PB666

I didn't say it wasn't, I am saying there are many forms of radiation that interfere with observations of black holes, and provide additional reasons for humans to never try and go into one. Why is this thread still active, there is no basis in reality for its inspiration. We are simply arguing with each other about the multifold ways in which the fantastic proposition would not work. I think the first reply in the thread should be like this: No FTL communication (violates time constraints) No FTL speed (theoretically possible because you can create negative energy field requires FTL communication or travel and unproven Tacheons) Ergo no space warping for sake of travel (other than the use of perigee for gravity assists) No way to connect distant black holes. Travel though a worm hole is only theoretically possible if the wormhole pair originates from the same point in space. Therefore they could never be used to travel to an undiscovered point in space unless someone else has created the worm hole. And the energy density required to create a wormhole capable of human travel would be so great that no equipment to keep it open or human could survive the journey. Ergo no way to create wormholes No time travel (as in backwards for a given local) No transporter beams, and I believe that reconstitution of biological organics would require the removal of quantum mechanics. Therefore we can remove Star Trek, SG1, Dr. Who, Lost In Space, Battlestar galactic, Star Wars, and the overwhelming majority of space sci-fi from consideration.

Blacks holes generate X-rays because matter enters in vortexes that are swirling in as the matter moves toward us at nearly the speed of light the frequency of emmitted radiation doppler shifts upward; and it is far enough from the event horizon to escape. Thus there is all sorts of phenomena going on outside the hole to increase the opacity of what is going on inside. But the signal is primarily weakened by the energy density of the hole itself. - - - Updated - - - It would imply a negative energy density in space. IIRC you guys were talking about using negative energy density as part of a warp field which I protested could not happen and could not be done.

Wow its sounds like she landed someplace hostile, like an active comet ..... oh wait, that was the plan, whoops.

GC content is important if you are a microbe living in the thermal vent on the ocean floor versus a krill that lives its life in the arctic ocean. GC content determines the melting point of DNA for a given length. When you do PCR its one of the first things you calculate when trying to determine the annealing temperature.

The capsule comes with RCS fuel I wonder why RCS jets are not stock. Then the reaction wheels would be cheat, once they had reached full spin you can simply use the stock jets to bring them back to zero.

The latest reading I have read is that quantum entanglement doesn't work like a subspace communicator in Sci-fi. An atom generates a pair of photons, they wander out into space and at some point i cipher what one photos state is, and thus I know the state of the other photon. Photons as it turns out do not age, when a photo left a star at the beginning of the universe and we view it the star that generated the photon died millions of years ago to us, but from the photons perspective it left and arrived in less than Planck's time. Since from the photon's point of view no time has passed then the generation of the photon and the two observations occurred simultaneously. However, I cannot change the polarity of a photon, I can exclude photon's of a given polarity, therefore If I read a photon of a given polarity, I know what the other observer will read if he also does not exclude it, but If i exclude it and the other observer reads it I can't know what he read. Suppose he is just reading polarities, and he reads the polarity first, then I filter the polarity, if it could be used to communicate faster than light he would be reading the message before I sent it, not possible. The reciever of the message does not know when to read, so how would he know if he was reading before or after I had filtered the photon. The rest of his stuff is bunk.

I mostly agree. Systematic position and value are not synonymous. Pluto has value created from its observations and because of its unique position in apparently variable gravitation circumstances in the solar system (both a transneptunian planet and a member of the Kuiper belt). If we are to return to pluto its going to because of its interesting qualities, had it been another gassy planet Neptune it would not be near as interesting. I think what New Horizons teaches us that a low resolution view of something could reveal anything from a Ceres like planet to the strange thing everyone gasp at when they saw the high resolution images for the first time. Pluto basically tells us that we need to invest more in space astronomy and in observation missions around the solar system. If such objects exist in the Kuiper belt there are probably a few comets that wander in and out of the solar system that are equally interesting. And more to the point Pluto basically is now the Epic dwarf planet, its the champion for the exploration of the Kuiper belt. If it was just another planet it would not warrant as much discussion, but as a dwarf planet it represents a number objects out there that beg to be discovered, and at least the thought now of coming up with the technology to land on one of these things and at some future point (given the level of water and the possibility that at some future point fusion power will be cheap) an in fuel depot on a world with a miniscule dV. I think its romantic to see Pluto go back as a planet, but it doesn't bother me that its not, because I think now Pluto is its own champion, nothing, including systematics will relegate it to a petty status.

Thats my missing lug-nut no its my wrench socket, time to start a war. If we can only track baseball size objects, and there are alot of smaller objects out there, how do they know that the missing bolt or the loosened piece of insulation is theres scrap. Sounds like another misguided regulation.

The short answer to the OP post. Since the first thorough GWAS of low penetrance diseases such as RA, T1D, GSE ect, it has been realized that the non-HLA genes exhibit QTL qualities but the SNPs (genomic markers) are often far from classic or extended promotor regions. They often lie within the transcription reading frame. The news is not new. Its been known for a long time. In addition there are siRNA found in these genes that either regulate themselves or other genes. So double coding is also known and characterized. There are site in the human genome that are over 500,000 nucleotides were a 350 bp site regulates three genes all from an extended distance.Mutations around this site are known to be associated with QTL variation at the site. Other QTL mutations occur in gene deserts. And last but not least, there are certain sites in the human genome that have a rather disturbed evolution. 6p21 is one of these sites, in Europeans 2 haplotypes are known to have the longest identifyable runs of homozygosity in the human genome, linkage disequilibrium to one of these sites and haplogroup mutations suggest it is 20,000 years old with a rate of recombination 10 fold less or more than the other haplotypes or other parts of the genome. This is particularly odd since the most conserved part of the haplotype represents some of the fastest evolving sites in the human gemome, with 5 genetic loci being the fastest evolving coding sequence loci in the human genome. There is a lot of stuff coded into the DNA that we know is controlling both expression and evolution of the genome itself, and we have known this since the early 70s. The IL2/IL21 locus is another site that has disturbingly slow recombination, and a site on chromosome 5 in Native Americans has also been identified that is half the length of the 6p site that also does not undergo recombination at a normal rate. Be wary what you read in Science, it does not have a stellar scientific reputation with regard to opinions or retractions, It is better to get information from field specific journals. With regard to vaccines. Many AD mutations are increases and some are decreased. A fair number of Non-6p21 mutations are in apoptotic machinery, which goes to ways. Either they increase apoptosis of cells (such as beta cells in T1D, or lamina propria cells in GSE) or decrease apoptosis of immune cells such as killer cells or B-cells that cause the disease. If you go about promoting or inhibiting expression you can make disease worse.

Hard mode career. BTW, if you haven't done them, getting to Moho is a task, and landing on the Joolian moons is a bit of a task. (Theres one like kerbin except no atmosphere so you have to be up on your efficiency to get a good land). There is also station building, If you know how to use blender there is also part-crafting and such.

What the EPA actually said is the the claimants did not provide adequate evidence to draw a conclusion. The problem is that people who own wells is isolate areas own wells. Many never monitored their water before the fracking began. An well water quality ebbs and flows over time (I know this because I have a friend who has two wells on his property, one well has good water but goes dry easily. The other has bad sulfery water but is more consistent. The did the gas well on his property and guess what, the bad water still tastes bad. They found that the quality of some well water was poor, but they could not determine if the cause was fracking other other cyclical or manmade induced problems. Methane gas is released from areas from time to time, an example of this is when the indian subcontinent slammed into Asia, it is speculated that huge natural gas and oil reserves were disrupted, causing a period of climate change 35 million years ago. The other thing that was found is that the mini-quakes that are occurring, and could be the source of the gas leaking is not due to fracking, but due to reinjection wells used to dispose of the fracking fluids. What frequently would happen is that a driller(s) would create several fracking wells, the money they make is in each well. They would go to some proximal site and there is not money to be made in an injection well. So they inject fluid into an old well or a reinjection well. Since the volume going in is mulitiple times the volume going out the underground pressure markedly goes up in the area of the reinjection wells, and siesmic studies indicate they are causing cracking of bedrock. The problem is that the gas plays are not just one area, the shale covers huge areas, if you rupture the bedrock deep enough anywhere in north Texas or south Texas there is going to be some gas liberated. There are also safety issues that came up with reinjection and so now that companies are laying off contractors and more of the work is being done by people who work for the companies they are also responsible for safety. Cryptically oil companies are being asked not to reinject, and if the reinjection sites are all filled they are being asked to tank the waste to depleted salt domes where the quake hazard is alot less. Back in the hey-day of frack drilling there were not enough trucks to transport the wastes, so companies just reinjected until the ground pressure was so high they could not inject any more waste, now the boom is over, shipping is not such a big problem. As for the wax. Have a fire extinquisher in your kitchen. Have a cover for oil fires in the kitchen that is close by. Wax is high meltiing point oil, never throw water on hot oil close to a flame. The best solution was to move the candle to a cookie sheet, grab several sheets of aluminum foil. Stack them on top of each other and create a cone out of the foil then carryful Invert the cone over the candle without touching the flame and carefully constrict the opening. Then take a piece of tape and tape around the crushed foil opening down to the stick of the candle. The reason the candle got hotter when it was covered is that O2 is depleted slowly but you increased the temperature of the wax and decrease the deltaT required to reach the C-H ionization point, as a consequence more ions were being volatilized. Certified Highrise Fire Warden training CoH. In a fire that reaches your ceiling you have - No time, no visibility, No breathable air, Unbearable heat. Standard kitchen fire- Cover, if spread- Fire extinguishers for 5 sec, Close door to affected area, warn, seal bottom of door if possible, evacuate, turn off electrical power (outside), call fire department. Most common causes of housefires. Electrical, space heaters, cooking, smoking and candles. For emergencies have a rated battery powered latern. The new laterns use LED or flourescent lights and can produce for hours. An all purpose battery powered lantern can be obtained from any sporting goods store. Invest, it is worth the effort (Sheltered in place for Rita, Allison, and Ike).

Its a reasonable guess, I of beam bounce is k*A/d^4, something half the size will be recognized at 70% of the distance, but contact only occurs 50% of the time. IOW it will occupy the beam 35% of the time and have 1/2 the contacts. Smaller objects orbit degrade faster and need more monitoring, and a lower reflection means orbits with higher periapsis may not be monitored at all. So where between 5 and 10 times as many radar would be need to improve collective resolution by 2. The caveot is that the radar must be in space, since on the ground one would have to greatly scale up I as a square inverse square function of diameter.

I think that would depend on proximity, the closer you are to a radar site, the bigger its profile will be to the radar. It we know where they are then we can intercept them. Obviosly the ISS can't intercept them. But a smaller more agile probe could. I see this as a situation that once you start removing the superbaseball size objects, then things that are smaller will be more readily tracked and followed. So for example. If we have x-radars in space now monitoring positions. If we place 8x in space we will be able to see things half the diamter of a baseball. If we place 64x in space we can monitor things 1/4th the diameter of baseballs. I suspect most of the monitoring is being done from Earth, so simply closing the gap between Earth and space will increase the resolution of the monitoring.

Mun is first because its the first contract and because you don't have to change inclination. My quirks lol. TNTC. I prefer the MK16 over side mounted chutes, even though they work better. I rescue one pilot or place one satellite using the probesphere, thereafter MechJeb. I don't add RCS anything if there is a remote possibility I can do the task without it. I don't consider this a quirk, but early game is a grind so I scale down the basic rover wheel and place it in a low tier (my cheat). I prefer Val over Jeb, I figure statistically averaged, Jeb is more likely to die (based on my experience pre 0.90) Jeb I always place on a permanent station, so he won't get himself killed. I prefer to build radially than vertically (so I made many aeroparts for tanks). I prefer to use the smallest landing gear, even though it frequently breaks I almost always try to level my craft by lowering one of the gear, even if its landed on a relatively level spot. I can't stand games that advertise in-game content or pop-up adverts (I bought KSP after having a steam install) or games that run in the background of the computer (like sim-city, steam, etc) sangrudas. I tend to build craft that cant takeoff (TWR = 1g) and then add boosters to get them up to 100 m/s before they separate. Is this enough for you.

Lowering -Fractional gravity relative to Earth and Moon. -Charon is relatively bigger than the moon relative to earth and lots of other satellites (offering a scavaging function) -Neptune performs a clearing function for Most of plutos orbital path. -Orbital speed is much lower than the Earth, therefore inclination crossing objects will be slowe.r Raising. -No clearing functions outside of plutos orbit, therefore no protection from objects that come in from Oort cloud (Jupiter, Saturn and Mars protect earth from by being alternative targets). -Orbit is already highly inclined, counter inclined objects will impact with higher speed -Pluto's orbit maybe, ultimately, unstable, and interaction with passing objects may raise potential of a collision with Neptune or ejection the transNeptunian orbit. One also has to factor in total energy which is 0.5 * mass * velocity^2. Since there is no clearing function outside of pluto, perturbations by passing stars and brown dwarfs or dead stars are more likely to alter the course of oort cloud objects that reach plutos orbit, hydra itself looks like a large captured asteroid (though the mechanism of how it was captured is bewildering). But the objects drafted into pluto's orbit could be quite large. However at Pluto's orbital speed once a inevitable impactor is place in its orbit, it may take several billion years for the impact to occur because its radial velocity is so slow.

Well presumably with enough tracking radar you could track sockets for socket wrench and bolts. There is a marginal utility of gain argument at work here. We have to assume that smaller objects have a higher surface area to mass ratio, and therefore more drag, so their orbits will be decaying more quickly. If you then compound the cost in argon to find them and intercept them. Then factor in the fact that a pea size impact is not going to destroy a whole station, you come to the conclusion not to intercept. But there is an economic argument also, if you track the pea size objects down and collect a few, then send the producing country a bill for say a million dollars, chances are the appearance of new pea size objects will begin to decline over time. So you would probably want to track a few exemplary peas down. From what I understand the biggest problem right now in LEO is that satellite makers don't want to expend the dozen or so dV to place their satellites into a junk orbit that has been proposed to eliminate the hazard problem. Literally you could create a giant chain link cage in space, and at the end of their operating life the satellites are moved into the cage and attached to the sides or a cable. Large satellites could be attached to the outside of the cage. If parts fall off they are in a safe predictable orbit that is circular and can be tracked down. For non-equitorial satellites you have a bit of a problem, to get them to one place you would have to expend alot of dV to change the inclination. - - - Updated - - - You present the bill at some international space conference and embarrass them. Seriously what the Chinese did was dumb and irresponsible, given that a little public shaming is good for their souls.

electrons are not pure energy, and they are not unbound either, they are simply in an exploitable higher energy state. There is nothing truly peculiar about this. The mitochondria in your cells are part of a double bi-layer membrane, they dump electrons down the electron transport chain which eventually hand the electrons off to oxygen (reducing them), and increasing the acidity in the mitochondria. The H+ pump then flow in reverse, creating ATP from ADP.

They apparently knew that a piece of junk was coming, got into the Soyuz, and waited for it to pass about 1.5 miles away. So all you need is a radar sensitive enough to detect something once you get within say 5000 meters. Then you lock onto the bugger, cancel the differential velocity and give yourself a few meter per second intercept velocity target the bogey. I always find it more satisfying to try to do something than to perpetually sit around pondering whether or not it can be done. If someone puts enough effort into it, they could clean up space, you could pay it off by sending a bill to all those countries that put the junk up there, that will stop the Chinese from trying to destroy more of their own satellites. The chances of being able to pick up space junk are much higher than the probability that a warp drive will ever amount to anything, still higher than a VP drive will work. At least we know the basic principles of recognition, targeting, maneuvering and capturing (although I must admit, give the philae landing fiasco, the capturing bit seems a little premature at the moment). In addition for the US it gives them a chance to see exactly what other countries have been throwing up in space, including the technology in dead spy satellites. - - - Updated - - - Credibility wasn't met? Credibility compared to who? Russians, ESA, contractors?

That particular pentaquark type also has an anti-quark (as part of a pair) so . . . . . . .

The radar idea is good, you could have 10 or so satellited getting telemmetry. I was thinking in terms of a garbage truck.. I would propose this, obtain orbit, then using telemetric data find the energetically most close object, capture is and go find the next so on. There are two things you could do with the junk ---- place in an orbit between the earth and moon in a collection that can at some later point be recycled for use in space ---- take it to an orbit close to final decay orbit, eject it and quickly prograde out. Then the craft could return to ISS have a naut put a new 'cage' and add some more argon gas and send it out again. The idea is to clean the orbital space close to the stations orbit, but not specifically the station itself. For bigger object you might want a pair or trio of ships because hauling a dead satellite would interfere with the drive, do you would couple the drives side by side and tether the satellite in between them. Shooting down bad idea.

Even a baseball you would have enough time to get away before all oxygen runs out. Albeit if you are in a sleep cycle . . . . . . . Maybe we should begin a campaign of crowd sourcing the finance of an ion power drive on a big light weight cage that runs around and picks junk up.

If you are playing career mode correctly and without cheats you should be back and forth to the moon 15 times or have a really good rover with a sci lab. My last run through career mode normal difficulty I landed about 35 times on the Mun. It was about 60% of the science required to finish the tech tree.

That was my question, I don't see how they could not know it was going to pass over a mile away if they are tracking the debris. They had to seal off that part of the MIR, IIRC it wasn't a dead satellite it was some sort of rendevous error with Progress M34 Safety wise it was a devastating but not catastrophic collision. The question whether the ISS could shut their emergency hatches if something happened. I looked at the safety training and it does not appear that there are any closable hatches, everyone had to go to the soyuz. - - - Updated - - - The station should not depressurize that quickly since most likely an undetected object would be rather small.

I moved this out of the life thread, I think its a topic that deserves consideration in its own regard, considering the discussion in the New Horizons and Life thread. So basically any field that has paleo in front of it studies past, events. One of the key features of paleo studies is that scientist and lay people alike confuse markers for past events for the past events. For example we here that a particular fossil was an ancestor of all birds. That may be true but, -fossils are not ancestors of anything, and they represent transformed remains of durable remains -the likelihood that any individual plucked is the significant common ancestor of an entire taxa is unlikely, particularly given that most species that have existed are extinct, meaning specifically most lineages have gone extinct including many small branches off of lineages that are extant. There have been numerous examples where something that was claimed to be a missing link ends up being a side branch in evolution, possibly through leaky species barriers contributed some inheritable material, but for the purposes of what the purporting authors stated, a largely falsified argument. So with this out of the way, we have to say that absolute declarations about past events with no historic corrobaration are troubling and best treated in a probabilisitic framework. OK, so lets do a thought experiment. Suppose we are alien spectators of life as it evolved on earth between 4.0 and 3.3 billion years ago, before the cell that appears to be the last common ancestor of all life, lived. So we are going to make one assumption that once this appears all other life is at a distinct disadvantage, through a process of drift and selection, over time their numbers dwindle and all but dissappear (delegated to the deep ocean sedimentary rock and the like). What might we see, surprising we would see life, but the properties of this life however inefficient would be highly diverse. So now I am going to re-introduce the game. In this game there are 250 segments that need to be passed, and the pretext to the game is that when something cross the 250 segment barrier you take a screenshot and the create a collage of screenshots (the floor is mutable, and I generally switch between jupiters and moon gravity to create variation). You keep playing a round until something falls off the map and repeat. Fiddle with the conditions and eventually you'll have one that flys off the end. http://www.whiletrue.it/genetic_3-wheelers/ What you can see is that in each set of runs you get a different structure running off the end. On one mutable floor one structure may work and another may not but if the floor changes another structure may have success. This is actually emulating the conditions of early earth, but you could imagine how different an exoplanet might be, of for example life living in some hot vent on a Saturn moon or pluto (if such life exists). The form that eventually evolves is dependent on mineral content of the water (assuming the substrate is water), bioavailable organics, and forms of energy (heat, chemical, light, ultraviolet light). So what is the answer to the question, for example what might past life looked like on earth. The answer is that with experimentation and examination of other evidence of organic activity we can come up with a range of possibilities (bioneogenesis experiments in a laboratory), and try to correct that range with more information, such as evidence from other worlds. But one has to be careful with absolute statements like life has to use DNA, 20 amino acids, or ATP. Thirdly I should point out, that we should not be absolutely convinced that all bioneogenesis occurred here on earth, these seeds of life may have occurred elsewhere and serendipitously ended up here on Earth, and if that is also true then we have a major missing variable on the forces that acted on precellular life. The problem of deconvolution the past is not strictly limited to life, in fact, the life issue is often secondary to the geology issues. Almost all of our dating techniques are not dependent on biological remains, but isotope levels of common metals (potassium) and radioactive elements and for things younger than 50,000 years, carbon-14. And its not a trivial argument because many fossil studies have gotten the geological dating wrong and had to be later revised. The geological context is very important for determining the redox state of the environment and bioavailable nutrients (iron for example becomes much less bioavailable as redox potential in fluids rise). Molecular paleontology has also had its fair share of date miscalculations. Deconvolution the past is not just about one set of observations, but trying to collect and mesh as many observations as possible. Getting out of the 3.3 billion year old box is a license to explore possibilities, but some of the trails lead off into an abyss, some are traps and some are hidden from view. One thing we tend not to think about is one theory of early earth is that a rather large protoplanet might have slammed into earth the dust of which created our moon and is particularly enriched on earths surface.

So one aspect of life is the instruction set they carry is basically the only set that if can pass on (with small deviations) this affords evolution and diversity. About a billion years ago sexual reproduction evolved this allow two biotes (one to create a cell with a haploid nucleus and the other to basically dump a nucleus in the cell) creating a chimera, a programmed change. Augmenting this in the prelude to microbe ..., the cells that would become haploid underwent programmed recombination in which bits and pieces of the parental derived chromosome where swapped out. This sexual reproduction with preprogrammed recombination built random chromosomal evolution into the system. Just to see how effective this is go to . . . https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ipd/imgt/hla/stats.html (these are not stats for some exotic creature, these are the human stats, each table entry is the amount of variation for a single gene, some of these variants alleles have been carried from the time of the ancient apes forward). This system of recombinative sexual reproduction allows for the carrying of variation in the population, it increases the ploidy, but is also provides a potential selective framework, heterozygotes versus homozygous selection that allows some genes like actin and histones to never change and other genes like HLA and KIR genes to maintain intense diversity in the population. To give an example, both the mtDNA and Y chromosome (haploid) show a time to most common ancestor in the human population of 200,000 years. The DRB1 locus shows a time to more common ancestor of 60M years. Robots would produce clones, with the highly occasional error but with a parity bit this would be detected and corrected. Over time the robot popultion would drift to a single version and would not evolve further. To replicate evolution and to arrive at diversification and niche specialization you would need robots that could exchange information, change the information, and enter random errors and exchange those random errors with other robots. Without this all you need is one nefarious outsider to create a robot with a virus and find a way of transmitting it and all the other robots would stop working. - - - Updated - - - As discussed complete dormancy with an event triggered end is possible, therefore constant homeostasis is not necessary in all stage of life, just in some stages of life. Revival from homeostasis does not need ATP, it could rely on other sources of energy, which is my point. There are constraints with dormancy, in a oxidative atmosphere like ours, complete dormancy is not plausible for extended periods (millions of years), but for hydrocarbon pools deep in the earth that are protected from oxidation by high level of reductants, some biotes could maintain complete dormancy. I believe there have been papers describing how certain microbes survive in these environments were the source of oxidants appear over geological timeframes (the permissive conditions for growth once all metabolic oxygen sources - sulfate, nitrates, sugars, oxygen) have been expended.