PB666

Just keep in mind that a stars energy production density is unacceptably low for a power generation scheme on earth, Such a scheme on earth would have to increase that density by a million-billion to be useful here on earth

YMN, do you have a problem with thevidea that particulates block sunlight or lower pan evaporation rates. i notice your location, is this a defensive posture based on national policies? Go look through the other threads, it is quite clear in those graphs that anthropogenic particle emmisions are resposible for a cooling component, NASA has already published images showing the visible pollution streams coming off India and Southeast Asia, not to mention that a hefty percent of the worlds most polluted cites are in India. Coal smokes, firest burns, and wood burning lower pane evaporation rates, tis a fact, deal with it.

Most of the points on a dyson sphere cannot be in non-inertial reference frames, as a result those n-i points want to collapse inward, points perpendicular to the points on the orbital plane want to collapse into the star. You cannot terreform a dyson sphere, its a glorified space station.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1525/ This is less about the SN than to predict the presence and amount of lensing dark matter.

Let the 6 figure income physicist figure it out, the engineers job is to optimize and innovate. However as i previously one cannot optimized if boiling liquid nitrogen creates milliNewton noise and you are optimizing in the micronewton range. Look for passive cooling methods. Is standard uWave so inefficient that the transformers need to be superconducting?

yep, one of the most efficient second stage engines out there.

This particular link looks at the various aspects of colonizing the moon, solutions and problems with each. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151218-how-to-survive-the-freezing-lunar-night

I think you guys mean to say longer, as in longer along the bells axis of symmetry.

Wait, the graph shows the paths of the photons, is this contrived? I still find it hard to believe that they have captured 10 billion collisions in 2 years in the TeV range.

(Note: I tried to respond to this on my handheld once again complete failure). I will give you an example. Lets take Medina lake which straddles the Edwards aquifer, the dam is owned by the local farming communities but the aquifer serves San Antonio. Water released from the dam is split and fed by irrigation canals where is used to grow corn and other vegetables, some of that is used to grow alfalfa and maize which is used to feed cattle, during a severe drought the dam can be closed and all the water goes into feed the aquifer. If the aquifer is high enough it feeds several streams as it used to, if it is low enough it will stop feeding the San Antonio river, which essentially becomes a treatment plant outlet. The spring feeds the San Antonio river provides water for Brakenbridge park recreational area and the San Antonio river walk, the park dry-out rarely or never happens. IOW its not like you think, in a severe drought if the irrigation is blocked then the aquifer automatically fills these recreational areas, which is close to its natural water level in many areas , if the lake is emptied then water to recreational will stop without any human decisions to make, some area parks may spring water that has not produced in decades. If the lake is completely drained, then the cows, pigs, and chickens get the water along with crops for humans. Either way humans consume the water since it is difficult to separate natural from recreational. Very little of the water of the original Upper Medina river actually junctions with the San Antonio river south of San Antonio, except during severe floods water enters a decision loop. The same can be said of the Rio Grande river, if the US chooses to ration its use, Mexico will take what the US does not. The same can be said about the Western US's Colorado river. Since it was difficult to understand your original point Im glad you find humour in it. Climate change is not just about global warming, there are many effects that humans have on climate, as the other threads have clearly pointed out with graphs. What constitutes evaporation and transpiration differs from place to place and at different times as the climate change. Humans have major impacts on these activities, if you really want to see how tragic effects are, as the man said, go to Africa, the have bore alot of the cost of climate change, not only do they have to deal with higher temperatures, but sea surface evaporation, which determines inland rainfall is govern by direct sunlight that strikes the sea surface. This is blocked by particulates that come from India, as a consequence their climate is not only hotter but also dryer.

By overvolting you mean alteration of local climates and hydrology as a result of increased transpiration. Two effects, first particulate emmision, notably coal smoke and chaff burning are going to lower pan evaporation rates, so rises in transpiration in asia due to rice farming may be offset by these particulate emmisions. The second is jet trails, these high altitude trails were once believed to block evaporation rates, however its now observed that over forest the diffuse light they produce allows photosynthesis deeper into the canopy for longer periods, since the upper leaves saturate with light, at the saturation limit transpiration begins to be modulated, howver the light that is redistributed by jet trails is permissive to more transpiration. The other metric is lakes for water storage versus oceans, fresh water has a higher evaporation rate. Much of that water is returned locally in the form of precipitation. Overuse for agriculture reduces and changes the pattern of soil hydration, droughts caused by climate change also alter this. Lakes Mead and Chad are examples of drought caused lowering, the aral sea is an example of overuse. In the case of greenland warming results in freshwater basins in the summer time. In a greenhouse i assume that the LED lighting system would be tuned to the exact frequency plants need and pulsed as to prevent photosynthetic saturation, thus minimizing the amount of transpiration. However plants grow bigger faster, low protein crops lose their advantage for things like C4 (corn), so then the specialization would be into things like legumes. Quinoa is somewhat advantageous because its high altitude growth means the greenhouse pressure can be lowered, other high altitude crops may be selected. Dont drink water at the table, lol.

I thought I would share this link with the group. They claim that average water use per annum is 10700 cu kilometers. This sounds insanely high. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35082422 I calculated this is equal to 1.07E13 cubic meters of water of 1.07E16 liters of water per year, per person this comes out to 1.5E6 liters per year or 4185 liters per day. 10700 = 1.07E4 A kilometer = 1000 (10^3) meters. A cubic kilometer is therefore 10^9 meters cubed. 10700 x 10^9 = 1.07E13. There are 1000 liters in a cubic meter so this translates to 1.07E16. 1.07E16 / 7E9 = 1.5E6. 1.5E6/365.25 = 4185. So here I worrying about a 40 gallons water use a day, why exactly am I worrying, the water use that is out of my control exceeds the water use under my control by a factor of 20. A single pound of beef takes 1800 gallons of water. Hmm since I don't eat beef, not a problem. Ok so I do eat buffalo (very little of it in fact, but I only eat small amounts of grass feed animals) but its forbidden here to feed them cultured crops so . . . . . http://www.gracelinks.org/1361/the-water-footprint-of-food Here is a table: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste 1 kilogram of rice needs 2500 liters of water, if we consider the energy by density that is about 10000 liters per gallon of cooking oil, if the oil was made from converted starch with no loss of energy during the transition, that about 0.8kg of fat on the body. Egg is a pretty good choice, its 196 liters of water. (57-60 grams per egg) = 3333 liters per kg of eggs. Better choice than beef, which is 15000 liters per kg. Better than chicken, pork, lamb at 4333 per kg, 6000, 10000, respectively, liters of water used per kilo. The worst choice is chocolate, its apparently 17000 liters per pound, its largely fat, so its about twice as water hoggy as rice. Banana and potatoes are a better choice, but their water content is higher than rice. Corn, uses 147 gallons (558.6 liters) per lb of corn, a lb is 0.45 kg so thats 1228.9 liters (compares to 1600 for wheat, barley and rye). Woohoo I score on this one, I eat lots of maize. Dried beans, another native american food crop is 2200 liters per dried kilogram. A quarter cup contains as much protein as an egg, though I think beans and corn both need supplimental sources, so that egg is still in the water budget. None the less I still don't see where the 4185 liters/day is coming from, at least. So this post is tangentially important here, lets say we cut this down to say 800 liters of water a day, this means for every person living in a mars colony if the food is sustainably grown, they are going to have to have something like 100 day supply of water for the crops they grow even if water is perfectly recycled, this means for every person they are going to need to find 80000 liters of water and a place to store maybe 30 percent (because water use shifts in the life of a crop). Things like having water for bathing is a triviality, The greenhouse where the crops are grown would need to be perfectly sealed, even from the bottom, a loss of 1% of the daily water need per day translates into 8 liters of water a day, if there are a dozen people in the colony you would need 100 liters of water generation per day just to keep up. This means something else, structures capable of retaining water (sill-plastic) will need to be brought from earth even if the materials to construct the rest of the greenhouse can be made on mars (aluminum, glass).In addition, prolly gonna needs some chickens, though the budge may not be as bad, since some of the crop waste can be used to feed chickens (ive even heard they eat waste from other animals, humans?). And pretty much if you raise chickens you cant tell the sex till there a certain age so at least some of the males and older females will be on the menu. That entails bringing chickens from earth to mars, you can incubate eggs part of the way, but at some point you are going to have little chicks floating around in space.

The most important weapon to an army is legistical support. You have to feed, educate, and employ people before you can engage in higher ventures. Having siad that the most important point for the current congress is how much taxes they can reduce for their higher contribution constituents. Your future career is like a restaurant at the end of time to them.

gnore the quote above, the new gui is sometimes very glitchy, i quotedd steel's post, the gui quote k2's posted and then posted it before i had a chance to edit it. In response to steel. The reality is that it is more complicated, 5 sigma is used in certain fields because certain causes of variation are either difficult or impossible to control for. 2 sigma in genetics used to be frequently wrong, for example for studying genetic association with low penetrance disease because authors were sampling several genes and publishing each paper separately some authors even failed to report on genes that gave negative results. When bonnferonnis corection was applied to these statistics they corrected (coorected threshold was frequently in the 10^-8 to 10^-10). But when authors looked at the expected versus observed low probabilty associations they found that the threshhold accepted H0 when it was probably not true and these actually outnumber rejected H0 by several magnitudes, subsequent studies proved. The basic problem is there is no good way to correct for percieved variation other than discovering the source of that variation and crossmultiplying it out. (I hate this gui, really it just goes and starts doing what it wants, im saying this here because i went back to edit part, but the gui would not let me scroll down, i had to close the kb gui, try to scroll down and reapply kb). In this instance when you have no idea how big the boson has to be, which is probably better than using single sided if you were simply asking is the a particle out there bigger than the biggest particle (~170 GeV for a fermion). 1 sigma splits +/-16% 2 sigma splits +/-2.3% 3 sigma splits +/- 0.13% 4 sigma splits +/- 0.0032% 5 sigma splits +/- 0.000049% So basically if you need a 1 in 3.5 million chance of being wrong..... A sigma of 2.5 is wrong 0.62% of the time A sigma of 3.5 is wrong 0.032% of the time, without considering other sources of variation, the odds of two standalone experiments being wrong based on these two in any good meta analysis would place the p value below the 5s threshold. . However this is not the data, the problem is that we do not know how many ecperiments have been done, and whether we should include the results of past experiments that were inconclusive, because of things like marginal power. Then for each of these we have to ask the level of dependency or relevancy on the question being asked, for example is there no evidence of a particle between 170GeV and 999Gev. That needs to be taken intonthe stats.

What i said, unlikely, Think about what you are saying: collisions, subset collisions with large cross-sectional overlap, subset collisions that produce gamma, subset produced gamma that is detected. To get a sigma of 2.5 to 3.5 you would need to have something like 10^10 collisions. The photons themselves carry more info than hv, the also carry directional and polarity information which should be interpretable.

Its real, combining the results at least suggests so. 5 sigma is a bit overkill

The problem is likelihood, what is the likelihood that you could have a higgs just capable of generating two photons. Yes there are likely larger higgs, but this one is an odd fit without seeing all kinds of other products. I notice that some articles mention higgs, but it is unclear were they are talking about higg-like bosons, which could be anything, its just like saying a w-boson is a z-like boson. Biased really, though other here-named options like super sym and 5th dim gravitons are also not choice other. Placeholder particle name until more characterization is done.

Interesting because on the plot they show online they also have a set of points at 1500, not as many as at 750. Do they have another massive particle in the pipeline? I should say looks over 1000, may not be 1500.

We already have a thread discussing this why do we need another one?

Four higgs particles is not going to create a pair of photons, that can be ruled out, that out of the way this paricle is 10 times the size of the previous higgs. Second i don't recall anything about the previous higgs indicating it made photon pairs as it decayed. So its different enough not to call it a higgs, if it makes you happy i can call it sighg, having all the letters but not "higgs"

You left off, not possible but still investigate the possibility. Kind of dumb poll, its like asking when will we disciver if tachyeons exist. When will we discover if fire breathing dragons exist.

http://www.nature.com/news/lhc-sees-hint-of-boson-heavier-than-higgs-1.19036 The particle produces 2 @ 375 GeV photons when it decays. Suggesting it has 7500 gEV of energy. Not a higgs either

The action potential works by depolarization, once the threshold voltage is surpased, the ptoential is carried down the axon/myliean sheath to the next set of recptors, once the trigeer is released we are not taling about quantum effects, but the laws of mass action acting in mass. There is always a threshold point were one more atom can cause an effect, but most responses require a plurality of neurons, so those effects are modulated. When we talk about any process or pathway there is also the evolutionary aspect, the mutation process itself is a quantum activity, particularly when we talk about radiation driven mutations. Meiotic cell division and recombination are quantum like. A male for instance adds either his male or female parent chromosome (marked by centromer) but the ends have undergone random recombination with the alternative parents chromosome. The semen contains essentially all possible combinations of the two parents alleles the son(the male) , but only one, the one that fertilizes the egg, matters. IOW the male parents contribution can only be known when they intgrate into the ncleus of the fertlized egg, until that point the contribution could be any of billions of possible contribution. The difference from any generic quantum system and Heisenberg derived quantum mechanics is QM systems that derive unpredictable behaviors from very small particles is that the wavelenghts are large enough that we can see an intrinsic variation that is pecisely predictable. IOW we can precisely predict the variation, but we cannot predict the outcome of single particles. If during the process of generating photons from a higly predictable energy source you make positions less predictable and make the frequency highly predictable and vice versa, you can't do this with macropic systems.

The dying zone differs for different people. Thier is the claim is that the sherpers have genes they inherited fron Neandertals that improve high altitude survivability. You could get a collection of genes and if you could have some who could set and survive with a lower body temperature you could go higher. There are also environmental things like optimal climbing diets, right cloths, load acclimization. Humans are not that well adapted to extremes altitudes and for good reason, if we look for instance at paleolithic bone carbon for the majority of african derived humans there has tended to be a higher than present marine carbon content. This is particularly true in Europe prior to the neolithic, there was a shift from neandertals than had lower marine carbon content to late paleolithic humans. This is for a good reason, if your an extreme generalist, you want to spend most or you time were your calories are. This guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverine apparently cross an alaskan moutain peak in the dead of winter simply because its a short-cut. It digs into the snow during the coldest part of the year, not to hibernate but to procreate, resourced on the carrion of mammals that did not survive the winter. They probably developed a cold weather high altitude endurance because animals that were pushed up slopes and perished in winter would be a bounty during the thaw in winter. The limits are flexible, but there has to be a selective pressure to keep the rare mutations that appear from time to time in the breeding population.

This article i found this morning http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2586 I have to say, i never believe anything that i read in Nature or Science in the general science topics. Nature broke me of that in 1986 with thier article about homeopathic behaviors of IgE and the followup test of the lab using the magician the Amazing Randy. Henceforth i consider the Journals to be coffee table science magazines. I read the editorials and i follow the collections, for example the NASA exposee on plutos new horizon, and some of the paleonstuff, always good to search the authors names in other journals though like JHE AJHG AJPA, etc and see if you can find an article that would have the best field specific peer review. Science claims they seek the most qualified referees for each paper, however thier very high rate of retractions suggests otherwise. They always can come up with an answer for you to explain thier failures, the best answer is caveot emtor.