PB666

fortunately his page is so whack it wouldnt scroll on my ipad

Discrete states, hmmm, sounds like what is said, super position implies simultaneity. If what you are saying is correct then flourescense and phophorescnce cannot exist, because the product photon could result from any state between its incident energy and dE of the excited state. But this is not the case, flourescence spectrum comes in a dsitribution completely separated from the excitation frequncy. If what you are saying true and there is a continuous sspectrum of eigenstates, a photon will spontaneously appear at any and thus the relaxation photn energies would not exhibit a discrete distrbution relative to the exciting photon. Show you explanation of dicrete flourescent states.

There are a couple of things, because of the CMBR its speculative, the conversation before pair-pair production becomes increasingly speculative (despite what you see on TV). But a reasonable assumption is that as electrons and positrons appeared, they annihilated and produced light, but not necessarily hitting their own anti-particle, some where traveling faster, some slower. Those traveling faster would have produced more intense EM, and interaction between powerful EM or larger particles may have created, IOW, given a kinetic distribution of energies, somethings produced matter and somethings did not have enough energy and spread away as CMBR. You have to read the chronology of the big bang, at the very beginning (inflation: before inflation its all quantum physics) very exotic material poured into the universe, a very hot by our standard universe, in fact it was so hot that normal matter could not exist (therefore as one researched said, it was cold). During that stage of the universe electromagnetic radiation at the Comptom limit could have existed and through processes, that electromagnetic radiation began to lower its frequency and as it did it tended to form matter more stably. Thus this radiation was capable of generating some of the most massive elementary particles known, but they were not stable and quickly underwent decay to other stuff that was too unstable to survive eventually generating photons. The reason we don't see that radiation today is because the universe spread out an cooled so instead of proton-antiproton plasma forming EM the EM we see, largely from the sun, is UV, capable of knocking electrons from a lower orbital to a higher orbital. Light, which largely knocks the orbitals of chemicals that have looser electrons, like those in the orbitals of heterocyclic organics or oxides of transition metals. These electrons are released from the sun because of its temperature and ability to excite. When you see a solar event, these are throwing very hot gas, and this is emitting X-rays. X-rays can knock electrons clean off an atom. So with chemicals we have a good means of looking at the problem. A chemical known as flourescent absorbs light at one wavelength (x/frequency) will emit at a lower frequency. The electron returns to its orbit, but some of the energy in the excitation and relaxation increases the rate of wobble of the molecule and atoms in the molecule, this is heat energy and it is released separately. The sun actually can heat the surface of the earth by this mechanism, and the radiation released is almost always a lower wavelength of radiation. So that is the basic non-QM cascade of EM, now the weird stuff. Dirac equations have that each time an event takes place this is occurring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation And it basically revolves around the observation that if an electron is excited, it does not migrate from one orbit to the next orbit. The electron disappears from one orbit and reappears in the second immediately, as fast as the speed of light. And because an electron has mass we know that this is impossible, and this is explained by pair production. IOW, the interaction of a photon with matter in the atom produces an matter antimatter pair, the positron consumes the first electron and the second electron appears in the higher orbit. Poof. So apparently in quantum mechanics this is happening all the time. In fact virtual particles are being generated all the time, but are so short-lived we don't catch them. You might think well whats the likelihood that a random virtual particle suddenly appears right as a UV ray is passing an orbital. So then, quantum space is very small, its 10s of magnitudes smaller than an atom, and quantum time is very small, So the question then what is the likely hood of such particles appearing over gigantic number of Planck lengths gigantic units of planks time, the likelihood increases. So that on the quantum physics matter and antimatter are not uncommon, but the events that make the appear to have an effect or stable enough to survive are much less common. The problem with the big bang was whether the quantum mechanical universe was different, was it alot easier to generate crazy virtual particles, and might it be possible today to generate such crazy particles. Here is the crux, QM was the preinflation phase, there was no other physics, and it dominated the inflation phase, and thus we could ask the question whether QM virtuals, or some deeper harder to visualize physics caused inflation and in the case of dark energy might a similar process. So if you could harnass either of these you could create 'pressure' in space-time. We are talking pure speculation. The bottom line is that a pressure energy existed, appeared twice in the history of the universe, but we have no idea what it is.

This argument is a falacy. OK, suppose im Big nation space agency and i see a bunch of upstart space agenicies in other states. What i can do is this, combine a military mission with a science mission, in fact multiple missions. the first group of missions is on my communication or GPS satellite, or even soil moisture or other science stuff I have object trackers. The second mission is interplanetary, in this mission I launch a bunch of small fusifrom shaped radar absorbing drones with retractable solar panels. The then fly around the solar system in a isoperiodic orbit with earth. Then I need to take out a satellite so th predator approaches the L1 point wher it cannot be seen because of light pollution from the sun. it then descends to about the super-moon altitude while keeping its position relative to the sun, it can still not be seen over most of the earth not even its manuevering. It then does a hohmann transfer to intercept its target behind the earth. Without thrusting it is invisible in all but the mid-low Ir spectrum. It has a large metal projectle and an accelerator at its center which it fires at the target it is heavily magnetized, once closed to the target, and that impales the target and sticks inside the target. The delivery vessel drifts back into its original super-lunar orbital position where it ascend back to L1 does a slight retrograde burn and is never seen agian. The projectile could only be detected if the satellite was investigated, the ground might think that there was a thruster malfunction or a random collision. This could be particularly useful against the Chinese because you could argue that this is Karma from blowing a satellite to 3000 pieces, and politically use their previous action against them. You could even create plausible denyability by disabling a couple of your own satellites and maybe a few allied satellites. Then blame other nations for putting useless junk in space or shooting up your satellite. Even more clever is when you have a new satellite that fails, keep it confidential, and then knock it a few times a make spurious claims that you were attacked. Don't say never, its difficult to make anything foolproof because fools are pretty damn clever. - - - Updated - - - [

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-34144310

The universe exists whether or not we exist to observe it, it is a word we use to describe everything, but our estimate of everything and its properties has radically shifted since Isaac Newton. The universe actually is indifferent to our knowledge, whether we know everything or not, and therefore it is free to be what it is, whatever that is. We cannot be so arrogant as past generations to believe we are the first generation to get it right, that is the domain of faith. Almost everything, in fact, is definably beyond our scope, our scope is CNBR. The argument over matter-antimatter asymmetry is an excellent example, all experiments to date show they exhibit symmetry, and there are two theories about the origin of normal matter, and neither have specific evidence, the third which argues that part of the universe is an antimatter universe is left out. While this philosophically is a low-level omnibus, in the specific argument is that while X says it shouldn't happen, he also cannot explain dark matter, dark energy, no-one can, because the explanation lacks data. And the more we test, the same conclusion is repeated. So we have to philosophically account for the information we have, Newton improved our understanding, Einstein improved it more, And QM further improved it, but its not perfect and if we believe that it is generally perfect, then a philosopher would expect violations to occur, not because of the theories, but because of our expectations. If we believe that it imperfect, then philosopher would expect science will occur. A theory is just a word, like universe, like relativity, it does not imply perfection, perfection is an issue of faith, and in that stream stories become theories and theories become dogma. In this case my opinion (also another word) is that we will be gently surprised by the drive, that this wont be a full violation, but a bizarre exception that makes sense in one context, but not all contexts, just like Newton, gravity and inertia. Statistically speaking truth lies at the intersection of valid perspectives, the more perspectives we have on the truth, the better that we can define it, but statistics is not religion, and uncertainty reinforces the hazy nature of things, and so that the best we can get is a confidence ranges that have dimensionality. And a theory could be correct in many dimensions, but lacking of observations in one dimension could blind us to its range in that dimension. I should note that quantum uncertainty is not just a behavior at natural unit scales, any time you deal with small numbers of events uncertainty can exist, 1 person will always win the lottery, before QFT we had the laws of mass action, it applies to just about every discipline, the implications of which normal behavior is observed with accumulation. In this case nature is also a function of observation and perspective. The Cannae drive has been observed under one rather homogeneous set of conditions (two if you count in vacuum and not in vacuum), it does not suffice in creating the proper perspectives. The philosopher would conclude that the argument is incomplete, and not worthy of great effort along the lines don't waste great thinking on bad data.

That depends on perspective, almost everything in our visible universe exhibits a high degree of red-shifting, not to mention light, neutrinos and black holes. Also at the quantum scale, which exists everywhere, Newton is also wrong. Many wrongs however do make a right. I should also mention, that gravity is not a force, if you throw a basketball into the air, there is no force acting on it (except drag) - the basketballs motion relative to the ground is largely explained by an inertial reference frame in space-time. When it strikes the ground, the ground is acting against its inertia, it in a non-inertial reference frame. It continues to act against its inertia when its stops bouncing. Warping of space-time cause by mass is creating a fictitious force, just like centripetal acceleration is a fictitious force. Therefore newton got inertia right in two horizontal dimensions, but not the vertical (radially) dimension, because resting on the ground is a non-inertial reference frame in space-time. In Newtons defense, Einstein is relying on observations that occurred after Newtons death, so with the information that Newton had, there are two valid conclusions and he chose one that later proved to be inaccurate. I should point out that the inventor of calculus and matter energy conservation can get it wrong, and Einstein can get it wrong, to a lessor degree, then QFT could also get it wrong in some aspects, one has to have perspective. In fact if you read some of the articles on quantum mechanics all the oddness and implications have not been worked out. This why its best not to get concretized in a line of thought. So now we have the Cannae drive, it is a piece of information that neither Newton or Einstein had (although the thrust was observed 80 years ago). Neither would be blamed if this shows something else, but the issue is that it hasn't shown its nature, just the result of its nature. Because the nature of the thrust has not been ciphered. All of us want an answer, but lets not lead the question with an answer we want or an answer some of us summarily reject. If we know everything, then its not science.

See their diagram and see if you can make sense of what they are doing.

See KSKs comment on current. I think the issue here is whether they measured enough current, and if so why isn't a little tiny gas bubble or a trace of disolved hydrogen not apparent.

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-team-solar-water-splitting-technology.html#nRlv This is a bit of a caveot emptor, they don't actually see hydrogen or oxygen which means it must be on a very small scale.

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-holographic-lens-method-telescope-lenses.html I like the idea, print a mirror in space but the problem is that the plateform is as important as the mirror, and you have to get the platform up.

http://fortune.com/2015/08/25/grow-metal-like-a-tree/ Sounds like a good part to be made for KSP, metal ore goes into the production unit and a part comes out. Would only work on a celestial.

Safe, on the other hand, is another issue. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150907-the-fastest-stars-in-the-universe

http://blogs.esa.int/iriss/2015/09/06/watch-interact-experiment-live/

Man are we in offtopic land, floation in a submarine is govern by the ratio dry weight, balast and gas filled space. The amount of the last two squares with radius which mens the thickness can be increases with as the square of the area. However there is another option to double down on the level cross sectional bracing per doubling of radius. The washington class of submarine if coverted from a missile launcher prolly could carry a thousand people with some added space age technology. I wouldn't neccesarily dive past 300 meters. On the issue of why, I bet there are several thousand refugees in lybia that wish they had a sub capable of say reaching the US. And of course if you could give the mexican cartel a washington class submarine so that they could smuggle central americans into the US, sleeping on kilo wraps of cocaine they prolly would not decline the gift. Why our military would want a sub that bigger than that, they are actually going for the fast attack subs, bigger subs give a larger reflectance than smaller subs, which means i can ping you and turn head on before you can ping me and get a distance. I simply dive and you go right over me. So your best choice is to evade which means that i can ghost you. Theres all kinds or reasons a group might want a big sub, and all kind of reasons for not having one. I WWii the biggest reason for bigger sub is that they could carry 3 times as many torpedos, they pushed the technology as far as they could. Balistic missle subs required bigger still, but the missiles can reach anywhere on earth, so .......

Not an expert but i think it takes amount of power to laser the isotpes to temperatur and pressure to fuse, and Y amount of power returned and the difference is only a few percent.

funny, being a scientist means that you are irrationally indifferent to how little you get paid. If you are testing logic and knowledge you might want to consider a different measure, such as publications on the matter. In anycase mining everest would not be too difficult, start by using robotics driil in horizontally and but a submarine door on the entrance, pump air in and release it under pressure, will also warm the mine up. Then drill up to target. See Easy. Though this whole topic is decidely off topic and should be summarily ignored.

The nick that has sliderule doesn't age you at all, lol, only because most of the posters here have never heard of a sliderule. On the bright side we prolly don't have any abacus jockey's here.

ty. reset poll and try again.

In complete ignorance, lol, i chose 100 GB. The Unetnookin install on the USB is 1 gb, so that im thinking that the OS and whatevers will be a little bit more. I suspect KSP, unity 5 and blender will go on simply because dealing with Windows hideous file structure, it will be alot easier to go on. Office 2010 and the windows programming suite wiil go on windows. I have a terrabyte green drive that i will move over, so i have alot of space available, just the oS and most used programs are on the Ssd and images and other data on the physical disk.

I haven't mentioned batteries yet. How long did it take for lithium ion batteries to go from first experiments to your cell phone. We are discussing fusion reacors as electric power supply for IS spacecraft and yet fusion reactors have been 20 years in the future since 1960. Bet graphene reaches the public before fusion power does.

Very powerful photons can annihilate to form matter and antimatter. Less powerful photons can add mass to electrons or positrons, and still lower energy electrons give mass by increasing the wobble of atoms in the form of heat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reionization Reionization is responsible for CNBR.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/discovery-farthest-galaxy-brings-questions-early-universe/story?id=33583326 This is actually an intesting article and suggests there might be older galaxies enshrouded in plasma left over from the opaque epoch.

Lol, yep.