PB666

The stellarator like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X are designed to get around this by

As long as you don't swallow the worm, your okay.

If it had 1g of thrust it would slow down rather quickly because the plume would act to increase drag, it basically a curved structure with lots of folds, anything above mach 0.5 close to sea level you are going a huge pick up in drag as the engines fire. The least it can do is around 1.2g. You can go from 70-100% then 2 @70 (140) to full power. When you are on the deck the engines have to go full powerdown immediately. So technically the craft cannot hoover. However, those number may not be valid because ????? is full thrust is on the falcon-9. His number on the 0.7 mach sound pretty correct. Terminal velocity for a human is 50 m/s and the Mach drag particularly on the engine facing return is going to kick in around 0.8Mach, so its got major drag and not much weight. I suspect that they have the retro tuned to about 85% thrust which means they can throttle up or down to control descent. They are not doing a kerbalesce suicide burn.

Childish. Life didn't evolve on Mars under the current atmosphere, the sun blasted aways the martian atmosphere, and therefore mars is relatively unsuitable for life now, there are probably some forms left in a deep hot pit someplace, thats about it. If you has read the actual link they make the point about mars. The earths core is actually slowly spinning, as the moons orbit moves further from earth, the iron core moves more slowly, this creates a bit of a dynamo itself, but more importantly the friction that the process creates keeps the outer core from solidifying. I know its difficult for you to understand, but if you make an effort you might. Planets are not moons. aside from that you are conditioning one argument with another. In a world full of unicorns you might find one that flies. The moons relative tidal heating is based on a relative mass 1/80th the mass of the earth at 300,000,000 meters. For a red dwarf the next planet would be 1000 times further away, to have the same affect that planet would have to be massive, In which case the tidal heating effects would be the least of your worries. Anyway its a moot point, you misrepresented the authors and they agree with me, retaining a spinning core is highly unlikely, see mars evidence, it has two moons, on moves very close to its surface. The actual link is here, is not peer-reviewed. Cain, Fraser; Gay, Pamela (2007). "AstronomyCast episode 40: American Astronomical Society Meeting, May 2007". Universe Today. Retrieved 2007-06-17.[A DEADLINK that AL did not read] The actual link I found and presented. Violent flaring is a problem, but red dwarfs can dim to 40% of there luminosity for months at a time. Something your site did not mention. Even if you get rid of the most violent you still have to deal with catasrophic drops in insolance. Second, with the number of flaring red dwarfs detected I challenge the accuracy of that number. Earth has 4.5 billion years, but it has and more diverse chemoactive spectrum. This contributes to diversity that drives evolution. This is actually what the source wikipedia to your link said, the odds of this actually happening, nearly zero. Maybe late in a red stars life, 10s of billions of years after the star formed, this might happen. You haven't provided any evidence. Scientist are looking so many of the stars detected that have planets are red dwarfs and we can see the absorption of atmospheres, so by now oxygen should have been detected. At least we know at least one yellow star has a planet with significant amounts of oxygen, and these stars are much less common than red dwarves. So if you had done your work instead of popping off . . you were grossly misrepresenting what the original meeting attendants said. Doesn't sound to me like the experts whom you are very indirectly quoting agree with you, sounds like they are in diametric opposition of what you are saying, that the conditions for get a planet through the hostile phase is quite difficult, if not impossible? In that one link that I validated for you they refuted just about everything you have said. You should be the one apologizing for so badly misrepresenting these speakers. Hypothesis that draw on fantastic claims need all the more evidence to be treated as credible.

Yes but we are talking about quantum wormholes. I'm just reporting on a trend in the literature, this particular article which I don't have access to is the furthest advanced. It basically says the information in a photon that strikes an entangled pair single lends its information to the other single that is 25km away.

It shows to be about 0.2g (1.5%) more powerful, if we took of all the payload the difference between the CRS-8 payload and the S1-S2 is 0.6%. Not possibly explained by lighter payload, must be at least one percent more thrust if you go by the 4696 presented above for the payload then they increased thrust by 2%. I measured this at the 800kmh powerdown, which is apparent for both rockets.

That's a ball-sy landing. The only reason they would care about gravity losses at that point is if they were fuel strapped.

This problem is hideous because it actually test the difference between Newtonian and Relativistic perspective. So lets do the newtonian experiment in 2016. Pretend we did not know anything but statistics. We place a table about the same height of the apple on a tree, we then observe the motion of apples on the table. We record their motion over say 2 seconds. We find that in 2 seconds the apples are observed to move 0.000 meters +/- 0.0001 meters. The null hypothesis is then that apples do not move, you then cause the table to disappear and measure the position of the apples after half second, one second, two seconds, At each time stamp the apples have significantly moved using something like T-test there is a signficant motion. YOu could then perform the next test, you could take a hollowed out apple and compare its motion to a regular apple and look at the difference, you might need 1000 apples but eventually you would see a significant difference. The 16th century hypothesis is that the table in non-inertial and the apples are forcing themselves to the earth. In both cases the null hypothesis is proven false, we reject it and we claim there is a mystical force acting to accelerate the apples. We then reject the hypothesis that there is no force acting on the apple, and we reject the notion that aether and apple have the same acceleration, since if we remove apple from inside the apple and allow the aether to flow in, the apple slows down. We did not examine the lead ball because we had no expectation of what the non-inertial reference frame should be. Next we move to having learned general relativity blind of Newtonian gravity. The same experiment our null hypothesis is that the apples travel to the ground, we detect the motion after 1 minute, we observe what we expected but a slight deviation due to drag, we replaced the apples with lead balls the same size, we observe no deviation from expectation, and we hollow out the apples and we observe slightly more deviation. We thus conclude that an aether between the ground and trees is applying a force to the apple in its non-inertial reference frame. We reject the null hypothesis that there is no aether, and accept the alternative, that there is an aether outside the apple that is apply a force to the apple as it travels. We then place the apples on the table and note that the table is accelerating the apple at 9.8 m/s and we conclude that the ground is accelerating the table, and some earthen media on the ground is accelerating all of this. We reject the null hypothesis that the table is not weaker than eather, and we accept the hypothesis that the table is much stronger than the aether, all further test of media will entail single tailed comparisions. Does it not seem odd that we did not do the Newtonian experiment first and estimate gravity, how did we get the Einstein field equation if we had not estimated G or earths mu first? Note that the approach of science changes over time, that is because its a process. Thats a question, gravitons are supposed to be scalable, but I have no idea whether they are recieved as single units transmitted via quantum entanglement or that the wave is composed of many particles in some kind of distribution. The facts are pretty basic, no-one knows.

http://www.sciencealert.com/news/20142209-26214-2.html I'm not going to say anything about this, but if you read the article you will quickly see the contradition with the no-comm hypothesis. Unfortunately I wont have access to the article for another full year. Abstract is not available online either. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/udg-fli091814.php

I'm going to do the math later, will be able to tell, they certainly did not reduce stage 1 or 2 fuel, just my sense, this was more of a throttle push than a lower weight issue.

They are still testing GR, at least on visible scales its always correct. Its at the level of being always consistent. I don't know if GR is esoteric knowledge or not, someone has to figure out a way to bridge the divide between quantum mechanics. The nature of quantum gravity is at the core of the problem.

Did anyone notice that there was no call out for Max-Q and this rocket barreled into Mach speed alot faster than CRS-8, and turned faster also.? Yep, they hit max v1250 5 seconds earlier and 1700 meters lower than CRS-8. Either this craft is alot lighter or they increased the output of their engines again.

O lets say there is a truth book, but it only gave the most fundemetal answers, for example lets say it had an equation for predicting where virtual particles appearred and disappeared with a t0 from the moment of the big bang and a d parameter, how far the local space had travel creating the local comoving space velocity term and relativistic correction and intercorellation term that we have yet to discover that perfectly meshes quantum observation with relativisty. This is all hypothetical, its just a construct to demenstate a level of understanding more advanced than our own. This would make no sense at all to the first reader that opened. after living his whole life oblivious to the creation of the universe content innthe understanding of his world he would ask where the explicative am i, why the heck do i care to know where virtual particles appear. We really don't want the ultimate answer so much as we want to discover it, in the meantime its 42.

In either case the pressure is off by a factor of 5 to sustain life. I may not need it, but earths magnetic field is believed to be created by the tidal locking of the moon with earths tides, causing the solid iron core to rotate relative to the earths outer mantle and creating outer core heating and melting. . Nope, not enough, the only situation where you might see this is with a highly eccentric orbit whereby the tidally locked downfacing vector wobbles. But then highly eccentric orbits are not conducive to life. On your comment about only young red stars flaring, Red stars live to be very old, most of the red stars flare, IOW, this sounds like B.S. But not without an atmosphere and not if it starts with 0.1 ATM, you have mars. I was responding to your post and pedars, don't be so vain. Couple of points, its not me that needs to provide proof, its you, there is no evidence of life on other planets or moons, this is not to say it exists, but the burden of proof likes on the individual making the fantastic claims. You have stated that Locked planets around red stars and dwarfs are more likely to support life than earth-like planets around sun-like stars. That is a fantastic claim and your support is completely inadequate. You have claimed that life can exist at 0.1 ATM on these, but you have no evidence that life can exist, survive and reproduce. That is a fantastic claim and your support is completely inadequate. The claim has been made that there are 3 potentially habitable planets outside the habitable zone of a red star, again this is a fantastic claim that the authors have made with no support, ITS HYPE and should be summarily disregarded by other scientist. When someone shows me evidence that life exists on other worlds (oxygen signature in the atmosphere, lots of water) im inclined to believe them, pretty much whatever you say, based on all past threads, nope, you are incredulous.

Yeah I saw that I think it was like 1 meter from a perfect bulls eye. They were traveling 2000 km/h faster at MECO than the previous, the hand a longer downrange region to travel, but they got it anyway.

Theories can be tentatively accepted if attempts to prove the alternatives fail, also, and under other circumstances. Theories should have some support. I don't like theories in general. For example Theory of Evolution, but I don't see one evolution I see many. There was a theory that mutation cannot anticipate evolution (this is like the non-communication flaw in quantum entanglement), but in fact we found out studying the gender biased passage of myotonic dystrophy gene that by knowing gender we could anticipate future mutations. You can look at this way, the theory is incomplete or that optimistically the exceptions define the rule, what I see is that if there is one exception, then there are likely many. We have a problem with both theories and scientific dogma, at times in the past both have been proven wrong. So it best not to put too much faith in theories, faith is not our realm No but he was trying to put-forward a religious-like philosophical base. Whoever drafted Russel's teapot here did not do so in proper context. Science did not adopt Bertrand, Russell usurped science to push the concept of logical positivism. You can't push scientist philosophically, religious devotees of different faiths can work elbow to elbow at the same lab bench, they don't give a flip about each others philosophy, they are driven by an unhealthy obsession to learn and discover. When they discover something then they want to defend, or be the first one to find a better answer. Russell was advancing something in the theological sphere of philosophy, yeah sure you will find scientist that agree with his point of view, I'm not one of them, but then I don't make science work, I'm simply an ant in the collective ant-mound called science following my own directives. So here is what I can give you from a philosophical point of view. The first time I ran into was about a almost two decades ago in a archeology forum, wherein one the posters, rather daffy person, was espousing this philosophy of science. It caught me by surprise because I had never heard of such a thing. The concept is full of good ideas, but that is all it is and no more, it has no basic structure, any attempt to unify a thought in science is broadly resisted, fundamentally scientist know their process is messy, your typical thesis program all but beats that into your head. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem So if Russell is obsolete what is current? This may have been acceptable 20 or 30 years ago. If you want to get a grip on what science is now, really, go talk to the scientist who does the statistics for LHC experiments looking for new particles. The philosophical basis you want for truth is pretty much going to be epitomized by that process. And if you are thinking that it sounds very technocratic and not very philosophical, then you understand.

4, we also have the moon too. not a planet but from a distance observer might possibly have life. He would have to get close enough to see that our earth moon system was a binary. We can rule out mars moons because they are too small to see at great distance.

Im not sure what point you are trying to make. Just as I am not sure the point you are trying to make with Venus. 0.01 ATM is insufficient to support life, the biosphere on earth only extends up to about 20,000 feet (6000 meters). about 0.5 ATM. More importantly at termination, a deep vent in the water I would argue with the conclusions of the paper on several accounts 1. Lop sided planets that are tidally locked are unlikely to have enough non-inertial rotational energy to support a magnetic field. 2. The position close to a red star, with a greater tendency to flare. 3. Recent studies of red star flares indicate these are manifested in sun-like solar flares, planets in tight rotation would likely have their atmospheres repeated 'burned' by flares resulting in more mercurian scenarios. Such planets should suffer from constant loss of atmosphere. A couple of other points, The situation with Venus, venus itself may have been more like a gas giant than it is today, it may have lost a considerable amount of its atmosphere due to solar flares, the lower elements, hydrogen, helium, neon, argon, nitrogen ions, oxygen ions may have been the first dispelled. Following this the higher inertia gases like S03 and C02 would have been left by a cosmic distillation process. It does not seem likely to me that Venus's atmosphere in its current state would suffice to slow its orbit down. There is a metric that occurs, the mass loss per unit mass in bright stars is higher due to the increase relative mass of the hydrogen fusion zone, this is what eventually shortens the life of a star. Red stars produce less light per unit mass drawing in the habitable zone, placing the habitable zone close to the destructive tendencies of stars. This increases the likelihood of tidal locking, which makes Venus and Earth type planets unlikely. Flaring in brown dwarfs is not out of the question either, because strikes of extrastellar material can cause a brown dwarf to flare because of lithium decomposition and because brown dwarf internal structure is not uniform. In answer to Pedar, the basic problem I have with the Venusian dynamic is the high presence of sulfate dehydrants relative to the other Venusian gases. There is for example a tremendous amount of water on earth, and sulfate is only 8 percent of that, if we assume the similar on Venus, then the original atmosphere of Venus was 10 times more massive than today. Sulfate would be one of the last gases to evaporate if Venus ever had water. The bigger problem still is that on earth there is alot of carbonate and sulfate in the earths crust that is in multibillion year flux, this would basically mean that Venus formation was very different from earth, or that its atmosphere was far thicker than on earth. You could argue that if Venus was loosing atmosphere then we should see it happening today, the problem is that it would loose the most volatile ions first followed by things like sulfer dioxide and carbon dioxide, so in essense the atmosphere may have equilibrated. The presence of sulfer dioxide in the atmosphere is troubling because it drives the volatiles away from the planets gravitational field. Again, I state my basic prospectus on the matter of life, enthusium about life on other planets is NOT a predictor of how abundant or distributed life is, taking a conservative scientific model I approach the distribution of life by starting with the premise that life is most likely around earth sized planets with natural satellites that orbit sun-like stars. From that I think that boundary for life is 1. Inhibited by brighter stars, despite tidal locking in the habitable zone being less likely because hotter stars die more quickly, and stars greater than 2 solar mass die catastrophically. If there is a stellar formation dynamic in nebula and larger star formatoin is more likely, surrounding stars are more likely to be affected by stellar explosions. 2. inhibited by dimmer stars a. because power wavelengths are diminished, on earth plants have choices between which sprectra to use for chlorophyll b. because of higher flare potential to the goldilocks zone. c. because the potential for tidal locking increases. As you can see I am not very optimistic about finding habitable planets close to earth. Venus's crust would be an amourphous solid, it it was struck by an asteroid the shockwave produce would flatten things still much like liquifaction during an earth quake. The crust is not solid like earth and is not like a magma stream either, but over geological time frames one can expect the surface is in slow motion. Its current motion could be a reflex from locking also, again, I am not selling an impact model, Venus I think qualifies as a 'we don't know' problem.

A teapot is one of many manmade or manmade-like items, there are 10s of millions. If there were millions of possible items orbiting the sun one of any type, certainly we would find 1, we haven't found any, therefore teapot does should not exist. In addition, for nature to randomly make a teapot is impossible, see my previous response, so the teapot would need to be manmade or alien made, but we haven't observed any aliens neither collecting tea on earth or making tea in space. Therefore there is unlikely to be a manmade item in space unless man puts one there. You could argue that gee maybe we couldn't see a teapot, another manmade object is a supertanker, atomic bombs, the empire-state buidling, the great-wall of china, US Interstate 10. I want to point out that the Teapot example really steps the line of religious argumentation. Let me point out why. OK, so I have to lay out the disclaimer here to shield myself from moderation. If we go back to how western science evolved, it evolved from theology within the HRC, and later the anglican and other protestant religions. This has to be stated because it is an important reminder that some feel the need to reinforce that separation (Russell) and others do not (Einstein). The teapot argument is use to refute 'he/she/it exists' logic as applied to non-observable beings. This separates empericism from faith. We can however find consistencies with faith, most of which can be explained by coincidence. Occams razor was not to refute religion, but refute convoluted claims that tried to prove an 'it exists' argument. Occam was a theologian, lets not forget, and I think his point was to modulate religious sophistry of his time which he believes interfere with spirituality, for this he was ex-communicated. But to say properly his line of thought was equally important to theological reformation as it was for science. As such he was postumately reinstated into the church. This is one of many hinge-points in science, because it means empiricisms and theory based on empirical observations can be, if desired, cleanly separated from theology but that was not its intent. By the way, its not the first time this was stated, the largely ignored rebuke at the end of Job (chapters 37-38, somewhere between 1500 and 2500 BC, a cannanite story) basically says the same, not every act of nature is attributable to your favorite deity (blame the lawyers instead, lol)[Pointing out that from a scholarly point of view, the portrait of el and satan (the inquisitor) in Job are not the classical views, this book was likely adopted from non-hebraic probably early Aramaic oral traditions, what today would be extinct believes more akin to the polytheistic systems that once existed on the Euphrates] Keeping this in the realm of astronomy . . . . . many acts of nature or demon would be 'lets'(which are natural and which are divine actions only your deity would know and are not to be guessed at lightly). Again the intent of the narrative is not to separate the events of the natural world from that of operated on by the deity, but to separate the mortal from postulating divine intervention at every turn. Clearly there was a recognition, just as Russell recognizing, that the events, people were attributing to their deity, from time to time, went too far. Socrates had a similar critique, but you can find critiques of attribution in almost all religions including Christianity, its just that Job does this with such verbosity and repetition. Enough with the origin of the argument, hopefully I have kept this in the realm of science history. Westerners can largely attribute growth of science to the Renaissance, however its other faults. Ideas that create the notion of proof however create the most important point of the period scientific reformation, that no assumption of divine meddling can necessarily be made on any natural observation. The timing of Ockham (around 1325) is that this occurs very close to the beginning of the Renaissance. Many of the ideas that characterized the Renaissance bore out of 13th and 14th century theologians. The important thing we should see about about both is that is does not divide science from faith, it retracts faith by condensation. The concept of a Devil's advocate for miracles is exemplary of this. If the objects of potential natural interference is shrinking, then its easier to expand science, and subsequently you have Galileo, Copernicus, Brahe, Columbus, Newton . . . . all now have room to explore without stepping on theology, although, in fact, they did anyway. And just to point out, given dark matter, we still don't know how the constellations are tied together, but we are getting there, at the time before Kepler, there was no way to know, and in misunderstanding our ancestors falsely attributed, rather than saying 'we don't know;'. Which is a major point for me, because I have written papers with rather bizarre observations, which I could have hypothesized an explanation, but simply did not. A sample of one observation, event if composed of alot of data does not suffice to create a theory. In science we have the meta-analysis, if many researchers observe a similar thing, then you can stick your neck out. I feel the need to point this out because Bertrand is taking the opposite point of view, he is trying to expand the realm scientific purism away by eliminating the realm of faith. IOW if you are a scientific purist, then you cannot explain anything in the observable world using faith. God does not play dice with the Universe is a non-scientific argument. Based upon Russells atheistic views, right or wrong, that's what it is. Occam is not trying to dictate to science how it should be, he is trying to dictate to faith how it shouldn't be. Occam and Job's narrator have an easier task, because faith exists but the potential object/action of faith may not, its alot easier to condense spurious arguments where the confidence range is very close to zero, it is not so easy, even in science to condense the mean and confidence range to zero for any argument (Russells belief in deity). Teapot in space is as equally likely as deity creating the universe, for example. OK, why am I making the point, there are many many things in science that we are neither attributing to deities but also not completely falsifiable, at least in the immediate context, the discovery of the reverse proton pump in mitochondrial ATP generation is one of them, the earliest versions of quantum theory, as statisticians we publish that which may be wrong, that is the very nature of alpha. Russell's view is not applicable to science, sorry to say that, it applies to heavily distilled knowledge, science is a process not an object. In the process we may produce knowledge, but in many cases its hard to know for absolute certainty that knowledge is perfect. If we make a purist view, then science goes too far. In saying this it is clearly not the responsibility of science to attempt to prove or disprove the existence of deity. That is the point. I have been asked in the past do you believe in evolution, yes, evolution is quite obvious, but I do not know with any certainty how life began on earth. Since life got here it has evolved, to say anymore would be making an argument based on faith, in this case a belief that evolved from 13th century christian reformation using a doctrine known as the scientific method a caveot of which is that for everything there is causilty, and that is very convenient until you look at the quantum mechanics. Every coin has two sides.

A falsifiable hypothesis is a contradiction is your statistical methods are in-determinant. You can get published and funded if you results are in-determinant. For example on-label drug use that fortuitously results in 1 positive result in co-occurring disease can result in funding by a drug company in off-label drug use for treating the second condition that might result in phase trial studies. A single positive or negative result has no statistical value, its an anecdote. It might not result in you getting funded, unless you can collaborate with someone who is a specialist in the second field. This is happening all the time now with biologics, often clinicians do not start with a hypothesis on what the drug may be good at treating, they just stumble over a finding, like gee wow how come this arthritis drug suddenly treated your psoriasis. Science is a messy business. We often thing of scientist at blackboards writing out complex equations, lol, reality is they are often opportunist. To produce a complex structure you can start with the random probability that the particles needed to form it can appear in position, to double the number of particles, the probability falls to very low values, to double that one more step reaches so close to zero, in the history of the universe it will never happen. Its impossible. Impossible things can happen, but only if random events build serially, that is you have one rare thing happens then another, followed by a selective process, then another, etc.

Can I make a point here though, it really stands at the boundary of quantum world and relativistic world. The fundemental claim of the Newtonian/Einsteinian world is causality, to a fault in both cases. There is a basic assumption of causality in all classic/relativistic models, that need not exist at small scales, and even if it did you might not be able to detect. A graviton may be an example. The problems at the quantum scale are in fact not limited to quantum scale. Some of the facts about quantum mechanics are also evident at visible scales. When we talk about falsifiability in the context of quantum events, particularly if the power of the argument is not great, has more to do with sampling and resolution. IN the wiki article they mention All swans are white which immediately drafts black swan theory. At the heart of black swan theory is the question, how much sampling is adequate to draw a conclusion about quantum states that make up the distribution. In some of the work that I do, it is sufficient to say, there is never enough sampling, its always an assumption that you have enough. An excellent example of the problem is infant onset type 1 diabetes. There are adequate studies in identical twins to argue the proportion of environment and genetics in disease plus or minus 10%, and neither can be assigned to zero or near zero risk, in many inflammatory diseases the risk are all but balanced. This makes it clear that both are extremely important to the cause, and we have rather good data on the genetics, but the environmental data constantly throws out marginal associations with factors (weight of female parent before and during pregnancy and sun exposure, infant birth weight, commencement of cereal consumption, sunlight exposure, vitamin D supplementation, infancy during a period of intestinal virus pandemics). The problem is that when rpidemiologists look at 10,000s of sample subjects across Europe most of the associations prove to be weak or marginal, some appear important in one generation but not the next. Certainly in places were winter insolance is low, the vitamin D aspects in parent and child are important, and viral infections vary. Assessing risk in these circumstances proves to be an assignment of an multiparametric equation (this has been done for 31 genes in rheumatoid arthritis risk) which is not a unique answer, the equation is not 1x + 1z = risk, its more of U + 1x (+/- varx) + 1z (+/- varz) = risk (+/- var risk). Where U is the composite of unknown risk. I should point out that alpha in statistical analysis is the chance of something appearing false when it is true (typically in tests using a null hypothesis, the gold standard of science), bearing an alpha below 0.05, potentially much lower in correction for multiple sampling, creates a problem in sampling the lends itself, sometime unnecessarily, toward rejecting the null hypothesis. This is particularly the case if there are dependencies between two variables. The problem that the negation hypothesis brings forth is that beta, the chance of appearing true when it is false, is almost never tested for in science, but the problem is that in complex analyses, correction breeds type II errors, even though we do not search for them (as you would say checking for linkage of useful functional trends that lack falsifyable proof). Most scientist who use statistics are aware of this, its delegated as the responsibility of future studies, and the publish papers aware that conclusions are likely wrong. (why else do refined analysis). You have to know and test for dependencies before you can correct/condition the correction methodology. The initial analysis for the correct statistical power of a study is textbook, and in many association studies is all but meaningless and almost never used (except in clinical trials) because of this, since you have to have first a large enough sample size to show dependencies, but there is no way to know this until you have demonstrated dependencies exist. Two papers can exist, one paper shows and association, the next paper studies 15 parameters at a time, and shows no association, a third paper then comes along and looks at a reduced set of marginals, does refined analysis of the marginals and shows an association. This happens all the time with Genome Wide Association Studies. There about a dozen known reasons why an accepted null hypothesis could be false, and yet the correction methodology is almost never conditioned, the reason is that it opens up a Pandora's box of critiques, its just simpler to accept and then restudy cherry picking pieces of the genome. To put it otherwise, altering the correction modality is akin to drawing up a multi-parametric equation, coming up with an answer and have only a faint clue about the parameters and their variances. This is black white thinking that permeates science, and it actually recreates the type of logic that statistics was designed to get rid of. This is one thing that people don't understand about drug trials, when a drug is in trial they look for both effectiveness and side-effects. There are some classic areas of side effects (such as heart attack risk, allergic reaction, etc) these comprise white swans. The companies doing the test have no particular impetus to look for black swans there are 10,000s of these lurking at very low frequency. But even if they look for black swans they may still not observe them. The problem is quantum statistics, suppose you look for allergic reactions, you find X%, now suppose you look at all inflammatory reactions including things like drug induced deep organ inflammation. Broad catagories whose subsets seem unrelated can create significance where parsed groups show no significance. So drugs goes to market, and in a few years you have a new category of auto-inflammatory disease, a misnomer in the sense that drug induced the inflammation. To a large degree if you are testing a drug that modulates immunity, you look for evidence from infections, that's obvious, but you might not look for evidence of the opposite effect, too much specific immunity. The bias in quantum analysis really depends what you are looking for, if you apriori suspect some bad thing might occur, if you see evidence then you might do refined analysis and show that there is an association. But if you are not looking then you may not detect, both outcomes can be drawn from a marginal or super-marginal associations. This is something that been observed repeatedly within the decade following new drug introductions in the market place. You can't really argue that phase III drug trial with 30,000 people has inadequate power, and the clinician then needs to interpret symptoms, like this blood parameter suddenly looks abnormal how much should he/she test, and you get then a statistically meaningless clinical case report. Statistics is not black and white, it was never meant to give black and white answers its designed to give a confidence range. .. . .if you are looking at events outside or on the edge of the confidence range, then past statistics could be meaningless. To some degree the statistician needs to have a feel for the data that like any craft is an art of practice. The layman looks at the world in terms of appearances of certainty, for example the big asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs (but in fact smaller winged dinosaurs survived). One thing I like to bring up is Species, a species is something that does not typically interbreed with the opposite gender (or mating type) of other similar types. Species barriers are not concrete but subject to change over time. The common definition has little to no statistical meaning, and in many examples genetics shows that barriers leak. Something can be a species and also interbreed with other species under select circumstances. Formal boundaries are almost always, but not entirely, meaningful at the genus level. Therefore a species definition is not meaningful? Not really, a biological species can be a good way of defining ecological constraints on a roughly interbreeding population. For example whats the point of saying there are 100,000 members in a species, when an isolated subspecies has only 50 individuals is risking an extinction bottleneck, and the random probability that members of the other group will interbreed to restore diversity within the potential extinction window is less than 50%. The issue is the cat in the box, once the clad is extinct, walla it was a species after all, the asked question become moot point. That's not an alpha critieria, so is alpha arbitrary, sigma of 5 was used for higgs, 2 is pretty standard, but if the degrees of freedom is collapsing to 0, 50/50, 10/90, 1/100 might as well be just as good. But was the clad meaningful? was a collection of Pupfish in a desert ink-well something unique or was it washed down in a cryptic dry wash 50 years ago? Its all in the qualitative system analysis, very difficult to see unless the approach is comprehensive. Complex systems have complex interactions, they often give meaningless answers when black/white logic is applied. In a flavored world a quantum state becomes the individual (or potentially pairs like identical twins) , molecular products of a chemical reaction, planets within solar systems. Quantum mechanics shows us that reality is really best interpreted in the statistical world, not the classical arithmetic world. We interpret our black and white swans as such, but that is only a bias of the way we like to look for patterns. The means in which we classify, parse, or characterize in and of itself can determine the likelihood something is or is not going to be falsified, somethings are just not ripe for testing, and marginal answers are the result.

Antoine Lavoisie and conservation of matter, but Newton had the conservation of momentum law, Liebniz had conseravtion of energy. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Momentum can be lost if mass can be lost, though technically when that occurs the momentum goes into other types of particle, conserving momentum. E = 1/2mv2 For example when two black holes merge, they send out a graviton field represented by the energy loss in the interaction, causing the orbits of both to decay. Never underestimate the lack of confidence in an overachiever.

lol, you can say that again, not steering us into nerdy offtopiclandia.

LHC has different detectors that perform both overlapping and unique functions. ALICE -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE:_A_Large_Ion_Collider_Experiment - lead ion collider ATLAS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATLAS_experiment - Glorified proton collider CMS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Muon_Solenoid - Compact muon solenoid TOTEM - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOTEM - Total Cross Section, Elastic Scattering and Diffraction Dissociation MoEDAL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoEDAL_experiment - Monopole and Exotics Detector At the LHC And others. Computer generated cut-away view of the ATLAS detector showing its various components (1)Muon Detectors Magnet system: (2) Toroid Magnets (3) Solenoid Magnet Inner Detector: (4) Transition Radiation Tracker (5) Semi-Conductor Tracker (6) Pixel Detector Calorimeters: (7) Liquid Argon Calorimeter (8) Tile Calorimeter The pixels detector is a huge matrix of detectors that track particles via electromagnetic discharge.http://bigbro.biophys.cornell.edu/research/pad/ Semi-Conductor (particle) Tracker http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/186274/how-do-tracking-detectors-in-particle-accelerators-create-the-pretty-pictures-we Transition radiation tracker. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Keyword/71895/Transition-Radiation-Tracker Calorimeters determine the remaining energies of tracked particles as they leave the detector.

They speculate that once venus had stabilized it was struck by a large impactor and through the orbit in reverse. The critical problem I have with Venus is that sulfate doesn't get into the atmosphere easily,. A true tidally locked planet is both hot and cold, universe is not black and white. If Venus is hot and if atmosphere was the reason for its slow rotation, it should have a greater magnetic field than earth. So it current rotation is what you would call a black sheep. Mercury once had an atmosphere of sorts, but its proximity to the sun drove it off.