beecee

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-primordial-black-holes-forge-heavy.html Primordial black holes may have helped to forge heavy elements: https://journals.aps.org/prl/accepted/55077Yb0Qcf1cb5c79b095a1a918b69bd6d2e6077 Primordial black holes and r-process nucleosynthesis ABSTRACT We show that some or all of the inventory of r-process nucleosynthesis can be produced in interactions of primordial black holes (PBHs) with neutron stars (NSs) if PBHs with masses {10}-14\,{\rm M}_\odot < {\rm M}\rm PBH < {10}-8\,{\rm M}_\odot make up a few percent or more of the dark matter. A PBH captured by a neutron star (NS) sinks to the center of the NS and consumes it from the inside. When this occurs in a rotating millisecond-period NS, the resulting spin-up ejects \sim 0.1-0.5\,{\rm M}\odot of relatively cold neutron-rich material. This ejection process and the accompanying decompression and decay of nuclear matter can produce electromagnetic transients, such as a kilonova-type afterglow and fast radio bursts. These transients are not accompanied by significant gravitational radiation or neutrinos, allowing such events to be differentiated from compact object mergers occurring within the distance sensitivity limits of gravitational wave observatories. The PBH-NS destruction scenario is consistent with pulsar and NS statistics, the dark matter content and spatial distributions in the Galaxy and Ultra Faint Dwarfs (UFD), as well as with the r-process content and evolution histories in these sites. Ejected matter is heated by beta decay, which leads to emission of positrons in an amount consistent with the observed 511-keV line from the Galactic Center.

Essentially I would have said you are correct and agreed you have traveled into the future: But I also see how that could confuse with the expertise of the previous two answers. Let me put it this way, the astronaut and everyone left on Earth, both see their own time, in their own frame of reference, both mechanically and biologically passing at 1 second per second. Each in their own frame experiences normality. Although each [the astronaut and those back on Earth] when viewing the other frame, sees their time as dilated or going slower...on face value, a paradox, which is often labelled the twin paradox. Briefly the so called paradox is not really a paradox, as the traveling twin has invalidated his or her's state of inertia, as he needs to accelerate to near "ç" and decelerate to turn around to join his former twin back on Earth. So then in effect, when the traveler has returned to Earth, he will be returning where the effect of time dilation means that 20 years has passed on the Earth he left behind, while he has only aged 1 year. A fuller explanation can be found at.....http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins

I was in Cairns [Palm Cove to be exact] in November 14th 2012 for the solar eclipse. I used shade 10 welding glass, although since that time I have read where they recommend to use shade 14. It was certainly unforgettable and stunning with totality lasting around 2 Minutes.... ps: Eyes still OK despite using shade 10.

You keep repeating yourself and still imo not making any sense. I believe in science because it has been shown that the scientific methodology is paramount and supported by observational and experimental evidence. That is logical and reasonable belief. You are telling this forum, that you are the founder of this "non beliefism" cult, but you don't believe in it. Do you not see how contradictory that is? Do you believe the continent of Antarctica exists? I asked you earlier but like my question re english probably not being your first language, you seem to have missed it. Do you believe you are a living organsim? My observation is that you have taken some philosophical nonsense to the nth degree, and that no one understands what you are promoting including yourself.

In the coming months NASA will celebrate 40 years since the two Voyager probes were sent aloft. Now 40 years on, they have left the confines of our Solar System: The first man made probes ever to do this. Each of these probes carried a "golden record" with a collection of the sights and sounds of our fragile Earth, and as a message to any potential Intelligence out there, that should happen to recover these probes. In my opinion, I doubt that any man made endeavour has ever gained such a huge amount of knowledge of our solar system and the planets and moons it contains, and inspired mankind to continue the exploration of the vastness of space, and the continued gathering of knowledge. What were/are the achievements of these early spacecraft? Any achievements to add to the following? [1] First close encounters with Jupiter, Saturn, and with Voyager 2, also Uranus and Neptune. [2] Discoveries of the first Volcanoes off planet Earth and the knowledge that Io is the most active body in the solar system. [3]Discovery of the first atmosphere around another body of any significance, namely with Saturn's moon Titan. [4] The indication of a probable Ocean beneath the cracked, icy crust of Europa. [5] Geological activity on Neptune's moon Triton. [6] Confirmation of the icy structure of Saturn's rings. [7] Incredible close up photos of the outer gaseous giants and their prominent moons, enabling even more data to be constructed on our solar system and its formation. [8] And in my opinion, probably the most important, the confirmation, and accuracy with Newtonian gravitational mechanics, and the applied mathematics to be able to rendezvoux with the four outer planets of our system and of course the major moons of these planets. Is there anything important I have forgotten? any errors or corrections?

Time certainly will tell, one way or the other. As an example, new data puts the arrival of Australia's first settlers at around 50,000 years. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/09/23/3323640.htm

Scientists every day, even as we speak/type, are putting current accepted theories to the test: GR in relatively recent times, have confirmed a long held prediction in the presence of gravitational radiation, and BHs: It could have very well invalidated the theory also. Religion is based on faith alone.People use it as a crutch. Science and scientific theories are based on observational and experimental data. All any Professor can do is tell it as it is at that particular time: That can and does change over time, and the Professor obviously changes with the new discoveries or scientific application.eg: When I was a young bloke in the early fifties, the smallest planet was Mercury...After more accurate sightings calculations showed that Pluto actually was the smallest planet....Now Pluto has been declassified and is classed as a minor Planet.

Wow!!!!

You can say that again! Bingo! You have said it far better than I have, and certainly cleared up some of his illogical and confusing style. I have asked him twice if english was his first language but was ignored both times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoxWy1v-EGU Neil deGrasse Tyson Says Ignoring Space Exploration Is “Embarrassingly Short-Sighted” Let me say it again: While certainly as our friend Ken says, nothing is inevitable, unless we are going to progress backwards, unless Earth experiences some astronomic collision with a large Asteroid/Comet, technological advancements, progress, and continued and further space exploration is as close to certainty as the theory of evolution. All we need is the time. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson During our brief stay on planet Earth, we owe ourselves and our descendants the opportunity to explore—in part because it's fun to do. But there's a far nobler reason. The day our knowledge of the cosmos ceases to expand, we risk regressing to the childish view that the universe figuratively and literally revolves around us. In that bleak world, arms-bearing, resource-hungry people and nations would be prone to act on their "low contracted prejudices." And that would be the last gasp of human enlightenment—until the rise of a visionary new culture that could once again embrace the cosmic perspective. "The Cosmic Perspective". Natural History Magazine. April 2007. Retrieved on 2010-12-07.

I didn't say you were. Again, and the point you are avoiding, everyone has beliefs of some sort or other. And again, your post seems to lack some cohesion. What scientific belief opposes nature? And what are these supposed beliefs hypotheticals scientists believe in with little or no evidence? Let me again also ask the question you avoided. Do you believe in your "non beliefism" cult/church? A simple yes or no will suffice. Science is what we know/accept/believe, according to the bulk of available observational and experimental evidence: Philosophy is what we do not know/accept/hypothesise, and that in all likelyhood we may never be able to know/accept/hypothesise

What evidence? Again belief in itself is desirable as long as the bulk of scientific evidence supports that belief.eg: I believe the Antarctic continent exists just south of Australia, although I have never been there. To somehow try and employ some philosophical hogwash to imagine that no one should have any belief is illogical as Spock would say.

Sorry, I havn't been to your url, nor do I intend on going there. Your agenda is painfully obvious. Everyone is subject to some belief or other, even you and your belief in your "non belief cult" and whatever else you chose to employ to be noticed. Like I said, Newton's gravitation theory is still extensively used: Not bad for someone from the 18th century.

While nothing as I admit to is really inevitable, technological advancement and the continuation of space exploration will continue: A very near certain fact, just as some current scientific theories are as near certain as one could wish for. But your unsupported hype continues,

Again, In essence to admonish any concept of belief completely is totally illogical and evidenced by the obvious cultish behaviour you have seen fit to employ to get your invalid message across.

I will ignore the unsupported, opinionated claims you have made, as just typical of any cult or cult following..... Newton lived more then 300 years ago, and his model of gravity is still used for the vast [if not all] space endeavours. Hint: We could of course use GR and Einstein's maths, and get far more precise, accurate answers, along with the associated complicated calculations that go with it, but the simple fact stands that Newtonian gives the necessary correct answers within accepted tolerances. In essence to admonish any concept of belief completely is totally illogical and evidenced by the obvious cultish behaviour you have seen fit to employ to get your invalid message across.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe

The DE concept certainly does have empirical evidence: Not knowing its true nature, does not invalidate it. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/09/-dark-energy-is-real-theres-now-clear-evidence-says-an-international-team-of-astronomers-.html extracts: Over a decade ago, astronomers observing the brightness of distant supernovae realised that the expansion of the Universe appeared to be accelerating. The acceleration is attributed to the repulsive force associated with dark energy now thought to make up 73 per cent of the content of the cosmos. The researchers who made this discovery received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2011 Clear evidence for dark energy comes from the Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect named after Rainer Sachs and Arthur Wolfe. The Cosmic Microwave Background, the radiation of the residual heat of the Big Bang, is seen all over the sky. In 1967 Sachs and Wolfe proposed that light from this radiation would become slightly bluer as it passed through the gravitational fields of lumps of matter, an effect known as gravitational redshift. Since the first Integrated Sachs Wolfe papers, several astronomers have questioned the original detections of the effect and thus called some of the strongest evidence yet for dark energy into question. In the new paper, the product of nearly two years of work, the team have re-examined all the arguments against the Integrated Sachs Wolfe detection as well as improving the maps used in the original work. In their painstaking analysis, they conclude that there is a 99.996 per cent chance that dark energy is responsible for the hotter parts of the cosmic microwave background maps (or the same level of significance as the recent discovery of the Higgs boson).

Confusing at best, gobblydook at worst. Rubbish at worst, confusing at best. It is even less pressing on the brain to observe that belief or the accepting of any scientific model as opposed to another model or hypothesis, is based on the weight of evidence, the success or otherwise of its predictions, and the validating by observations of that particular scientific model. Whether you chose to see that as acceptance or belief is of little concern in the greater scheme of things.

I forgot nothing, but you seem to have side stepped my previous statement thus. "Is English your first language? Because as at least two others have noted, your claims/beliefs/philosophical musings, are confusing to say the least". [1] Reputable scientists do not ignore evidence, rather they logically lean towards where the main body/weight of evidence dictates.eg: The anomalous galactic rotations did not suddenly invalidate the whole of our theory/s of gravity, rather a hypothetical DM was envisaged which since has now been supported by evidence.[see the bullet cluster article] [2] Belief is belief: If evidence dictates a certain model like the BB, one can chose to logically claim the BB is the current accepted view/belief of the evolution of the universe/spacetime. [3]The scientific methodology or a scientific theory is the best model currently explaining a specific observation, and where the bulk of relevant evidence points....That is what is generally accepted as most likely. [4]Belief and scientific hypothesis, as well as any scientific theory is not primarally concerned or after this "truth" or "reality" that you speak of: Science models constructively what we observe, and stands or falls on the successful predictions it can make [GR] and the observations that it explains: If by chance this reality and/or truth is hit upon, all well and good. Otherwise as already stated, your claims at best are philosophical musings, or at worst just plain confusing, and you seem rather infatuated and tied up with your cult belief that one should not believe in anything, despite the strength of the evidence pointing to that concept. If I have misinterpreted what you are trying to say, it just supports mine and others thoughts on your own rather confusing mixed up style and apparent cult belief.

I didn't say anything about you owning facts or anything else. Is English your first language? Because as at least two others have noted, your claims/beliefs/philosophical musings, are confusing to say the least.

https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/des-year-1-cosmology-results-papers/ DES Year 1 Cosmology Results: Papers This page serves as the portal for a series of 10 papers on and in support of the DES cosmology results from the first year (Y1) of the survey, which are being released on Aug. 3, 2017. For each paper, clicking on “Link” provides a pdf of the paper. At 5 pm Central Daylight Time on Thurs., Aug. 3, 2017, Daniel Gruen will deliver a talk on these results at the APS Division of Particles & Fields meeting at Fermilab, which will be streamed live here. These papers will appear on the pub

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-standard-universe-precise-dark-energy.html Standard model of the universe withstands most precise test by Dark Energy Survey (Update) August 3, 2017 Map of dark matter made from gravitational lensing measurements of 26 million galaxies in the Dark Energy Survey. Red regions have more dark matter than average, blue regions less dark matter. Credit: Chihway Chang/University of Chicago/DES collaboration Astrophysicists have a fairly accurate understanding of how the universe ages: That's the conclusion of new results from the Dark Energy Survey (DES), a large international science collaboration, including researchers from the Department of Energy's SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, that put models of cosmic structure formation and evolution to the most precise test yet. https://phys.org/news/2017-08-standard-universe-precise-dark-energy.html

You havn't got any facts, only philosophical musings.

All I see is philosophical musings over a couple of definitions. "Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know". Bertrand Russell: