probably 214 others are not aligned with us.

Last gem I heard about Kepler was that it appears that small planets, such as Earth, are even more common than the gas giants. "Again, I don't know the details on this and am only speculating. I wouldn't mind learning the details. If the above is true then the exoplanets Kepler has been able to detect may be a mere tip of the iceberg, no?" You can extrapolate Kepler's findings by multiplying the numbers it detects by approx 200. Kepler has a steady focus on an area of our galaxy thousands of light years away. No it does not watch anything inside our solar system.

I can't believe we haven't heard about this around here. A mountain 284 MILES high on Pluto is incredible! Has this been confirmed?

Does anyone know if a stellar-sized black hole could be located very near us? Is it possible one could be closer than 4 light years, but since they are hard to detect, we simply don't know? Or are we fairly certain there are none nearby?

The CMB did not redshift into the microwave range. The CMB IS visible light that is now redshifted into the microwave range because of the vast distance. A redshift implies great distance from us, the more redshift the greater the distance. The background radiation burst into the visible light range about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe became transparent, and became visible to the naked eye at that time, but there were no stars around yet, so no life could have evolved. After that was the "dark ages" when hydrogen slowly clumped together into stars and galaxies. The dark ages lasted until about 800 Million years after the Big Bang, when the first stars ignited. They were the first light after the dark ages. Life as we know it needs heavy elements which were not created until the first generation of stars began to supernova. The first stars, "Population III stars", are thought to have been very massive, maybe 100 solar masses and larger with short live spans, maybe tens or hundreds of millions of years. So life could not start evolving until about a Billion years after the Big Bang. "...Before decoupling occurs most of the photons in the universe are interacting with electrons and protons in the photon–baryon fluid. The universe is opaque or "foggy" as a result. There is light but not light we could observe through telescopes. The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination," thereby releasing the photons creating the CMB. When the photons were released (or decoupled) the universe became transparent. At this point the only radiation emitted is the 21 cm spin line of neutral hydrogen. There is currently an observational effort underway to detect this faint radiation, as it is in principle an even more powerful tool than the cosmic microwave background for studying the early universe. The Dark Ages are currently thought to have lasted between 150 million to 800 million years after the Big Bang. The recent (October 2010) discovery of UDFy-38135539, the first observed galaxy to have existed during the following reionization epoch, gives us a window into these times. There was a report in January 2011 of yet another more than 13 billion years old that existed a mere 480 million years after the Big Bang...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang#Dark_ages

The answer to your question is yes, the sky is an illusion. Everything we see is older than it looks because the light from it took time to reach us.

"Earth's oldest fossils have been found in Australia by a team from the University of Western Australia and Oxford University. The microscopic fossils show convincing evidence for cells and bacteria living in an oxygen-free world over 3.4 billion years ago. The team, led by Dr David Wacey of the University of Western Australia and including Professor Martin Brasier of Oxford University, report the finding in the journal Nature Geoscience. 'At last we have good solid evidence for life over 3.4 billion years ago. It confirms there were bacteria at this time, living without oxygen,' says Professor Brasier of the Department of Earth Sciences at Oxford." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110821205241.htm

The EM pulse thread got me thinking of this. It is possible to make high speed police chases obsolete, IF all cars manufactured have some kind of sensor on the back bumper. Old cars can be retrofitted with this at not much cost. This sensor is tamper proof and is connected to a system that shuts off the gas, or whatever you need to shut off to bring a speeding car to a gradual stop. You don't want to lock their steering. The police simply point a special device at the speeding car, trigger it and it activates the shut down system in the bad guy's car. Anyone know how to do this?

Thanks for the link. To summarize Starfish, it was a 1.45 megaton nuclear device exploded at 250 miles high and it had an EM pulse larger than expected. 900 miles away in Hawaii, 300 streetlights were knocked out and it damaged their phone system, and set off burglar alarms. The Earth's magnetic field channels the pulse certain directions and proper placement of the nuke can result in worse damage. A few well-placed nukes over the USA could cripple all our unprotected commercial electronics.

Very interesting thoughts. Your post deserves an effective title. How about editing it to correct the spelling of "produced", and rearranging the words for better meaning. I propose "Was more energy or matter produced during the big bang?"

OK, but promise to not try one over my city. All you need to do is explode a nuke miles high. It will destroy all the electronics in a wide area under the blast. In fact a modest nuclear explosion, e.g. one megaton, can destroy electronic circuits to a radius of hundreds of miles! Whereas exploding it on the ground would not affect such a large area.

Then the ceilings can be higher. The walls can be straight vertical up to 8 feet, then the arching dome begins. I think the above argument is irrelevant. Keeping out water from an underground dwelling, however, is a significant issue. Just make sure the inside is very water proof. Water channels can drain away rain water away from and under the house. If the house is 50% below ground level, just build the below ground level like a boat. This would be able to survive a tsunami and the worst storms, in coastal areas prone to such disasters. Probably not good in the Netherlands. Yes windows are important, but there can be sky lights and light can be channeled by reflectors. Electric light is the only light many office or factory workers ever see all day. There can be artificial windows to make the living space seem more traditional and appealing. When people ever live on Mars, they will certainly use underground dwellings and use dirt as a building material.

I like this question. Time after the Big Bang is one thing, and the absolute essence of the word "time" is something else. I think that if somebody was placed in the middle of a vacuum of empty space, before the Big Bang, that person would age. It would be time outside of our own space-time, but a form of time nevertheless. I think it is absurd to assume that there could have not been any form of time before the Big Bang. We know nothing, so far, about what existed before the Big Bang, and nothing should be excluded without scientific reason. There could just as well have been another universe before the Big Bang, and our Big Bang destroyed it, wiping out any trace of what pre-existed our universe. Kturbo, you could make your sentences easier to read by putting at least 2 spaces between sentences.

Have any scientists stated they "can solve" the universe with a few theories? Probably not, but many scientists believe we can "put the universe into perspective" with a few theories, at least the best we can with our observations and analytical abilities. I share your concerns and am in agreement mostly, so I'm just picking at how you are saying it. We still know far too little to make "definitive statements" about the universe, but we can make the best case we can. Big Bang theory is the best we have now, and with time it should improve. The glass is half full, and half empty. The universe will exist regardless of our perspectives. A scientific explanation is more rigorous than a spiritual explanation. Scientists usually will say "Anything is possible within reason, but here is what we think is probable, and it is not engraved in stone but subject to future modifications." Scientists agree on many things, but when the question goes beyond science, they will admit science has its' limitations. I have never heard a reputable scientist say "I know everything about the universe".

Interesting ideas above. I was wondering about using recycled materials for building materials. Also, somehow, using the actual dirt from the property as building materials. If they dig down 5 or 10 feet deep, and somehow press the dirt into bricks with fiber reinforcement and insulating materials, that can be cemented together and stacked in a dome like an ice igloo? The house would be over 1/2 below ground level, and therefore very resistant to storms and tsunamis. If excavating dirt can be done cheeply, you could build entire multi-storied houses underground. Houses would be invisible from view and the environment would look natural.

Thanks for providing a link and I will check out your other discussion. Your link is not working for me. Can anyone else use it? Could you just summarize a few of the other explanations for Hubble redshift? Interstellar dust?