Ultimate space simulation software

 
User avatar
JackDole
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 618
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

Science and Astronomy News

18 Sep 2017 09:28

DoctorOfSpace wrote:
Source of the post Sounds like a silly human concept to me.  I wouldn't have a problem if humanity moved out into the solar system and destroyed all the planets to build a Dyson swarm.

Sounds like a silly human concept to me.
To believe we could go out and destroy everything that somehow gets in our way. :|
 
User avatar
DoctorOfSpace
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 937
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Location: SpaceX Mars Colony
Contact:

Science and Astronomy News

18 Sep 2017 10:10

JackDole wrote:
Source of the post To believe we could go out and destroy everything that somehow gets in our way. :|

Ants do it, termites do it, every creature on Earth takes from the environment in some way to promote itself.  As far as science shows so far there are no aliens nearby, the universe doesn't care, and so bodies in space are merely going to waste when viewed from the human perspective.  We exist now, we need resources, nobody else is using them.
CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor - RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 - GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SC Black Edition
Quando omni flunkus, moritati
 
User avatar
JackDole
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 618
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: Terra

Science and Astronomy News

18 Sep 2017 10:28

As far as it is proven that it is only dead rocks, I do not mind.
But as long as some moons have the possibility that they contain life, we should be careful.
But of course this question will be clarified, long before we are able to build a Dyson swarm.


I also imagine that I am on a slightly higher stage of development than ants. :|
 
User avatar
PlutonianEmpire
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 261
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Location: MinneSNOWta
Contact:

Science and Astronomy News

18 Sep 2017 11:00

JackDole wrote:
As far as it is proven that it is only dead rocks, I do not mind.
But as long as some moons have the possibility that they contain life, we should be careful.
But of course this question will be clarified, long before we are able to build a Dyson swarm.


I also imagine that I am on a slightly higher stage of development than ants. :|

At some point we're gonna need to take places like Mars for ourselves regardless of the existence of microbial life. If there is, we'd need to protect ourselves in the event they prove hostile to our bodies, which would be likely anyway.

Humans > Alien Microbes. Similarly, survival takes precedence over ethics and morality as well.
Specs: Dell Inspiron 5547 (Laptop); 8 gigabytes of RAM; Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4210U CPU @ 1.70GHz (4 CPUs), ~2.4GHz; Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit; Graphics: Intel® HD Graphics 4400 (That's all there is :( )
 
A-L-E-X
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 804
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Science and Astronomy News

21 Sep 2017 21:27

Watsisname wrote:
Ok A-L-E-X, I'm sorry to do this, but I did give you a strict warning, and after both Doc and I had given several gentle warnings.  4 posts in the same thread in rapid succession is not acceptable; I'm giving you 4 days off for it.  You must figure out a way to avoid doing multi-posts. You can respond to multiple people in the same post.

Back on the topic, I think there might be some confusion between power source and propulsion.  The plutonium, in the form of an RTG, supplies power for the instruments, but not propulsion.  For propulsion Cassini used hydrazine monopropellant for attitude control and fine course adjustment, and bipropellant for main thrust.  (And if we want to talk about hazardous materials in spaceflight, hydrazine is seriously toxic and reactive.)  

As others noted, solar power isn't very efficient that far out from the Sun -- the size of solar panels required would dramatically increase the mass and thus fuel required, and that spirals the cost.  

We could use solar sails for propulsion, but there are a few hurdles.  The first is that it is fairly slow.  Mission designers would like to get there in their lifetimes.  Also, the longer it takes to get there, the more the power provided by the RTG will decay, and the more the spacecraft's electronic components will degrade from radiation and cosmic ray strikes.

A more serious problem with solar sails is you cannot slow down with them unless you have some light-based braking system already in place at the destination.  So to get Cassini into orbit around Saturn we'd have to combine it with some other propulsion method anyway.

One of the cleanest propulsion methods we know of is the ion drive (particularly with xenon), which has been used on the Dawn mission to the asteroid belt and several others in Earth orbit.  But the problem there is that it is still quite slow, and is better suited for course corrections or for orbital changes far from the object it is orbiting, than for boosting a craft onto an interplanetary trajectory to begin with.

Hey Wat no problem don't worry about it, I've been on vacation anyway (and still am, enjoying my birthday week off!)  I just need to ask you something about how to respond to many people when they address me in the same thread if I am away for a few days.  When it's just two people I can remember what both people said and respond to them in the same post, but it's really difficult to do this when it's 4 people (hence the 4 posts in the same thread.)  How about two posts responding to 2 people in each one?  That would be easier to do rather than remembering what 4 people said in responding to a single post.  I don't think more than 4 people would be messaging me in the same topic consecutively before I had a chance to respond so I think we can limit it to two consecutive posts in the same topic, if that's fine with you.
In the link I sent they stated that solar sails can potentially accelerate to 10% of c? Though I see the problem of braking and the ion drive would be a better solution.  Also, whatever happened to the EM drive everyone was excited about and NASA was investigating?

Doc, while I share your enthusiasm about exploring and colonizing space, I don't think we can separate the environment from the species that occupy it.  We are a part of the environment therefore whatever we do it, we are doing to ourselves.  Working in partnership with nature is far better than fighting it and in the long term much more sustainable.

Interesting conversation about microbes, I was reading that bacteria are actually much more resistant and dangerous in 0 g environments because of the way they reproduce and that they evolve resistance much faster than they do on Earth (which is too quickly as it is.)

Since we were talking about Cassini, I was wondering if my settings of checkmarked real sun and real planet brightnesses are a good idea.  Here is what I've got on Saturn using two different exposures.

Screenshot - 9_20_2017 , 10_26_23 AM.jpg


Screenshot - 9_20_2017 , 10_28_56 AM.jpg
 
User avatar
Spacer
Explorer
Explorer
Posts: 278
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Location: mevaseret zion, israel

Science and Astronomy News

27 Sep 2017 09:51

"Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still"
-carl sagan
 
A-L-E-X
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 804
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Science and Astronomy News

27 Sep 2017 12:26

Spacer wrote:

Wow great news- I wonder what this does to the interior of the result- does it create a Hopf Fibration as some supercomputer simulations suggest?
 
Jerrymolie
Observer
Observer
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Location: Bulgaria
Contact:

Science and Astronomy News

04 Oct 2017 09:43

Religion makes people believe and its very strong to compete with anything but wheres science nerd are confused and they have some issues... take any famous man hes believe in something so believe is excellent IMHO..im just saying
 
User avatar
DoctorOfSpace
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 937
Joined: 22 Aug 2016
Location: SpaceX Mars Colony
Contact:

Science and Astronomy News

04 Oct 2017 10:04

Jerrymolie wrote:
Source of the post they have some issues...

Elaborate please
CPU: Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor - RAM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 - GPU: EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti SC Black Edition
Quando omni flunkus, moritati
 
A-L-E-X
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 804
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Science and Astronomy News

06 Oct 2017 11:41

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/contex ... -realities


Spacetime events and objects aren’t all that exists, new interpretation suggests

by
Tom Siegfried
7:00am, October 1, 2017

Physicist Werner Heisenberg (right) believed that quantum mechanics implied an aspect of reality similar to the concept of “potential” advocated by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (left). A new paper suggests that the mysteries of quantum mechanics might be resolved by incorporating such “potential” elements of reality in a complete picture of nature.   

From left: Friedrich Hund/Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 3.0); Jastrow/Ludovisi Collection/Wikimedia Commons 

When you think about it, it shouldn’t be surprising that there’s more than one way to explain quantum mechanics. Quantum math is notorious for incorporating multiple possibilities for the outcomes of measurements. So you shouldn’t expect physicists to stick to only one explanation for what that math means. And in fact, sometimes it seems like researchers have proposed more “interpretations” of this math than Katy Perry has followers on Twitter.

So it would seem that the world needs more quantum interpretations like it needs more Category 5 hurricanes. But until some single interpretation comes along that makes everybody happy (and that’s about as likely as the Cleveland Browns winning the Super Bowl), yet more interpretations will emerge. One of the latest appeared recently (September 13) online at arXiv.org, the site where physicists send their papers to ripen before actual publication. You might say papers on the arXiv are like “potential publications,” which someday might become “actual” if a journal prints them.

And that, in a nutshell, is pretty much the same as the logic underlying the new interpretation of quantum physics. In the new paper, three scientists argue that including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses. It is perhaps less of a full-blown interpretation than a new philosophical framework for contemplating those quantum mysteries. At its root, the new idea holds that the common conception of “reality” is too limited. By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — that is, real components of existence.

“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility,” write Ruth Kastner, Stuart Kauffman and Michael Epperson.

Considering potential things to be real is not exactly a new idea, as it was a central aspect of the philosophy of Aristotle, 24 centuries ago. An acorn has the potential to become a tree; a tree has the potential to become a wooden table. Even applying this idea to quantum physics isn’t new. Werner Heisenberg, the quantum pioneer famous for his uncertainty principle, considered his quantum math to describe potential outcomes of measurements of which one would become the actual result. The quantum concept of a “probability wave,” describing the likelihood of different possible outcomes of a measurement, was a quantitative version of Aristotle’s potential, Heisenberg wrote in his well-known 1958 book Physics and Philosophy. “It introduced something standing in the middle between the idea of an event and the actual event, a strange kind of physical reality just in the middle between possibility and reality.”

https://cosmosmagazine.com/geoscience/w ... m=webfeeds

Scientists Just Found Water on Mars Where They Thought None Could Exist

 Image Source

IN BRIEF

Astronomers re-examined data from NASA's Odyssey spacecraft and found evidence of water from a region in the Martian equator. While the discovery is surprising, it's definitely a welcome one. Water on Mars can help future exploration missions.

A SURPRISE FIND

It’s long been known that Mars had large bodies of water some millions of years ago. Traces of these ancient Martian lakes and oceans have been found in recent years, thanks to information provided by probes and landers, like NASA’s Curiosity roverand the Odyssey spacecraft that currently orbits the red planet. Now, a team of astronomers from the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) of Johns Hopkins Universityfound large deposits of what could be permafrost ice in the most unlikeliest of places on the Martian surface.

The ice was discovered in an area on the Martian equator called the Medusae Fossae, which spans several hundred kilometers across. Scientists had assumed the equator would be too warm for ice to stay intact near the surface for so long.

Permafrost ice has been spotted on Mars using data provided by the Odyssey spacecraft’s neutron spectrometer, particularly at the red planet’s polar regions, which was confirmed in 2008 by NASA’s Phoenix lander when it uncovered chunks of pure ice just a few centimeters below the surface. The specialized spectrometer picks up neutron radiation coming from the Martian surface when high-energy cosmic rays pour down from space.

“These interact with the top meter of the soil and kick out particles, neutrons included,” Johns Hopkins’ APL planetary astronomer Jack Wilson told Cosmos. Analyzing those particles can identify what substances the cosmic rays are interacting with. Recently, Wilson and his colleagues gave the Odyssey data a second look, because the earlier studies had a very low resolution at just around 520 kilometers. They managed to reconstruct the image to a resolution of 290 kilometers.

http://newatlas.com/space-life-biomarker-comet/51613/

http://bgr.com/2017/10/02/do-aliens-exi ... life-soon/

 


Science
Image Source: Rebecca-louise
Alien-hunting scientist believes we’re just 20 years from making contact with intelligent life


Mike Wehner  @MikeWehner
October 2nd, 2017 at 3:13 PM
 Share   Tweet
It’s probably safe to say that most people would be pretty interested in humanity making contact with intelligent alien life, but few of us actually dedicate our lives to the search for it. Seth Shostak from the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) Institute does just that, and he firmly believes we’re incredibly close to answering the question of whether or not we’re alone in the universe. In fact, he’s willing to bet that we’re just a couple of decades away from proving that aliens exist.

Speaking with Futurism at a recent event in New York City, Shostak was incredibly bold in his predictions, noting that he’ll “bet everybody a cup of coffee that we’ll find intelligent life within 20 years.”


Don't Miss Once again, Amazon is the only way you’re getting a Super NES Classic right now
Humans have explored much of our Solar System, sending probes to Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, and soon the Sun, but we’ve yet to discover evidence that life in any form exists elsewhere. At the moment, the most promising possibility is that we’ll discover some kind of microbial life, even invisible to the naked eye, but that’s not really what SETI has its sights set on.

Shostak is quick to point out that while he believes we’ll discover indisputable proof of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe within 20 years, that might not mean we’ll actually meet or even communicate with an alien civilization.

“I don’t know about contact,” Shostak explained. “I mean if they’re 500 light years away, you’ll hear a signal that’ll be 500 years old, and if you broadcast back ‘Hi we’re the Earthlings, how’re you doing?’ it’ll be 1,000 years before you hear back from them. If you ever hear back from them. So, it’s not exactly contact, but at least you know they’re there.”

It’s certainly within the realm of possibility, and scientists are always listening for signals in the noise, but it’s proved fruitless thus far. But if we do discover intelligent life within the next 20 years, perhaps we can ask them to save us from ourselves.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how ... met?tgt=nr

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6358/1375

Did dark matter cause early supermassive black holes?

One of the biggest mysteries in cosmology may have been solved, reports Michael Lucy.

Description: A computer simulation showing a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy.

A computer simulation showing a supermassive black hole at the heart of a galaxy.

NASA, ESA, AND D. COE, J. ANDERSON, AND R. VAN DER MAREL (STSCI)

The earliest gigantic black holes in the universe were seeded by dark matter, new research has found.

Ancient supermassive black holes that existed less than a billion years after the Big Bang have long presented a puzzle: how did they get so big so fast? A solution may be at hand.

According to a paper published in Science by Shingo Hirano of the University of Tokyo and colleagues, who have conducted extremely detailed simulations of black hole formation, supersonic streams of gas and vast clumps of dark matter in the early universe may hold the key.

“The origin of the monstrous black holes has been a long-standing mystery and now we have a solution to it,” says Naoki Yoshida, one of the researchers.

How fast a black hole can grow depends on how big it already is. This poses a problem: if it should take more than a billion years to grow a black hole with 10 billion times the mass of the Sun, how come we see such black holes when the universe itself was less than a billion years old?

Some proposals have suggested that they formed from the remnants of the earliest stars, or directly from the collapse of large clouds of gas, or even from the collisions of smaller black holes. These proposals have difficulty achieving the required black hole mass, or require very particular conditions.

Another idea is that such massive black holes must have grown from seed black holes that were themselves extremely large. But this only kicks the question further down the road. Where did the large seed black holes come from?

According to Hirano’s team, fast relative motion between gas and dark matter may have prevented the formation of stars in some places in the early universe. In these places, dark matter would clump together until it was large enough for its gravity to draw in streams of supersonic gas created by the Big Bang, forming a dense cloud of turbulent gas.

These conditions are ideal to form a proto-star that could grow much larger than usual in a very short period of time without losing much energy as radiation.

“Once reaching the mass of 34,000 times that of our Sun, the star collapsed by its own gravity, leaving a massive black hole,” says Yoshida. “These massive black holes born in the early universe continued to grow and merge together to become a supermassive black hole.”

Their simulation also accurately predicts the approximate number of supermassive black holes in the Universe: around one per three billion cubic light years.

While the model is promising, it will require further study and comparison with the large numbers of ancient supermassive black holes that are expected to be found when NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope launches in 2018.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/9/e1701758

Physicists find we’re not living in a computer simulation

The sci-fi trope might now be put to rest after scientists find the suggestion that reality is computer generated is in principle impossible, writes Andrew Masterson.

Description: Some physical phenomena may be impossible to simulate.

Some physical phenomena may be impossible to simulate.

MACIEJ FROLOW / GETTY

Just in case it’s been weighing on your mind, you can relax now. A team of theoretical physicists from Oxford University in the UK has shown that life and reality cannot be merely simulations generated by a massive extraterrestrial computer.

The finding – an unexpectedly definite one – arose from the discovery of a novel link between gravitational anomalies and computational complexity.

In a paper published in the journal Science Advances, Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhi show that constructing a computer simulation of a particular quantum phenomenon that occurs in metals is impossible – not just practically, but in principle.

The pair initially set out to see whether it was possible to use a technique known as quantum Monte Carlo to study the quantum Hall effect – a phenomenon in physical systems that exhibit strong magnetic fields and very low temperatures, and manifests as an energy current that runs across the temperature gradient. The phenomenon indicates an anomaly in the underlying space-time geometry.

Quantum Monte Carlo methods use random sampling to analyse many-body quantum problems where the equations involved cannot be solved directly.

Ringel and Kovrizhi showed that attempts to use quantum Monte Carlo to model systems exhibiting anomalies, such as the quantum Hall effect, will always become unworkable.

They discovered that the complexity of the simulation increased exponentially with the number of particles being simulated.

If the complexity grew linearly with the number of particles being simulated, then doubling the number of partices would mean doubling the computing power required. If, however, the complexity grows on an exponential scale – where the amount of computing power has to double every time a single particle is added – then the task quickly becomes impossible.

The researchers calculated that just storing information about a couple of hundred electrons would require a computer memory that would physically require more atoms than exist in the universe.

The researchers note that there are a number of other known quantum interactions for which predictive algorithms have not yet been found. They suggest that for some of these they may in fact never be found.

And given the physically impossible amount of computer grunt needed to store information for just one member of this subset, fears that we might be unknowingly living in some vast version of The Matrix can now be put to rest.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 182116.htm


Science News
from research organizations
Mathematics predicts a sixth mass extinction

By 2100, oceans may hold enough carbon to launch mass extermination of species in future millennia

Date:
September 20, 2017
Source:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Summary:
Scientists have analyzed significant changes in the carbon cycle over the last 540 million years, including the five mass extinction events. They have identified 'thresholds of catastrophe' in the carbon cycle that, if exceeded, would lead to an unstable environment, and ultimately, mass extinction.
Share:
FULL STORY

Coral bleaching.
Credit: © Richard Carey / Fotolia
In the past 540 million years, the Earth has endured five mass extinction events, each involving processes that upended the normal cycling of carbon through the atmosphere and oceans. These globally fatal perturbations in carbon each unfolded over thousands to millions of years, and are coincident with the widespread extermination of marine species around the world.

The question for many scientists is whether the carbon cycle is now experiencing a significant jolt that could tip the planet toward a sixth mass extinction. In the modern era, carbon dioxide emissions have risen steadily since the 19th century, but deciphering whether this recent spike in carbon could lead to mass extinction has been challenging. That's mainly because it's difficult to relate ancient carbon anomalies, occurring over thousands to millions of years, to today's disruptions, which have taken place over just a little more than a century.

Now Daniel Rothman, professor of geophysics in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and co-director of MIT's Lorenz Center, has analyzed significant changes in the carbon cycle over the last 540 million years, including the five mass extinction events. He has identified "thresholds of catastrophe" in the carbon cycle that, if exceeded, would lead to an unstable environment, and ultimately, mass extinction.

In a paper published in Science Advances, he proposes that mass extinction occurs if one of two thresholds are crossed: For changes in the carbon cycle that occur over long timescales, extinctions will follow if those changes occur at rates faster than global ecosystems can adapt. For carbon perturbations that take place over shorter timescales, the pace of carbon-cycle changes will not matter; instead, the size or magnitude of the change will determine the likelihood of an extinction event.

Taking this reasoning forward in time, Rothman predicts that, given the recent rise in carbon dioxide emissions over a relatively short timescale, a sixth extinction will depend on whether a critical amount of carbon is added to the oceans. That amount, he calculates, is about 310 gigatons, which he estimates to be roughly equivalent to the amount of carbon that human activities will have added to the world's oceans by the year 2100.

Does this mean that mass extinction will soon follow at the turn of the century? Rothman says it would take some time -- about 10,000 years -- for such ecological disasters to play out. However, he says that by 2100 the world may have tipped into "unknown territory."

"This is not saying that disaster occurs the next day," Rothman says. "It's saying that, if left unchecked, the carbon cycle would move into a realm which would be no longer stable, and would behave in a way that would be difficult to predict. In the geologic past, this type of behavior is associated with mass extinction."

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new ... eat-vacuum



News
Quantum Physics
A new test of water ripples supports the idea of quantum heat in a vacuum

This in-the-lab analog of the Unruh effect matches expectations for accelerated motion in space

By
Emily Conover
7:00am, September 18, 2017

HEAT WAVE  Accelerating at a high rate could make empty space seem hot, according to an idea called the Unruh effect. Scientists may have spotted signs of an analogous phenomenon in ripples of water.

u3d/Shutterstock

Sponsor Message

Empty space might feel hot to a traveler zipping through at a rapidly increasing clip — or so some physicists predict. And a new experiment provides a hint that they might be right.

That idea, known as the Unruh effect, seems to be supported by an analogous effect that appears in a tank of rippling water. Patterns in the waves, when analyzed as if seen by an accelerating observer, appear to re-create the expected signature of the effect, researchers report September 7 at arXiv.org. If it holds up to further scrutiny, the result would mark the first time a version of the Unruh effect has been spotted.

It’s a counterintuitive concept: To an observer moving at a constant velocity, a perfect vacuum would be frigidly cold. But someone accelerating through that empty space might work up quite a sweat. “The Unruh effect is basically saying that if you are accelerated enough in the vacuum, you can burn to death,” says theoretical physicist George Matsas of São Paulo State University in Brazil.

Researchers around the globe have been trying to create sustainable fuels by mimicking the natural process of photosynthesis. After all, if plants can use sunlight to transform carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons, why can’t we? In the latest development, a team of scientists from the Energy Department’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has figured out a way to convert CO2 directly into ethanol and ethylene, using a process powered by solar energy.

To put it another way, the team made corn ethanol, except they skipped all the steps that involve planting corn, growing it, harvesting it, and processing it into biofuel. To ice the sustainability cake, the new system could pair up with power plants and other industrial facilities to capture greenhouse gases at the source.

more on
 
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/19/go ... synthesis/
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 969
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Science and Astronomy News

06 Oct 2017 18:41

A-L-E-X, copy-pasting entire sections of articles is very bad etiquette.  Write your own words or just link to the relevant sources with a brief summary.
 
A-L-E-X
World Builder
World Builder
Posts: 804
Joined: 06 Mar 2017

Science and Astronomy News

06 Oct 2017 19:43

Watsisname wrote:
A-L-E-X, copy-pasting entire sections of articles is very bad etiquette.  Write your own words or just link to the relevant sources with a brief summary.

It was the first paragraph or so, to give the reader some idea of what the link contained.  But since there were 10 articles in one post, it amounted to a lot of first paragraphs lol.

Some really interesting tidbits in there- among them 1) definitive proof that the universe is not a simulation (at least not in the way it's commonly assumed 2) water found near Mars' equator 3) using mathematical universe concepts to remove quantum paradoxes 4) using dark matter to explain early era supermassive black holes 5) mathematical proof that a mass extinction might be on the way (some would argue it's already happening) 6) a timeline for first contact 7) mimicking natural photosynthesis 8) the heat of empty space 9) early life biomarkers found in comets 10) how a meteor shower helped solve the case of a vanishing comet.
 
User avatar
Gnargenox
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 396
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: 179° 56′ 39.4″ +0° 2′ 46.2″ @ 7,940 ± 420 pc

Science and Astronomy News

08 Oct 2017 14:00

I am not a fan of Dark Matter fudge numbers. If indeed we are in a holographic universe and information can be converted to energy, then we won't need Dark Matter to explain galactic rotation issues we observe.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... -to-energy
CPU: AMD FX-8350 8 core processor 4GHz / GPU: GeForce GT 730 @ 1920x1080, 60Hz with 1GB adapter RAM / RAM: Patriot Signature 4GB 1600MHz 240-Pin DDR3 (only 2GB work, don't buy it) / Motherboard: MSI 970 Gaming MS-7693
 
User avatar
midtskogen
Pioneer
Pioneer
Posts: 420
Joined: 11 Dec 2016
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Science and Astronomy News

08 Oct 2017 22:20

NIL DIFFICILE VOLENTI
 
User avatar
Watsisname
Science Officer
Science Officer
Posts: 969
Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Bellingham, WA

Science and Astronomy News

09 Oct 2017 00:04

Gnargenox wrote:
Source of the post I am not a fan of Dark Matter fudge numbers. If indeed we are in a holographic universe and information can be converted to energy, then we won't need Dark Matter to explain galactic rotation issues we observe.

I don't see how that idea explains away dark matter.  Also, galactic rotation curves are only one piece of evidence for dark matter.  Could you also explain the Bullet Cluster, angular power spectrum of the CMB, formation of the cosmic web in LCDM simulations, or the observation that the mass-density of the universe is very close to the critical density, while baryonic matter accounts for only about 5%?

midtskogen, Luminet is such a great name to be associated with that kind of work. :)  Shep Doeleman who directs the EHT also cited Luminet's image in his talk at the CfA, commenting on how amazing it is to have such an accurate rendition that long ago with the computers they had available.

And on a related note, the latest status update from The Event Horizon Telescope.  Most of the data is in, (still waiting on the data collected from the South Pole) and analysis is progressing nicely.  Hopefully we'll see a real black hole shadow sometime next year. :)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest