beecee

I think you misunderstood...the 17 minutes time frame only applies as from the time you removed the screen, to when you first see the reflected light back in your eyes...as per what I said earlier "you certainly would then see the Moon as it was 17 minutes earlier, at that instant, from the time you first removed the screen". Otherwise "the actual reflected light from the moon will only show the moon as it appeared 8 mins ago" as per DrmDoc Every time we look into the night sky, we are looking into the past...I can just make out M31 [Andromeda] from where I am, as it was 2 million years ago. When I look at the C4entauri system tonight, I am seeing it as it was 4.5 years ago...theoretically it may not be there now, [my now that is] having gone nova. Bingo!

Wiki describes it as the study of nature and the universe. Newton's "Principia Mathemtica" translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" "Empirical science historically developed out of philosophy". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Natural philosphy imo laid the ground work or foundation of the main sciences at the time of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science, and Astronomy. I once saw a pyramid that illustrated the ranking [for want of a better word] of the sciences, with physics as the base and ranked as listed. Mathematics was deemed the language of physics. While the philosophical foundation laid the groundwork and was largely responsible for the success and acceptance of the scientific method, the more hands on approach dictated by the scientific method, saw the sciences rise above that level. This was I beleive what Lawrence Krauss was basically saying in recent times, and for which he copped plenty of criticism, some udeserved imo.

17 minutes = 16.5 minutes.

Hi geekyrussian, I'm your friendly geeky Aussie. Answering your question if you were sitting on the Sun, besides immediatly getting a hot arse, you would see the light from the Moon, reflected back to you 8 minutes later, [8.25 minutes to be exact], consequently seeing the Moon as it was 8.25 minutes ago. I understand what you sort of envisage, but I don't think it applies. if you were sitting on the Sun, and you had a huge screen in front of you stopping the light, so that the Moon was not visible, then removed the screen, you certainly would then see the Moon as it was 17 minutes earlier, at that instant, from the time you first removed the screen. I think! Not 100% certain, but reasonably confident. Let's wait for another smarter geek to verify....

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-methane-plumes-saturn-moon-enceladus.html An unknown methane-producing process is likely at work in the hidden ocean beneath the icy shell of Saturn's moon Enceladus, suggests a new study published in Nature Astronomy by scientists at the University of Arizona and Paris Sciences & Lettres University. Giant water plumes erupting from Enceladus have long fascinated scientists and the public alike, inspiring research and speculation about the vast ocean that is believed to be sandwiched between the moon's rocky core and its icy shell. Flying through the plumes and sampling their chemical makeup, the Cassini spacecraft detected a relatively high concentration of certain molecules associated with hydrothermal vents on the bottom of Earth's oceans, specifically dihydrogen, methane and carbon dioxide. The amount of methane found in the plumes was particularly unexpected. more at link..................................... the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-021-01372-6 Bayesian analysis of Enceladus’s plume data to assess methanogenesis: Abstract: Observations from NASA’s Cassini spacecraft established that Saturn’s moon Enceladus has an internal liquid ocean. Analysis of a plume of ocean material ejected into space suggests that alkaline hydrothermal vents are present on Enceladus’s seafloor. On Earth, such deep-sea vents harbour microbial ecosystems rich in methanogenic archaea. Here we use a Bayesian statistical approach to quantify the probability that methanogenesis (biotic methane production) might explain the escape rates of molecular hydrogen and methane in Enceladus’s plume, as measured by Cassini instruments. We find that the observed escape rates (1) cannot be explained solely by the abiotic alteration of the rocky core by serpentinization; (2) are compatible with the hypothesis of habitable conditions for methanogens; and (3) score the highest likelihood under the hypothesis of methanogenesis, assuming that the probability of life emerging is high enough. If the probability of life emerging on Enceladus is low, the Cassini measurements are consistent with habitable yet uninhabited hydrothermal vents and point to unknown sources of methane (for example, primordial methane) awaiting discovery by future missions.

https://phys.org/news/2021-07-massive-explosion-mystery-star.html New type of massive explosion explains mystery star: A massive explosion from a previously unknown source—10 times more energetic than a supernova—could be the answer to a 13-billion-year-old Milky Way mystery. Astronomers led by David Yong, Gary Da Costa and Chiaki Kobayashi from Australia's ARC Centre of Excellence in All Sky Astrophysics in 3 Dimensions (ASTRO 3D) based at the Australian National University (ANU) have potentially discovered the first evidence of the destruction of a collapsed rapidly spinning star—a phenomenon they describe as a "magneto-rotational hypernova". The previously unknown type of cataclysm—which occurred barely a billion years after the Big Bang—is the most likely explanation for the presence of unusually high amounts of some elements detected in another extremely ancient and "primitive" Milky Way star. That star, known as SMSS J200322.54-114203.3, contains larger amounts of metal elements, including zinc, uranium, europium and possibly gold, than others of the same age. Neutron star mergers—the accepted sources of the material needed to forge them—are not enough to explain their presence. more at link................ the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03611-2 r-Process elements from magnetorotational hypernovae: Abstract: Neutron-star mergers were recently confirmed as sites of rapid-neutron-capture (r-process) nucleosynthesis1,2,3. However, in Galactic chemical evolution models, neutron-star mergers alone cannot reproduce the observed element abundance patterns of extremely metal-poor stars, which indicates the existence of other sites of r-process nucleosynthesis4,5,6. These sites may be investigated by studying the element abundance patterns of chemically primitive stars in the halo of the Milky Way, because these objects retain the nucleosynthetic signatures of the earliest generation of stars7,8,9,10,11,12,13. Here we report the element abundance pattern of the extremely metal-poor star SMSS J200322.54−114203.3. We observe a large enhancement in r-process elements, with very low overall metallicity. The element abundance pattern is well matched by the yields of a single 25-solar-mass magnetorotational hypernova. Such a hypernova could produce not only the r-process elements, but also light elements during stellar evolution, and iron-peak elements during explosive nuclear burning. Hypernovae are often associated with long-duration γ-ray bursts in the nearby Universe8. This connection indicates that similar explosions of fast-spinning strongly magnetized stars occurred during the earliest epochs of star formation in our Galaxy.

All people are saying is that us, all other life on Earth, the Sun, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond, all effectively have a "use by date." With the universe that use by date is in the range of hundreds of trillions of years. Earth, is about 2 to 3 billion years.

[1] Science is based on empirical observation, and that tells us that evolution is a fact. [2]No, evolution simply pushes any mythical god further back into oblivion and "the not needed basket" [3]Before you attempt to make it clear, first get it correct. [4]See [2] [5]That much is correct. [6]God is/was an attempt to explain the wonders of the universe and life, before science came along. [7]That question is simply answered if one understands that we have no evidence for any deity or magical being whatsoever. [8]That's nice, and if that's what you believe, all well and good. The facts though are as given in [7] there is no evidence for any deity. [9]Science is about the scientific method and empirical evidence...religion/god was/is an institution/s to help ease the pain and apparent futility felt by some in the finality of death, and also helped to explain to ancient man, the wonders of the universe and life. [10] Love is a desirable social and mental state that humans should feel towards friends, family, pets and the human race as a whole. As I said in [3] first get it correct. The BB was not an explosion. It was an evolution of space and time [spacetime] from t+10-45th seconds. What evolved? At this time we can only really speculate, and the best scientific speculation puts it as the quantum foam. Where did the quantum foam come from? If we are correct, perhaps the quantum foam is the nothing that the BB evolved from. Afterall at one time we thought space was nothing, and the hypothetical quantum foam, is obviously even closer to what we originally define as nothing...far far closer and simpler to nothing then some almighty, omnipotent all powerful, magical being imo. Plus of course the BB was not just dragged out of someone's arse...it was reasoned by virtue of the evidence available that lead to the acceptance of the BB evolution of the universe.

As does Jupiter.

Join the club!! 😊

Space is defined by three dimensions...Time adds the fourth dimension which we see as spacetime. Space and time are also interchangable, and all while being abstract concepts, are still real. Whether they are fundamental maybe revealed by a future validated QGT. You may have seen this interview with Professor Carroll.....

My thoughts are that while science creates models on the results of experiments and observational data, and is certainly not primarily about truth and reality, and may change according to new data, it could also happen to reveal such truth or reality in a specific or limited sense. If that happens, all well and good. Of course the only way to test if a model is absolutely true, would be to test the model under all scenarios.eg: The theory of evolution. Are my thoughts in error?

Jupiter, more massive then Saturn, would still need to be more then 80 times more massive to even become a low mass star.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/tdm/clock/index.html Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC) Since the 1950s, the gold standard for timekeeping has been ground-based atomic clocks. These clocks measure very stable and precise frequencies of light emitted by specific atoms, using them to regulate the time kept by more traditional mechanical, quartz crystal clocks. This results in a clock system that can remain ultra-stable over decades. While ground-based atomic clocks are phenomenally accurate, their designs are too bulky, power hungry and sensitive to environmental variations to be practical for spaceflight. They need to be miniaturized and toughened in order to venture off our planet. Atomic clocks, like those used in GPS satellites, are used to measure the distance between objects by timing how long it takes a signal to travel from Point A to Point B. For space exploration, atomic clocks must be extremely precise: an error of even one second can mean the difference between landing on Mars or missing it by hundreds of thousands of miles. Up to 50 times more stable than the atomic clocks on GPS satellites, the mercury-ion Deep Space Atomic Clock loses one second every 10 million years, as proven in controlled tests on Earth. Now, it’s testing that accuracy in space. Launched in June 2019, NASA's Deep Space Atomic Clock is a critical step toward enabling spacecraft to safely navigate independently in deep space rather than rely on the time-consuming process of waiting to receive directions from Earth. The Deep Space Atomic Clock will enable a shift to a more efficient, flexible and scalable clock architecture that will benefit future navigation and radio science. The clock's in-space mission will validate its stability in orbit, fully characterize its long-term performance, and demonstrate its capability as a navigation instrument. more at link Deep Space Atomic Clock loses less than 1 nanosecond in 10 days (less than one second every 10 million years)

I'll let my peers on this forum answer your questions. Let me say though, it is sad that you apparently have become so bitter and disasapointed over the crtique that your many claims have received. Again, in case you missed it the first time around, this is a science forum, and while I am no scientist [or philosopher] I do my best to adhere to the scientific methodology.

What you say has been critiqued admirably by many, not particularly me as I aint a scientist. Stop playing the victim. Listen and learn. Science is actually rooted in common sense and logic, and its greatest crown is obviously that it can and does change with better, further observational data as time passes. This of course conflicts with what you are trying to mythically convey.

No time is real, it doesn't depend on the mind. You kick the bucket tomorrow, and time will still carry on for the rest of us. Well yeah, OK, quote mining from reputable people/scientists etc, that support the superior scientific methodology.

Measuring time, and the fact that there is no universal "NOW", along with the fact that time is interchangeable with space, also supports the reality of time. Do you think space is real?

This is a science forum. You come here attempting to undermine/deride science in favour of other unscientific myths, and then cry blue murder, when criticised? You offer nothing but philosophical claptrap, without any scientific evidence to support your myths and then again cry "victim"? Let me give you another quote which apparently you object too...

Stop being so bloody obtuse. Yes we do indeed measure the passage/passing of time, which makes it real, like space and like spacetime. No, a perception is simply in the mind. It is the measurement of what time has passed that is real. "There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it". Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman. De Divinatione They are quotes that just happen to critique your nonsensical philosophical utterings, like the other just up there. "philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex". Steve Jones Most of us without an agenda, know what science is, and the benefit of the scientific methodology. "Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?" Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist. Which as I said earlier, literally means there is no universal "NOW". Time is real, as real as space, the question is as Sean Carroll said, is it fundamental

The singularity at the core of a BH is where our laws and GR break down, no question about that. But most physicists reject the singularity as defined by infinite spacetime curvature and density. What we can reasonably expect is that which GR tells us...that is once the Schwarzchild radius is reach, further collapse is compulsory. Which means that most of the BH [ignoring in falling matter/energy] we can say is just critically curved spacetime, at least up to the quantum/Planck level where our singularity resides, and where our knowledge stops. Rejecting the singularity of infinite spacetime curvature and density, would mean a surface of sorts, in an unknown state, at or below that quantum/Planck level.

Already comprehensibly answered in another thread. It's simply a legitiamte logical discipline, researching the possible conditions for abiogenesis to occur elsewhere.

Yes, part of a half sunken Atoll and extinct volcano, but what would have caused the split? Answering my own question, probably due to a somewhat asymetric eruption when the volcano was active? A section blown out sort of?

Around 400 miles [650kms] north of the Fijian group of Islands, is a small group called Rotuma, a Polynesian group of Islands, and a dependency of Fiji. While I am fairly familiar with most of the Fijian group, I was less knowledgable of Rotuma. So I did some research and came upon this strange Island named Hafliua sometimes called Split Island. The following photos will reveal the reason.... As is clearly visible,caught between the two walls is a large boulder that has been there throughout recorded history. Some more info on this weird formation..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hạfliua The Island is obviously part of a sunken atoll and long extinct volcano, so any ideas as to what happened here and what was responsible for this formation and split?