PB666

Yes, however in journals that overlap several disciplines of science, definition of abbreviations and acronyms are best. The way I look at the problem is that if the average reader can not pick up your paper and interpret your math without going to an outside source . . . . . .I just had sent back a manuscript because the author used a six letter acronym in the title and did not defined it in the paper. Referees let us know, papers that are incomplete, we can't find referees for (they refuse) so its always better to complete the definitions. The problem with the motive illistration is that the trasitional state is not complete at some point you would expect all energy to pour into the second state, it still does not have enough energy for its state, the outer most shell needs to lose while the inner most needs to gain. But you are missing one thing, they claim, one of the so-called QM guys, that the transition was mediated by virtual pairs. So atsome point in your diagrm the virtual positron would annihilate the low energy orbit and a virtual elecrtron would appear in the second orbit to complete, the energy left in the two adjacent would relax into an unstable second orbital. Then the whole thing would spontaneously reverse.

Hmmm, magmesium is stable as 2+ and has a aw of 24.3, if we go by that the charge to mass ratio is 0.08 while Xenon is 0.008 for the first electron, etc, so you would have to strip 10 Xenon electrons to have the same ability to accelerate as fast as Xenon. The reason its a waste is the magnesiun ~3.5 more momentum but 10 times as much energy. This problem can be overcome only if the an equvilent reduction if a 3.5 fold lower solar power weight. More so in mars orbect. The problem with xenon is that it has proportionally more neutrons and is harder to remove its inner most electrons relative to magnesiums inner shell neutrons. We'll it looks like we don't need a massive VASIMR, bad for them, we need much more power to weight generators. Mg is lower aw than argon and is much much easier to store in space.

http://honisoit.com/2015/09/university-of-sydney-student-smashes-nasa-record-for-fuel-efficiency-mars-and-back-on-a-tank-of-fuel/ Pure magnesium is a solid with a considerably higher density than xenon and in zero atm does not need to be contained, but how to atomize the magnesium before ionization? They claim its is arched by electric current and then focused into the propulsion accelerator. Anyway Vasimr is higher.

more along this line https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/invisibility-cloaks-slim-down

IOW, ouch.

Ah a challenge. The universe is the dynamic consevation between all that we can perceive exists and that which we cannot perceive exists. We can't see how the pie is created because we either exist in the filling or the crust, but not both.

^^^^^^^^^^ The mars capsule itself would take 15 years to develop, it would have to go though months of testing attached to something like the ISS. I'm on NASAs side, particularly in the postColumbia public attitudes. Yes they need to be evolving to a better manned platform than the 1 per 3 month umbilical cord that exists between earth and ISS, but my goodness, it would be a disaster to plan a suicide mission. I personally don't have a problem with sending older astronauts to mars who know the outcome, but the Mars1 missions are bad idea.

I think we might have a research station on Mars, I doubt we will ever colonize mars. To formally colonize you have to have some concept of future growth, and there is none on Mars, the growth is still on earth, its easier to exploit interplanentary space for resources than to spend all the dV getting on and off Mars. Thing about space we can move a craft so it moves into optimal energy production (somewhere close to Venus orbit), and redirect comets and asteroids to harvest points. Mars is too cold, too small, too dry.

I did not say anything about earth in this sentence, it refered to life anywhere Enough said. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26187720

So the basic arguement here concerns one person who states that we can apply variant notions of life to xenobiotic studies and another person who is exactly focused on a single notion of how life evolved. I could respond to all the comments creating a wall of words, I will respond to a few things, but make the statement that you cant make a five course meal starting from concrete. Either your starting materials have got to be flexible in their design or your craft will be nothing but structurally undefined aggregate. (Without using personal comments). #1a. Yes, which serves a function, that function is to keep the hydroxyl free radicals away from the DNA of both cells. So there is a grand reasoning for not incorperating mtDNA into the genome for its primary purpose of generating ATP and NADPH. Functional preservation of an ancestral trait. #1b. Yes, by separating the genomes (mostly, many mtDNA genes are now encoded by the genome), the mt are free to divide, so for example an sperm cell may have x number of mt and a muscle may have 1000x mtDNA per haploid genome. IOW this allows cells to differentiate DNA copy number allowing for oxygen requiring cells. This is a very good reply. But we need to focus on the variants of the process. There are eucaryotic cells that have adapted a wide variety of processes including glycolysis. Certain benthic worms use another organelle to process other sugars for energy. There are a wide variety energy extraction processes, and certainly the evolution of cyanobacterium influenced the course of life on earth due to the great oxygenation event. These other processes can also be seen as evolutionary variants, including cells that loose mitochondria. I can refer to the fact the red blood cells also loose their nucleus, this is another variant. So which is more important the nucleaus or the mitochondria, or maybe its a bad question, maybe the question should be how has selection evolved to force structure function changes. And there are some that for the most part don't use their mtDNA, as might have been the case when mt were encorperated into cells. The point of forming a cell is that it facilitated life, more than a billion years ago, and since then have you seen a truely single cell procaryote come forth that is progressing in the direction of multiorgan life, Even an annelid like work would suffice as evident. No..So you are essentially digging around for exceptions and claiming they are the rule. The rest of the post is cut short because of the level of diatribe. The point is that fundamentally we don't know and can't be clear, you are denigrating the authors (and me), but as a matter of point you are showing a concretized point of view. This is particularly relevant for study of xenobiota since we are not likely going to find ants, nematodes or other forms of life. The mostly forms of life we will find are in the transitional or pretransitional phase. Its not about, or has nothing to do with elaborate images of what our minute instances of life look like. Terraforming on any scale would require a knowledge of the basics, you can easily eradicate all higher lifeforms on a planet, but getting rid of the basal forms and early transitional forms would be the hardest. And if you do not understand them and how they might have evolved then controlling their behavior will be difficult. I should point out classically the hardest diseases to fight (such as malaria, chaga's disease, etc) are organisms more similar to humans than bacteria or viruses. Ergo seeing the variants is more important than wishing for a foregone conclusion. Other than that I like their hypothesis, its kind of neat, and new hypothesis like this always cause hypish controversy which has been the lingua franca of science for centuries, no problem with that either and more than that it draws people out of their little comfort zones and makes them think........ continue diatribe. - - - Updated - - - Trust me, you'll like moderation when its not present.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

CO2 has risen rapidly and fallen before, nothing special there. Photochemical smog has a unique spectrum, lacking the typical volcanic indicators, but they would have to resolve signals from metropolii. A very high resolution telescope like that proposed in the other thread could see oblique night lights maybe at a distance of 1/2 of a light year. Yes if we remove structural limits, we could build a scope that could resolve ES planets 100 ly away in a few pixels of detail. But the structural limit comes from holding the extreme ends of a telescope within micrometers of the idea, avoiding segmental flexibility generated by gravitational waves, drag, solar winds, servo motors, etc.

Multiprocessor cores for Supercomputers are not designed for PC applications they are designed for parallel processing, for example processing the data from thousands of weather stations, sharing the data between adjacent processors and creating a weather model. In the case of the NSA processing all your personal data looking for 'risks' and then moving it over to a separate machine for analysis. Another example, suppose you have realtime data coming in from a space telescope, like SETI, you could divide the spectrum into overlapping segments and then analyze the signals in those segments, some areas with wider spectrum. You would reach a certain limit in games which probably is going to be somewhere on the order of interacting game objects, for example objects like trees, or sprites, or other features, at which point it would not add anything. KSP for instance could benefit by processing information from SOI and surface separately so it could keep track of interaction with Atm or other things while your foreground process is warping. It could also wisely create processes for each fused part, and things like struts (which BTW you can walk through).

Right, that has been improving, so we can suggest improvement or add improved parts. Did not the last version several new science tools, so . . . .whats your point.

mt are not separate from your cells, they are a part of your cell, your nucleus is separated from you by a bilayer, the mitochondria at its most basic level is dependent on the nucleus for enzymes required to reproduce, and the nucleus is dependent on the mitochondria for ATP, which it requires to create DNA. As an molecular paleontologist, there are X, Y and autosomes and mtDNA. Just to correct on something you said above as an example Wheat is hexaploid genome, originally there was a diploid wheat similar to Einkorn wheat, it then form a synsitia with another speltoid wheat to form Emmers wheat, and this then merge with Aegilops tauschii strangulatum to form bread wheat or hexaploid wheat, of course it also has chloroplast and mt. So its actually carrying 5 genomes. The process of synsitia formation is not that unusual in nature. What makes this unusual is that the mitochondria and archea come from two separated kingdoms of life (as we see them) This is a discussion group no, no-one is forcing you to buy it. The critical issue here is that the key to intelligence was a transition from colony forming cells to differentiated cells, to do this without this merger would have been difficult, because the merger starts the process of specialization that then spreads from intracellular to extracellular. It is irrelevant whether bacteria are cell killers, viruses also kill cells, cells can invade and kill cells that is not a specialization of the phyla from which mitochondria arose. Second, have you ever seen a mitochondria from any species leave the cell that it was in and invade another cell? Even the mitochondria of a sperm cell are most often lost, almost never appear in the supsequent generation. Invading cells is not a trait of mitochondria. What I am trying to say is this Step 1. Archea Step 2. Archea that has a cooperative relationship with bacteria on its surface (seen in the gut and soil bacteria). One bacteria produce one set of enzymes and perform one process and the other bacteria perform the other. Step 3. Archea that then bleps membrane making certain relationships more efficient. Over time this evolves Step 4. The membrane bleps surround the bacteria and form a very efficient cooperation, but for example cell division the symbiotes might be lost or the cell has less control Step 5. the bleps surround and fuse, bringing the mt into the cell completely, the added consequence is that it has not created a nuclear bilayer that loops back on itself, the cellular plasma membrane and a two membrane mitochondrial membrane. Step 6. This has to be done each generation until the machinary comes along allowing the plasma membrane to remain intact, and eventually the nucleus dissolves and reconstitutes itself during replication. So if we are looking for life or life progressing toward advancement me might need to look for microbes that are in this transitional phase as well as other potential transitional phases. This study argues that phagocytosis and engulfation was not apart of the archea primordial species, if the bacteria entered cooperation was unlikely, but if the bacteria was blebbed over it could have been the result of a longer multigenerational cooperative strategy that finally became formalized in the unit of the cell.

So Sulfides are not just one entity, a sulfide can be methyl-sulfide, benzyl-sulfide or any long list of alcohols or heterocyclic compounds that contain a sulfur instead of an alcohol. It was not difficult to make a critique and get an answer. Sulfides can also be part of graphene, for example benzyl-sulfide is an example of an aromatically stabilized sulfur. I don't know if you have studied superconductors, but the early breakthroughs at the University of Houston of complex metal superconductors led to many publications in derivatives that were either cheaper or worked better, Some of these superconductors are currently being used in physics technology and other high technology applications. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Sc_history.gif Thus the covelant linkage of graphene to sulfide on its peripheral carbons might turn the combo into a better superconductor, or allow it to work at a higher temperature, In space, particularly deep space, its not difficult if you are traveling at the speed of the solar wind to cool things down to ultralow temperatures. Provide that the equipment you use is super efficient. We could envision Ion drives that work with better transformers, propel mass faster, more efficiently and are isolated from heat sources from their loads. Ultimately the goal of high payload space flight is to get the weight down and increase the energy efficiency of the thruster as well as increasing its ISP. Superconductors work to do both, but at the cost of added weight. So if you missed the graphene thread, the beauty of graphene is that are atomic thickness sheets that can be stacked, sulfides cannot, but if you add a sulfur to graphene carbon, the d2 electrons slightly increase the diameter of the atom but only slightly, which could be trivial if one adds a atomic thickness layer of insulator between sheets. Being an organic chemist by training, I can see really great potential in graphene if some of the forum stated problems are overcome. So there is at least some potential of this in power transformers and electromagnetics. Sulfur is heavy, but its weight relative to graphene, it can have 3C:1S versus 3C:1H and the mininum width of graphene. This would roughly mean a 25% increase in the density of graphene, but its still far-far lower then any superconductor out there that can actually form cable in an easy sense. The question is that if you could increase the critical temperature at the trade-off of density how much would that be worth to doing all kinds of things in space? For someone interested in far IR telescope science and the like it is an important space question.

Answered in other thread, I would think that any deviations from expected results in a collision of two black holes would give us insights into physics of the most powerful events might also give us insights how to create power more efficiently, or control power more effectively, or to create power on a grand scale. I would hope that at least 1 or 2 people here are interested in the science of Space and not just space travel. Doesn't KSP have a major science gathering theme in it. Gravitoli detector, does it not sense gravimetric waves, and what was the articles conclusion, that when the two BH smash together they will generate waves that throw stars out. How is this not appropriate for KSP (better not to answer)? KSP IMHO needs more science, better telescopes, more elaborate science that reflects what space agencies actually do, not just what armchair astronauts wish that they would do.

Euchariotes are actually a polyploid, synsitia of archea and eubacteria. Therefore no archea can be our sole ancestor, thats a forgone, an with an MRCA in the 2 by time frame it is extemely unlikely we would see that transition. Actuallt this hypothesis seems likely. The mt precursor becomes an obligate sybiote of a larger archea, the effect is stronger the move enveloped the mt becomes. Its a likly progressed at that point as a division between the two membranes.

Ive seen less likely equipment on alibaba, the press alone is worth prolly 100 USD. Yes, tryst me, their are scientist out their that have zero budget for new equipment, all they need is a infrared light source and KBr prism and the can have a spectrometer.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/12/76 This paper basically argues that single lipid enclose archea can make blebs that would fuse to make the eucaryotic cell membrane and the outer bilayer of the nucleus. zduring the early process mitochondria were symbiotes that got captured and coated. The ER and golgi apparatus would have evolved later. A previous study has identified the Archea from which eucaryotes evolved , or a very close representative of an last common sncestor.

Bzzzt, wrong answer you were spoosed to say nice pics. http://www.spacetera.com/space-exploration/strange-features-of-mars

When has that reply ever worked?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/space/more-evidence-for-coming-black-hole-collision.html?_r=2