Does anybody have a link to Mars Rover science-in-progress? We are getting all sorts of operations/engineering reports and neat photos, but almost no science reports. What have the spectrometers found? Does the rock chemistry correspond to known minerals on earth or is it new? What ever happened with the briny mud speculations a few days back? I suppose there is a methodical plan to analyze and release papers, but it sure would be fun to at least know the basic composition of those sphericles for coffee break discussion.
YOU DON'T NEED A COMPOSITE MATRIX! You can repair a broken rope by re-weaving a section a bit longer than its diameter. Ropes are made up of short fibers held together by friction and tension. Friction is tough in carbon, but if you have even three nanotubes filaments, if you cross-link molecules every few hundred atoms along a few millimeters of filaments, you can forget the matrix. (Patent applied for...now--Unobtanium, Inc.)
How can so many posters miss the obvious? The greatest defense against terrorists, WMDs, and losing your job is a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage. Scheeesch!
I'm only a lay person and I ask these questions for enlightenment.
Yes, matter and energy are inter-convertible, but light expresses pressure which can be expansive. Over the life of a star, for example, a relatively small percentage of matter is converted into energy (say about 4% --I don't know the average value for all star classes, but I seem to recall that is about the binding energy released in the H+H = He Rx). In our rarified region of the galaxy, stars "mine" about 16 cubic light years of space for matter for their formation, i.e., the nearby stars average about 5 light years apart. Now the average curvature of space (gravitation effect) would be the same whether the matter was thinly dispersed across space or concentrated into the "point source" of a star. As the energy is radiated from the star, however, it exerts a small repulsive pressure on any matter with which it interacts.
My question is: Is the gravitation force between gamma rays, for example, equivalent to the gravitational force between the small mass of matter which was converted into those gamma rays? I assume it is, but gravitation, to my knowledge, has never been empirically measured even at the atomic level. There is no doubt that kinetic energy is converted into mass in particle accelerators, for example, but does the space curvature effect hold for gamma rays released, say, in matter/anti-matter annihilations?
If energy does not curve space, then there should have been a small reduction in the curvature of the universe ever since the Big Bang as matter was converted to energy in stellar crucibles. If energy does curve space, then it seems to me that you would also have to deduct the repulsive force of energy as it has radiated from stars, and this should have led to a speed up in the expansion of the universe as matter was converted to energy.
The observations that lead to assumptions about dark energy are based on very small deviations from expected "classical" values over the whole range of the universe. The universe is approximately 25 billion light years "across" as the oldest objects are a bit over 12 billion light years from Earth. That means the average rate of expansion over the "life" of the universe is approximately the speed of light. It is not half "c" for example, or those oldest stars would only be 6 billion light years from us. This is intriguing. Why c, why Planck's constant, why...
Energy/matter/time/charge/space distilled out of the "cosmic egg" following the big bang (whatever that event was). And gravitation must not have been sufficient to hold the "egg" together. A small fraction of the original matter formed early in "time" has been converted into energy over the life of the universe.
I assume that physicists and astrophysicist believe that the total, inter-convertible quantity of light and dark energy, and light and dark matter, has remained the same over the life of the universe. I only ask this because I've never seen an article that specifically addressed the gravitational effects (or curvature) associated with energy.
Personally, I think the observation of dark energy and matter is one of the greatest scientific mysteries reported in my lifetime, and its explanation may rate right up there with the demise of the aether or the solving of the ultraviolet catastrophe about a century ago, which led ultimately to the special theory of relativity; or so I hope.
Coming from a classical perspective, matter would be "condensing" from the primordial "hot stuff" for a long time after the Big Bang. Classical hypothesis is that E + Matter = E +Matter for the universe in the long haul.
I ask as a layman: the condensation of matter for a long time following the big bang would have equated to a gradual increase in gravitational forces, wouldn't it, because matter expresses gravitation more effectively than energy? At some point about five billion years ago, the condensation of matter crossed a threshold where it no longer condensed from the primordial "hot stuff" at a rate sufficient to override the expansion of space and the contained energy from the original expansion. The universe at that point didn't accelerate so much as it continued to expand with less overiding constraints from the diminishing role of condensing matter. Perhaps matter is less infinite than energy in the equilibrium of this universe.
Is dark energy only the limiting of exhausted matter in the grand equation?
That being said, I hope for tapping the energy of the zero point field and the success of overunity devices based on that premise. I tire of classical explanations--including my own--based on post-classical observation
A few years ago I was stopped by a "drug interdiction team" while coming off the desert after a week long camping trip. My young son and nephew were with me and we were detained for an hour while they brought out a little shaggy dog to sniff the tires. I was polite, but really pissed. The cops Mutt and Jeffed us the whole time. This was fairly common for a year or so until a couple was detained for four hours. They filed a $40 million civil suit, and I haven't seen one of these roadblocks since. There was never a public report of the outcome of the suit, so I assume the couple won something. I've had many friends who were cops and deputies, but there is no excuse for constitutional violations; more so if the immediate public safety is not at risk.
During the Carter years, when I got involved in ethanol production, it took about 5 BTUs of petroleum through a tractor to grow one BTU of ethanol and more BTU's to distill the ethanol than you got from burning it. The advantage was that ethanol blending permits you to burn a lower grade of gasoline in your automobile. Also the mash has a dry protein concentration of about 30% from the yeast, which is three times the protein of legumes (beans, peas) and six times the protein content of beef. Since most corn goes to feed livestock, it makes sense to convert part of the corn crop into a fuel additive and a feed supplement along the way. Although we would be better off to eat the yeast and drink the ethanol.
But I thought they reverse-engineered ICs from that Roswell wreck!
After the first whole earth photos were released, I remember people in America became a lot more environmentally sensitive--for a while. There has been a suggestion that the Earth and Mars experienced at least one more or less simultaneous ice age. Whether they did or not, the Earth's atmosphere is not static or inert. It is a huge evolving chemistry beaker and Mars may offer comparative studies of a process that is important to all humans and other living things. Onward spacefaring nations!
Looks a lot like banded rhyolite from a pyroclastic flow (think big volcano doom cloud like on TV). The layers of superheated ash weld together as they pile up. We have similar outcrops all over south Idaho. In some canyons, you see individual volcanic layers piled 300 feet vertically without a major seam; just band upon band. The blocks on Mars appear different, though. Here the rhyolite tends to be more angular, but it is much younger than Mars. But I'm no geologist--just a geek that has spent a lot of time in the backcountry staring at rocks. I'm hoping for water borne sediments, too.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach (Might apply)
I'm just an old nerd from before it had anything to do with computers. When I try to connect via:http://www.lasermonks.com/ I get this message:
Access to this server is forbidden from your client
What's with that?
Nixon pulled the plug on Apollo and Johnson was more than happy to spend a little pork. They both ran into a little budget problem in SE Asia. Today we need more positive politics for Space from both parties in the US, and to give credit where credit is due: to the Euros, the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese, and all the rest. Goodwill to humans and Martians alike!
Remember the Watergate break-in! McGovern had a good shot at the Electoral College but Nixon's "Plumbers" with their "dirty tricks" took a toll. Beware the 2004 cyber version!
fA/v looks a lot like fA/c = energy . Wouldn't the Strouhal number relate to the biological energy available to the flying entities? Wouldn't that fall within a fairly narrow range?
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody have a link to Mars Rover science-in-progress? We are getting all sorts of operations/engineering reports and neat photos, but almost no science reports. What have the spectrometers found? Does the rock chemistry correspond to known minerals on earth or is it new? What ever happened with the briny mud speculations a few days back? I suppose there is a methodical plan to analyze and release papers, but it sure would be fun to at least know the basic composition of those sphericles for coffee break discussion.
YOU DON'T NEED A COMPOSITE MATRIX! You can repair a broken rope by re-weaving a section a bit longer than its diameter. Ropes are made up of short fibers held together by friction and tension. Friction is tough in carbon, but if you have even three nanotubes filaments, if you cross-link molecules every few hundred atoms along a few millimeters of filaments, you can forget the matrix. (Patent applied for...now--Unobtanium, Inc.)
How can so many posters miss the obvious? The greatest defense against terrorists, WMDs, and losing your job is a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage. Scheeesch!
I'm only a lay person and I ask these questions for enlightenment. Yes, matter and energy are inter-convertible, but light expresses pressure which can be expansive. Over the life of a star, for example, a relatively small percentage of matter is converted into energy (say about 4% --I don't know the average value for all star classes, but I seem to recall that is about the binding energy released in the H+H = He Rx). In our rarified region of the galaxy, stars "mine" about 16 cubic light years of space for matter for their formation, i.e., the nearby stars average about 5 light years apart. Now the average curvature of space (gravitation effect) would be the same whether the matter was thinly dispersed across space or concentrated into the "point source" of a star. As the energy is radiated from the star, however, it exerts a small repulsive pressure on any matter with which it interacts. My question is: Is the gravitation force between gamma rays, for example, equivalent to the gravitational force between the small mass of matter which was converted into those gamma rays? I assume it is, but gravitation, to my knowledge, has never been empirically measured even at the atomic level. There is no doubt that kinetic energy is converted into mass in particle accelerators, for example, but does the space curvature effect hold for gamma rays released, say, in matter/anti-matter annihilations? If energy does not curve space, then there should have been a small reduction in the curvature of the universe ever since the Big Bang as matter was converted to energy in stellar crucibles. If energy does curve space, then it seems to me that you would also have to deduct the repulsive force of energy as it has radiated from stars, and this should have led to a speed up in the expansion of the universe as matter was converted to energy. The observations that lead to assumptions about dark energy are based on very small deviations from expected "classical" values over the whole range of the universe. The universe is approximately 25 billion light years "across" as the oldest objects are a bit over 12 billion light years from Earth. That means the average rate of expansion over the "life" of the universe is approximately the speed of light. It is not half "c" for example, or those oldest stars would only be 6 billion light years from us. This is intriguing. Why c, why Planck's constant, why... Energy/matter/time/charge/space distilled out of the "cosmic egg" following the big bang (whatever that event was). And gravitation must not have been sufficient to hold the "egg" together. A small fraction of the original matter formed early in "time" has been converted into energy over the life of the universe. I assume that physicists and astrophysicist believe that the total, inter-convertible quantity of light and dark energy, and light and dark matter, has remained the same over the life of the universe. I only ask this because I've never seen an article that specifically addressed the gravitational effects (or curvature) associated with energy. Personally, I think the observation of dark energy and matter is one of the greatest scientific mysteries reported in my lifetime, and its explanation may rate right up there with the demise of the aether or the solving of the ultraviolet catastrophe about a century ago, which led ultimately to the special theory of relativity; or so I hope.
Coming from a classical perspective, matter would be "condensing" from the primordial "hot stuff" for a long time after the Big Bang. Classical hypothesis is that E + Matter = E +Matter for the universe in the long haul. I ask as a layman: the condensation of matter for a long time following the big bang would have equated to a gradual increase in gravitational forces, wouldn't it, because matter expresses gravitation more effectively than energy? At some point about five billion years ago, the condensation of matter crossed a threshold where it no longer condensed from the primordial "hot stuff" at a rate sufficient to override the expansion of space and the contained energy from the original expansion. The universe at that point didn't accelerate so much as it continued to expand with less overiding constraints from the diminishing role of condensing matter. Perhaps matter is less infinite than energy in the equilibrium of this universe. Is dark energy only the limiting of exhausted matter in the grand equation? That being said, I hope for tapping the energy of the zero point field and the success of overunity devices based on that premise. I tire of classical explanations--including my own--based on post-classical observation
A few years ago I was stopped by a "drug interdiction team" while coming off the desert after a week long camping trip. My young son and nephew were with me and we were detained for an hour while they brought out a little shaggy dog to sniff the tires. I was polite, but really pissed. The cops Mutt and Jeffed us the whole time. This was fairly common for a year or so until a couple was detained for four hours. They filed a $40 million civil suit, and I haven't seen one of these roadblocks since. There was never a public report of the outcome of the suit, so I assume the couple won something. I've had many friends who were cops and deputies, but there is no excuse for constitutional violations; more so if the immediate public safety is not at risk.
During the Carter years, when I got involved in ethanol production, it took about 5 BTUs of petroleum through a tractor to grow one BTU of ethanol and more BTU's to distill the ethanol than you got from burning it. The advantage was that ethanol blending permits you to burn a lower grade of gasoline in your automobile. Also the mash has a dry protein concentration of about 30% from the yeast, which is three times the protein of legumes (beans, peas) and six times the protein content of beef. Since most corn goes to feed livestock, it makes sense to convert part of the corn crop into a fuel additive and a feed supplement along the way. Although we would be better off to eat the yeast and drink the ethanol.
Just credit the Pentagon for securing the most sacred of American democratic instuitutions: the vote.
But I thought they reverse-engineered ICs from that Roswell wreck! After the first whole earth photos were released, I remember people in America became a lot more environmentally sensitive--for a while. There has been a suggestion that the Earth and Mars experienced at least one more or less simultaneous ice age. Whether they did or not, the Earth's atmosphere is not static or inert. It is a huge evolving chemistry beaker and Mars may offer comparative studies of a process that is important to all humans and other living things. Onward spacefaring nations!
Looks a lot like banded rhyolite from a pyroclastic flow (think big volcano doom cloud like on TV). The layers of superheated ash weld together as they pile up. We have similar outcrops all over south Idaho. In some canyons, you see individual volcanic layers piled 300 feet vertically without a major seam; just band upon band. The blocks on Mars appear different, though. Here the rhyolite tends to be more angular, but it is much younger than Mars. But I'm no geologist--just a geek that has spent a lot of time in the backcountry staring at rocks. I'm hoping for water borne sediments, too.
War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terrorism. We need a War on Mars! Lock it in the budget forever!
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach (Might apply) I'm just an old nerd from before it had anything to do with computers. When I try to connect via:http://www.lasermonks.com/ I get this message: Access to this server is forbidden from your client What's with that?
Yea, and 20 years ago they said we would be fighting wars for oil. Just a bunch of babbling idiot.
Hmmm...The prudent should not take a long-term lease in Manhattan below the 31st floor.
Nixon pulled the plug on Apollo and Johnson was more than happy to spend a little pork. They both ran into a little budget problem in SE Asia. Today we need more positive politics for Space from both parties in the US, and to give credit where credit is due: to the Euros, the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese, and all the rest. Goodwill to humans and Martians alike!
Yaa, yaa, and now "Duba" wears a business suit on the carrier deck. 'Pixels are a wonton mistress"
Too bad these folks don't have after-market V-2s from Taiwan to work with.
Remember the Watergate break-in! McGovern had a good shot at the Electoral College but Nixon's "Plumbers" with their "dirty tricks" took a toll. Beware the 2004 cyber version!
fA/v looks a lot like fA/c = energy . Wouldn't the Strouhal number relate to the biological energy available to the flying entities? Wouldn't that fall within a fairly narrow range?