pantheory

Large quantities of water ice on Mercury. This is an interesting news article about finding large quantities of water ice at Mercury's poles, estimated to be between 100 billion and a trillion tons of water. This seems like a good place for future colonization like the moon, and easier than Mars. We could develop underground colonies in locations near the water sources at Mercury's poles as well as at the lunar poles. Both polar locations could transfer nearby heat from the sun for solar heating, to supply electrical energy for such a colony, and lighting for underground farming. Solar or nuclear power could be provided for manufacturing and mining. Based upon these water resources, its closer proximity, and accessible water supply, it may be easier to colonize Mercury than Mars. Much less fuel would be needed to escape its gravity, where hydrogen and oxygen fuel could be readily manufactured on site. The underground colonies might be able to spread out in all directions from the poles including downward, only limited in its extent by temperature control. Large quantities of ice on Mercury.

Dark Matter: "Running Out of Places to Hide" --- in the dark With the numerous experiments to find dark matter, and the theoretical possibilities they believe to have eliminated, "dark matter accordingly is running out of places to hide. The article below suggests that the possibilities to discover dark matter within the next maybe four years, they believe, are getting better since they have already eliminated a number of the possibilities so there are fewer remaining possibilities. My bet is that in four years they still will not have found dark matter excepting to have eliminated even more of the possibilities. Within four years if they propose a possible candidate I expect that it will not pan out. What do you think? http://www.space.com...ery-search.html

My expectation is that they have found organic molecules of some kind. Because they seem to be making a big deal of it maybe these molecules are complicated enough that they believe that it could likely have no other source than living organisms living now, or in the past. Anything less such as water near the surface or methane in the soil would seemly be of far less interest, and maybe they wouldn't be making such a big deal of it with checks and counter checks, which they seem to be doing based upon the news. .

Expansion would be a relative condition, we from them, them from us etc., if it were real, my friend But I understand your point based upon a Big Bang scenario. //

So that you might better understand how it works let's simplify the model. Let's say the universe is full of galaxies exactly one Parsec (3 1/4 light years) apart. From here to the next galaxy let's say that the space between the next galaxy expands in distance at a rate of .000001 parsecs per year. That is such a small amount of change that we probably couldn't even measure it. But a billion parsecs away from us all the space in between galaxies is expanding at a rate of 1000 parsecs every year away from us. This we could readily measure by the redshift of the galaxies spectrum. It is not that the galaxies at a distance in this scenario are expanding away from each other at a faster rate in the past. Everything keeps expanding as to the whole at the same rate. It is simply that the more distant galaxies would be expanding away from us at a greatly faster rate, than those close by with much less space in between. The accelerated expansion of the universe was proposed for a completely different reason. This proposal was based upon observations of type 1a supernova, which are a type of exploding star. Based upon observations they can be considered a type of standard candle giving off a similar amount of radiation at similar frequencies for a similar amount of time based upon their similarly consistent stellar explosions. But there were consistent anomalies in these observations. Those type 1a supernova closer to us seemed that their distances were farther away and their light weaker than their redshift calculations indicated. And those farther away were brighter. Either the "Hubble Law" for distance calculations was wrong, maybe there was something wrong with type 1a supernovas as standard candles, or the universe was changing its expansion rate over time. They finally decided on the latter since they could find no other explanation for what they were observing. They decided that the expansion of the universe, after the hypothetical Inflation era, was decelerating up until about 6 billion year ago, whereby accordingly they believe the expansion of the universe started accelerating again. //

Maybe a little closer to a practical cloaking device. Such devices seemingly could control feedback and background "noise" in fiber optic systems and probably many other possible new fiber optic applications. It also seems likely such devices could enable possible telescopic improvements and advances

The classical explanation of General Relativity is that photons follow the curved lines inward surrounding matter. You also could say that photons, via their momentum/ energy, have a small mass equivalence and thereby react like matter concerning gravity. //

I imagine an estimate of impacts per surface area, per unit of time, based upon the kind of gas, pressure of the gas, its temperature, containment material and configuration, atomic/ molecular structure, etc. could be made. //

Time is a man-invented concept that explains the rate of changes in matter and energy. Whether via the Big Bang model or another model, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't. If it had a beginning then that beginning instant was the first change which defines time. We know that relative motion and gravity causes time to run a little slower which we call dilation. Here on Earth there is very little time dilation so that our time is close to a "universal time" whereby time would pass as fast as possible. Such concepts are not too complicated //

Yeah, you're right. You could say that space and time had the same beginning, or that spacetime had a singular beginning. It is not impossible that the universe has always existed but this would be contrary to the Big Bang model. Multiverses also are not impossible but there is no accepted evidence that supports them. And the universe, I think, would be unnecessarily complicated by their existence. If one wanted to be precise one might say that if there was a beginning of everything (cosmos), in the beginning there was matter/ energy/ substance that occupied and defines space, an instant thereafter there was the first change that defines time. So substance and space must have accordingly come first, then time and energy an instant thereafter According to the Inflation hypothesis some matter could have existed from the beginning or it could have condensed out from energy thereafter. //

Moontanman, OK I'm saying it. According to the consensus version of the Big Bang model, time had a beginning. And I very strongly agree that it's by far the simplest explanation of reality, in my opinion. More importantly is that if the universe is finite concerning its existence in time, it had to have a beginning by definition. An infinite universe in time can be joined in agreement by great scientists such as Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking and many others. By far the simplest universe is the simplest idea possible, according to Occum's Razor. Accordingly there is only one simple answer and universe One universe with only one very simple beginning -- even though we may not understand many of the details.

Of course GR is all about gravity, but in it Einstein introduced the concept of spacetime which was a new idea at the time, the equations of which were promoted by Minkowski. Maybe all can realize that there would be no gravity without matter, but maybe not everyone can understand and realize that there would be no meaning to time or space either if there was no matter. In these days when most think that space can expand and warp it may not be so obvious. In those times I think this was what Einstein meant by this quote above. // Too humble They may not have understood Einstein's quote as well as you did //

Astrology, the question was "Can you support (your) assertion with any physical evidence?" Interpretation of the scriptures of the bible is not evidence. This is a science part of the forum. There is a religious forum here where such ideas will be welcome or acceptable. A six thousand year old cosmos has no scientific basis at all so in this forum all will perceive such statements and ideas as being ignorant. //

Comments on the news re Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: Like Einstein believed, I also think that QM is a statistical system based upon probabilities, as well as equations developed from data based upon a long history of observations. This is Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Theory can be looked at as the theory behind why the system and equations work. The explanations and theory of it I think are wrong. Even if the theory of it were entirely wrong and someday replaced it might not change Quantum Mechanics much at all since it is a mathematical system of analyzing the quantum world. //

I'm of the opinion that Quantum Theory (QT), which basically is the explanations and Principles of QM, are almost entirely wrong. The reason why I think this problem exists is because the "hidden variables" of quantum mechanics have not been discovered. Whether they exist or not, I expect many of the other Principles might be shown to be wrong. (from the OP) I'm expecting that within less than a dozen years some of these other principles will be challenged and shown to be wrong. Even if QT were completely changed, I would still expect the QM system of analysis to change little. //

Yeah, sounds like my kinda project. I have proposed lots of experiments to test QM principles, but obviously none will be simple to do. First they need to be written up in detail and then criticized. First I need to complete an experiment that I designed long ago proposed to compare the one-way speed of light, up vs. down. That experiment may be completed within a couple of years, god willing and the creek don't run dry //

(bold added) I agree. I think I recognized the possible misinterpretation of my intent but forgot to reword/edit it. (my quote: previous wording) Maybe better wording: Do they now have improved methods, equipment, ideas, to better test the other principles of QM listed below? (now listed above )

Thanks for that. I guess I missed the first news releases last month. Was the T-shirt free? My comment and implied question still is relevant however. Will they now start on trying to disprove the other principles of QM below? Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Schroedinger's Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics.

Looks like they may have found a way to show that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle may be wrong. The Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics is intuitive to a certain extent and is only one of a few primary foundation principles of Quantum Theory. Maybe its wording and formulations may need to be changed in the future. Other principles of QM are the Either Or, but not both at once, wave particle duality Principle of EM radiation, the Indeterminacy of particle state before observation, relating to Shroedingers Cat and quantum Entanglement. The Lack of Causality Principle: that events can happen by pure chance, their probability determined by statistics. Will this finding hold up under scrutiny? If so one might expect there will eventually be other tests invented, like the one below, trying to find fault with other principles of quantum mechanics. http://www.scienceda...21004121638.htm

dmaiski, There would seem to be just two possibilities. Either the universe has always existed, or it had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning and is finite concerning times past, then time can be defined by change. The first change in the beginning entity/universe would accordingly have been the beginning of time, period. To ask what existed before that, is like asking what happened before the beginning, or what change came before the first change? Such questions are logically invalid . If you believe there must have been something before that then you are either talking about an earlier beginning point in time and beginning entity which would beg the same question: where did that come from? what existed before that? or you're talking about an infinite universe model of some kind. There are seemingly no other logical choices or possibilities. Either the universe is finite concerning times past, or it's infinite concerning times past; either the universe* had a beginning or it didn't. * where the word universe means everything that exists //

I presume you were talking to me? Yes, I read Lee Smolin's book. Such books are not based upon facts in general. I'm sure all the facts he presented are true. Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist. Nothing in theoretic physics has any certainty to it. I think Dr. Smolin makes some very good points concerning what kinds of problems are involved with today's theoretical physics. //

finster, something has constituent parts, nothing does not. One must use words according to the way they are defined in language. If you have a different meaning for a word then you might have to coin your own word to explain a different concept concerning any existing word, such as the word "nothing." I think your analysis is based upon the question of how something could possibly come from nothing. The simple answer concerning logic is that it cannot. If valid this answer simply means that either the cosmos (all of reality at any given time including possible multiverses*) has always existed, or that it had a beginning by which the word "before" would be meaningless. Either the known cosmos/ universe* has always existed or it had a beginning. I don't think there is a logical third choice. By definition of the words, "something" and "nothing" cannot be the same. You might however make this argument: If nothing has no constituent parts for a given volume (which it does not by definition) AND If something has no constituent parts or way to describe it for the same given volume then there could be no distinction between something and nothing //

Then I think you have a good foundation concerning the odds against such a proposal. Personally I think Lee Smolin wrote a great book though: "The Trouble with Physics." //