beecee

As far as we know, the effects of tidal gravitation increases as a object approaches a BH's singularity region, to the extent that it will be ripped asunder into its most basic constituent fundamental parts. Yes even the strong nuclear force is overcome.

Simply put, time is what stops everything from happening together: Likewise, space is what keeps everything apart.

What is your point? Remember this is mainstream science.

No, they obviously are not, but it still leaves open a myriad of other explanations and reasons.

It seems that the link to the apod has updated itself...let's try again....https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap180305.html run your cursor over the picture and see how far each galaxy is away and illustrated with sound tones.

A giant amongst men: Given 2 years to live at the age of 21 years, he instead reached out into the Universe, with his knowledge, humour and example. I'm drinking a can of Fosters to his memory.

No one having an attempt at this?

Once again Moreno, your incredulity in general is unfounded: Besides gravitational interactions, tidal perturbations, radioactivity, thermo-nuclear fusion etc, the Gaseous giants energy output can be explained by continued gravitational shrinking or collapse. https://www.windows2universe.org/saturn/interior/S_evolution_contraction.html In addition it certainly appears you have some other possibility in mind. OK, all you need is some evidence to support what ever it is that you seem to be pushing for all you are worth. In the meantime, scientists do have a reasonable handle on the planets and there geoactivity, and many have been listed here, with some unknown aspect. What you need to do is take this "unknown aspect" research it, form an hypothesis, and then write up a paper for proper scientific peer review.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html A possible experiment to prove that gravity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled: Two teams of researchers working independently of one another have come up with an experiment designed to prove that gravity and quantum mechanics can be reconciled. excerpt: The experiment essentially involves attempting to entangle two particles using their gravitational attraction as a means of confirming quantum gravity. In practice, it would consist of levitating two tiny diamonds a small distance from one another and putting each of them into a superposition of two spin directions. After that, a magnetic field would be applied to separate the spin components. At this point, a test would be made to see if each of the components is gravitationally attracted. If they are, the researchers contend, that will prove that gravity is quantum; Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html#jCp the papers: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.240402 Gravitationally Induced Entanglement between Two Massive Particles is Sufficient Evidence of Quantum Effects in Gravity: ABSTRACT All existing quantum-gravity proposals are extremely hard to test in practice. Quantum effects in the gravitational field are exceptionally small, unlike those in the electromagnetic field. The fundamental reason is that the gravitational coupling constant is about 43 orders of magnitude smaller than the fine structure constant, which governs light-matter interactions. For example, detecting gravitons—the hypothetical quanta of the gravitational field predicted by certain quantum-gravity proposals—is deemed to be practically impossible. Here we adopt a radically different, quantum-information-theoretic approach to testing quantum gravity. We propose witnessing quantumlike features in the gravitational field, by probing it with two masses each in a superposition of two locations. First, we prove that any system (e.g., a field) mediating entanglement between two quantum systems must be quantum. This argument is general and does not rely on any specific dynamics. Then, we propose an experiment to detect the entanglement generated between two masses via gravitational interaction. By our argument, the degree of entanglement between the masses is a witness of the field quantization. This experiment does not require any quantum control over gravity. It is also closer to realization than detecting gravitons or detecting quantum gravitational vacuum fluctuations. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.240401 ABSTRACT Understanding gravity in the framework of quantum mechanics is one of the great challenges in modern physics. However, the lack of empirical evidence has lead to a debate on whether gravity is a quantum entity. Despite varied proposed probes for quantum gravity, it is fair to say that there are no feasible ideas yet to test its quantum coherent behavior directly in a laboratory experiment. Here, we introduce an idea for such a test based on the principle that two objects cannot be entangled without a quantum mediator. We show that despite the weakness of gravity, the phase evolution induced by the gravitational interaction of two micron size test masses in adjacent matter-wave interferometers can detectably entangle them even when they are placed far apart enough to keep Casimir-Polder forces at bay. We provide a prescription for witnessing this entanglement, which certifies gravity as a quantum coherent mediator, through simple spin correlation measurements. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Questions.....Why specifically diamonds? In the Abstract of the first paper, it says, " By our argument, the degree of entanglement between the masses is a witness of the field quantization." When they speak of the "the degree of entanglement" are they referring to how far the masses are apart before entanglement ceases? If so, I was always of the opinion that this entanglement process, extended to infinity? In the second paper, it says, "We show that despite the weakness of gravity, the phase evolution induced by the gravitational interaction of two micron size test masses in adjacent matter-wave interferometers can detectably entangle them even when they are placed far apart enough to keep Casimir-Polder forces at bay." So again I understand that "Casimir forces only act over very short distances of less then the wavelengths of vacuum fluctuations or your average virtual particle that pops into and out of existence. So what has this to do with entanglement? Or more properly, what am I misunderstanding? And finally, when will we have a verifiable QGT? Will we ever really have the tools and methodology of measuring at those quantum/Planck levels to validate or otherwise?

Very badly worded! Can I have another go? Our eyes see...period: Unless of course in the first instance, no part of the visible spectrum falls on the eye, thereby giving us a perception of a lack of colour, or black. And those facts lead us to the logical conclusion, that an Orange in the dark, has no colour.

Of course it does! And not only contradicting, but resorting to unnecessary and irrelevant pedant and philosophy, and at the same time discriminating between word definitions like perceived, see, and interpret. Our eyes see...period: Unless of course in the first instance, no part of the visible spectrum falls on the eye, thereby giving us a perception of colour. And those facts lead us to the logical conclusion, that an Orange in the dark, has no colour.

As is your rather pedant philosophical take just your opinion. AGREED.

Wow!! Are you trying to be funny? Talk about philosophical pedantic nonsense! Let me sum it up for you...We see light, which we call the EMS. Black is the absence of light/colour, or a property of the object absorbing all of the EMS. And while in a technical sense, it is really not appropriate to refer to light as being colored. Light is simply a wave with a specific wavelength or a mixture of wavelengths; it has no color in and of itself. An object that is emitting or reflecting light to our eye appears to have a specific color as the result of the eye-brain response to the wavelength. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Visible-Light-and-the-Eye-s-Response Agreed.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Visible-Light-and-the-Eye-s-Response Visible Light Spectrum The focus of Lesson 2 will be upon the visible light region - the very narrow band of wavelengths located to the right of the infrared region and to the left of the ultraviolet region. Though electromagnetic waves exist in a vast range of wavelengths, our eyes are sensitive to only a very narrow band. Since this narrow band of wavelengths is the means by which humans see, we refer to it as the visible light spectrum. Normally when we use the term "light," we are referring to a type of electromagnetic wave that stimulates the retina of our eyes. In this sense, we are referring to visible light, a small spectrum from the enormous range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. This visible light region consists of a spectrum of wavelengths that range from approximately 700 nanometers (abbreviated nm) to approximately 400 nm. Expressed in more familiar units, the range of wavelengths extends from 7 x 10-7 meter to 4 x 10-7 meter. This narrow band of visible light is affectionately known as ROYGBIV. As mentioned in the first section of Lesson 2, our eyes are sensitive to a very narrow band of frequencies within the enormous range of frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. This narrow band of frequencies is referred to as the visible light spectrum. Visible light - that which is detectable by the human eye - consists of wavelengths ranging from approximately 780 nanometer (7.80 x 10-7 m) down to 390 nanometer (3.90 x 10-7 m). Specific wavelengths within the spectrum correspond to a specific color based upon how humans typically perceive light of that wavelength. The long wavelength end of the spectrum corresponds to light that is perceived by humans to be red and the short wavelength end of the spectrum corresponds to light that is perceived to be violet. Other colors within the spectrum include orange, yellow, green and blue. The graphic below depicts the approximate range of wavelengths that are associated with the various perceived colors within the spectrum.

beecee says our eyes detect/interpret/see light and the exact nature of that light is interpreted as a specific colour. Again, if we have no EMS, we have no colour or black. Your claims so far seem rather philosophical and rampant, rather then observational physics.

Our eyes detect/see all of the EMS from 400nm to 700nm, and the actual specific wavelength is interpreted/seen as a colour when the impulses are sent to the brain. Anything else is unecessary philosophical pedant. So? An Orange under normal lighting conditions on earth, appears/is seen as orange, again, so? Yes, you need to let go. As I said before, "I believe the belief that an Orange is orange in any condition of lighting or lack thereof, is an example of what I call "intuitiveness bias" Obviously we all know under normal conditions on planet Earth, under normal light, an Orange is orange....no question about it. But altering those normal lighting conditions, or removing the lighting, and it is easily seen I believe, that the colour or lack thereof of any object depends in the first instance on that precise EMS or lack of" And that is perceived/seen/interpreted as light of a specific colour...Unless of course there is no light and then we have blackness or no colour. Giving some link from a tabloid newspaper such as the "Daily Mail" MEANS sfa on a science forum.

I'm saying that certain parts of the EMS, that is visible to the eye, is interpreted as a specific colour. If there is no EMS for the eye to interpret, there is no colour and we see blackness. If the EMS is specifically at another wavelength, the eye will interpret that differently. I believe that was pretty clear in my previous post.

Let me attempt to illustrate further......If for example we welcomed to Earth, an emissary Alien from the planet Proxima Centauri, where Oranges or any fruit for that matter are unknown, and we put our Centaurian in a room with no EMR at all,and dropped an Orange into his hand. Could he tell us what colour it was, as a result of the reflective/absorption properties of that Orange? Let's say now we turn on a light that emitted EMR at the blue wavelength of the EMS...our Alien Centaurian would actually then see a brown Orange. I believe the belief that an Orange is orange in any condition of lighting or lack thereof, is an example of what I call "intuitiveness bias" Obviously we all know under normal conditions on planet Earth, under normal light, an Orange is orange....no question about it. But altering those normal lighting conditions, or removing the lighting, and it is easily seen I believe, that the colour or lack thereof of any object depends in the first instance on that precise EMS or lack of it.

Black is the absence of colour.....Orange is a result of the reflective properties of the object, both of course depending on what part of the EMS, or lack thereof, that is falling on that object. The orange in the dark room [ or where there is no visible part of the EMS] therefor has no colour or is black, and its properties to absorb and/or reflect are not in question, and are simply "inoperable" [for want of a better word] in such circumstances.

Or simply an Orange in a room with no EMS to reflect.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-degree-global-million-people.html A half degree more global warming could flood out 5 million more people: March 9, 2018 by Liz Fuller-Wright, Princeton University The 2015 Paris climate agreement sought to stabilize global temperatures by limiting warming to "well below 2.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels," but a recent literature review found the 2 degree limitation "inadequate" and concluded that limiting global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees would "come with several advantages." To quantify what that would mean for people living in coastal areas, a group of researchers employed a global network of tide gauges to create probabilistic, localized sea-level projections that assess differences in the frequency of storm surges and other extreme sea-level events across three scenarios: global temperature increases of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 degrees Celsius. They used long-term hourly tide gauge records and extreme value theory to estimate present and future return periods of extreme sea-level events through the 22nd century. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-degree-global-million-people.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac87 Extreme sea level implications of 1.5 °C, 2.0 °C, and 2.5 °C temperature stabilization targets in the 21st and 22nd century: Abstract Sea-level rise (SLR) is magnifying the frequency and severity of extreme sea levels (ESLs), which can cause coastal flooding. The rate and amount of global mean sea-level (GMSL) rise is a function of the trajectory of global mean surface temperature (GMST). Therefore, temperature stabilization targets (e.g., 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C of warming above pre-industrial levels, as from the Paris Agreement) have important implications for coastal flood risk. Here, we assess, at a global network of tide gauges, the differences in the expected frequencies of ESLs between scenarios that stabilize GMST warming at 1.5 °C, 2.0 °C, and 2.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. We employ probabilistic, localized SLR projections and long-term hourly tide gauge records to estimate the expected frequencies of historical and future ESLs for the 21st and 22nd centuries. By 2100, under 1.5 °C, 2.0 °C, and 2.5 °C GMST stabilization, respectively, median GMSL is projected to rise 48 cm (90% credible interval of 28--82 cm), 56 cm (28--96 cm), and 58 cm (37--93 cm). As an independent comparison, a semi-empirical sea level model calibrated to temperature and GMSL over the past two millennia estimates median GMSL rise within 7--8 cm of these projections. By 2150, relative to the 2.0 °C scenario and based on median sea level projections, GMST stabilization of 1.5 °C spares the inundation of lands currently home to about 5 million people, including 60,000 individuals currently residing in Small Island Developing States. We quantify projected changes to the expected frequency of historical 10-, 100-, and 500-year ESL events using frequency amplification factors that incorporate uncertainty in both local SLR and historical return periods of ESLs. By 2150, relative to a 2.0 °C scenario, the reduction in the frequency amplification of the frequency of the 100-yr ESL event arising from a 1.5 °C GMST stabilization is greatest in the eastern United States, with ESL event frequency amplification being reduced by about half at most tide gauges. In general, smaller reductions are projected for Small Island Developing States.

I stand corrected....first instance it is. Just found an interesting and apt description of light and colour here.... http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Visible-Light-and-the-Eye-s-Response excerpt from link....... "If the appearance of yellow is perceived of an object when it activates the red and the green cones simultaneously, then what appearance would result if two overlapping red and green spotlights entered our eye? Using the same three-cone theory, we could make some predictions of the result. Red light entering our eye would mostly activate the red color cone; and green light entering our eye would mostly activate the green color cone. Each cone would send their usual electrical messages to the brain. If the brain has been psychologically trained to interpret these two signals to mean "yellow", then the brain would perceive the overlapping red and green spotlights to appear as yellow. To the eye-brain system, there is no difference in the physiological and psychological response to yellow light and a mixing of red and green light. The brain has no means of distinguishing between the two physical situations. In a technical sense, it is really not appropriate to refer to light as being colored. Light is simply a wave with a specific wavelength or a mixture of wavelengths; it has no color in and of itself. An object that is emitting or reflecting light to our eye appears to have a specific color as the result of the eye-brain response to the wavelength. So technically, there is really no such thing as yellow light. Rather, there is light with a wavelength of about 590 nm that appears yellow. And there is also light with a mixture of wavelengths of about 700 nm and 530 nm that together appears yellow. The yellow appearance of these two clearly different light sources can be traced to the physiological and psychological response of the eye-brain system, and not to the light itself. So to be technically appropriate, a person would refer to "yellow light" as "light that creates a yellow appearance." Yet, to maintain a larger collection of friendships, a person would refer to "yellow light" as "yellow light." <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-08/worlds-largest-solar-and-wind-hydrogen-plant-proposed-for-sa/9526706 "SA Energy Minister, Tom Koutsantonis said that new hydrogen projects would create economic benefits for the state and placed South Australia as a world leader in hydrogen production. "More renewable energy means cheaper power, and I'm pleased the State Government can partner with Neoen to once again develop a world-leading renewable energy and storage project following the construction of the Tesla battery at Jamestown." Franck Woitiez, the managing director of Neoen's Australian operations said the project would supply SA with renewable energy and would benefit other Australian states". <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great stuff being undertaken by South Australian Labor government as most would agree.

Sure it has the property of reflecting the orange part of the EMS, but if the EMS is absent, it reflects nothing and is black: Black of course being the absence of colour. Again, in the first instant, the colour of any object depends on what part of the spectrum is falling on it.

In the first instant, we see because of the EMS of the EMR that enters the eye. Whatever information the nervous system takes to our brain, eg colour, depends on the exact type of EMR that has entered the eye. eg: Q; What colour is an Orange in the dark? A: It is black and lacks any colour. From that simple reasoning I can deduce that [1] part of the EMR that has entered the eye, is visible, and [2] the exact colour depends on the exact wavelength of the EMS that has entered the eye. Whatever perceptions/signals etc that the eye and its nerves send to the brain, is dependent on those points.