Spyman

Well, I don't think you explained time very good, in fact I only ended up confused about what you are trying to claim. And if you are going to spread it out more widely I would consider that "confusion" a serious problem. If I get confused then I don't get convinced, more likely I tend towards not beliving it. Since you only have one replyer, (and he is trying to refute you), I would say a lot of people here (193 reads) have been so confused they have not even bothered to answer. Maybe you should make a poll with the alternatives: "good explanation", "what explanation ?", "false explanation" and "mumbo jumbo" so you would at least get a wider measurement of opinions.

Well since we don't know where the energy goes we can't know if the equipment is sensitive enough, can we ? I agree that they don't create gamma rays and that the equipment is sensitive enough to detect that. No prof of nothing becoming something. Obviously it not that easily since no competant experimenter has been able to prove where the energy comes from yet. I repeat: Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining. No I think it is the other way around, I am not trying to disprove QM nor the Casimire effect. And when (if) we find the source QM will adapt, but what QM has to say or not is irrelevant, QM is not Universe, QM is a theory describing some, not all, effects in Universe, that (if) QM states that this energy comes from nothing is not prof of that the energy comes from nothing. The only known explanation, only known sources. I repeat: Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining. The theory does not show where the energy comes from, and no other known outside effect of enough energy can not be accounted for or eliminated. I repeat: Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining. There is no experiment done that can prove that for a brief period there was more or less energy in the Universe. How would you go about to measure the total amount of energy in the Universe ?(With such good sensitivity that you can distinguish separate creations/annihilations of particles.) This is getting ridiculous, I like what swansont is saying: if you can have something from nothing then nothing is something, thus you no longer have something from nothing. Secondly it is impossible to physically by experiment prove something from nothing, because then your prof must also include that the source is not from outside Universe, from other dimensions, from unknown forces or from a omnipotent supernatural creature and so on... So if you like you are allowed to have a personal opinion (faith) in something from nothing. But AFAIK it is not a scientific physical fact proven by experiments. I ask for the third time: Is it possible to prove that something can be created from nothing ? (Hopefully you get what I am trying to say this time.)

My nomination:

Thats only prof of that we lack understanding and knowledge of where to and how the energy disappears. It is not prof of energy returning to nothing. Here you are trying to prove that QM is unable to explain the cause and mechanism for these fluctuations. I don't know QM so I am not going to argue about that. But if a theory (QM) fails to explain a measured fenomena thats only proving that the theory fails to explain it. It is not prof of energy entering from nothing. Any experiment will either find a physical existing source or fail to find a source. Failing to find a source is not prof of a nonexistent source. Neither is lack of knowledge or lack of explaining. A prof of a nonexistent source from which energy enters/disappears inside the Universe would break the Conservation Law. Energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy So now I ask again: Is it possible to prove that something can be created from nothing ? OK, but sometimes an experienced member also needs a pointer to the most fundamental flaw in his approach/theory/whatever.

I suggest you should read about other peoples theories: Conservation law: In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves. The idea that some things remain unchanging throughout the evolution of the universe has been motivating philosophers and scientists alike for a long time. In fact, quantities that are conserved, the invariants, seem to preserve what some would like to call some kind of a 'physical reality' and seem to have a more meaningful existence than many other physical quantities. These laws bring a great deal of simplicity into the structure of a physical theory. They are the ultimate basis for most solutions of the equations of physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law Conservation of energy: Conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy (in mechanics often expressed as the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy) in an isolated system remains constant. In other words, energy can be converted from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. In modern physics, all forms of energy exhibit mass and all mass is a form of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy Causality: One of the classic arguments for the existence of God is known as the "Cosmological argument" or "First cause" argument. It works from the premise that every natural event is the effect of a cause. If this is so, then the events that caused today's events must have had causes themselves, which must have had causes, and so forth. If the chain never ends, then one must uphold the hypothesis of an "actual infinite", which is often regarded as problematic, see Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel. If the chain does end, it must end with a non-natural or supernatural cause at the start of the natural world -- e.g. a creation by God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality Time: According to some of the latest scientific theories, time began with the Big Bang, and any inquiry into what happened before the big bang is either meaningless or totally inaccessible to us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time Big Bang: In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Fate of the Universe: The preponderance of evidence to date, based on measurements of the rate of expansion and the mass density, favors a universe that will not collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe Maybe you missed this thread by Martin ? http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=21469 Great post Atheist, just what a thoughtful newbie needs, to be encouraged to aquire new knowledge, develop a better understanding of the Universe and continue to post here...

Do you also belive in perpetuum mobiles and magic ? How would you go on and prove that the energy for creating particle pairs really comes from nothing and then vanish when they annihilates ? I find it very reasonable to think that even though we don't know all the mechanics about how it happends and from where the energy is "borrowed" and "returned", we will sometime find out and most problably it is from/to a physical existing source. In physics, the Casimir effect is a physical force exerted between separate objects, which is due to neither charge, gravity, nor the exchange of particles, but instead is due to resonance of all-pervasive energy fields in the intervening space between the objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect Now, I am not an expert or have knowledge of QM, but "all-pervasive energy fields" sounds more like something than nothing, at least to me.

Personally, I favor normal gravity interaction between anti and normal, but it has not been tested. The gravitational interaction of antimatter with matter or antimatter has not been conclusively observed by physicists. While the overwhelming consensus amongst physicists is that antimatter will attract both matter and antimatter at the same rate matter attracts matter, there is a strong desire to confirm this experimentally. If the gravitational interactions between antimatter and matter were found to be repulsive it would be a potential violation of conservation of energy – arguably the most fundamental law of physics. The CPT theorem asserts that antimatter should attract antimatter in the same way that matter attracts matter. However, there are several theories about how antimatter gravitationally interacts with normal matter: Normal gravity - Standard theory asserts that antimatter should fall in exactly the same manner as normal matter. Antigravity - Initial theoretical analysis also focused on whether antimatter might instead repel with the same magnitude. This should not be confused with the many other speculative phenomena which are also called 'antigravity'. Gravivector & Graviscalar - Later difficulties in creating quantum gravity theories have led to the idea that antimatter may react with a slightly different magnitude. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter

But assuming large zones of antimatter exist, there must be some boundary where antimatter atoms from the antimatter galaxies or stars will come into contact with normal atoms. In those regions a powerful flux of gamma rays would be produced. This has never been observed despite deployment of very sensitive instruments in space to detect them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter But the Universe is so HUGE. The main disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is about 80,000 to 100,000 light years in diameter, about 250-300 thousand light years in circumference, and outside the Galactic core, about 1,000 light years in thickness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way The Local Group is the group of galaxies that includes our galaxy, the Milky Way. The group comprises over 30 galaxies, with its gravitational center located somewhere between the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy. The galaxies of the Local Group cover a 10 million light-year diameter. The group resides in the Canes Venatici cloud in the Virgo Supercluster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group The diameter of the Supercluster is about 200 million light years; it contains about 100 groups and clusters of galaxies and is dominated by the Virgo cluster near its center. Our Local Group is located near the edge and is being drawn inward toward the Virgo cluster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgo_Supercluster Superclusters can range in size up to several 10^8 light years. No clusters of superclusters are known, but the existence of structures larger than superclusters is debated. Interspersed among superclusters are large voids of space in which few galaxies exist. Even though superclusters are the largest structures confirmed, the total number of superclusters leave possibilities for structural distribution; the total number of superclusters in the universe is believed to be close to 10 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercluster With enormous large voids with very low matter density. In astronomy, voids are the empty spaces between filaments, the largest-scale structures in the Universe that contain very few, or no, galaxies. Voids typically have a diameter of 11 to 150 Mpc; particularly large voids, defined by the absence of rich superclusters, are sometimes called supervoids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28astronomy%29 Intergalactic space is the physical space between galaxies. Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a vacuum. The average density of the Universe is less than one atom per cubic meter. The density of the Universe, however, is clearly not uniform; it ranges from relatively high density in galaxies (including very high density in structures within galaxies, such as planets, stars, and black holes) to extremely rarefied conditions in vast voids that have lower density than the Universe's average. Surrounding and stretching between galaxies, there is a rarefied gas that is thought to possess a cosmic filamentary structure and that is slightly denser than the average density in the Universe. This material is called the intergalactic medium (IGM) and is mostly ionized hydrogen (i.e. a plasma) consisting of equal numbers of electrons and protons. The IGM is thought to exist at a density of 10 to 100 times the average density of the Universe (10 to 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). It reaches densities as high as 1000 times the average density of the Universe in rich clusters of galaxies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_space So it makes me wonder: Can we really be sure, that there will be enought interactions, inside those "small" threads of filaments between Superclusters, with sufficient power to be detected from the very far edge of our observable part of the universe, with our "very sensitive instruments in space" ? Somehow I have the impression, (from my human perspective), that: inside Milky Way - sure, inside our Local Group - problably, inside our Supercluster - maybe, between Virgo and other Superclusters - doubtfully, between Superclusters beyond Superclusters - not likely. How far are we able to observe these gamma rays according to estimates and sensitivity ?

Maybe because we have not observed any aliens and their planets yet...

Actually I am not, (well maybe a little ), my answer was two folded: I don't have good enough knowledge of Relativity to answer your question. Ask swansont instead, he is a Physics Expert.

You are asking if Dark Energy could be the angular momentum of a rotating Universe ? Rotating on all three axes in all three dimensions or in another dimension ?

Well, actually I know nothing about procedures and politics around selecting candidates for Nobel Prize. (And barely have a simple understanding of how Relativity is supposed to work.) But from my experiences I know that such controversies can make a big difference. Hopefully someone else can explain, maybe Martin ?

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity. The Big Bang model admits very exotic physical phenomena that include dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic inflation which rely on conditions and physics that have not yet been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments. While explanations for such phenomena remain at the frontiers of inquiry in physics, independent observations of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Type Ia supernovae strongly suggest the phenomena are important and real cosmological features of our universe. Though some aspects of the theory remain inadequately explained by fundamental physics, almost all cosmologists accept that the close agreement between Big Bang theory and observation have firmly established all the basic parts of the theory. During inflation, the universe undergoes exponential expansion, and regions in causal contact expand so as to be beyond each other's horizons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Big Bang was an explosion of space not an explosion in space. When moving through space there is a universal speed limit © witch causes the Event Horizon around Black Holes but there is no known speed limit for the expansion of space. If the expansion speed is several times greater than c inside a Black Hole then it will be torn apart in all directions.

If your current power supply is enough now and the new card draws less then there is no need to boost the power. I think it is generally recommended with a 350W power supply because when close to the limits the voltage can drop to low during current peaks, for instance when CD/DVD-player starts, and cause circuits to malfunction temporarily with corrupted data or system failure as result.

There seems to be a dispute about how much others contributed... From Wikipedia: Albert Einstein presented the theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity in groundbreaking publications that did not include references to the work of others. Claims have been put forward about both theories that they have been formulated by others before Einstein, and that these people should get the credit. Consequently, Albert Einstein would deserve less credit for these theories, and according to some, even no credit at all for special relativity. At issue is whether Einstein can be considered the true creator of these theories, based on priority issues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_disputes_about_Einstein_and_the_relativity_theories

The difference is in which one has accelerated. Search the threads in the Relativity subforum and you will find plenty of better and more detailed answers from the experts.

I hope you guys realizes that I only argue against the low "official" lifespan of the rovers and question why it was accepted. Both Spirit and Opportunity are doing GREAT !!! (And have thus proved that we can do better.) They have so far lived longer than the Lunokhod rovers and if it had been a race they might have reached farther than them. (And might still do that, Opportunity is closing in on Lunokhod 1.) You are correct, the enviroment is different but our technology has improved since then, which the outstanding performance of the Mars rovers have proved. I don't have the knowledge to say which enviroment is most hostile/friendly for the rovers but: * If there is enough solar power, to let the rover charge batteries, move and performe scientific measurements, with a small plus then it is not affecting the rovers lifetime. * The atmosphere is also contributing to the friendly part by lowering the differences between night and day temperatures. (Moon -233 C to +123 C versus Mars -140 C to +20 C) * The dust-storms have actually increased the performance of the martian rovers by whiping the solarpanels clean from dust. (Why not a mechanical whiper ?) * Machinery on the Moon also has trouble with dust: "Thirty-plus years ago on the moon, Apollo astronauts made an important discovery: Moondust can be a major nuisance. The fine powdery grit was everywhere and had a curious way of getting into things. Moondust plugged bolt holes, fouled tools, coated astronauts' visors and abraded their gloves. Very often while working on the surface, they had to stop what they were doing to clean their cameras and equipment using large--and mostly ineffective--brushes." http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/04apr_magneticmoondust.htm "The rover would run during the lunar day, stopping occasionally to recharge its batteries via the solar panels. At night the rover would hibernate until the next sunrise, heated by the radioactive source" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1 Do you think the Moon always has the same side towards the Sun ? I agree that the amount of equipment the rover has to carry will lower the speed and may affect it's mobility depending on terrain. But it is a rover - it can move, with longer lifetime the distance will increase, and the main point with a rover is to travel. Since the rovers are solarpowered they will not suddenly run out of power because their fuel is depleted. OK - Sorry ! Since you wrote "on mars" instead of "on moon", I guess I misinterpreted your post.

You know, if you have an argument you could go on and explain it... (instead of making sarcastic posts)

I agree it's most probable Opportunity will meet its final fate there in the Victoria crater... It will take a long time to descend and explore all the interesting spots, it's a big chance Opportunity will malfunction severely before they even consider to turn around and climb up again. But hopefully she will surprise us, manage to climb up to survive another martian year. The 'official' life span of the rovers was 600 meters (1,969 feet) and 90 martian days, which Spirit was the first to accomplish in April 2004, today Opportunity has driven more than 9.4 kilometers (5.85 miles) and survived for 976 martian days and is still going strong ! Personally I think that going through the big effort of transporting a spaceprobe all the way to Mars for only 600 meters and/or 90 days is to low with the technology present today. Already at 1970 and 1972 Soviet Union sent rovers to the Moon, Lunokhod 1 & 2, which lasted longer. "During its 322 Earth days of operations, Lunokhod traveled 10540 metres." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1 "Lunokhod 2 operated for about 4 months, covered 37,000 metres (23 miles) of terrain." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_2 Also as a bystander I would like, (Yeah, dream on), was some simpler color camera, somewhere in the front, which would send/update pictures continuously on the web, without interfering with/from the scientific work. Maybe even with sound.

Before they sent Opportunity down into Endurance Crater they did successfully tests here on Earth with 25 degrees tilt. From JPL press release: "We have done testing that says we can do 25 degrees, provided the wheels are on a rock surface and not loose sand," Cook said. Engineers and scientists on the rover team built a test surface mimicking the rocks and sand seen in Opportunity's images of Endurance Crater. The surface was tilted to 25 degrees, and a test rover climbed it. At Base of 'Burns Cliff' http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20041213a.html From JPL press release: The rover was on ground with a slope of about 30 degrees when the pictures were taken.

AFAIK: When we create matter from energy it is created in the 1:1 ratio with a particle / antiparticle pair. Quote of Diego Casadei: "We know from experimental high energy physics that whenever matter is created, an equal amount of antimatter is also created." So when we generate a small quantity of antimatter, we also generate the same amount of normal matter.

More (high resolution) pictures: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20061006a.html

Most likely black holes will keep their momentum from rotation before the collapse, but they can still have objects in orbits in different angles than their rotation. The planets orbits in the same plane as the star rotates because they where created from the same rotating cloud of matter. If a rock enters the solar system from outside, with the correct speed and angle, it will be captured by the Suns gravity and orbit with a different angle than the plane. On the outskirts of the solar system there is the Oort cloud which is spherical even though the Sun is rotating. Oort Cloud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud A rotating black hole is a complicated thing, in theory it should have two event horizons and two photon spheres. Kerr Black Hole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_black_hole

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/nslens_math.html EDIT 2: Happy Birthday Sisyphus !

Is there a new link where one might view the Warning Points and Expiry Time left ? Like the old one : http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/Warn.php?do=ViewMyWarnings (Which doesn't seem to work anymore.) From this thread: Warning System http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=11377