Slashdot Mirror

I don't know about you, but I prefer a link to a blog over the actual paper. Mostly because I don't speak Astrophysicsese.

I went ahead and clicked on the blog for you, and the link. Here's the paper (You can get a PDF if you want), it was submitted to the International Journal of Astrobiology.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.3863

I understand your reluctance, after all you're the one who posted:

The last damn thing I want is to click a link out of curiosity and within five minutes be standing there having to listen to the IT guy say "here's your sign" or end up in the HR office explaining my seeming poor hand-eye coordination because I accidentally clicked on a link in an email from the fscking HR department. Don't these people have enough work to do?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1112493&cid=26694469

Don't worry, you can continue to click on links out of curiosity. I put one above, go ahead, click it. You know you want to. everyone else is clicking it. Now with more fiber, and it cures Alzheimer's too.

The orbit is very highly eccentric, which means the usual theory of tidal locking doesn't apply. The research uses a theory of spin pseudo-synchronization (Eq. 18 of this paper) to derive the planet's rotation rate in relation to its orbit. They do note there is an alternate theory of spin synchronization that, for simplicity, they didn't consider in this paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2948

As one of the authors of the paper in question, I'd like to point out that the headline and summary are very misleading. We have *not* identified any particular miscalculation and nor have we claimed to. Indeed, we are impressed by the recent safety report and agree that it is very unlikely that there will be a disaster.

The basic point of our paper is that what we really want to know is the chance of the disaster happening, but the reports give us the chance of it happening given a large number of physical assumptions. These probabilities are not the same, because there is a small but real chance that there is a flaw in these assumptions. This need not be due to any mistake on behalf of the physicists but may be like Lord Kelvin miscalculating the age of the Earth because nuclear fission and fusion were not yet known. Think of it this way: in a random sample of 1,000,000 cutting edge scientific articles that look as reliable as the LHC safety report, how many of them are likely to have flaws that invalidate their reasoning? This is especially pertinent as the safety report for the LHC's predecessor (the RHIC) failed to take into account anthropic considerations.

Of course even if the argument is flawed, we are still probably safe. We have indeed dealt with this point in the paper. The overall risk is very small, but larger than the raw calculations suggest, and non-negligible when there are 6.5 billion lives at stake. We thus urge caution and a reassessment of the safety of the LHC taking these considerations into account.

I encourage you all to read the actual article, which goes into many of these points in detail:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.5515v1

If Jimbo tells you that there's a 1% chance that your tire will go flat if you don't fix it, that's not 1% if Jimbo is wrong 50% of the time. At best, it's 50.5%.

But you assume that Jimbo's being wrong means that the probability of failure is 100%! It's not necessarily. In fact, Jimbo might be wrong in that the probability of a flat tire is actually 0% -- in which case, his being wrong has helped you. If this is the case, then the total probability is 0.5%, much better than 1%. This is the best case; 50.5% is the worst case, and neither is "more likely", because we don't know what the conditional probabilities are. It's this fallacious reasoning -- that if the theory is wrong, the probability of the event must be greater -- that make this article technically true, but useless. We cannot handpick these probabilities. From the TFA (not the abstract):

The other unknown term in equation (1), P(X|not A) [read: the probability of the catastrophe given we're wrong], is generally even more difficult to evaluate, but lets suppose that in the current example, we think it highly unlikely that the event will occur even if the argument is not sound, and that we also treat this probability as one in a thousand.

(emphasis and comment mine). I disagree. This probability is impossible to evaluate, and so this paper means nothing.

The paper in question states the chances of a black hole forming are more remote than yours in getting it on with Angelina Jolie, and that's after having stalked her for years and being slapped with a restraining order preventing you from even entering the country she resides in. For a black hole to form, everything would have to be just right, meaning all the variables would have to exist in a state that just doesn't happen in nature. All the hullaballo is over what amounts to a science fiction story presented as a research paper (it's called theoretical physics: as in, "if all this stuff were true, this would happen! But it isn't").

Could people please let the word "quantum" be? If I post a comment "scientists discover that god is quantum!", will it be posted and commented? Please, let's be serious on science and post/comment things based on their relevance. Another bullshit title, just for laugh: "scientists discover that black holes have hair!" http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0359 (notice the title of the paper:"Black hole hair removal")

In this paper we present the results of our analysis of the growth and decay of black holes possibly produced at the Large Hadron Collider, based on our previous study of black holes in the context of the warped brane-world scenario. The black hole mass accretion and decay is obtained as a function of time, and the maximum black hole mass is obtained as a function of a critical mass parameter. The latter occurs in our expression for the luminosity and is related to the size of extra-dimensional corrections to Newtonâ(TM)s law of gravitation. Based on this analysis, we argue against the possibility of catastrophic black hole growth at the LHC.

Notice that this whole analysis is based on a warped brane-world calculation. In this calculation, it is assumed that there exists a 5th dimension in which gravity can act. We currently have no (physical) indication that there are any more dimensions than the ones we can perceive in every day life. This is really a very academic paper and subject. Unfortunately, many laymen think they are qualified to comment on the physics involved in these calculations.

It is a harsh reminder to all physicists that we suck at PR work.

In conclusion, I applaud you for reading the preprint and I support your statement:

Go back to worrying about your 401Ks.

There was a paper on arxiv that was mentioned in an editorial in Nature Physics recently (vol 5, january 2009), that raised an interesting point.

The paper, "Probing the Improbable: Methodological Challenges for Risks with Low Probabilities and High Stakes", discusses risks assessment, and begins talking about the LHC specifically on page 10.

Essentially, it argues that given an argument A, for some event X, the probability of that event happening is not just simply P(x). That is only the conditional probability, P(X; A).

The full probability is that term plus P(X; not A)P(not A), which in other words is the probably of X occurring if argument A is not true, multiplied by the probability that A is not true.

If you apply that specifically to particle accelerators, what this means is that the full probability of producing a growing black hole is the sum of two terms:
1) The probability of producing a growing black hole if Quantum Field Theory, Quantum Chromo-dynamics, and the like are TRUE
2) The probability of producing a growing black hole if QFT, QCD, etc are FALSE; multiplied by the probability that those theories are false.

The first term is very small, and is the reason physicists are not concerned. But the Nature Physics article asks, "Has anyone calculated the 2nd term?"

If you bothered to go past the Slashdot summary of the arXiv blog summary of the paper's abstract summary, and actually RTFA by Casadio et al., you would find the following:

We can conclude that black holes created at the LHC under the warped brane-world scenario and described according to Ref. [4] would always remain microscopically small in mass and radius when traversing through the Earth.

and also this:

We conclude that, for the RS scenario and black holes described by the metric (6), the growth of black holes to catastrophic size does not seem possible. Nonetheless, it remains true that the expected decay times are much longer (and possibly â 1 sec) than is typically predicted by other models, as was first shown in Ref.[4].

Possibly, potentially, maybe, under certain conditions, they might be longer lived than expected. They still can't grow.

Go back to worrying about your 401Ks.

See Universal Intelligence: A Definition of Machine Intelligence.

Abstract: We propose a method for characterizing large complex networks by introducing a new matrix structure, unique for a given network, which encodes structural information; provides useful visualization, even for very large networks; and allows for rigorous statistical comparison between networks. Dynamic processes such as percolation can be visualized using animations. Applications to graph theory are discussed, as are generalizations to weighted networks, real-world network similarity testing, and applicability to the graph isomorphism problem.

From http://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/0901.1819 :

Holger Müller: Is registered as an author of this paper.

This means that Holger Müller is the guy who logged onto arXiv and uploaded the paper. It has nothing to do with who actually contributed how much to the research.

> Does this sound to anyone a little like the argument for intelligent design?

No.

Take a look at one of the earlier papers on the holographic hypothesis here. It comes about, not because some physicist has simply thought "what happens if the universe is a giant hologram". It's implicit, in an incredibly surprising and beautiful way, in general relativity, a well tested physical model.

Hints can also been seen in a bunch of other independent physical results like the Bekenstein bound which point towards the 'granularity' of the 2D surface.

Nobody's copping out. People aren't even making up that much new stuff. They're working out the details of what's already contained within existing (and in some cases, well tested) physical theories.

It's probably worth remembering that for every press release made by a physics department there are probably years of work and thought by multiple physicists.

I'd like to know when those four moons are _very_ close together, and preferably not in front of or behind Jupiter as seen from Earth.

Never. The inner 3 are a Laplace relationship, and are never close together. So, among other implications, the arrangement shown at the end of 2001 A Space Odyssey cannot happen.

I highly recommend Murrary and Dermott if you are interested in the physics of this.

I knew I read about this quite some time ago: http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2442

Sure, there are hand-waving mechanisms consistent with the mainstream astronomy view that are interesting to entertain as hypotheses. But if, as you claimed, solar EM phenomena would indeed be well-understood, there would instead be models encompassing the major observable phenomena with quantitative accuracy.

As to coronal heating, a picture does more than a thousand words. Have a look at this soft X-ray image of the sun: http://www.lmsal.com/YPOP/ProjectionRoom/latest/sxt/full/sxtdag_512.gif. Does that not look awfully like energy production in the corona? Not surprisingly, several experiments have been done that have verified the existence of an energy production mechanism under coronal conditions, though an appropriate theory is still lacking. The mechanism occurs in a low-pressure plasma containing helium and hydrogen, see for example http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509127.pdf and http://www.springerlink.com/content/3u3v2eqnv9y1jmwg/.

Pure hydrogen plasmas without helium do not show anomalous energy release. Given that, it can be understood why the solar wind is strongly modulated by how much helium is present: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070530114957.htm

Solar coronae are extremely hot, but also EXTREMELY DIFFUSE. The energy density in the corona is lower than at the sun's surface. No problem there.

Um, it is not the energy density that is the issue but rather the required energy flux. Over half of the massive UV, EUV, and X-Ray coronal emissions are radiated out into intersteller space. This requires continuous extreme heating of the corona to sustain.

The energy comes from the sun....

Wrong. The energy is produced inside the corona. The energy production mechanism has been verified in the laboratory. Just create a Helium and Hydrogen plasma and see what strange things happen: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509127.pdf.

Interpretation of the extragalactic results (the real source of the OP) :
  http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0559

Note that the above paper does not mention the "wildly speculative" spiraling magnetic fields idea.

Extragalactic results in general :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0555

Galactic results
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0562

A description of the instrument :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0546

Interpretation of the extragalactic results (the real source of the OP) :
  http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0559

Note that the above paper does not mention the "wildly speculative" spiraling magnetic fields idea.

Extragalactic results in general :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0555

Galactic results
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0562

A description of the instrument :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0546

Interpretation of the extragalactic results (the real source of the OP) :
  http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0559

Note that the above paper does not mention the "wildly speculative" spiraling magnetic fields idea.

Extragalactic results in general :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0555

Galactic results
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0562

A description of the instrument :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0546

Interpretation of the extragalactic results (the real source of the OP) :
  http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0559

Note that the above paper does not mention the "wildly speculative" spiraling magnetic fields idea.

Extragalactic results in general :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0555

Galactic results
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0562

A description of the instrument :
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0546

An real world example of the power of metadata is Google. Basicly, the ranking works because of metadata, originating as metadata or derived from the content of the page.

While probably correct, there really isn't much substance to your comment, so I decided to add some links to one of the best examples of exploiting metadata: network analysis (or applied graph theory, depending on your bent). It's been applied to webpages, phone call records (using just who calls whom), scientific collaboration networks, social networks, and a whole bunch more. The following links make for some interesting reading about the scope and power of exploiting metadata (at least the introductions):

PageRank, HITS: rank webpages as authoritative based on the links between them (i.e. assume that good pages link to good pages, etc.) PageRank Analyzing the web web communities based on link structure analyzing scientific collaborations based only on patterns of co-authorship and co-citation another one like the previous (although as a computer scientist, i don't think much of mark newman, he writes well).

Remember kids, it's popular because it works!

You mean something like this? Arxiv

Or calculate **PageRank** on journals: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0601030, on articles: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604130, and finally: http://www.eigenfactor.org/

Or calculate **PageRank** on journals: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0601030, on articles: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604130, and finally: http://www.eigenfactor.org/

There are at least 3 ways to search for Matrioshka Brains.

1. Mid-to-Far IR surveys. But they require liquid He cooling and don't last very long. The last good survey that was done was with the IRAS satellite in 1983. I first started to look at that data about 7 years ago but had to set it aside for more pressing priorities. Richard Carrigan, is a Physicist at Fermilab and has recently done the work of going through the data and has some interesting candidates [1]. But he is searching for Dyson Shells (improperly named "Dyson Spheres") and is using somewhat different parameters for his search (Matrioshka Brains do not have "liquid water" and Earth like temperatures that the habitats envisioned by Dyson need.) A very mature Matrioshka Brain can be very large and have a temperature approaching the ambient environment (in most of the universe ~3-20K). The IRAS data was obviously not intended for reconstructing black body curves of objects. To improve this physicists could put more effort into the development of massive IR detector arrays (bolometers or similar) with millions of "pixels" and launch a "permanent" IR survey satellite (or plan a "permanent" IR observatory, perhaps on the back side of the moon).

2. Convince the gravitational microlensing astromers that some of the microlensing events they are observing could be caused by Matrioshka Brains (or Dyson Shells). I went to 2 international microlensing conferences in an attempt to do this and the microlensing physicists would hear none of it. (Whatever is causing the events must be "natural" and it must be something we have encountered before (K or M class stars for example) it *certainly* can't be the result of intelligent life forms from civilizations much older than ours.)

3. Start using the data from any of the surveys being done to do "occultation astronomy". This will kind of fall out of the searches for exoplanets as well as searches for near earth asteroids. But nobody to my knowledge is pooling information from multiple surveys over time to either track MBrains through a galaxy or determine the rate at which stars go dark (which sets limits on the abundance of civilizations making the transition from our (water phase based on "natural" evolution) state of development to a post-nanotechnology, largely machine/AI/uploaded phase where the civilization has a whole different set of constraints from what we typically consider. If my current efforts to produce pristine stem cells are as successful as I hope, then I may retire again and work on this part of the problem (by then open access to the astronomy databases and computers fast enough to deal all of the data may be available to make this work).

Another useful activity would be to get the "old school" SETI proponents together and convince them that the primary basis for most of their ideas (radio or optical signals) are completely out-of-date with the technologies that we know advanced civilizations will have (molecular nanotechnology and a huge amount of computational capacity at their disposal). Until one gets more people thinking along those lines then much of the efforts of SETI researchers and many astrobiologists may be misdirected. Milan Cirkovic is a physicist/astronomer from Yugoslavia who has published several papers over the last couple of years (one with me) attempting to promote re-thinking the "old" SETI perspective but its like trying to paddle against the current of a rather fast river.

Does that provide enough meat to allow me to keep the modded up status? :-)

Also, of interest for people might be Damien Broderick's collection of provocative papers "Year Million" loosely organized around what life might be like in the year 1,000,000. Several of the chapters, including one by myself, deal with the topic of Matrioshka Brains. I did not write the Wikipedia page on Matrioshka Brains, but have offered a few "steering" comments. That page has a link to my site which has the original ideas as well as a number of related sites.

References:
1. http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2376

From the study: "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf

For those interested the full paper is here. Apart from a couple of cosmological parameters they don't really improve previous estimates. It's still nice though that all the parameters agree very well with the previous (CMB + Supernova 1a) data with a completely independent method, hence the confirmation talk. I think though if there had been disagreement our understanding of clusters would have been blamed first. So in some senses this confirmed the current cluster models more than the cosmological constant, but that's not as 'sexy'!

The cited preprint claims to have broken the very fundament of RSA:

Theorem 5. The factorization of a composite integer N â â has deterministic logarithmic time complexity
O((log N)c ), c > 0 constant.

I doubt it.

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a surprise: at the temperatures and pressures encountered in an exoplanet atmosphere of this type, all carbon should be present as methane (if cool enough) or carbon monoxide. Giant planet atmospheres are generally far too hydrogen-rich for CO2 to form in any appreciable quantity. So its detection requires an extra-ordinary explanation for its origin.

Here is a Nature preprint from the same research group, describing H2O, CH4, and CO detection. I was hoping to find a research article (and not just a news story or press release) describing CO2 detection, but haven't found any yet...

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4674

Amazing that a star they studied orbited the galactic center in only 16 years.

The paper seems to assume the existence of black holes; it addresses their observations rather than any theoretical causes. Saying these observations confirm a black hole seems a bit of a stretch. It just confirms that stars are circling around the galactic center, which may or may not contain anything at all.

Even Microsoft's flagship product Vista has Six unpatched vulnerabilities.

These are all unpatched widely known vulnerabilities, and are only the ones in Microsoft's own product. Consider all the third party vulnerabilities, in downloadable codecs for example, that the design of Microsoft's platforms makes it so easy for crackers to exploit.

In comparison, all of the major Linux based distros have an excellent record of closing known vulnerabilities within days if not hours, before the holes get a chance to be exploited. Also SELinux is becoming more widely deployed to secure applications against such threats..At least with Linux there are existing concrete mechanisms in place ( Vulnerability and threat mitigation features in Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora ), and currently deployable ( Writing policy for confined SELinux users ) to provide a locked down secured environment for Linux desktop users inside an organization.

Also from a more abstract point of view, read Increased security through open source.

If your using the Microsoft platform, then your abetting the people deploying botnets.

So?

Does this solution help with the more general case of finding the solution to a dense, well conditioned system of linear equations? I briefly glanced over the Andrew Childs paper you cited, but enlightenment did not sink in.

As far as I know, the first superconducting transistor was reported in 2006:

cond-mat/0601434

Are arXiv articles peer-reviewed?

No, they aren't.

This has been covered in another article

A paper, The Mathematical Universe" that got a lot of coverage recently is worth a read (it is actually understandable). It describes how if the Universe was a mathematical structure what we/he would expect.

Having read the article, the extra-terrestrial origin idea seems like a long shot to me. There is less cyanogen than normal ! Maybe it formed in unusual conditions... or could it be from another solar system ! Note, in all seriousness, that there has never been a firmly established extra-terrestrial "new comet" (on a hyperbolic orbit), so the statistics make this unlikely but certainly not impossible.

I find dwarf-planet Sedna much more intriguing Sedna's orbit is very strange, this orbit probably formed in an 3-body interaction between the Sun, Sedna, and another star and, if so, there is about a 10% chance that Sedna was originally in orbit about that other star. If I was NASA administrator, one thing I would certainly try and do would be to send a "Pluto Express" type spacecraft there.

This should help: "Whenever a mathematical proposition is undecidable within the axioms encoded in the state, the measurement associated with the proposition gives random outcomes." (0811.4542)

Web references are ok, IF they are from reputable sources.
There are excellent web sources. And I'm not talking about Wikipedia here.
Take http://arxiv.org/ for example.
I think there needs to be a grading process for reliability of sources. A structure where scientific papers are graded and their reliability checked by other opposing and supporting papers. Not just the number of references a paper gets.

I was always a skeptic when it came to Dark Matter(I am not an astronomer, so this all technically an uniformed opinion). But now I know that it really is all a load of idle speculation coupled with incomplete investigation, and an excessive dose of hype. It only took a few minutes of googling to come up with this paper.

Oh yeah. A few minutes of Googling turns up an unpublished manuscript which overturns 80 years of research and thousands of papers. A manscript written by a guy who runs a mail-order crystal business and a former Xerox employee who studies fluid droplets. (I bet I'm going to hear "but Einstein was a patent clerk" real soon now ...) Which cites Electric Universe theory papers. That's totally credible.

It is only evidence of the need for more applied mathematics courses in astronomy undergraduate degrees.

Yeah, everyone who has worked on dark matter flunked basic undergraduate astronomy. That's probably it. I bet they can't implement Newton's law of gravity in an N-body simulation either.

I don't really feel like working through their manuscript, but it seems rather reminiscent of the Cooperstock and Tieu paper which tried to do away with dark matter by introducing a thin disk of regular matter (e.g., here). It was also reported on Slashdot, and debunked within a month. (I suspect the only reason anyone bothered to write up a rebuttal is that Cooperstock has a reputation in gravity and people were worried someone might buy it. Most of these flawed papers just get ignored.)

I was always a skeptic when it came to Dark Matter(I am not an astronomer, so this all technically an uniformed opinion). But now I know that it really is all a load of idle speculation coupled with incomplete investigation, and an excessive dose of hype. It only took a few minutes of googling to come up with this paper.

Oh yeah. A few minutes of Googling turns up an unpublished manuscript which overturns 80 years of research and thousands of papers. A manscript written by a guy who runs a mail-order crystal business and a former Xerox employee who studies fluid droplets. (I bet I'm going to hear "but Einstein was a patent clerk" real soon now ...) Which cites Electric Universe theory papers. That's totally credible.

It is only evidence of the need for more applied mathematics courses in astronomy undergraduate degrees.

Yeah, everyone who has worked on dark matter flunked basic undergraduate astronomy. That's probably it. I bet they can't implement Newton's law of gravity in an N-body simulation either.

I don't really feel like working through their manuscript, but it seems rather reminiscent of the Cooperstock and Tieu paper which tried to do away with dark matter by introducing a thin disk of regular matter (e.g., here). It was also reported on Slashdot, and debunked within a month. (I suspect the only reason anyone bothered to write up a rebuttal is that Cooperstock has a reputation in gravity and people were worried someone might buy it. Most of these flawed papers just get ignored.)

It only took a few minutes of googling to come up with this paper.

Note that "this paper" has not yet been refereed and accepted by a journal. It is conventional, when submitting papers to arxiv, to indicate to what journal the paper has been submitted, whether it has been refereed and accepted or not. There is none of that information here. Normally a paper submitted in March 2008 would have been accepted and published by end of Nov 2008 if it had been. I suspect that it has been rejected.

I was always a skeptic when it came to Dark Matter(I am not an astronomer, so this all technically an uniformed opinion). But now I know that it really is all a load of idle speculation coupled with incomplete investigation, and an excessive dose of hype. It only took a few minutes of googling to come up with this paper.

One of the biggest pieces of evidence for Dark Matter is the Galaxy Rotation Problem. Basically the rotations of Galaxies do not behave as astronomers expect them to do, leading to the hypothesis that there is more matter in them that we cannot see, "Dark Matter". The velocity profiles that Astronomers expect to see are Keplerian. That is, they expect star systems in galaxies to behave like planets in solar systems when it comes to orbit speed and distance from the focus of rotation.

The bottom line is, as shown in the paper, this assumption is totally unjustified. The integrals in the 2D galactic disc case do not work out using Shell Theorem, which cannot be applied. They are instead quite nasty singular integrals, but twenty minutes with MATLAB and the "QUAD" function will be all it takes to see that basic gravitational theory most certainly does not predict that Galaxies should have Keplerian(Solar System-like) rotation curves, and there is no reason whatsoever for astronomers to assume this. It's all basic mathematical physics well withing the reach of many reading this post.

The galactic rotation problem is not evidence for Dark Matter. It is only evidence of the need for more applied mathematics courses in astronomy undergraduate degrees. Of course the Galactic rotation problem is not the only evidence for Dark Matter, but it is a big part. The other big piece of evidence was the Galactic Cluster mass problem. It's been a while since I read the relevant papers, but as I recall, Zwicky played hard and fast with the virial theorem, in particular making assumptions about the stability of Galactic clusters.

Again of course, I am not an astronomer. I am essentially a lay person in these matters, so my posts and opinions (not only in this thread) should be taken with a pinch of salt. Still, I stand by my overall skepticism of Dark Matter theories, and I stand quite firmly on my objections to the interpretation of the Galactic rotation problem. I expect that in the near future, as our ability to analyse and simulate galatic dynamics improves, Dark Matter will finally be debunked.

The mission will focus on Jupiter's structure and evolution, and not on Europa or the other icy moons that may hide oceans under their surfaces - a disappointment if you ask me.

... especially since we could be using those icy moons as giant particle detectors (PDF) for neutrinos and other cosmic rays.

Everyone knows very well that dark matter alone is to blame when we face inflation, and printing presses are totally innocent.

Sure, a good first starting point is Carroll, Sean, "Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity". 2003. ISBN 0-8053-8732-3

A good chunk of the book walks you through the maths you need to deal with GR, notably differential geometry. A decent library will have a copy you can leaf through before digging into your wallet; it's not really geared for outright beginners -- it helps to have a good understanding of quantum and classical electrodynamics, special relativity and calculus, but you won't need University-graduate-level maths or knowledge, and the book is no substitute for grad courses (although it might be used in one!)

Schutz, Bernard F., "A First Course in General Relativity". 1985 978-0521277037 is easier and more didactic, but shows its age a bit with respect to things like Einstein Lensing, and missing mass issues (after all it predates BOOMERANG by a decade or more...) Schutz's math books are good too (and so are Schaum's).

If you want much harder than Carroll, he has an excellent bibliography, and there's always arxiv's qc-gr :-) :-)

However, 't Hooft's bibliography is online http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html and also worth reading. 't Hooft also recommends Carroll, fwiw. He also recommends his own book, which is hard compared to Carroll's.

't Hooft is one of the people you will want to read if you find SR, GR and QED easy. (In fact, if you do, sign up as a part time student doing physical cosmology!)

While you're thinking, analytically, your relativistic journey is pretty similar to Supplee's paradox in the presence of nonuniform gravitation. Matsas's arxiv preprint is here and is very steep for anyone, which is why I'm not typing any mathmode stuff here (not that slashdot supports it...). Supplee's ocean is somewhat analogous to the natural realization of free space, and the sub is directly analogous to your relativistic space ship -- the analogy is closer if you fly a geodesic above the plane of the galaxy, such that the mass halo can be seen as the surface of the ocean and the more visible mass forms the ocean floor, with "neutral buoyancy" being a constant acceleration towards the plane of the galaxy.

This geodesic is necessarily something like an arc seen from a nonrelativstic observer looking edge-on at the galaxy, since there is more mass towards the middle of the milky way than towards the edge.

But what does the ship do as it accelerates? Does it follow this arc as planned, or is it accelerated downwards towards the plane of the galaxy or upwards away? Is this gravitational acceleration uniform (this is not in Supplee's paradox, it requires thinking about the distribution of matter) at a given speed? What happens to any non-uniformity as the ship accelerates along the planned arc? etc.

If you can grok the idea of different large clumps of stars in the galaxy influencing the spaceship flying over top of the galaxy, then narrowing that down to a spaceship flying through the galaxy (which because of the inverse square law is much lumpier spacetime!) should be straightforward. :-)

Sorry about drowning you in this stuff. You are right about Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction happening, and would be right in an ideal flat spacetime about the practicality of relativistic interstellar or intergalactic travel with respect to the lifetime of a traveller. Unfortunately real spacetime is not flat at all, so special relativity is an insufficent toolset for this problem, and your traveller's lifetime would be dramatically shortened by a rather spectacular local shaking apart.

When it comes to the ultimate origin of the universe, I'm fine with saying "I dunno.". Maybe one day we will know.