PB666

Do you think they like a dark amusement park after all its halloween?

Yes, but the contents are empty and that constitues empty space; what kind of curtains the dark matter would like, im thinking red on yellow wall paper? Hope they move in fast, i dont want wait too long. According to my understanding any space larger than say planks distance that has no matter is empty, since there is uncertainty of course you have to alot a bigger, say a decimeter, 10^-1/ 10^-35 hey thats aorund 100^100 plank length cubed; lots of room, i could have a whole nation of these dark matter guys.

The mercury is only there to confirm that i have a vacuum. I expect it to fill with dark screed since i have removed all the matter. I dont expect to interact with EM, there but i do expect the mass of my pump to increase since that vacuum contains the vacuum and dark screedy matter resides in the vacuum. Dark screed is the form of aether matter that is drafted into existence when people say it can exist on discussion groups. Its very sensitive so speak kindly of it or it might run for cover. - - - Updated - - - But you said it exists in the vacuum of space where there is no matter. So if i find any section of space and remove the matter and create a perfect vacuum then it should come in and start houskeeping, complete with dark TV sets, dark sofas, dark humor, dark magic, dark tan even a dark exercise bike with a tachometer. Then if I were to connect this vacuum pump via a tiny vacuum line. And so while my vacuum pump is running as i reach a certain low vacuun the weight should suddenly move in, indicating that my dark matter has moved in and gotten comfortable.

Oh this is too rich, the mass that fills space unoccupied by matter. So if i have a four stage vacuum pump and o can pull 0.0001 microns of mercury, is the chamber of my pump going to be filled with aether. While you are trying to answer that i am am just going to fiddle over in the corner. You dont need to pay any attention to my fiddlings Matter, definition of

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/cassini-begins-series-of-flybys-with-close-up-of-saturn-moon-enceladus New NASA update

http://techxplore.com/news/2015-07-boeing-patent-focus-laser-powered-propulsion.html rather than repeat someelses thoughts Actually no, it would never be approved, but if you had a double walled housing and the uranium was sunk between a neutron slowing material and a neutron aborbing material you could circulate heat created from the reactor back into heating gas. This is not what boeing has done, what they are attempting to do is to block other patents of the type by coming up with a one size fits all laser x-nuclear atmosphere or space engine. In theory it works because prompt criticality is removed from the equation, the lasre energize the fusion target producing and amount of neutrons some of which cause fissionable material to crack. There are not enough density of the fissile material to sustain its own reaction. The problem is its an emvironmental nightmare, streaming neutrons, radioactive plutonium, strontium....

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html The green represents a psuedocoloration the microwave spectrum generated at 2.7 kelvin, to desplay an eye-relative variation of a 3D projection to a 2D surface. The temperature now represents a redshifted temperature of to hundreds of millions of degrees before deionization. The frequency fell due to redshifting from near infrared region into the microwave infrared region. Had you been standing in the center of this at that time you would have felt intense heat pouring in from all directions at once it would have felt like being in an oven 3000 degrees, there would be no direction you could turn or block to avoid the radiation because the radiation permeated spaced. The CMBR is not perfectly anistrophic, this is because our galaxy is spinning and it in moving the in virgo cluster, as well as the traveling around the sun. When these are all factored out: in fact the earth is whizzing around relative to where inflation dropped off this space to continue on its journey at about 600 km per second. http://hendrix2.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/lecture-1/cmbr.html You can not win this argument. You can continue to try if you like.

The black hole does not produce jets, the matter swirling around the poles produces xrays due to relativistic effects, the xrays then strike matter far from the hole and eject matter from the galaxy.

Would you stop flooding the group with the same images. Its a waste of bandwidth. your images are not cosistent with universal expansions, what you are saying is simply and completely wrong. The visible universe represents macrscopic matter in the form of large galaxies and galactic clusters moving away form each other, not matter moving away from a small set of points. Your jets reprensent gas being propelled continually by X rays with concentrations in one vicity of space. Because it is not inflation, the maximum speed gas can reach going either direction is less than c. This is not achieved since the gas interacts with other matter and slows down The universe, the visible universe, is moving out ward, not in one place but everywhere. Again CNBR suggests a relatively similar distance and age between ourselves and the end opaque period. That age is 13.8 billion years. In that time period the visible edge has spread to a distance of 92 billion light years. There is no black hole sufficiently energetic to: 1. result in that spread 2. and priduce the same result in every direction Therefore you are ignoring the two most important observations Any reason for CNBR has to explain the uniform distrbution close to the edge of the visible universe AND A process by which matter at the extreme edges exhibit predicted relative superluminal velocities from the perspectice of a interior observers. AND If we begin tracing time backward trajectory for all particles in the universe they roughly merge on us. We then would be but we are not a GBH. For some particles ejected from the poles of back holes, this caanot be done, many would trace origins to a stream. We do not observe this in either trends of galaxies or the CNBR. AND In the backward tracing as things appear to in a process of merging to a point very close to our galaxies past in space we come to a position where the stars disappear leaving a few stars made of hydrogen many of which are faint because space becomes more opaque. This occupation to follow then enters a veil of uncertainty, that if extrapoltated might end up at a single point, a singularity. But the gas in a jet does not come from a single point or a singulaty. That gas is accelerated at great distances from a black hole by xrays, and those xrays from above the event horizon of the black hole. BUT there is no certainty of the cause, at least if we accept quantum uncertainty and that energy was more important than matter, then matter need not ever stopped at the point, it may have flowed in from all and left in all directions. Howver to get uniformity some type of coordinating process must have occurred and inflation from a singularity best explains this. Howver since we cannot estimate the size when inflation stops or the time, ther are macroscopic (non point convergences) phenomena that can also explain; however none of thes involve polar coordination as the result is not a polar universe. And so jets from black holes cannot be the source of the expansion.

You can get the kodiak bears tonwear the bikinis, im sure they wont mind. The fitting is the fun part. ;^)

1. The statement is nonsense 2. The expansion/inflation is based on the hubble 'red shift' the fundemental observation that the exitation frequency of certian atoms that are found in every star have longer wavelength, and lower frequency as the distance approximately increases. Second as distance based red shift reaches a certain esimated distance evidence of stars and all evidence galaxies decline. A small opaque phase which is proceeded by by rare stars without earlier evidence of blackholes followed by the opaque period. 3. There is nothing prior to opaque that can be proven, accepting this is not accepting the bing bang by faith. However extrapolation backwards in time base on redshifting to a state a size where quantum phyics things better than relativistic physics. Namely the density of energy in that state has no pecedence and energy density at such density requires forces to transform. 4. The connection of activities of GBH is not logically tied to events preceding the opaque phase. Data fron the ealiest stars does not indicate that black holes were common or as large as present, early blue stars blew up due to a large amount of gas required to coalesce, casing very short lived stars. Back holes that formed then are much larger today, as black holes gain energy much faster than they loose energy via hawking radiation. 5. Our universe is a unique version of a quantum singularity, not a copy of a black hole, and does not show properties of a black hole. 6. Aether is a term used by scientist a century ago to describe things they were largely ingorant of. The force you attribute has no basis in observations. Most incredulously, you presuppose the nature of dark energy without knowing the field(s) that underlie is origin, you presumb to know its origin without evidence of where it originated, and you presumb to know that which it interacts whithout any evidence of those interactions or the strength in those locations. Added together it means you are speculating based on no evidence. The distances in which dark energy is seen acting on exceed the distance of galaxies.

1. Wrong big bang does not need to be accepted on faith or not, CMBR and generally uniform termination of the opaque epoch does. 2. We see lots of empty space in the universe, much more so than jets. We see alot of isolate gas and plasma, we see alot that is the result of a process that supercedes any process that we have observed. Its observed facts lack precedences of a matrue galactic origin. 3. Two premises are flawed thus conclusions need not follow, end of discussion. 4. Quantum mechanics demostrates that the physical universe cannot always be scaled. Did i not repeat myself, read QFT and stop with the nonsesnse time wasting discussions.

so you contrive this and expect anyone to follow. dark energy is a token for an observation, just like the fall of an apple next to I newton, so the story goes. It is not gravity and in fact Einstein shows that the accelerating apple is due to the fact the apple was freed from a non-inertial reference frame while anewton was not. in this example Newton calculates the force which we call gravity, is actually a psuedoforce, Newton failed to realize that he was in a non-inertial frame but the apple was not. You are doing the same thing, but not even testing as Newton did, dark energy is just a pressure, not specifically anything. There is currently no earthen measure, it exists only to explain a transition of redshifts of a particular supernova type. It could be the inflation of spacetime itself, and thus there may a highly obscure field associated with it. Secondarily, you deny the experimental results which say no,.... its a null, we cannot reject the null hypothesis and accept an understanding for which there is no statistical basis. Blab on if you like, you can't make good theory with bad data.

You are asking a philosophical question not a scientific one. If you see the feynman lectures he explains how diiffern perspectives on a point are connected, some points cannot be causily connected. Spacetime is a way of representing four dimensional entity. Expansion of comoving units can occur by any numbervof forces, as long as there is no expectation of anisotrophy, its ok. Once you remove scenarios that result in large structural anisotrophies such major curvatures of space time close to the CNBR, you are left with scenarios that require 'mass'less expansions. Remembering the e =mc^2 you now have a problem the infiltration of matter generating energy feeds into a mid inflationary scenario. The problem is that no -one knows how long inflation lasted or how fast the edges of the immediate post inflationary bubble were moving. zas a consequence there is no foundation for estimating the size of the universe, other than it is much much bigger than the visible universe and it is undergoing an accelerative expansion. If this explanation does not suit you consider this lets replace the four forces of physics with two chemicals. At the beginning I know these two are going to react but not how. I vigorously mix then in the cold until they are uniformly distributed and they gel into a ball, My next dorr neighbor is a nuclear physcist, as a joke he pulses my mixture by using an EMpulse. The reaction begins with great heat, causing the sphere to expand, for the briefest moment i can see through my experiment, but at the moment it both hardens, an endothermic reaction, and cools, creating vacuum between the finest lattice of a-b turning the whole sphere white. My neighbor now coming to check on his prank sees a giant white ball. he has no idea how it got there. Now the particles in the ball just happen to be sentient, but have yet to realize they were created by an unfortunate series of interactions. They strive to know how they can to be 1. they look around and observe out in the distance opaqueness 2. they create ball ships that travel every direction, even one that traveled in my balls moving frame to its origin, but as they got closer, they are actuslly traveling away from the event in time. 3. now it turns out the ball had a strange property, it never stopped growing, the threads inside got longer, and as the others approach the edge it gets farther away, so that they cannot reach. i know they are composed of a,b,and vacuum because i am familiar with the initial state and i can then measure the derived state. They can only see half the states, so they have to try to deduce states. However their ability to deduce is depending on them correctly seeing a-b derived states, we call product fields. And from the product feilds thay can hypothesize initial states. If you fundementally don't believe all initial feilds and product feilds are known, then , as i do believe it is almost impossible to deduce the initial state. Even if you know the initial fields there could be alternative states that could result in the product. So it is a philosophical question since science likes questions that can be probed and answered.

Just in case you dont dark energy is an unknown pressure-like force that accelerates galaxies at very great distances away from each other. It may also do other things. The key to being dark and not xyz field, critically and most importantly is that it is unknown. The latest study to try to measure it produced a null result. It does not act on small scale, thus its not a form of qve, and iif its a cosmological constant, its extremely weak. IOW the conditions in which dark energy acts cannot be reproduced in any laboratory in any form and might require some much more controlled observation, such as in deep space.

lol, you went there. . . . . .No but if you place a wheelunder the print base you actually could. I think for most of the people in this group we are beyond string bikini age, let alone appropriate body form.

And all have been shown to be flawed. Again you continue to rely on flawed data to support your speculation and de-facto ridicule others when in fact it is you who are not consideing the facts. If the early universe showed significant aniisotrophy, trust me I would be at the front of the chorus, its not, nor can we see but a speckling of neutrinos that came before, it is truely a veil. Summarily, i dont trust anyone who says they _know_what happened before the CMBR, its the big red stop light on the edge of what can be seen. The fact that you claim you know undermines any credibility you might have. Second, the patterns in that data eventually refuted was that small scales swirls resulted at the end of inflation (i actually read the whole paper), not motifs that covers our sky, which, btw is at the visible limit a tiny fraction of the universe, but motifs that were fractional and not indicative of a rotation of the universe as a whole. According to inflation theory, the process begins before and ends nearly at the time of electroweak separation, thus there is no normsl matter to turn, at best ferrmionic sea appears at the end, this is not clear due to the subsequent opaque epoch. Again it is essential to be honest about the fact when arguing otherwise its basically pulling facts out of thin air. Despite what steven hawkins might have said or the attempts of grand unification, last i checked quantum gravity, gravitational waves fron inflation have not been detected and the neutrino signal is weak and understudied. IOW pre-recombination has not been demonstared, Every thing regarding events before is just speculation. I can tell you what has been estimated, based on expansion of spacetime. Inflation explains CMBR best and the relative distance across the visible universe, comoving at its visible boundaries to a width of 92 billion light years. This had been taken as the size, but that is no longer supported, the universe is much larger. If there is an edge, we cannot see it, and we are far from it, this is Evident in CMBR. Also evident is a process of inflation, although with dark energy now in the equation, its not clear that inflation was entirely discrete. However, it is clear that a process other than expansion is responsible for its growth, expansion without inflation leads to considerable anisotrophy. The universe as it appears is a big expanding bubble of spacetime in an unknowably larger bubble that gives very few clues to its structure beyond, that we do know. We can argue about observed structures and what they mean in that context, but to be honest these are nothing more than just arguments. To be clear you bring nothing to the argument but old theories based on conclusions based or flawed data and you are cherry picking miss-facts and ignoring the widely accepted obsevations.

It involves something tacitly approved in another thread that at least the way I read it, was inconsistent with QFT in any form that I have read. As you know when have had discussions in the past to specify feild when it could be replaced by particle or wave. We know that field propagation is a consistent feature of the universe, we cannot be clear, for instance, that gravity has a particle duality. Nor is it clear that any new feild that might be discovered will show a duality, so discussing a duality; although it is unlikely that it will not show aspects of a wavefunction. Thats why I gave the equations. that was my effort to be inclusive, there could be circumstances when E(photon) exceed PeV that might have existed in the very early universe where charge is not a manifestation of the electron or proton (proper), and actually one could argue it could have technically preceeded quark-gluon plasma. vacuum depends on how you define it, prolly best not to during inflation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch

Unfortunately i have to repeat what i have repeated over agiain, not meant to offend, but statement of fact. The CMBR, which is the radiation indirectly left over from recombination that we can neither see nor verify, is roughly uniform and roughly of a common distance in age and distance. There have been a couple of claims of the CMBR exhibiting structurally meaningful variation, such as circulations or micro swirls, however more recent data shows that the type of data these authors used coukd also be explained by more recent interactions. In addition if there was major rotational velocity, then the frequenicies of the red shift of CNBR would differe acroos our sky just as GBH are able to shifht light into the x-ray range preferentially from one perspective versus another. CNBR is a logical trap of sorts, if you have a theory and it cannot explain the uniformity of the Radiation, then its not a viable theory. CMBR can only really sift bad theories from possible theories, it cannot prove any theory of what happened before as true because, except for neutrinos, we cant observe any event from an earlier spacetime. Even the best we can see in differences are things that came after and essentially involve the behavior of hygrogen gas and plasma. Also do yourself a favor and get a basic understanding of QFT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory Sorry about posting this, its not new material I just wanted to correct some misinformation being thrown about the group. I suspect that most of the participants of this group already know this, some may even have points of contention or correction of this but as far as I know the understanding appears largely correct. The key point of this approach is that when fields (pl) appropriate parameters superpose, a particle can be observed, the fields propagate whether or not a particle is observed. For example two sufficiently powerful EM fields can superpose and result in a matter-antimatter pair. It does not have to be EM, it could be fields found within plasma, or even unknown field. Waves and particles are a manifestation or propagation of the field. The wave-function of the field is given by simple wave functions Psi(x,t) in the above Schrodinger equation to derive the below for interactions. Again there will always be some uncertainty at the smallest scales because of quantum uncertainty and Monte Carlo effects. Particles and waves are manifestations of the field. The Feynman lectures are now on line as mentioned in the other post, the parameters such and vector field and intensity are defined there rather completely, as completely as one can describe them. Instead of arguments with folks that might have their facts awry or are using observations from the 1930s to 1950s that were not mainstream, it might be better to compare the facts with a current accepted set of baselines. QFT in my mind is not perfect, that is because it lacks a fundamental basis in itself (although not for lack of trying as in string theory), not a fault of QFT but a fault in our ability to observe that basis. When we look at Newtonian or relativistic physics, they appear complete until we observe things on very large or small scales, and quantum mechanics has the same limitiations, but in fact we cannot see anywhere near Planck's scale, so resolving more basal level of physics is difficult. But even at that, at least the way i see things the inconsistencies between particle and wave theories can be explained with QFT.

Then i seriously doubt you know what you are talikng about. one of the questions ask in one our worksops awhile back was why one oarticular reaearch could not resolve more interactions. For example the might 5000 factor in a cell that can be identified, but the could only display inteactions for a limited number simply because they lack CPU power, as I understand this the chinese built him a multimillion dollar supercomputer. You seem to be easily blowing off problems that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, I saw the same behavior in the tracing discussion with K2. Science I can tell you with out hesitation has processing needs that blows the doors off of game computers. Just submit a reasonably long query to Blast and see how long it takes for them to get you back a response. to the specific critique you raise, ther are feilds like name, address, PID, that combined can create a search. There are other things that do not. When you have say 10000 base units, and each base units has 1000000 max quartenary markers and each of those markers may be in condition related epistasi, but you have no aprioris, and in addition there can be environment gene epistasi again with maybe one aprior. The rest is carving out dimensions. You ca optimize it starting with the most linked alleles or supect invironmental links, but the reality you will burn though those rapidly, in the case of low penetrance diseaese you are looking for a large environmental comtributer that is virtually invisible and 90% without aprioris. You can have facto x in epistasis with an associated gene, but because one ir two of the epistatic genes are so uncommon in folks withou the gene env combo it will be virtually invisible. That is why some groups advocate sequencing the entire genome of people affected by low penetrance disease, in the sheer hop they can find a marker with better linkage to a nearby marker with poor linkage. Think about all the variables in your life month born in, year born in, were you breast fed, how long, did you get adequate vitamins, what types if meat did you eat, how old were you when you started eating cereals, do you work indoors or out, are you exposed to alot of microbes or not, when did you start havin relationship with others, do you have siblings with similar conditions, what diseaes gave you had, what vaccinations have you had, what do you eat, what types of fat, sugars, protein, do you exrcise, indoors or outdoors,.......now multiply all that agianst all the rare markers you have........A common man would say no, but this is not common stuff, genes and environment are in dynamic equilibrium, selection acts in the gene via the individual, and the individual interacts with the gene in every way he can vary his environment. Even moving across a bridge has been demonstared to have an effect on the genetic penetrance. This is why i make the statement about quantum states be a small scale behavior, penetrance in humans is the equivilant of quantum uncertainty.

I've heard GPUs can be run, there was a professor on NPR talking about how he increased the speed of his computer 5 fold by using the GPU to do some of the math. Right now I would be very happy if I could get the ubuntu debugger to work they way everyone says it works. The problem is that I never considered the GPU capabilities when i built my current, its just an off the shelf board with an Intel GPU (which is now not being used) and anoother off the shelf video card. I think the i7 has the high performance on-board processor, not willing to pay the extra 200$. First branch I have calculated the minimum number of branches to fully utilize the i5s x64 instruction set is 40 per complete cycle, hopefully at least 32 cycles per call, its about 1:1 conditional:unconditional with about a 40% jump instruction frequency (could be off by 10%). Anyone familiar with using gdb and kgdb on unbuntu 14.0, seems like its broken.

Yep, while 7 dimensions is pretty far up there, I have had analysis as far as 10, where you need to be able to access most of the variables directly, it really builds up the code. The problem in science Jouri doesn't realize is that there is theoretically no limit on the dimensions one might have or the size of any one dimension. If you go out to 4 dimensions on a modern computer it does not take that much processor power, add a couple of more and it could take weeks. How you know you are going to have problems, if your nesteds in Excel break the machine, your are already in VBA land and moving toward stand alone programs. I had a i386 assembly program that ran on 40mhz DX with 64mb of memory for a month to complete. One of the common things that is done now-a-days is to data-mine clinical, demographic and environmental parameters with computerized submissions, some of these studies in Europe for example DAISY study of type 1 diabetes has 10,000s of patients and you are looking for correlations of potentially hundreds of variables. This is particularly important because the identical twins studies pretty much divides environmental and genetic influences and currently only a small fraction of both have been identified (genetics is rather progressed). So you can have 200,000 SNPs, millions if they emply disease-specific genome sequencing coupled with typing correlated potentially with 100s of environmental variables and the computer needs to be able to pick out that an gastrointestinal virus outbreak in some province in 1972 is associated with a spike of new cases that appear a year later or 40 years later. The basic problem here is not that you are looking for unknowns, you are, but just like dark matter and dark energy, you know the unknowns are there, and so the equipment and the analysis need to be sensitive enough to detect these. He's basically wrong, if you know your algorithm is going to have to run either once or repeatedly for several months, then its better to optimize, in this case it will allow you to include more comparisons.

If it biodegradable maybe the fish will eat it, problem solved. hmmm, the law of unintended consequences kicks in again.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34486870