pantheory

Methane can be manufactured from water and CO2. Both could be towed in from the asteroid belt since we would need more water for Mars when terraforming it. Methane could be manufactured in orbit via nuclear power as the energy source. Later when CO2 and water are vaporized at the poles more C02 could be dumped into the atmosphere with new methane which would rise above the heavier CO2 since it is less dense. Genetically modified plants could produce oxygen from the CO2 on the ground and the extra Oxygen from producing methane from water, could also be released into the atmosphere at a later time to eliminate the fire and explosive possibilities of methane at ground level near human habitats. Liquid methane with liquid oxygen may also be a safer and less expensive rocket fuel requiring less cryogenics. //

Lots of related discussions on the net but none so far in this News related thread. The problem with H2 as being the missing matter in the dark matter quandary is that too much dark matter seems to be needed in uneven distributions within galaxies. True, molecular hydrogen is very difficult to observe at galactic scales. Its 1st shell radiation frequency is 21 mm, but the problem is probably deeper. It has been proposed as being the major source of the observed microwave background radiation but as to solving the dark matter problem, there presently seems to be too many problems with the existence of dark matter in any possible form to explain some of what has been observed. I think presently this is the biggest present observable problem to overcome. http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter If the dark matter hypothesis is wrong there may be only one alternative: another formulation of gravity as well as a completely new understanding of gravity mechanics. What do you think? //

An orbiting nuclear power plant built in lunar orbit could be sent to Mars and then from a Martian orbit it could send down focused microwaves to slowly vaporize the poles. On top of each pole of Mars is carbon dioxide and underneath that there is water ice. The continuing vaporization of the poles would slowly increase the atmospheric pressures and greenhouse temperatures. Although there may be enough CO2 on Mars for some heating, more heating would be needed for colonization. For this the orbiting power plant(s) could focus their microwaves on new colonies maintaining their temperatures. In time other gases could be imported from the asteroid belt, extracted and liquified on the dark side of an asteroid, along with considerable water ice, then towed to Mars and released regularly into the Martian atmosphere. Manufacturing processes of all kinds in Martian orbit could in time produce a substantial ozone layer. // Irrigation from the liquified polar ice along with underground drilling for water reservoirs could send out water pumped to new colonies for growing genetically modified plants. Such terraforming would continue to progress as increases in endemic and immigrant populations could implement the processes via labor and support it financially to the farthest terraforming possibilities as time progressed. // I think the question related to gravity 3 times stronger. A lot of 5-6 hundred pounders there I would expect very few Earthlings could survive such gravity and weight. I agree. I think for lesser gravity we were considering the possibilities of only a little less gravity, maybe .6 to .8 G's. This might be preferable for the well-being and longevity of some people, maybe for nursing home residents that have walking problems. This has already been discussed elsewhere concerning future nursing homes for the wealthy on the Moon. //

This is a rehash and confirmation of previously known information, based upon the long-time observed blue shift of Andromeda galaxy. I wouldn't fret about it, however. It is known that stars are so far apart in galaxies in general, that stellar collisions seem to be uncommon in such galactic interactions based upon present observations of such events. By that time humans, if they still exist, will have most certainly both planet hopped and stellar hopped because of the expanding sun. Talk about global warming. Also such ideas are based upon current mainstream interpretations of redshifts and related understandings which are not necessarily correct.

My point is and was: there have been many mainstream models of black holes other than singularity models, and many alternative models to black holes such as gravistars. (my quote) (your quote) (parenthesis and deletion added)Congrats on your English, I would wish that my Spanish would have so few errors as your English (your quote) Your quote asserts that GR with changes might disprove black hole theory. My quote was that if GR is wrong (concerning theoretical fundamentals) then changes to it will also probably be wrong, in my opinion. //

The evidence that black holes exist is now beyond dispute. There is much dispute, however, regarding Einstein's model of them as vacuous points. There are many other theoretical models of them but none are presently considered to be any more valid. Mathematics aside, black hole models concerning something physical inside them, have a pretty big following and numerous proposals made. Here's just a few of the better known alternative models. http://en.wikipedia....ack_hole_models If GR is simply wrong, as some propose, then there could be no such thing as "adds additional corrections to the GR model." Because the mathematics of a model is functional in some venues does not mean that the underlying theory has validity, such as Newton's pulling force, Einstein's warped space, or Milgram's MOND, concerning a logical explanation of their formulations. None seemingly can answer questions like why matter has an associated pulling force, why is the universal gravity constant the value that it is, why should matter warp space, why the force of gravity changes at galactic scales, etc. Any logic so far proposed, if any, by these models seems to be unsatisfactory to those that think there is a simpler underlying logic explaining everything. I think both dark matter and dark energy have reached the peak of their following and that dark matter is now on a downhill slide concerning the portion of astronomers and theorists that are strong advocates. In time I expect the same thing will happen to the dark energy idea, although I realize evidence for or against it will be even more difficult to come by. //

juanrga, (parenthesis added) Quantum gravity is at best an alternative mainstream idea/ hypothesis. There is no presently acceptable working model of it. That black holes could never form, is contrary to mainstream theory. That stellar black holes can form by collapse of remnant stellar masses above the Chandrasekhar limit (~3 solar masses) following novas and supernovas, is presently well accepted theory. What a stellar black hole really is inside its very small diameter (as small as 15 miles) may be debatable since it depends upon the black hole theoretical model(s) that are being discussed. //

Human inhabitants could be genetically selected for muscularity and longevity traits. In a few hundred generations a better adapted breed of humans could be created. In the future we probably will also be able to identify which genes are most suitable for a particular environment and build a new human genetically without going through intermediate steps . //

I don't know about a planet three times larger, there would be a limit how big a planet could be for human genetics to continue to function properly. But a larger planet in general, if we were eventually able to function, would seemingly produce bigger muscles. Could we live longer (rhetorical)? We probably would live for a shorter period of time with increased gravity. Could we live longer on a planet with a little less gravity than Earth (rhetorical)? Maybe some people would //

Here's another group of 8 questions thought to be presently unanswered in astronomy and cosmology. Here's my answers. 1) What is dark energy? Answer: dark energy does not exist. Instead the idea is based upon miscalculations of distances to galaxies/ supernova which could be corrected by modifications of the Hubble formula. 2) How hot is dark matter? Rubin, a now famous astronomer, observed that there was virtually no difference in the velocities of stars at the center of a galaxy compared to those farther out which contradicted present models of gravity and resulted in the dark matter hypothesis. There is a present debate as to the possible temperature of dark matter. Answer: dark matter does not exist whether hot or cold. The problem instead is our model of gravity. Upon changing both the formulation of gravity and explanations of its mechanics, then gravity could be correctly understood -- no pulling force and no warping of space. 3) Where are the missing baryons? Answer: Since both dark matter and dark energy do not exist, there is no missing matter/ baryons. 4) How do stars explode? Answer: The missing peace of the puzzle is that substantial heat is created by the compression of stars so that only about 1/3 the nuclear fusion is required. Adding this additional heat into the equations points toward a chain reaction explosion once critical temperatures and pressures are reached. 5) What re-ionized the universe? Answer: The Big Bang model is the wrong model of the universe so there was no re-ionization process or era to explain since the universe is far older than what the BB model proposes. 6) What's the source of the most energetic cosmic rays? Answer: Although type II supernova are not the cause of cosmic rays, the accelerations of galactic black holes are, which is a type of cyclotron radiation. This is also the second choice of the mainstream model. 7) Why is the solar system so bizarre? Answer: Since we cannot know what the insides of all the planets are comprised of, I expect the larger planets also have a large rocky and metallic interior but atmospheres of hydrogen and helium readily are blown off the inner planets, or never condensed in the first place because of higher temperatures and a stronger solar wind. The numbers, positions and sizes of the resulting planets is simply the result of random encounters in the proto-stellar system. 8) Why is the sun's corona so hot? Answer: Very large magnetically induces plasma currents are driven in flares at the sun's surface. The great speeds and energy of this magnetically induced plasma acceleration produces great energy in the form of heat and light. Such subsurface currents are limited to the resistance of motions within the stellar plasma, but can blow free at the sun's surface. These magnetically induced flairs cannot conduct back to the star since they are insulated by space so the corona becomes progressively hotter when moving away from the sun's surface. http://www.msnbc.msn...e/#.T8fflVIpOnA //

Earthlings would be stronger and faster than people that were born and lived on Mars, without their extra exercise and aerobics such as running with weights fastened to them. Muscle deterioration happens even faster in space. Some astronauts and cosmonauts have found it difficult to walk and function when first coming back after spending some time in space. Geriatric daily living, for instance, would be much easier on the moon and broken hips from falling would be uncommon. After maybe a year on the moon without substantial regular exercise, a person in a moon nursing home might not be able to ever walk again on Earth if they ever came back here. //

The first link discussed their findings that the Earth's core appears to be non-conductive. If true the dynamo effect would not be the cause of the Earth's magnetic field or influence the extent of its strength. The second link explains that the moon reacts differently to the solar wind than what theory had predicted. The bottom line to me is that our Theories of planetary magnetism are simply wrong. My expectation is that planetary magnetism has two causes and influences; neither are accordingly related to the core of the planet or moon. The primary cause, I expect, is the relative motion of a relatively dense atmosphere with a liquid and/or solid surface. This causes ionization of the atmosphere and electrical currents through its fluids in the opposite direction of its rotation. The magnetic field would accordingly be created perpendicular to the atmospheric wind for most planets. The second cause of planetary magnetism would be the charged particles from the solar wind that could strengthen a pre-existing magnetic field. The Earth has these condition but Venus' rotation is too slow. Mars' atmosphere is too thin and when it flows in strength and volume (the wind) it is seasonally moving south-north, north-south (primarily water and CO2). The result is a very small east-west magnetic field. The outer planets have a thick atmosphere and thought to have liquid interiors/ surfaces. Being farther from the sun there would be less strengthening of a pre-existing magnetic field by the solar wind. Mercury has a weak magnetic field accordingly due to a miniscule atmosphere and relatively little spin rate. The solar wind there, however, is very strong and may be the only cause of its weak magnetic field. Titan, on the other hand, has a substantial atmosphere, liquid on its surface, but a slow spin rate, about 16 Earth days. It also experiences mush less solar wind per volume of its atmosphere. The result is that it also has only a very weak magnetic field. Magnetic fields could accordingly reverse upon a great solar storm which would overload the atmosphere with an influx of positive ions. The 'Earth's magnetic field is half way between its spin access and its incline to the solar system plane. Of course this is only theory, and not the present mainstream dynamo model of planetary magnetism, which I believe has been contradicted by observations of most planets. // TransformerRobot, No, only the plants and animals I think would need modification. I would expect some day there would be a difference in the physical characteristics between native born Martians and Earthlings. Earthlings, for one thing, would probably be stronger because of its gravity, resulting in native born Martians not doing as well physically on Earth. //

Moontanman, (your quote) (parenthesis added, my quote and expectation) Tis true my friend. That's why I said "I would expect (not I assert)," since it is my opinion and expectation based upon contradictions of present theory, whereby all could come to their own conclusions, which is what it seems that you have done I realize that I am getting close to your field of expertise concerning moon tans so I tread lightly

Mars is one of the primary transforming possibilities within maybe a thousand years minimum. But I think the moon would be easier. The moon is the right distance from the sun and could be "spun up" as part of the terraforming process. Even though it probably has underground water, we probably would need to import much more from the outer moons or the asteroid belt. We probably could import an atmosphere of nitrogen, oxygen, and Co2 in the form of ices with sun shades needed as such ices are imported, also probably from the asteroid belt. My expectation would be that once there is an atmosphere, and a moon-spin fast enough, a magnetic field would almost immediately develop to shield from UV and other deleterious solar radiation. Without direct solar wind, I believe this atmosphere might last maybe thousands of years before needing to be replenished. Manufacturing processing could also produce a regular replenishment of these same molecular gasses. As far as genetic alterations, I would expect that we would engineer both plant and animal life primarily for food purposes to start with, to be better adapted to live in a foreign environment. I would also expect Mars to immediately develop a magnetic field also once it has a substantial atmosphere. Here's a couple of links that might give a clue concerning the possibility that our present model of Earth and Planetary magnetism may be wrong. http://www.nature.co...ll/485319a.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120531102443.htm Venus, I believe, will also eventually be terraformed but I think not in the foreseeable future. I think vast asteroid, space (solar system) colonies, and other planetary moon colonies will come first because they would be easier, cheaper, and more profitable in the foreseeable future. //

Since dark matter is only hypothetical, the answer to your question would depend upon the reality of its existence. If you would assume that it exists then it would depend upon what particular model of dark matter particles that you are interested in. If dark matter was particulate and matter-like it would seemingly follow Pauli's exclusion principle like all other matter in general. Since dark matter, if it exists, would not be atomic matter it seemingly could not form a Bose-Einstein condensate. //

JustinW, There are models of space whereby space has physical characteristics to it. Via these supposed characteristics space can accordingly bend, warp, expand at different rates, etc. No physical characteristics of space have ever been observed in the lab, however, excepting for its energy potential called the Zero Point Field. If dark matter is real it would also be in the bag. If Higg's particles are real they also would be in the bag. Neutrinos would be in the bag. It depends upon what theories you prefer, as to what's in the bag //

dmg, There are several ways energy can be converted concerning a pre-stellar nebula. One of the beginning ways that the energy of gravitational contraction is converted begins with the energy conversion into a gravitational vortex. Following that energy is absorbed by the friction of the vortex that turns into heat. Following that matter agglomerates at the center of the vortex and the energy of relative motion is converted into the energy of stellar compression. As the heat builds up it is radiated away from the vortex center. In black hole theory the energy of influx accordingly turns into a torus and then into heat and accelerating momentum. If there is a great deal of matter in the torus then accordingly jets can form and much of the energy converted into these jets. Inside the event horizon energy could then be turned into the rotational momentum of the black hole. The in-falling mass will also be converted into the increased mass equivalence of the black hole. There is also theoretical Hawking radiation and outward moving theoretical waves called gravitational waves accordingly produced from the in-falling energy of matter. //

Time is a measurement of change. You need a standard measuring instrument to quantitatively measure it. Time is a construct of an intelligent mind but does not exist as a separate entity. It is like X,Y, and Z, the Cartesian dimensions length, width, and height. It's not reality itself, only a tool to explain changes in reality. Time past is the same thing as yesterday. Both yesterday and any interval of time-past were intervals of change. Strictly speaking 4:00 PM yesterday was not a time itself but just a point in an interval of change which we call time. This is maybe the simplest understanding of time, but this simplicity can be easily complicated within complicated theory such as Quantum Physics //

It could have photons within it. It would have maybe trillions of neutrinos within it, maybe electrons, a proton or more depending upon the volume. "Empty space" here on Earth and within galactic and intergalactic space, is filled with the Zero Point Field. This is a known energy field called Zero Point Energy. There is also thought to be theoretical particulates within this field such as dark matter, gravitons, Higg's particles, quantum foam, etc. It could be called the aether. Aether: The upper air breathed by the gods; Son of Erebus sired in chaos and darkness.

imatfaal, Thanks for that

No, I haven't seen this commentary yet but did see the Arxiv paper posted by Spyman. The Arxiv paper refers to two researchers that critically analyzed the first paper coming to a different conclusion. So far I've seen no retort to the report by the British Astronomical Society, maybe because it's more difficult to question their findings.

I wouldn't be too enamored with percentages of dark matter or dark energy in the universe. Both are still considered by many to be only hypothetical. Black holes are presently not considered either matter or dark matter. So when they are proposing to sum up matter and dark matter in proportions, black holes are not considered in the equation. There have been some black hole models that have proposed that their insides are a very dense form of matter such as a quark star, etc. There have been one or more other models that have proposed that black holes are a compressed form of dark matter, and still other(s) that propose that there is just one most fundamental particle that makes up everything. If one looks at the prevailing dark matter models, most do not believe that if it exists that it could collapse becoming a black hole. The proportion of mass equivalence in black holes in the universe can be roughly calculated from the mass of the Milky Way without hypothetical dark matter, roughly 200 billion solar masses, and the mass of its central black hole of about 4 million solar masses. This is a ratio of about one fifty millionth of our galaxy which might be an extrapolated estimate of the universe as a whole. So if this is a valid estimate black holes don't represent a very big portion of the universe in mass, very roughly one fifty millionth. //

imatfaal, Thanks for that. Upon a brief reading, I thought it was an explanation of the original paper rather than commentary on the original paper. I think I have already read at least a couple of explanations of that paper. I never have been a fan of the dark side but am a little surprised how fast "evidence" seems to be mounting against dark matter. I would have preferred to see dark energy seriously questioned/ challenged first since I consider the evidence for it to be even less substantial -- but probably more untestable. We'll see what happens next The article and commentary is certainly news worthy since it generally has a conclusion contrary to the ESO paper. I agree but believe what we are seeing concerning these failures to find dark matter may be a harbinger of a paradigm shift that I expect to see within 15 years or less, after the James Webb goes up and some of its observations realized. Maybe the Royal Astronomical Society sees the writing on the wall and is trying to be one of the first to recognize it //

Spyman, This was a criticism of the study done by a team of ESO astronomers claiming no dark matter was detectable in the vicinity of the sun, or our solar system. Naturally when there is a study contradicting mainstream beliefs, there will always be criticisms. This is the way good science works. The original study, however, was not the most damaging concerning the dark matter hypothesis. I believe the study below was the most damaging. http://www.ras.org.u...for-dark-matter Their conclusion: The key words here, I think, were "a new understanding" implying better theories. This is a strong statement coming from a normally conservative organization. Of course this study and conclusion too should be criticized as well as similar studies conducted, and eventually final conclusions made.

This has some interest to me for discussion but is unrelated to dark matter. To discuss this material elsewhere PM me and we might do so in another venue. The rules prohibit such discussions here unless they are news related