pantheory

The interesting possibility would be that if there is enough water on Mercury, and if by robotic exploration we would find out how much and accurately where water exists, a manned spacecraft could someday convert solar radiation into electricity that could dissasociate water into oxygen and hydrogen, a great rocket fuel for a return trip. This technique might also be used for a round trip to Mars and the moons of Jupiter, to get a spacecraft back, using either solar energy or atomic energy for the electricity needed to dissasociate water and create fuel. And of course water would be needed in the more distant future for the underground human colonization of Mercury near its polar regions, which also seeminly would be feasible to learn first on our moon.

Of course water could also be manufactured on the moon, Mars, and Mercury from materials found near the surface, if there is otherwise a sparcity of water at a particular location, or if transportation of water at that location might be more costly to find and/or transport.

“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.”

"The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe."

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/16/hubble-galaxy-shapes

Of course this is what has always been predicted by most every other cosmological model other than the Big Bang model – that the universe is either much older, or infinite in its age. But it seems that observations continue to surprise BB theorists and most astronomers.

“More massive galaxies like the Milky Way were rarer in the early Universe so that not enough could be sampled to describe properly their characteristics.”

The quote immediately above was not from the original paper but I expect it reflects a similar statement in the original paper. Since we can observe the largest of distant galaxies better than the smaller ones, I suspect this statement will in time be contradicted by other studies. If not and there really is a difference between the farthest distant galaxies form the close by ones, then other cosmological models would need to explain why.

There have been many studies and papers that assert that the distant universe was different from the present universe. One of the problems with many of these studies was that observations were based upon cosmic lensing whereby there is broad latitude of possible interpretations. This present study is based upon fewer of such lensed galaxies so that it could be less biased concerning interpretations. After the James Webb is up and running, as well as many VLBI and other radio/ infrared scopes are fully online, I think the answers will become much clearer.

The oldest GRB yet detected, from the time of the dark ages, indicates that:

 

 

One of the problems in cosmology today is that we do not see more type II supernova blasts at these distances.

In the early time of the universe, according to the present BB model, many large stars should have existed with many type II supernova explosions creating the heavier elements. On the other hand type 1a supernovas should have been very rare or non-exitent because they are supposed to involve very old white dwarf stars exploding. In fact they are seeing both types of supernovas infrequently at these distances, which contradicts the Big Bang model and how the universe was supposed to have evolved concerning large stars and the production of the heavier elements. The fact that they are seeing type 1a supernovas at all at these distances may indicate that something is wrong with either the BB model or supernova models.

In the theory of electricity and magnetism, which follows from Coulomb's inverse square law, the magnetic field and force arises from moving charge due to considerations of special relativity and different moving frames of reference.

 

Therefore, since Newton's and Coulomb's laws are identical in form (both inverse square), with the exception of the constants involved, and the fact that Coulomb's law allows for charge and force to have the same or opposite signs, why is there NO analog to magnetism in the theory of gravity? Why doesn't a moving mass (or "mass current") give rise to another velocity-dependent force on a nearby test-mass, as a moving charge does to a nearby test-charge? Why do Maxwell's equations have no analog for gravity, when the fundamental laws - Coulomb's Law and Newton's law - are identical in form?

Magnetism follows the inverse square law when considered as a point source of pull or push, but when considering the entire magnet as a dipole, it is more akin to a inverse cube law.

http://blazelabs.com/inversecubelaw.pdf

Although in both cases of magnetism and gravity the entire mass of the magnet or gravitational mass is considered in the formulations, mass is proportional to the volume and the inverse cube law may relate to the mass as it changes in relationship with the volume (4/3 pi r³ ). On the other hand the inverse square law of gravity may be more akin to surface area and emanations from the surface area as it relates to the mass (4pi r²). I think this might be a clue to their kinship. You also might consider the possibility of kinship between the equivalency principle of gravity, as it might relate to moving electrical charges concerning magnetism.

Bill Angel,

"New cosmic background radiation map challenges some foundations of Cosmology"

This news is several months old now but this "new" CMBR map does seem to challenge some past notions of what the CMBR was supposed to look like according to Big Bang theory. But it does not seem to clearly indicate or support other ideas or theories either, like string theory.

Much Fewer theorists today look toward any possibilities of M-theory having validity, sorry Sheldon Cooper (Big Bang Theory). There are still those looking for evidence for it like in this study of observations you posted. The original idea of string theory was that with extra-dimensions maybe General Relativity and Quantum Theory might be brought together under common concepts and mathematics of string theory. Since then there have been no consensus evidence to there being any extra dimensions, and no concensus predictions of the theory have ever been made. There are much fewer people today working on string theory possibilities.

As the article suggests they are looking for possible evidence for "hidden dimensions" but I think few outside of string theory proponents, expect anything to come from such searches.

You might say that both General Relativity and Quantum Theory themselves are not beyond question today, so the idea of somehow combining them is probably much less appealing today than during the 70's, during the time of the inception of modern string theory.

I haven't seen any indication that this can model effects such as entanglement, though. It would be pretty exciting if it could.

Hey strange,

I expect that you are correct. Entanglement would need a different explanation.as a separate conceptual obstacle to rational understandings of the quantum world. If you are interested in my simple "rational" explanation of Entanglement PM me. On the other hand maybe most of the possible conceptual problems might be corrected if the existence of a background field is confirmed and eventually incorporated into quantum theory.

Hey Cleve,

Haven't talked to you for a while now. How is school going? That was a great posting in the News here that I saw today concerning fluid dynamics as a future way to model the quantum world. I hadn't seen this info anywhere else yet. If you get a chance give me a hollar at forrest_forrest@netzero.net.

Hope all is well with you in Oklahoma. This summer has been pretty cool so far this summer here in Southern California.

Did you ever publish your paper. In any event I would like to read it if you could send it to me

take care my friend, pantheory (Forrest Noble)

It's very rare when our macroscopic world exhibits behaviour found in the quantum world. However, a team of researchers at MIT have found just that.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

 

 

I perceive this "discovery" to be an important part of the "big banana."

Physical aether proponents like De Broglie and Maxwell would have loved to know of these results in their time, as the article implies. This below, I think, was a most relevant quote from the article concerning fluid dynamics and greatly improved quantum theory, concerning insights into the quantum world and parallels with the macro-world. .

"It's the first pilot-wave system discovered and gives insight into how "rational quantum dynamics" might work, were such a thing to exist."

I think this could be the beginning of rational changes to quantum mechanics/theory concerning the existence of a physical, aetherial type background field of some kind like De Broglie believed and asserted in his pilot wave theory. With such hypothesis such as dark matter, a Higgs field, gravitons, and many other possibilities, the existence of a physical background field of some kind, as being the basis for the observed effects in the quantum world, should not be that big of a surprise. I'm surprised I have not seen this information elsewhere!

Thanks for this interesting news posting my friend.

yeh,

They continue to search for dark matter. However, the more complicated proposals they make, like this one, the less likely I think their speculation will be valid. First, I think, they need to show evidence for something existing of substance other than known matter. That would be the most important aspect of theory to show that gravity appears to work differently because of a so-far undetected entity. Next, if possible, they would need to show that this entity has mass, like matter, otherwise it may simply be a type of background field that effects matter via its energy of relative motion, something like an aether of yore.

Just to show strong evidence of something being there in the background could defend against other theoretical ideas such as those of MOND-like formulations that assert that gravity works differently at galactic scales -- without the need for dark matter or anything like it. Of course the unanswered question still would remain: why should gravity act differently at differnt scales ?

They are spending a lot of time on this new paper preparing cautious but positive claims. According to the article above there have already been 30 re-writes of the same paper that will be released soon concerning the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and implications concerning dark matter. The spectrometer experiment is in an orbit outside the international space station.

I believe that regardless of what their claims may be, arguments concerning their interpretations of the data will continue. Of course the degree of skepticism will depend upon the clarity of the asserted evidence, or lack thereof, and the number of alternative explanations available for the same data.

Is it possible that space is another substance? As in, earth, water, air... Space is just a substance that can be interacted with? As oppose to simply 'distance between two objects'?

By far the the simplest definition of space is that it is the volume the matter encumpases, or as you said: the distance between matter.

But this is not the present theoretical consensus model of space (unfortunately ) Although space is known to have energy within it, as in zero-point-energy, and hypothetical particles within it like dark matter, or theoretical particles like the Higg's and virtual particles, etc. But if present theory is valid then space, absent matter and energy, also can bend and warp like general relativity proposes, expand like the Big Bang model proposes, and accelerate its expansion like the dark energy hypothesis proposes, then space would need to have very complicated characteristics quite different from a volume of "nothingness."

 

How can galaxies exist with the expansion of space?

The standard model answer to this question is simply that gravity is stronger than the force(s) that supposedly causes space to expand. Of course if space does not expand, then there's no problem

Some have even proposed that such forces only operate within a collective of vacant distance intervals, or in the lowest densities of matter per large volume.

Yeah, after the James Webb has been up for just a few years, I expect we will again hear more of the ideas and theories of Fred Hoyle Then I expect cosmology models of a much older universe will again be discussed.

yes, this observation is just one of the very numberous problems since the inception of the BB model. Continuos observational surprises, now requiring dark matter, dark energy, dark flow, and often contradicting obervations such as this one seems to be.

The Largest structure in the universe has been discovered, but the authors say it should not exist according to our present theories of how the universe began and formed.

http://www.space.com/19220-universe-largest-structure-discovered.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/largest-structure-in-universe-large-quasar-group_n_2455552.html

Does empty space exist?

I can only think of two possible answers

 

1. YES. There is empty space and everything that exists in the Universe is surrounded by empty space/nothingness. In this empty space NOTHING exists whatsoever. No energy, no fields, no subatomic particles or sub sub sub atomic particles. ABSOLUTE ZERO ANYTHING.

 

2. NO. Empty Space does not exist and everything that exists in the Universe is connected. It is one huge ball of energy.

 

These are the two possible answers according to logic, correct? Tell me if there is a third option..........

 

 

 

 

Empty space being the absence of matter certainly exists within the universe. Empty space in the absence of the ZPF probably does not exist within the universe. There is probably no such thing as "space" of any kind outside the universe based upon the definition of space (nothing has existence ouside the universe).

So this is probably a third choice.

Is it possible that space is another substance? As in, earth, water, air... Space is just a substance that can be interacted with? As oppose to simply 'distance between two objects'?

I like the definition concept model of both space and time. "Space is the distance between two objects," is probably no inclusive enough. "How about space is the distance between matter, and the volume which encumpases the entire universe?" As its own entity, space might be defined as the absent volumes distinguishing substance from non-substance within the universe.

This seems like a big evolution news to me. Another mechanism that can cause evolution. Like the article says, such a mechanism has been known to exist for a long time, but only fairly recently was it shown to exist as a cross over between two highly complex animals, and only until now has it been realized that it is not as rare as once thought.

I'm still waiting for the "dat" or "cog," genetic manipulations resulting in a cross between a dog and a cat

If you cross the event horizon, yes, there is no escape. Otherwise, no. I strongly suggest you stop reading bad sci-fi and bad pop sci, and start learning some real science instead.

 

........Suppose your trajectory takes you close to, but not inside, the event horizon. Sans relativistic effects, you'll just climb right back out of the black hole's gravity well with no energy required. The only energy required would be that needed to overcome those relativistic effects. Black holes are not mythical monsters that suck everything towards them.

You are missing the point. It takes a great amount of fuel to escape a gravity well such as near a black hole, whereby it takes none to get "pulled in" by gravity, less fuel to go to Mercury than to leave it going back. This is not Sci Fi.

That's a pointless point. How exactly are you going to get to that "stationary position relative to the sun"? The Earth is orbiting the Sun at about 30 km/second. You can't get rid of that just by wishing it away. It takes energy, a lot of energy. It takes a lot more energy than is available with any existing technology.

We don't have to get stationary relative to the sun. By going opposite the rotation of the Earth the sun's gravity helps pull you toward your destination. 30km/sec is 108,000 Km per hour. We have no problem achieving half that speed. The point is that the pull of the sun's gravity can assist a craft inward toward the sun.

Wrong again. Going toward the Sun is extremely expensive. Let's go back to my example of sending nuclear waste into the Sun. Starting from a circular orbit about the Sun, a delta V of 25.7 km/sec would be needed to attain an elliptical orbit that just grazes the surface of the Sun if that initial circular orbit was at 1 AU (Earth's orbital radius). It gets more expensive closer in. From Mercury's orbit, the required delta V is 37.5 km/sec. Compare that to a delta V of 9.6 km/sec to put the vehicle on an elliptical orbit with a 1AU aphelion and then a 7.6 km/sec delta V to circularize to 1AU. That's a total of of 17.1 km/sec, which less than half the 37.5 km/sec needed to go toward the Sun.

I agree with your point that presently there is little point to sending nuclear waste inward toward the sun. But with nuclear rockets, or better, less expensive propulsion systems, I expect it will happen someday.

....MESSENGER used gravity assists and conventional chemical rockets. BepiColombo will use ion propulsion as well as gravity assists and conventional rockets, but it will still use conventional rockets for that final orbit insertion at Mercury. Ion thrusters don't have near enough oomph to accomplish this task.

OK

Short of some huge breakthrough in propulsion technology, we will never send people to Mercury. Never. Even if humanity does develop that requisite breakthrough technology, this will not change the huge cost in getting to Mercury. That cost is always present. It is far cheaper to send machinery and people to practically any other place in the solar system.

We may be on the same page here but I think the technology of nuclear powered spacecraft is already here. It just needs the political will to do it, and the time to perfect and debug such a system. I also expect positron rocket propulsion is maybe only 50 years away, even though we haven't even started on it in earnest as yet.

I think we will see serious proposals for man to go to Mercury within the next century. I also think there will be one or more mining colonies there within the next few centuries.

//

DH,

This, too, is wrong. Gravitation is a conservative force. It takes just as much energy to get there as it does to get back.

An extreme example is moving toward a galactic black hole from space. You need no fuel or energy to get there because you will eventually get "sucked toward it" if you are close enough to start with. But once very close to the black hole it would take a huge amount of fuel to escape its gravity well where it took no fuel at all to get there to start with. The point is that when in a stationary position relative to the sun, it would take less fuel to go 57 million miles toward the sun than it would take to start from from 36 million miles away from the sun (mean distance Mercury to sun) to 93 million miles away from the sun (Earth) where you are working against strong solar gravity to start with.

To go into the same orbit takes the same amount of fuel regardless of your destination. With the same starting velocity, when going toward the sun your craft would be accelerating, and when going away from the sun your craft would be decelerating. Once orbiting Mercury, a craft would need more fuel to go in the direction of Earth, than it would need to go toward the sun.

//

Yeah. Curiosity to Mars - 253 days. Messenger to Mercury - 1260 days. Its not the distance or getting there that is the issue. The issue is slowing down enough to actually orbit or land.

Yes, this was a big issue. I think they used ion propulsion for this tricky deceleration- to-orbit maneuver.

//

Learn some orbital mechanics.

 

Every once in a while people come up with the brilliant idea of sending nuclear waste into the Sun. This is just silly. It's silly because it would take less energy to send that nuclear waste on an escape trajectory out of solar system. People just don't understand how expensive it is energy-wise to go down into a gravity well.

Escaping a gravity well takes a lot of fuel. Going down seemingly could take little fuel if you are willing to wait the time required. There is a continuous acceleration when going toward the sun, and Mercury if it is calculated to be in a direct line with the sun upon arrival

This also applies to getting to Mercury. It is extremely expensive to get there, extremely expensive to stop there. If it weren't for Venus, we could not do it. The reason it took so long for MESSENGER was that it had to make a very large number of gravity slingshot maneuvers.

Because of the distance we had to use gravity assist maneuvers to get there in a timely manner. But relatively little power was required for such maneuvers. Getting back would require a lot more fuel. But refueling there would change that initial fuel requirement in the distant future.

Emphasis mine:

 

Do you realize how hard it is to get to Mercury? There's a reason NASA (and nobody else) has sent all of two missions to Mercury, while practically every space faring nation has sent multiple missions to Mars. Getting even close to Mercury an extremely expensive endeavor. Placing a vehicle in orbit about Mercury is monstrously expensive. Landing on Mercury would be even more than monstrously expensive.

I think the reason little money has been spent on Mercury is because we never saw any possibilities for human utilization of it someday. Finding water there may change all that. It may be easier to get to Mercury than it is to Mars even though it is twice as distant. Once we get out of the Earth's gravity the sun generally pulls a spacecraft inward toward the sun so less velocity is needed to go to Mercury. Once on Mercury we are in the sun's gravity well and it certainly would take more fuel to return to the Earth but maybe not more than a round trip to Mars. And like Mars and the moon, we could manufacture hydrogen-oxygen fuel there. Once we develop the equipment, designs, and have the experience from lunar colonies, Mercury colonies may be an easier next step than Mars colonies. I think colonies in the asteroid belt where large quantities of water are found, would be even easier for mining colonies. Other than the moon and the asteroid belt, if the west chooses Mars first maybe other countries might choose Mercury as a more likely mining and habitation payoff.

//

Very interesting. When I had read about the possibility awhile back, I thought it was a bit strange. With very little atmosphere, I would have thought that the ice would sublimate in short order. But I guess at those low temps, it may not happen.

 

So it might be a more ideal first colony when compared to Mars in some ways. But, I think there is still the issue of radiation. The interior of the planet would be protective, but a ship would need to get there, and would be exposed.

It would probably be easy to build a leading heat and radiation shield of solar cells in front of a ship selectively filtering solar radiation, and using it for the ships electrical needs. Once landed there would by no direct radiation if one lands behind the solar horizon. Polar underground colonies would likewise be shielded from heat and radiation.

//

Abell 250, involving galaxy clusters: This study contradicts an earlier study proposing an over abundance of dark matter inconsistent with theory. This study asserts that this cluster has less dark matter than originally proposed, bringing the results now within the theoretical possibilities of dark matter models.

http://www.ohio.edu/research/communications/darkcore.cfm

Interesting. A quark-gluon plasma/ soup, or just a gluon plasma/soup, are both theoretical entities, but to make such an assertion from this data seems like a leap involving much speculation also