beecee

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-ice-moon-poles.html Ice confirmed at the Moon's poles August 21, 2018, Jet Propulsion Laboratory: In the darkest and coldest parts of its polar regions, a team of scientists has directly observed definitive evidence of water ice on the Moon's surface. These ice deposits are patchily distributed and could possibly be ancient. At the southern pole, most of the ice is concentrated at lunar craters, while the northern pole's ice is more widely, but sparsely spread. A team of scientists, led by Shuai Li of the University of Hawaii and Brown University and including Richard Elphic from NASA's Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley, used data from NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) instrument to identify three specific signatures that definitively prove there is water ice at the surface of the Moon. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-ice-moon-poles.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/08/14/1802345115 Direct evidence of surface exposed water ice in the lunar polar regions: Significance We found direct and definitive evidence for surface-exposed water ice in the lunar polar regions. The abundance and distribution of ice on the Moon are distinct from those on other airless bodies in the inner solar system such as Mercury and Ceres, which may be associated with the unique formation and evolution process of our Moon. These ice deposits might be utilized as an in situ resource in future exploration of the Moon. Abstract Water ice may be allowed to accumulate in permanently shaded regions on airless bodies in the inner solar system such as Mercury, the Moon, and Ceres [Watson K, et al. (1961) J Geophys Res66:3033–3045]. Unlike Mercury and Ceres, direct evidence for water ice exposed at the lunar surface has remained elusive. We utilize indirect lighting in regions of permanent shadow to report the detection of diagnostic near-infrared absorption features of water ice in reflectance spectra acquired by the Moon Mineralogy Mapper [M (3)] instrument. Several thousand M (3) pixels (∼280 × 280 m) with signatures of water ice at the optical surface (depth of less than a few millimeters) are identified within 20° latitude of both poles, including locations where independent measurements have suggested that water ice may be present. Most ice locations detected in M (3) data also exhibit lunar orbiter laser altimeter reflectance values and Lyman Alpha Mapping Project instrument UV ratio values consistent with the presence of water ice and also exhibit annual maximum temperatures below 110 K. However, only ∼3.5% of cold traps exhibit ice exposures. Spectral modeling shows that some ice-bearing pixels may contain ∼30 wt % ice that is intimately mixed with dry regolith. The patchy distribution and low abundance of lunar surface-exposed water ice might be associated with the true polar wander and impact gardening. The observation of spectral features of H2O confirms that water ice is trapped and accumulates in permanently shadowed regions of the Moon, and in some locations, it is exposed at the modern optical surface. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Lunar outpost although obviously difficult to undertake in the first instance, can have tremendous impetus in facilitating and undertaking manned planetary landings further afield , obviously to Mars. An International Lunar outpost would spread the costs, and share many skills and knowledge around that can make this project easier. Asteroid and Lunar mining would probably be required and desirable. Thoughts? Also from memory, water has been evidenced on the Moon at least two decades ago when they crashed a probe called Clementine into one of the polar regions, and the resultant ejecting stuff contained traces of water.

Challenge all you like, and when all the "other east stuff" is out of the way, your results will most certainly align with some natural already known physics. I don't believe we will be seeing you in Stockholm in November, sorry.

It is the way everyone has been taught because that has been the result of thousands of experiments over many many years. Again, it can't be shielded or created other then similar effects as per the pseudo centrifigal force in a rotational frame.

You seem to be saying or suggesting here and elsewhere that gravity can be shielded? It can't, period! This is why you have been advised to cover the end of your device. If your hypothetical is correct [which it isn't] then movement of air, EM effects [depended on the nature of the shielding] can be shielded.

I'm not interested in testing your hypothetical for the previous stated reasons. Secondly you don't have a scientific theory or a model until you actually follow the advice many have given you and properly conduct your experiment while eliminating outside interference. In essence the tone of your recent rhetoric is making you sound like a troll. In the meantime I'll continue to comment as I see fit. My little horse shoe magnet opposes the gravitational pull of the Earth by lifting a pin off the ground.

The model is GR which incorporates spacetime, which when affected [curved, warped, twisted etc] by mass, exhibits what we call gravity. The Lense Thirring Effect, gravitational lensing, gravitational waves, all verify the spacetime/gravity model. And of course you err in asking for proof for obvious reasons.

Perhaps english is not your first language? Again all we are presented with is a video. But rest assured, you havn't discovered anything new or has not been known for 300 years or more. My logic is more then 300 years of Newtonian gravity, and the scientific method which you appear to be avoiding. You certainly are not the first person that believes he has discovered something new that may invalidate mainstream thinking, but refuses any argument against his proposals to resort to insults. I say to you, to set up your experiment properly, follow the scientific method and eliminate all other possible causes, then look at your results, accept criticism, and if afterall that you still are under the illusion you have discovered something new, then submit your results for professional peer review.

Please accept that forums like this, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, that inevitably claim something or other that they perceive to be against or unknown to mainstream, will certainly have the 300 and more years of mainstream knowledge, theories, models, and laws "thrown at them" . That's science, that's the scientific methodology. No, let's not. Centripedal force is simply that force that a body feels, keeping it moving along a circular path. eg: the gravitational force acting on a satellite, keeping it in orbit. And in actual fact it appears that you are the one apparently upset that people are not accepting your claim or whatever on face value. Again you need to show that you have ruled out the myriad of other reasons that could be playing a part. Otherwise you have nothing other then a poorly produced video. My standards are not what is in question here. It is your apparent claim that you believe you have discovered something or other, that others are saying is probably due to some other interaction and gravity. Well since mass warps spacetime which we interpret as gravity, and all massive objects are in motion relative to something, it follows that warped spacetime/gravity must also be in motion. No reason whatsoever to have to forget about some basic aspect [if that is what you are saying] just so it gives legs to your hypothetical situation.

Not so much interesting as the basis of the scientific methodology. All theories are purposely open ended so to speak, as new and further observations may see the need for modification and/or addition. And as they continue to stand the test of time, like GR, they do grow in certainty. No, its nothing more then a short video with obviously faulty methodology the most obvious being that the device is not clamped, and of course other factors may be in play. That is your job to eliminate them. Your first job, to actually show beyond any reasonable doubt that it is not gravity. You havn't done that. In actual fact, you can proceed do just about any science forum, and inevitabley it will always have those that claim to have shown some incumbent science model wrong. There are many reasons for this, religious animosity, delusions of grandeur, misunderstandings of the science and the scientific method. I find it just about impossible to accept that anyone can come on a forum and make claims about invalidating some aspect of accepted incumbent science or have made some exciting new discovery that mainstream science is not aware of. But these forums by their very nature are open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, to claim whatever tickles their fancy. Pretty u tube videos prove nothing. There are nuts out there that have similar videos of Aliens, UFO's etc that also claim as indisputable.

All I'm hung up on is the actual results of experiments, the observations made, the successful models formulated over the last 300 years or so as to what gravity is and its effects. GR of course has nailed that as close as we are able to determine so far. No wrong. Firstly scientific theories are not about proof, but about the success of models matching our observations and making successful predictions....secondly it is you are making or supposing a claim...it is you who needs to show it is as you say. The onus is on you. A short video of some device is not any evidence of anything unusual that I can see. The onus is on you to show that it is not caused by any other number of natural physical happenings.

The colour of anything in the first instant, is due to the nature and part of the EMS that enters the eyes.

Ever so infinitesimally, yes, much as peeing into the Pacific Ocean will add to its depth. It can also be noted that light due to its momentum, also adds ever so infinitesimally to spacetime curvature.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-core-error-underlies-belief-creationism.html Core thinking error underlies belief in creationism, conspiracy theories: study: August 20, 2018, Cell Press: It's not uncommon to hear someone espouse the idea that "everything happens for a reason" or that something that happened was "meant to be." Now, researchers reporting in Current Biology on August 20 have found that this kind of teleological thinking is linked to two seemingly unrelated beliefs: creationism, the belief that life on Earth was purposely created by a supernatural agent, and conspiracism, the tendency to explain historical or current events in terms of secret conspiracies or conspiracy theories. "We find a previously unnoticed common thread between believing in creationism and believing in conspiracy theories," says Sebastian Dieguez of the University of Fribourg. "Although very different at first glance, both these belief systems are associated with a single and powerful cognitive bias named teleological thinking, which entails the perception of final causes and overriding purpose in naturally occurring events and entities." more at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-core-error-underlies-belief-creationism.html ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30863-7?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982218308637%3Fshowall%3Dtrue Summary: Teleological thinking — the attribution of purpose and a final cause to natural events and entities — has long been identified as a cognitive hindrance to the acceptance of evolution, yet its association to beliefs other than creationism has not been investigated. Here, we show that conspiracism — the proneness to explain socio-historical events in terms of secret and malevolent conspiracies — is also associated to a teleological bias. Across three correlational studies (N > 2000), we found robust evidence of a teleological link between conspiracism and creationism, which was partly independent from religion, politics, age, education, agency detection, analytical thinking and perception of randomness. As a resilient ‘default’ component of early cognition, teleological thinking is thus associated with creationist as well as conspiracist beliefs, which both entail the distant and hidden involvement of a purposeful and final cause to explain complex worldly events.

In common speak, probably yes, but as an analogy, firstly recognising that analogies do have limitations. The highlighted part of my previous answer, now seems full of holes. I withdraw that part.

A rotating space craft, say like the famous space wheel in "2001: A Space Odyssey" would have gravity around the rim, at a level akin to Earth's surface gravity [9.8 mts/S2] and that gravity falling off approaching zero as one reached the center. But that doesn't answer your question/s, sorry.

Here are two discussions on time that are interesting..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhSUSvYdyzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVINOl0Ctfk The $64,000,000 question seems to be is time fundamental.

https://techxplore.com/news/2018-08-team-world-first-ever-d-ceramics.html extract: 4-D printing is conventional 3-D printing combined with the additional element of time as the fourth dimension, where the printed objects can re-shape or self-assemble themselves over time with external stimuli, such as mechanical force, temperature, or a magnetic field. In this research, the team made use of the elastic energy stored in the stretched precursors for shape morphing. When the stretched ceramic precursors are released, they undergo self-reshaping. After heat treatment, the precursors turn into ceramics. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaat0641 Origami and 4D printing of elastomer-derived ceramic structures: Abstract: Four-dimensional (4D) printing involves conventional 3D printing followed by a shape-morphing step. It enables more complex shapes to be created than is possible with conventional 3D printing. However, 3D-printed ceramic precursors are usually difficult to be deformed, hindering the development of 4D printing for ceramics. To overcome this limitation, we developed elastomeric poly(dimethylsiloxane) matrix nanocomposites (NCs) that can be printed, deformed, and then transformed into silicon oxycarbide matrix NCs, making the growth of complex ceramic origami and 4D-printed ceramic structures possible. In addition, the printed ceramic precursors are soft and can be stretched beyond three times their initial length. Hierarchical elastomer-derived ceramics (EDCs) could be achieved with programmable architectures spanning three orders of magnitude, from 200 μm to 10 cm. A compressive strength of 547 MPa is achieved on the microlattice at 1.6 g cm−3. This work starts a new chapter of printing high-resolution complex and mechanically robust ceramics, and this origami and 4D printing of ceramics is cost-efficient in terms of time due to geometrical flexibility of precursors. With the versatile shape-morphing capability of elastomers, this work on origami and 4D printing of EDCs could lead to structural applications of autonomous morphing structures, aerospace propulsion components, space exploration, electronic devices, and high-temperature microelectromechanical systems.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-einstein-equivalence-principle-quantum-world.html How Einstein's equivalence principle extends to the quantum world has been puzzling physicists for decades, but a team including a University of Queensland researcher has found the key to this question. UQ physicist, Dr. Magdalena Zych from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems, and the University of Vienna's Professor Caslav Brukner have been working to discover if quantum objects interact with gravity only through curved space-time. "Einstein's equivalence principle contends that the total inertial and gravitational mass of any objects are equivalent, meaning all bodies fall in the same way when subject to gravity," Dr. Zych said. "Physicists have been debating whether the principle applies to quantum particles, so to translate it to the quantum world we needed to find out how quantum particles interact with gravity. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-einstein-equivalence-principle-quantum-world.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0197-6 Quantum formulation of the Einstein equivalence principle: Abstract: The validity of just a few physical conditions comprising the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) suffices to ensure that gravity can be understood as spacetime geometry. The EEP is therefore subject to ongoing experimental verification, with present-day tests reaching the regime in which quantum mechanics becomes relevant. Here we show that the classical expression of the EEP does not apply in such a regime. The EEP requires equivalence between the rest mass-energy of a system, the mass-energy that constitutes its inertia, and the mass-energy that constitutes its weight. In quantum mechanics, the energy contributing to the mass is given by a Hamiltonian operator of the internal degrees of freedom. Therefore, we introduce a quantum expression of the EEP—equivalence between the rest, inertial and gravitational internal energy operators. Validity of the classical EEP does not imply the validity of its quantum formulation, which thus requires independent experimental verification. We propose new tests as well as re-analysing existing experiments, and we discuss to what extent they allow quantum aspects of the EEP to be tested.

I would 100% agree with charge being neutralised pretty quickly, it was the static solution [zero angular momentum] that had me somewhat disturbed. But as you say, probably never been observed. OK, I believe I can live with that...thanks for the answers and clearing up a couple of misconceptions.

So the Reisner-Norstrom BH is just a theoretical idealised solution, not evidenced? OK this confuses me....I would have thought any BH is defined by some mass, which critically curves the spacetime it is embedded in. I understand that it is a solution to Einstein's field equations with the simplest outcome for convenience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric Please alleviate my confusion!! Remember as a lay person I need to be treated gently...like a virgin if you will. Ahaa! something I have learnt today!! I have not previously been aware of the " Vaidya" or Vaidya-Bonnor metric.....Thanks. I must say at this stage most of what I do know about BH's was gained a decade or more ago, and I certainly have not done to much brushing up with reputable reading to add to that past knowledge.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-hubble-picture-evolving-universe.html Astronomers using the ultraviolet vision of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have captured one of the largest panoramic views of the fire and fury of star birth in the distant universe. The field features approximately 15,000 galaxies, about 12,000 of which are forming stars. Hubble's ultraviolet vision opens a new window on the evolving universe, tracking the birth of stars over the last 11 billion years back to the cosmos' busiest star-forming period, which happened about 3 billion years after the big bang. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-hubble-picture-evolving-universe.html#jCp

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-oort-clouds-stars-visible-cosmic.html Oort clouds around other stars should be visible in the cosmic microwave background August 16, 2018 by Matt Williams, Universe Today For decades, scientists have theorized that beyond the edge of the solar system, at a distance of up to 50,000 AU (0.79 ly) from the sun, there lies a massive cloud of icy planetesimals known as the Oort Cloud. Named in honor of Dutch astronomer Jan Oort, this cloud is believed to be where long-term comets originate from. However, to date, no direct evidence has been provided to confirm the Oort Cloud's existence. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-oort-clouds-stars-visible-cosmic.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1808.00415.pdf ABSTRACT: Long-period comets observed in our solar system are believed to originate from the Oort cloud, which is estimated to extend from roughly a few thousand to 105 AU from the Sun. Despite many theoretical arguments for its existence, no direct observations of the cloud have been reported. Here, we explore the possibility of measuring Oort clouds around other stars through their emission at submillimeter wavelengths. Observations with the 545 and 857 GHz bands of the Planck satellite are well matched to the expected temperatures of Oort cloud bodies (on the order of 10 K). By correlating the Planck maps with catalogs of stars observed by the Gaia mission, we are able to constrain interesting regions of the exo-Oort cloud parameter space, placing limits on the total mass and the minimum size of grains in the cloud. We also explore an observed excess around the brightest and nearest stars in our sample as arising from possible exo-Oort clouds or other extended sources of thermal emission. We compare our measurements with known debris disk systems – in the case of Vega and Fomalhaut we find a significant excess that is in agreement with measurements from Herschel. We use the measurements around Fomalhaut to constrain a possible exo-Oort cloud of that system. We argue that future CMB surveys and targeted observations with far-infrared and millimeter wavelength telescopes have the potential to detect exo-Oort clouds or other extended sources of thermal emission beyond ∼ 1000 AU

You are obviously in the wrong section. Hypothetical and speculative rhetoric should be in speculations. Actually the observable universe/space/time is around 46 L/years distant in all directions. The first step for anyone attempting to invalidate such an overwhelmingly accepted and evidenced theory such as the BB, is to know the model/theory they are trying to invalidate. In actual fact the BB says nothing about any beginning, rather it describes the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds. Firstly C is actually "c"......secondly the recessional velocities of galaxies near the edge of our observable universe are receding at greater then "c". The spacetime expansion is not curtailed by the universal speed limit which only applies to anything with mass. The recessional velocities are evidenced by the cosmological redshift. http://users.etown.edu/s/stuckeym/AJP1992a.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0011070v2.pdf The BB is overwhelmingly supported because it aligns with four very important pillars of cosmology. [1] The observed expansion: [2] The CMBR [3] The abundance of the lighter elements. [4] Galactic structure and formation.

Because in places of higher mass-energy density, spacetime expansion is negated by gravity. If it was stretching in the manner that you seem to be proposing, it would be stretching everywhere.The BB also describes the evolution of space and time [as we know them] so asking what was before t=0, is like asking what is north of the north pole to quote the late great Stephen Hawking.

I was thinking along the lines of matter falling in, and accretion disk interactions...I would hazard a guess and say depending on trajectory etc, that this could also spped up angular momentum. Hmmm, can you elaborate on that answer a bit? Again, my thoughts are that it would be the natural end state, well into the future [hundreds of billions of years] and prior to BH evaporation via Hawking Radiation process.