PB666

http://qubitsnews.com/2015/08/31/worlds-thinnest-light-bulb-created-from-graphene-2/ Now we have a graphene with LED like properties.

So what is a good drive partition, is 50 Gb oK, I have a 500 ssd and win 10 is hogging up its fair share. I made the mistake on my old system that win 7 would be happy on 64. Every software in the world tries to force install on the primary or tries to place its data files in the user directory. I can go to 100 GB or even 150.

You're the one who is getting offended, I made no mention of the lower energy stuff. I made specific statement at the problem with higher energies, which I in particular stated. I also stated that they fall within the expected range, in complete consistency with what you said. So point out specifically where the difference is. The only difference between me and you, is that when you rebuffed a poster, you failed to mention the stipulation that the precision is not quite as high, you could have also mentioned that this does not explain the difference in momentum that Cannae drives offer, because it is at very different energy scales. So I fixed the problem for you by mentioning it. Problem solved. Not every thing I see wrong posted here I note in that thread, but If I see new research or new articles I might drag up a old post and post on the topic, I think its fair to give updated information on old subjects. Not only simple device but markedly lowering the types of particles that will be generated by the collision and at much higher energies. If you want me to get offended explain to me why a Socket 775 Mobo with built in LAN on Windows 7 cannot communicate with a brand new Modem/Router and yet a Brand new Windows system (which I threw together from amazon bought parts between posting with you this morning) with no driver installation for the LAN card can immediately connect to the internet. Particularly, that I have had the same Win7 system on a Router and Modem combo for 7 years and it worked fine. And also I have a day in store of transferring every thing from my old machine to a new computer because some weirdness of communication. Not to mention reinstalling programs and I am going to have to install Office 2010 or later which means, after long and intentional delay I will have to migrate (a very cheap word to describe a very difficult topic) all my VBA aps to VB.Net (including things like changing the base values of all arrays to 0). There are offenses, and then there are offenses. The only good thing today is that the USB3.0 install of 10 on an SSD took about 5 minutes,and I am finally going to install linux and hopefully divorce myself from all this Windows forced cycling.

Will start or revive old thread on Higgs. This will follow space-time thread. Not today, however.

The problem in collisions between protons is that they are composed of three quarks and the gluons that bind them together, this greatly complicates the analysis of the collisions. Yesterday in one of threads a statement was made that conservation laws were conserved up to TeV range. Well not exactly, only within a statistical range can all momentum be analyzed, some of the momentum in the collisions ends up in undetected particles, particles that need to be mathematically corrected for. Some of the collisions are glancing blows and the result particles end up in detectors far from the collision along the path of travel. What this means is that at these ranges they only verify if the observations are consistent, but small differences from the expectation could potentially go undetected. This colliders offers a simpler type of collision, one fermion against its anti-particle. Since these are simpler particles the accounting is far simpler. http://scitechdaily.com/plasma-wakefield-acceleration-a-step-toward-smaller-particle-colliders/

I don't think i asked what you thought you think i knew. After reading the article i detected a deficiency in what they claimedand they did not give any coherant indication of where the spread came from. Since you don't seem compelled to explain it, I prefer the primary literature, and you like to devolve into 'only respected Particle physicists are allowed' platitudes then I think Its better that i do get it from the published lit anyway. And i told you the truth the original copyright date on my physics text is from 1980 and at its writing it wasn't comprehensive, and out of date past 1960s. So at this point I know to ask where this is pointing. I can read the primary and secondary literature just fine, thank you very much, but I have to know where they are coming from. Up to that point, i have not read in any journal any article or physics text book that has mentioned cross-sectional spreading, so yeah its new to me. As for your opinion on how complex it is, let me be the judge of that. If i find overwhelmingly complex I don't have a morsel of shame that would prevent me from asking here or somewhere any basal questions that I have. As for the Higgs interaction in the formation of inertia, i will also leave that up to the literature also. ty.

I was watching the PBS space-time series the other day and one episode was on artificial gravity and sci-fi and of course we have the warp drive discuusion, and worm holes and sub space communication. I should ask folks, if you are going to pull one of these things from a sci-fi program use the please use sci-fi theory tag so that we don't take it all too seriously. The Cannae drive discussion is bad enough. Fake Gravity. So basically most sci-fi space movies have people walking around on decks as if they were on earth. Babylon 5 somewhat got it right. PBS space time shows the reason why your circle has to be a certain size to appear like surface interactions. Each section is devided by topic so the wall of words is more windows of words. Warp drive. We keep coming back to this one. I my opinion we can only, with modern technology, warp space to the tiniest degrees, its not suitable for space travel in any known form. Space is very big and you would need a drive capable of facilitating speeds near the speed of light to allow traveling betwen two stars in one lifetime. Star trek, Battlestar galactica, SG1, star wars, etc all are just stretching an idea to the extremes of unfeasibility. Wormholes. SG1 is the big one here. So the basic precept is that now-ascendant beings created worm hole nuclei and carried them to far off worlds and put 100s into machines. You dial the machine and a wishing well pops up that you can walk through. The problem here, wormholes do appear to exist, but at present they appear to be quantum wormholes on the order of that scale and they apoear to 'open' for quantum time frames. The energy required for the human size worm hole is huge, really really huge. Space teavel would be more lik SG universe than SG1, and realist shows would not be very popular, cancelled in fact. Even so scooping plasma from a star with a busted up ship will not get you to the speed of light. Sub-space communication. So basically quantum entanglement does apparently allow communication FTL, but the base problem is two communicating parties need a third party to provide them with entangled particles, so i cannot pick up an entagled particle and communicate with alpha centauri. Someone has to take half of a pair there. If the trip takes forty thousand years then both of us would need to keep our pairs stable. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, we would need to keep quantum pairs stable for hundreds of years. The nature of these pairs means I prolly wont be sharing hulu with my fellow centauri, more than likely it would be like 'arrived cetauri, survived report agian in 100 years'. The second issue here is that the sender needs to alert the recipient that he has altered the spin, so that the recpient knows to check the spin on his end. The only real way to do this is either send an EM signal or have preset checkins. And both parties would need two sets of entangled particles, one for sending and recieving, and both woukd need replicates for each bit sent. So the both line is sub-space requires stabilized pairs lots of them sets of pairs and preset communication times, at least one cycle ahead. Transporters. Teleportation. Beam me up scottie. Quantum entanglement does allow for transferring of informatiom. There are so many technical problems here that span all of science. 1. There is not enough memory in all the world to hold the information contained in a soil nematode let alone a human. 2. You have to kill A to synthesize B. The last thing A is going to remember is being atomized 'oh, ____'. But on a more fundemetal note, individual A needs to be at 0K to fix his information, which basically killed him, and then he needs to be disintegrated without heating him up. and record every atom, every 3D location diwn to 1/10th of an angstrom, and the context, which in and of itself violates the hiesenberg uncertainty principle. This alone makes teleportation impossible. Life is made of complex electron bonds, particularly DNA, this is something you have to be absolutely perfect in recording, its not PCR, its building a DNA molecule from free radicals. 3. That information needs to be encoded in entangled pairs. sending the entangled pairs for a tobacco mosaic virus will probably require more entangle particles than human kind will ever be able to store in one place at a time. 4. You have all of A in a 3D matrix, but you need to read that matrix, so how do you know when to read. 5. Quantum mechanics does not allow reconstitution of the information. The individual would have to be frozen to 0k to assemble, the assembly is adding heat, basically adding free-radicals one at a time which then form parts of molecules then hole molecules, the heat would need to be released. And in the end you would have a frozen individual that was dead. Also, Any flaw in the assembly, for example DNA damage, could result in nonviable cells or rapidly progressing cancers. Life has a context, pretty much living is that context. Teleportation does not have a living context, the information for its context was living up until ciphering the information killed it....froze it and disintegrated it. Terraforming. The genesis project, Spore, SG1. The problem with terraforming is that, as far as we can tell Earth like planet or precursors are rare. You cannot convince a nebula to create earth, that would require massive amounts of energy and alot of time, the first generally provided by super nova. earth like planets will have life, we can expect ediacara like biota on these worlds. Earth itself had life 3.8 billion years ago, shortly after the great bombardment phase had ended. if an earth like planet lacks life, its star is probably unstable. For earth-like planets, we would not be terraforming, we would be chimerizing and hoping for the best. Those old life forms would become viruses and diseases to us as our life would be to them, and don't think otherwise. What we know now is that life is very hard to get rid of in totality. On earth it lives deep in the crust at the boundary of steam/water. Terraforming a protoEarth is also not trivial. It would take 100s or 1000s of years of humans living in space, adding biota at the right times. The major problem, coal and shale, the great oxygenation event is associated with the burying of deoxygenated carbon. This is a process that takes time and lots of it. At the efficiency of about 1:1000 sunlight over restricted areas of the surface CO2 is converted to sugar and O2, the sugar is coverted to graphite and O2. To do it right someone needs to take the trees strip them of thier non carbon nutrients, cut them into rectangular objects and bury them deep underground replacing all oxygen. Then the whole thing needs to be heated and recompressed. Oxygen is what allowed complex animals to inrease thier encephalization quotient and ultimately facilitated humans. Terraforming is possible, but neither quick or easy and requires an interstellar ship capable of carrying the templates for biota as well as keeping the colonist seeds alive. Cryogenisis. Suspended animation. is possible for a broad spectrum of biota. Essentually you could freeze dry brine shrimp eggs and store them below -80 for an indefinite period and some would hatch. Doesn't work with humans. Our mylienated sheathing and neurons don't like ice. Restive states, we simply waste away, made worse by the lack of gravity in space. Low temperture stasis, we may sleep; viruses and bacteria will have a snack. Immune system does not function well at low tempertures. At 4C we can suspend cells but after a few days they start dying, RBCs are particularly prone to lysis after 3 days. The problem with LTS is that our fat and cell membranes like to be at body temperature, if we replaced these with omega fats we could do better. We need to keep immune intregrity up and intestnal integrity up. The problem with this is that these two systems are some of the most stemcell taxed systems in the body, so we woukd need to find a way of cloning, exactly, stem cells like paneth cells and replacing them. Basically Sci-fi uses alot of scientific jargon to do that which is impossible for the grand scale stuff... Moving massive mass Getting across space Rescuing people equipment from emergency sutuations

That is what I was calling selection, the problem with selection is that it statistically unviable after many rounds unless matter and antimatter were produced in groups, so that if matter of one part hit antimatter of something else the remaing matter would be pushed in the direction of its cluster and the antimattervto its cluster. All of this would have had to have happened very early in the opaque phase. This would mean that the appearance a pair in one place simultaneously influenced the appearance of a pair in close proximity. Oh in terms of being lit up CMBR. The problem is this. Suppose you are on a sphere and you are travelin on a radial vector of 3c, That means a rotation of 90 is traveling away from you at 4.3c, 45 degrees rotation on the surface is 2.1c, 30 rotation = 1.5c, Around 18 degrees rotation is 1c beyond which observer will never see. even so that observer may only be able to observe to about 12 degrees. Anything within 12 degrees matter antimatter transfers are possible including cosmic rays. cosmic rats howver can under transformation or loss in space, so there may be other problems. But if an anti-matter cosmic ray were to reach earth it would be kind of noticed. A pretty hefty light flash in the gamma spectrun in our atmosphere. Its kind of hard to get antimatter so far away it does not happen, which would mean polarization would have had to occur pretty early or even before the opaque phase began, in fact before inflation began.

If you go to the GEWEX page and some of the other nasa pages you will see that this is one of many. The active radar is the problem, its electronics prolly overheated because of the problems of radiating heat in space. Even the gravity satellites are capable of detecting changes in ground water. - - - Updated - - - Maybe a blown cap or resistor.

Still holding onto the warp drive, the concensus is that its a bust. The problem with warp drive is that it requires a substantial amount of energy to accomplish in Sub FTL. What do we know that can warp space. Well it is possible to have a black hole without mass, but it has never been observed, and since every thing on the event horizon is frozen in our time just how would we move it. The shape is important, how would we shape something like that. On the backbside expansion of space-time what are we looking at now, dark energy. And how do we control this, we dont even know what it is, just what it isn't. There is nothing to stop sub-light watping but the is nothing we know of that could levergage the energy consumed to warp space to the degree it woukd be better than simple propulsion. I hold more hope for the cannae than for near-light speed warp.

The wiki reference is from 1986, i wll look to see if they have a more recent one in pubmed on tuesday.

Nuclear Compton scattering.

Not if the boundary is alreadly traveling away form faster than the speed of light. Its a silly idea, because it could not explain assymetry, because the matter pockets would have ot be reasonably close to the antipockets. - - - Updated - - - Why, the big bang doesn't care if the universe partitions, you could have a matter half and antimatter and the assymetry could be the result of some bias or diiference with QM in the early state. what i said I said laughingly, it has bigger problems, like the end of CMB the universe relative to the end of inflation is quite big. To explain our state The opaque epoch would have to end moments after inflaton to explain why currently we don't see the boundary between the two polarities. The exception is that these boundaries do exist but because of momentum from the opach epoch as a result of annihilation that they might exist but we cannot see them, redshifting is a bit of a statistical thing separations far from us could exist but we dont see it because of statical noise. This would mean that the first bias would cause selection of polarity that amplified to the end of the opaque. This would mean that no source of power in our polarity suffices to push us inot the opposite polarity. Caveots and blck swans allow for alot. Anyway we will never know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/11843943/Four-space-technologies-that-will-change-the-world-in-your-lifetime.html

They haven't found it, my speculation is that part of our universe is antimatter equivilent of ours, lol. the antiparticle of the photon is the photon. We really cant tell whether something is made from matter or antimatter at great distance by looking at it.

GSO is a inertia frame of reference, the only other inertia frame of reference with the same path of travel is 180' rotation. OV at surface 18000 miles at radius of 4000 miles approx, Geo is 22000 + 4000 = 26000. OV decreases with sq rt of radius. This means that at 12000 mile radius OV is 9000. There the highest inclination difference the differential cannot be higher than 18000. What really matters with inertial frames of reference and how fast you can legitimately accelarate a sparrow.

Actually I posted a link the other day that took laser light and scattering collapsed the light to a single frequency. This falls to the heisenberg uncertainty principle. Potentially you could reverse this, by scattering the frequency a little you could focus the momentum to a single direction that is invariant. The problem is that the path would have to be isogravitational along its length. IOW you could not shoot a laser through the Suns corona and expect it to stay together if the wavelengths varied, the beam would begin to separate.

Dark and Sinister Matter. Its those why we can't see them aliens, as soon as we see them we are all goners. ok everyone stop looking.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/sep/06/some-top-measurements-from-cerns-large-hadron-collider So a proton is alot smaller than a uranium atom, I guess this is obvious, but how do you create a blusterous bombastic proton, like a Trump proton, the same thing, get it to run. So in the LHC they are now giving protons 6.5 TeV, this is alot more energy than they placed to see Higgs. We can actually see how big the protons are, we know the mass but not the size. You need two protons to do this, and you are lookin for the non-elastic radius. But since the collision can only be refernced from the TeV vectors, the energy doubles. This strikes me as a bit odd, but maybe not. In my 40 year old verision of physics, the length of the particle increases. But here they show that also the crossectional area increases, not as quickly. So i am wondering whether this is due to E = hv, that the proton is not traveling in a strait line, but that the amplitude of its vibration and frequency simultaneously increase. Is this infact a consideration that if something vibrates really fast the the tangential motion vector would also undergo dilation therefor causing the particle to get fat. Is this a not a non-conservation of energy, or do we simply ignore length shortages because they are too difficult to measure? And of the article has its measure of don't know or not explained?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/magnetic-mystery-center-earth?utm_source=Society+for+Science+Newsletters&utm_campaign=1f82e0832a-editors_picks_week_of_Aug_31_20159_4_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a4c415a67f-1f82e0832a-104491029 How much of this might be explained by density sorting of lower melting point metals in the early earth and the infiltration of higher weight melts now, there is also the assumption of uniform heat distibute according to depth, but uranium distributions on the surface are not uniform, sonyou could have inversions of dense uranium pockets that stir upnthe out layers of the dynamo but are turned in the solid core layer surface and diffuse.

Sry, it wasn't that interesting, they are talking about why we Americans don't think big projects anymore. Kennedy apparently wanted to go to Mars, NASA tried to blow him off by saying you might reach the moon in 15 years, apparently they compromised. Aldrin is showing his age, but he definitely had his bling on. lol. old hipsters.

he's on CBS right now

Novalty is the failure of the null hypothesis. The argument is established as alpha the risk of testing a hypothesis that is true and demonstrates as false. The bias begins at 19:1 but frequency is strengthened to 2000:1. In a genome wide association study bias maybe 100000000:1. This all seems horrifically stubborn but it actually works well. Statistics allows you to retest, just not the same sample. So if you take the sites that are marginal fails, you might find two or three close to each other in primary sequence and hunt down new variants; and instead of testing a million sites you might retest 10000 sites with new sites lowering the random probaility of the best site relative to a lower alpha. In this examples, it shows how science deals with a new idea that does not meet the criteria, and it has proven too numerous to count times. This is why philosophically why I differ from K2. You cannot let a desire to prove a new idea to lead your data, but simply because it does not conform to old successes does not men its false. As I stated during the discussion and quoted statistian Zar, beta, the risk of the null hypothesis being shown true when it is actually false we systematically do not care about and do not test for. If a scientist does not concern himself with this weekness he can end up exhibiting concretized thinking. Its not that the Cannae drive is distorting the previously held beliefs about momentum conservation, its that we have to allow reasonable violation of old rules to undergo the full round of testing when compared to tests where historically we dont have an opinion either way, like disease sites for a suspect genetic disease on the vastness of the human genome. We know that most, the overwhelming majority, will prove to be null hypothesis true, but after two or three rounds of refined testing we know that we are likely to find breakthrough science.

Im thinking that russian 100 ton payload rocket. I wonder if it runs on Vodka?

He's invented a cold fusion reactor, and is waitng for the highest bidder? :^). - - - Updated - - - Elon Musk is designing essentially a suicide mission. As I stated before getting people to mars is not a problem, just set the intercept on the eqautor of the planet. In this case, here comes earth approacing the martian theta to close approach, you at L2 do a solid radial burn that then bam you run smack into mars, kersplat. Oh you want them alive. Ok so, we have no way to brake, the stuff we have right now does not stand up in testing, IOW its too heavy the surface area required is 2 mag greater than what we have used and even so our equipment either had to be sky-craned down or landed in gigantic air bags. Residual velocites are 60 m/s in thin atm. So now you have to do retrograde burns, the opposite of a liftoff, and ther is no capacity left for a return. You think they are fools at NASA, they have stated clearly that the way to get folks there and back safely cannot be done with existing technology. We here back seat space agency program directors think we can stand on the field with the pros and send hail mary passes that are caught all the time. If NASA Wants to get thier with resources to get back i suspect they will need Russian help moving payloads to places that can be used later.