Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by beecee

  1. Lunar tunnel engineers excited by boring Moon colonies: As space agencies prepare to return humans to the Moon, top engineers are racing to design a tunnel boring machine capable of digging underground colonies for the first lunar inhabitants. "Space is becoming a passion for a lot of people again. There are discussions about going back to the moon, this time to stay," US-Iranian expert Jamal Rostami told AFP at this year's World Tunnel Congress in Naples. The administration of US President Donald Trump wants NASA to put humans back on the Moon by 2024, and the agency is also drawing up plans for a "Gateway" station to serve as a platform for astronauts travelling to and from the lunar surface. Billionaires Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are among those feverishly competing for military, civil or commercial launches, with Musk's SpaceX leading the race on building rockets ready to fly in time. more at link..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Donald Trump or no Donald Trump, Government or private, the only question as far as I can see is whether this happens sooner or later. Costs will always be a question, [along with the many other questions put in the article] which is why I have always thought an International effort for returning to the Moon and eventually putting foot prints on Mars, in an as safe as is humanly possible way need be undertaken. The success of the ISS shows this to be a reasonable and possible scenario. What is the general consensus of opinion here on this question?
  2. I've seen your attitude on at least three science forums I have been a part of in my time. On all occasions, the so called open discussion you speak of are no more then agenda driven hypotheticals or unevidenced ideas that people seem to pull out of their rear end. We have a place for mainstream science discussions that deals in mainstream science, and we have speculative sections where people can put ideas and be prepared to support them. In near all cases they cannot, and then start crying when their ideas are challenged. S I don't see evidence, only unsupported opinion.
  3. Nothing is perfect but the general scientific review system is the best we have and in the majority of cases through history, has been of great benefit.
  4. beecee

    Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

    Yep, that's another way of putting it.
  5. beecee

    Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

    Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know. So why would those measurements be any different anywhere else in the solar system/galaxy/universe? I have a problem in accepting your confidence in your own hypothetical, when you have failed to even get the basics right. Like the following..... A scientific theory is as good as it gets, and they are either invalidated or made even more valid by further observational and/or experimental data. Also the 11 year cycle of the Sun is as far as I know, a magnetic field thingy which is reflected in increased sun spot activity and solar flares. Exoplanets are also evidenced by gravitational tugs or radial velocity, among other methods. That is rubbish. We have seen various stages of the formation of planetary formation in other stars and the accretion disks from whence they are formed. The evidence and observations above dispute that. Planetary disk formation is an evidenced backed theory. .. That is why I reject your confidence in your personal hypothesis when you cannot get the basics correct. No one claims absolute truth in cosmology. Theories are supported by evidence and the more evidence forthcoming, the more certain a theory becomes. eg: the BB, SR, GR,the theory of evolution just to name a few of the really near certain ones. Planets form at various distances from the center of the accretion disk and roughly speaking take on the makeup of the material in that part of the disk, which differs with the heavier elements closer in and lighter ones further out. eg: The terrestrial planets are closer in then the gaseous and icy giants. Also we also have much evidence of planetary migration and capture of other bodies.
  6. BH's of all classifications and persuasions are evidenced in many ways. The relatively recent dozen or so gravitational waves discoveries matching templates of different sizes of BH's has made the theory of BH's near certain, noting of course that a theory is as good as it gets.
  7. That's a fairy tale. We cannot see the stars in daytime, simply and logically because the brilliant light from the star/Sun, drowns out the rather dim light from the stars.
  8. Listen here matey, I went to a Catholic school and was also an Altar boy! Until I got the sack when found with another, drinking the altar wine behind the altar!
  9. beecee

    The Universe’s past and our past

    The finite speed of light ensures that there is no universal "now". Any "now" is defined when photons reach our eyes. The further away a photon/light originates from, the further back in time we are looking.
  10. Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!! BH's are BH's, pure and simple, whether quantum BH's [if they at all exist], Stellar BH's or SMBH's as found near the center of galaxies. It is simply a means of classification, much as we classify stars of different colour, and size. Also I saw something about BH density...To speak of BH density is an invalid concept, as according to GR, once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, at least up to the quantum/Planck level. Essentially a BH is nothing but critically curved spacetime with the mass at the core, at or below the quantum/Planck level, to the best of our knowledge and application of physics and GR.
  11. beecee

    The Universe’s past and our past

    No. The universe is expanding only over the larger scales. Over small scales such as our solar neighbourhood, our galaxy, our local group of galaxies, and even the cluster we are apart of, are "decoupled" from that expansion rate due to gravity. You are correct though that due to the expansion of space over large scales, galaxies near the observational horizon, will eventually be unable to be seen. And of course every time we look at the stars, we are seeing them as they; Alpha Centauri system...4.5 years ago, Andromeda galaxy, 2 million years ago.
  12. OK, Just woke up gone to the bathroom for the usual, make myself a cup of coffee, open up the computer to find out that I forgot to log out from the forum last night. This isn't the first time either. Is there any way after say an hour or so of inaction by a member online, that he or she is then automatically logged out? Nothing critical of course can develop from that but it is annoying at least from my perspective. Just a suggestion.
  13. beecee

    Unified Theory?

    In that case what I am now posting is also off topic, but it does reflect another side of how we approach mainstream science with thoughts, ideas, conjecture, and hypothesis that most people with any passing interest in astronomy/cosmology probably has every day of the week. I'm nothing more then a retired Maintenance Fitter/machinist/welder that has always been interested in space and cosmology from a very early age. But in my day, my old man got me an apprenticeship and I possibly missed something I dearly love in the astronomy sciences as a career. I did though keep roughly abreast of new findings and such in cosmology and such and started doing some reputable reading from reputable mainstream science books. Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" was probably the first which though read at a middle mature age, sparked my interests again and subsequently I started reading many more reputable books such as Gravity's Fatal Attraction, Black Holes and Time Warps, The First Three Minutes, and some not so reputable books such as The Big Bang Never Happened, and The Bermuda Triangle. This coupled with taking part in science forums such as this, helped me gain what limited knowledge I now have. I also had ideas re Singularities, White Holes, etc and what I believed to be reasonable assumptions and extensions on what mainstream science presented. Having had learnt the basics though re what the scientific method entails, and how science is always progressing and changing as data is forthcoming, I did not attempt to push any of my ideas as "theory" or "gospel" but sat back and listened to those that did appear to be educated and professional in that discipline, and the more I did learn, the more it dawned on me that my ideas were just speculative scenarios without any observational evidence and without any mathematical data to support them. Like I told Bez early on, its admirable to "think for one's self" but just as Imagination goes hand in hand with knowledge, so to does listening go hand in hand with thinking for one's self, and being humble enough to know one's limitations.
  14. beecee

    Lunar Tunnels and Moon Colonies:

    Establishing colonies on Mars will be many times more difficult and dangerous then a Moon colony or outpost. Just getting to Mars is many orders of magnitude more difficult then to the Moon. I see establishing a Lunar outpost as far more advisable then a Martian outpost. I often get tired and irritable when those arguments are trotted out. The facts are, in the course of time, we will return to the Moon, we will establish a colony or outpost, we will set foot on Mars, and if we are able to overcome our Earthly follies and squabbles and not destroy ourselves, will venture even further afield. Even simply for the mundane reason of "because its there"
  15. beecee

    Inaction and Closure:

    Thank you Gentlemen, I'll take action accordingly. No reason Strange, just me.
  16. beecee

    Unified Theory?

    I'm beginning to think that someone is actually having a lend of us at this stage.....IQ of 160 etc etc
  17. beecee

    Unified Theory?

    My apologies, I thought I was being nice! Let me correct you again, as nicely as possible. We often have the claims from unqualified people with what they see as bright ideas, that mainstream science is incalcitrant and as you say, dogmatic. That is obviously wrong and is illustrated every day to be wrong. I thought I did mention it in your other thread that science is a discipline in continued progress....There are young physicists and cosmologists trying to find limits, or falsify incumbent theories every day...including Einstein's GR theory. These are of course qualified and professionals doing science. You see that is what science is all about. Making further observations...conducting more experiments...comparing results with incumbent data and theories. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they find something better, just as Einstein did before GR [and SR] became accepted. But they need empirical observational evidence...Not just some raw idea or gut feeling. As was mentioned to you more then once, the first step is to know thoroughly what you are trying to falsify or invalidate. Otherwise your hypotheticals are useless, as hard as that is to accept. Do you have access to aLIGO? Or the LHC? or a telescope? or the Planck Satellite or any other pieces of the state of the art equipement that scientists do?
  18. beecee

    Unified Theory?

    It will be interesting to hear what he has to say. I'm sure he'll be kind to you. You understand that light is just a part of the EMS [electromagnetic spectrum]
  19. beecee


    I have always loved the old 40's/50's musicals and one of the greatest proponents of these musicals was of course the now late Doris Day...Rip Doris!
  20. beecee

    Unified Theory?

    Sure, agreed, I was though referring to the fact of the Sun's Corona being hotter then the photosphere by many orders of magnitude, and the general thought that this was due to magnetic fields emanating from deep within the Sun. And of course that the mechanics of the Sun/stars are fusion based. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. Again though, I still fail to understand his [Bez] apparent infatuation with friction?
  21. beecee

    Unified Theory?

    All motions of bodies in the universe can be put down to conservation laws and gravity. You also seem overly concerned and confused re friction. Nuclear fusion and of course the corona and associated heat probably due to magnetic fields from deep within the Sun. Again, you seem preoccupied with friction.
  22. beecee

    What are you listening to right now?

    Let's lift the tone of this place for a while! May I present an Angel! a Greek Angel! singing an old number from a movie classic, Casablanca:
  23. beecee

    Unified Theory?

    If you are referring to the scientific theory that the Earth's molten core is caused by radioactive decay and along with the heat left over from formation, as being only hypothetical, then you are wrong. It is the current best evidenced theory of the Earth's molten core according to current knowledge and evidence. Also you do realize that a scientific theory is as good as it gets, don't you? Further observational evidence and data forthcoming can always possibly moderate or even invalidate a scientific theory, and obviously also, further enhance such theory and make them even more certain. eg: the discovery of predicted gravitational waves further enhancing GR. It's always admirable to see someone thinking for themselves, and on that score you get points. But coupled with that thinking for one's self, must be first and foremost, total knowledge of what is entailed and evidenced in the accepted incumbent version of the relevant science discipline being researched... There is absolutely nothing to support your hypothetical observational evidence, no maths, no predictive powers, nothing. A hypothetical is absolutely useless if not supported by evidence. I could just as well invoke a magical spaghetti monster as equal to what you are proposing.
  24. In reference to the following article and paper at and the paper at With regard to the extract in the article thus, "Therefore, its atmosphere reaches temperatures of around 4000 °C. In such heat, all elements are almost completely vaporized and molecules are broken apart into their constituent atoms" I find it rather difficult to imagine how any planet could form that close to its parent star and at such temperatures. Is this evidence for "planetary migration"? I also vaguely remember a proposition a few years ago, supporting the "planetary migration" hypothesis with our own gaseous giants, Jupiter and Saturn...something along the lines of probably forming much further out then their current orbital parameters, migrating inwards, then back again to their now apparent stable orbits. Any thoughts?