mephox

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment Wikipedia has a good pair of articles on this. Basically - photons are both a wave and a particle and when the individual protons are not measured, they act like a wave - thus the interference pattern - but when the photons are measured in a quantifiable manner at the slit, they are forced into one position or another and act like a particle. And more on the mathematics involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englert%E2%80%93Greenberger_duality_relation So... Not based on consciousness, no. The act of measuring a system changes the dynamics of the system - sometimes in minute ways, sometimes in very obvious ways. This is known as The Observer Effect and is sometimes mistaken as consciousness affecting the world just by thinking about something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29 Of course, just by thinking about the experiment we can't change the experiment or the mathematics.

1. Wikipedia has some interesting info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis 2. And in fact it looks like Stanford is already doing something interesting here: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/electric-current-plants-041310.html 3. And an interesting brief on the role of copper in Photosynthesis (mainly in relation to deficiency vs. toxicity levels): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634185/ Looking at the news release from Stanford, it looks like the amperage is so small that I don't think there's any consumer affordable ammeter capable of measuring a picoamp reliably. You might also try reducing or increasing a plant's copper diet through copper rich fertalizers to see the effect of that on your experiments. A higher or lower concentration in plants may effect the outcome since it one of the major components in electron transfer during photosynthesis in the form of the protein plastocyanin (3, 1). (2) I'd be interested in seeing what happens if the copper intake is regulated higher or lower.

I think we are in agreement on this. I fail to see how religion and the human psyche comes into the question of whether or not there are ETCs (extra terrestrial civilizations) out there and I also fail to see how that qualifies us as being far down on the totem pole. Do you compare the bear to the shark and say the bear is smarter because it can live on land? I wouldn't think so. If we and ETCs took different evolutionary paths they are both equally valid evolutionary paths (because they happened, obviously) and the fact that they got there first means nothing. Perhaps their world was formed long before ours, so they got a billion or two year head start on us - maybe they had fewer catastrophes or their civilization didn't collapse multiple times after the most advanced civilization of the time failed for various reasons. We believed for a while that the earth was the center of the cosmos and even made needlessly complicated machines to explain it, but that didn't mean it was right, for example. To believe we are alone in the universe simply because we have heard from no-one else is a logical fallacy and to believe that we are alone because its insulting to our psyche is an even greater failure of logical thought. I do agree that, to a certain extent anyway, that some science fiction authors do tend to play our species as unable to deal with being a minor player. But there are many more out there that do not. Peter F. Hamilton does rather well in his books portraying, in my mind, the opposite reaction - embracing the way the universe is when humanity is but a small part of a much larger whole and working within that part to make the best of things within a necessarily human perspective. After all, how could we have any other than a human perspective? Any perspective we take can be argued as being anthropocentric. We are human and our perspective is ours. An alien with have a perspective that THEY can argue is anthropocentric - which will be the largest block in communications with another species and perhaps a reason why we haven't heard from any: we're looking for them in ways that make logical sense to a human. Finally, for this section, if we do run across an alien ship that uses 'dark energy' then I would think that it has SOME effect on the reality around it, much as the theoretical dark energy in our universe is forcing it to expand further, that we would be able to detect. If, however, it neither receives, uses or produces no energy it could be argued - quite logically - that it does not exist - or at the very least does not exist as a part of space-time as we know it. Maybe it will look like a blue police call box. We have the Fermi Paradox or, more appropriately the Fermi Question that we have yet to find an answer to. That we haven't found a signal from an ETC yet does not mean they're not out there. Perhaps they're not within our particle horizon - which would mean we are effectively alone. If they are within our particle horizon there are a multitude of theories as to why we haven't observed them yet (as radio signals, I'm still in doubt about many ET sightings here on Earth). I also tend not to believe the Roswell incident was a UFO - far more plausible that it was a crashed plane or other terrestrial event for a number of reasons. They are able to traverse interstellar distances, but are unable to navigate our atmosphere. This strikes me as highly implausible but, as I have no proof, I cannot say it isn't true absolutely, only unlikely. As you point out, there are many 'official' versions - all of which either contradict each other or tell very different versions of the events. The current summary version of which resides here: http://www.af.mil/information/roswell/It spells out in unambiguous terms the factors involved in the incident. 13 US airmen lost their lives in tragic accidents in two separate incidents - one involving a manned balloon (2) and the other involving a KC-97 aircraft (11) The non-human but anthropomorphic bodies found were crash test dummies, not aliens. Scientists or the military staff working with them would need to retrieve them and, if they fell outside the bounds of the Roswell AFB then of course there would be bystanders. This was at the start of the Cold war and everyone was extremely nervous over ANY activity performed by the military and especially involving military scientists. If there was a cover-up, as it appears there was, then a simpler explanation is that it was a false ploy to distract any Russian surveillance activities from actual research and events happening elsewhere. This is, of course, speculation and, as such I do not give it as much credence as I do other speculation - an interesting mental exercise but not something to take seriously until real proof is presented. So, I suppose I am in agreement with your conclusions about the Roswell incident, if not your method in arriving at the conclusion. Simply because I took a different logical path down a hypothetical road does not mean my method was the right one either, however. It's all conjecture until proof is presented that can be irrefutably tested. But I am happy to speculate in the meantime - it gives me ideas for other things to speculate about. In conclusion, I believe that I am in agreement with most of what you are saying, JohnB, if my following of your logic is correct. Anyway... Enough speculation for now. Time to get away from the computer.

I'm new here. I go by Mephox online and rarely give out my real name. I'm a science aficionado and mostly deal in speculative science but enjoy all sciences as a reader and commentator. I also love to speculate on practical uses. I'm an IT worker by trade and education, but have been a lover of all things scientific since the third grade. I like to speculate and as such, much of my posting will likely be in the speculative section. I'm also an aspiring Science Fiction writer and, rather than space opera (which I like to read), I like to write in a more hard science approach - although, of necessity some plot points are soft science - although I like to try to keep it as hard as possible.

With the increased amount of thermal radiation being trapped by the greenhouse gasses, I can't help but wonder how much longer it will be before the surface temperature of the oceans start to rise in a significant and long term fashion. With such a rise, evaporation of water from the oceans and other water sources will increase, increasing cloud cover and increasing the albedo of the earth, would it not? But if more water is evaporated from the ocean, the salinity of the oceans increases minutely resulting in lower a evaporation rate which further increases the temperature of the water and so on and so forth. Eventually though the reflective albedo of the cloud cover will surpass the amount of thermal energy the earth absorbs, reducing the overall thermal input into the system (just the atmosphere absorbing instead of the atmosphere and the earth) and reduce the amount of thermal input into the ocean and reduce the evaporation rate once again, allowing rainfall to eventually lower the overall salinity level and the evaporation rates start to rise again - thus the system is usually kept in a balance - a sort of hydrological cycle if you will. But say a lot of fresh water gets dumped into the oceans from, say, melting ice caps because the amount of thermal energy radiating out into space is lower than the amount being absorbed by the atmosphere and the earth. You reduce the overall salinity of the water, increasing the evaporation rates further and fueling cloud generation, increasing cloud cover but not lowering the overall salinity level of the ocean because there's so much heat trapped in the system (thanks to a higher greenhouse effect) that gradually the ice caps begin to melt. Eventually the system will self correct once the overall salinity levels of the ocean return to normal (pre-industrial levels) but in order to do that, the earth will need to be mostly cloud covered in order to increase the reflective albedo of our planet and gradually re-radiate the trapped heat back into space. It will take far longer than in "The day after Tomorrow" for this effect to take place, obviously. Articles used in researching this topic: http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/iceagebook/history_of_climate.html - An interesting bit about previous Ice Ages. http://www.technologyreview.com/article/24117/ - An interesting article on this topic regarding atmospheric causes that may lead to the next (near future) ice age. http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=7877 - an article regarding the ice age and its link to ocean salinity - the keystone, if you will, of my interpretation of the current facts regarding global warming and the next ice age due to it. http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/a&s/GREENHOU.htm - an article regarding greenhouse heating http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html - regarding green house gasses and ice levels. Following every peak, there has been a deep but gradual reduction back to the lowest CO2 and highest ice levels (ice age) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_pressure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

I would agree with the statements of Moontanman in most cases. I agree that there likely have been visitors here on earth at least in the 1950s back when we first started a space-flight program and possibly even up to the 1970s when we were still actively plying the route between the earth and the moon with manned missions. If there were an ETC out there interested in us, I would certainly pay attention to our space program at the very least and once they had achieved space flight, I would want to know as much as I could. Granted that's because I'm an inquisitive person and trying to figure the motivations of a theoretical ETC is like trying to figure out what the demon meant when he asked "Feathers or lead?" We have no way of knowing exactly why an ETC would be interested in us. Surely not conquest - intergalactic conquest (for the purpose of overtaking) would pose much of the same trouble that invading a country runs into - multiplied exponentially for distances involved. I think it far more likely that a species that has attained spaceflight and is capable of interstellar travel would be more scientific in nature than barbaric. Barbarism that we've seen on earth tends to eat itself. If a scientific expedition were here, I think it likely that a 'mothership' would be present in the Oort cloud where hiding is far easier than in the asteroid belt and one minor heat source against the entire galaxy would be far less noticeable than one anomalous heat source amidst cold rocks of the asteroid belt. Smaller visitor ships could come in essentially unpowered until near Earth and then leave at high velocity (matching the reports) and vanish in the heat glare of the sun or against the cosmic background. Who knows, they may even have heat capacitors that store their heat until it needs to be radiated later or radiated away from us so we would see nothing but the same black-body radiation we see of other objects in the night sky. The technical possibilities of a far advanced species are infinitely variable. Perhaps one day they will drop the veil and we will discover the truth... Or they will leave and go on to explore another solar system and we will learn nothing and speculation will continue. They may even be Von-Neumann/Bracewell probes from another civilization and not living at all, but their mechanical explorers (this makes more sense to me actually. A ship running from an AI would have no theoretical maximum G tolerance beyond that of the materials of the ship, no need for life support, no supply lines... etc.)

What is being demonstrated is hot air rising. The cold iron above gets heated, causing the cold air around it to also heat by thermal induction and rising (as hot air does) pushing against the balance above the cold piece of iron as it heats up. Once it heats up to room temperature (or higher as the metal below simultaneously cools as it transfers heat into the cold lump above and both head towards room temperature) the effect ceases - proving nothing new. I would imagine this experiment would not work nearly so well (at all) in a vacuum. It makes an interesting Rube Goldberg device, though. I'm not sure what to make of the original post that started this thread... I agree that gravity is most likely a field, but I can make heads nor tails of the post itself.

This is rather interesting. I would imagine that a test could be conducted by removing at least part of the earth's electromagnetic field around a potted plant by making a soft iron wire mesh cube (faraday cage) and placing a plant inside (also grounding the cube to an external ground) thus at least partially isolating the plant from any external influence - especially if potted in a PVC pot with no part of the soil or plant touching the faraday cube to see how well the plant grows. Theoretically, since all plants have evolved in an minor magnetic field (compared to electromagnets at least) and, by your theory, either generate or thrive on electrical energy then the plant should either not grow at all - due to the lack of external electrical stimuli (my guess in the case of the theory being true) or grow wildly successfully because of the lack due to the lack (if an electrical field impedes its own generation of an electrical field when growing). If it grows at a normal rate compared to the control plants, then I do not believe this would be the case. It can be tested in a laboratory setting to some extent. And, while you cannot completely prevent a magnetic field, a Faraday cage can at least bend the field around the interior of the cage and minimize the effect of the field.

One of the thing's that's fascinated me about black hole's recently is the fact that despite being theoretically a 'hole' in the fabric of space-time, black holes move and behave much like other bodies of mass in the universe. They can orbit things, other things can orbit them. They move throughout the universe in much the same way other celestial objects do. I believe the term black hole is likely the cause of much confusion. True, light does not escape it, and true it has no 'size' in the form of other matter in the universe. But, if we were to treat it as a hole in, say a block of Jello (letting Jello represent the fabric of space time because it is 3 dimensional, unlike paper and mattresses and other things that have been used before). If you put a marble on a block of jello, it dents the jello but does not fall through. Things can conceivably orbit the jello. Push the marble through the jello and the jello closes up behind it. I'm not saying this is an accurate representation of what happens, but based on observation of mass and gravity, the space time continuum resists being flexed fairly forcefully and will readily resume its previous shape after the object causing the flex moves on. If this were not true, we'd be leaving gravitational eddies and wakes behind our planet and very likely orbital mechanics would work very differently (gravity surfing, for example). Similarly, putting a hole into the fabric of space-time should cause the surrounding area to flex violently and briefly before springing back - leaving a tiny hole that can be opened again without further causing much of a disruption of the fabric around it - which is plainly not what we can observe about black holes. That is, if I understand the physics behind the jello-reality comparison correctly. Of course, because we are working with four dimensions and not three (jello) and obviously jello does not bend inward when you stick a marble in the middle of it, then this comparison may be off in ways that I can't imagine at the moment but I am sure are quite correct. But considering that we use paper and trampolines and bedsheets to demonstrate this effect much more simply, I believe the comparison is more apt. If, however, a black hole does NOT break through space-time and instead creates such a deep depression that light itself cannot escape and time acts strangely around it (similar to putting jello into a flexible mold with high surface tension) then we would see the same things that we observe now, correct? What I'm saying is, what if a black hole's matter and energy never leaves this universe? What if it never breaks into a parallel or alternate universe? That would explain black hole evaporation, certainly - it's still here and the stress of space-time trying to return to normal gradually causes a black hole that does not 'eat' to evaporate what its eaten in the past out into the universe. Yet another alternate possibility is that the black hole DOES break through into an alternate universe and instead of just dumping everything into a white hole (which I still believe is a possible explanation for GRB events) and snapping back, it dumps everything out into a white hole and then creates a permanent or semi-permanent (on the scale of the lifetime of the universe anyway) bridge/tunnel through space-time into this alternate universe and space-time on our side stays bent and still acts like a normal celestial object (for the purposes of gravitational physics) because space-time IS still bent, but not broken through and the other side of the tunnel attaches itself to the other space-time fabric. Which does not account for black holes evaporating - unless it takes a certain size of black hole to actually puncture space-time in such a way - much the same way there are observable laws about the way other celestial objects behave at certain mass thresholds (type 1A supernovae for example). There are just so many possibilities that its making my head hurt trying to reason out which one is the more likely. I couldn't possibly list all the possibilities in my head because I can barely grasp at the ideas myself - they're just vaguely formed notions based on what I personally know, or think I know, about physics, gravity and the nature and state of space-time and I think we will need to learn more about the fabric of space-time before we can adequately explain what a black hole IS and what it DOES in more precise terms than what we can observe and deduce through mathematical equations and applications of other theoretical physics. That's extremely interesting... I had no idea such a theory was out there before I posited mine. And I do agree with you on the point of looping back in time - It was a theory that occurred to me as I was listening to Carl Sagan's Cosmos program from the 80s. We'll see what scientists uncover in the future. I am extremely interested in what CERN manages to discover for instance, but doubt that we will get much closer to discovering the Higg's boson anytime soon. Narrowing down the specific mass may take quite a long time and we may even be grasping at straws. After all - an infinite number of variations exist between 90 and 300 GeV. But who knows... Quantum mechanics is spooky. We may get 'lucky'.

If the following things are true about black holes: A black hole is not a finitely (however enormously so) steep depression in the fabric of space-time, but in fact a hole that leads to another point in the space-time continuum. For the length of a black hole's existence all matter drawn into a black hole exits at the same point in space-time. IE: The black hole does not simply erupt matter continuously throughout its entire existence, from formation to eventual deterioration, at the same rate it sucks it in, but all matter for all of its existence erupts at the same point in space-time all at once (mini-big bang) All black holes everywhere lead to the same point in space-time Then it may be possible that Universal Causality is lost because the black holes that we witness now are the cause of the big bang. Some of the reasoning behind this is thus and deals mostly with the various dimensions of space-time - 1-4 and one extra - 5. 1 Dimension - Contains only itself possibly a part of quantum string theory - 1 dimensional lines with no depth or width but defined length. co 2 Dimensions - Contains all 1 dimensional things and adds width to the universe. A further extension of string theory - 2 dimensional shapes with no depth but defined width and length 3 Dimensions - contains all two dimensional items and 1 dimensional items and builds on both to make matter with volume and not just surface area. 4 Dimensions - Contains all 3 dimensional items - all matter is contained within the 4th dimension. A slice of the fourth dimension would be the entire universe at a single moment in time. 5 Dimensions - Contains all of time - a possible place for the many worlds theory of quantum superposition and also where the black holes would have to break into in order for the above crackpot theory to be correct. If black holes only broke into the 4th dimension they may open onto another point in space-time that we cannot possibly observe from our position (maybe even earth's position a billion year's in the future) A black hole (or all black holes) would need to break into the 5th dimension and arrive at the point where all time begins - the center of the 5th dimension if 'center' would be the appropriate term for something that I cannot conceive of visually - being a person who views things in the third dimension. In the fifth dimension time for a being who can conceive of five dimensions (for the sake of argument) all of time would be happening instantaneously from the moment it started to the moment it ends (if it does indeed end). Of course, it's also possible (and unlikely since we're still here) that if black holes broke into the 5th dimension, then all of creation would suffer the effects at random (who knows what pieces of creation are next to each other in a dimension that only math that is higher than my current level of understanding can describe). Or maybe this is a possible explanation of Gamma Ray Burst events and my initial crackpot theory is close but not correct at all. Of course, being a crackpot theory, it has a great potential to be wildly inaccurate and not at all close to reality, but its still fun to ponder as science fiction. Apologies. This should probably go into the Trash Can as un-provable. -The author of the above post.