beecee

Sadly, and Inevitably, and over the course of time, we will have deaths and tragedies in our progressive advancement towards space and space exploration.

Space tourism, for those that can afford it, is a small part of our technological advancement in space...exploration is part of human nature, or as corny as it may sound, "because its there" It's amazing to remember that the now defunct "Mars One" company, had in excess of 200,000 applicants for a one way trip to Mars.

The facts are though, that despite any economic scenarios, despite the Earthly based problems we face, despite the dangers etc, as we progress and technology improves, such dreams as colonies on the Moon, boots on Mars, and many more, far ambitious ventures, will always eventuate. Our continuing space endeavours will benefit mankind, just as that little balloon size satellite called Sputnik back in the late fifties greatly benefited mankind and still does.

Family, friends, relaxing, having a beer while watching the footy, having enough to be comfortable are imo the main ingrediants to a reasonable happy satisified life. I have lived for periods of time, in Fiji, and there typical layback gregarious village life, without any monetary or material excesses, is something I love and relish in. The sea at their door step, the rich soil waiting for cultivation, the closeness of neighbours and friends, the often impromtu nature of mixing a bowl of kava, grabbing a couple of guitars and breaking into song and dance, seems to have really struck a chord with me. So much so, that I now have a place there, I am able to call home, whenever I wish. Until covid 19 came along and reared its ugly head.

SR/GR, the BB and the particle zoo model, all seem to fit together like a hand in a glove. One does not contradict the other, while all being validated theories of their particular domain. All though [particles and energy] warp and curve spacetime in line with GR. No EMR is not an after thought. That is actually what the Schwarzchild radius is all about...'the mathematical boundary where it exists, has an escape velocity of "c " caused by the buildup of density of matter below it. That is even supported by Newtonian mechanics and first proposed by a bloke in the 1770's named John Michell. EMF's follow geodesics in curved spacetime [gravity] caused by mass/energy density, including the minute curving of that same spacetime by the EMR itself. Your claim of gravity being an idealism, is in itself a false idealism. It's even more interesting to note that SR/GR, the BB/infaltionary model and our particle zoo model all seem to go together like a hand in a glove without any contradictions, while each aptly describing their own applicability of physics. The only fudge factor I know is the CC which Einstein gave a particular value to, to maintain a static universe...or his greatest blunder. Some theories also are more certain then others. Theories do grow in certainty over the course of time, and as they align with further new and extended observational and experimental data. eg; SR/GR with the discovery of gravitational radiation. Certainly science does not know everything, but its worth noting at this time, that you have not offered any evidence supporting any of your claims, other then your own thoughts. Our best estimate of what these cosmic jets are, are that as matter falls into the BH, it is also heated up to extreme temperatures and twisted around by the BH and the Lense Thirring effect [also verified and validated by GP-B] and any existing EMF outside the BH's EH...this causes some of the twisitng, heated matter to be flung up to, and out at the polar regions of the BH, before ever crossing the EH. Also in relation to accretion disks, only something like 1% of all observed SMBH's have these jets. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/what-powers-black-holes-mighty-jets The rest of your lengthy story is far too long for myself [a amateur at this game actually a retired maintenance Fitter/machinist/welder]to comment on, other then a couple of observations to make and questions to ask yourself...[1] why did you first put this in the sciences instead of the speculation thread? and [2] why the obvious provocative headline, "BH's do not exist" why not [considering you have not offered any evidence to show that claim to be true] have put a more reasonable heading, like, "Do BH's really exist" or "Are we sure BH's exist" That to me would have been a far more sensible, reasonable approach to a mainstream science forum. And a final comment...my experience on science forums such as this, have shown me that new members that come along, claiming such non mainstream scenarios, with such certainty, and yet without any evidence, in many cases aalso have an agenda of sorts.

It doesn't agree with mainstream theories so its speculation. That's what you have. If that was/is the case, then it would displace the incumbent theory...it isn't and doesn't. The effects on spacetime and matter in the vicinity of BH's cannot be explained any other way....We see matter disappearing into oblivion [Cygnus X-1] Obseravtional and experimental data actually. That of course may or may not change depending on further new observational and experimental data as it comes to light.

The first step one would need to do to show BH's may not exist, is to explain the effects seen on matter and spacetime with another scenario. I don't believe that can or has been done.

80's Aussie TV........this was supposed to be for children entitles "Cartoon Corner" Obviously out takes.

😊 Age so far [76] isn't a problem for me. I have reasonable good health, with no real problems, other then just having a cataract removed from my right eye which has now fully recovered. I have plans on living forever and so far I'm doing OK! 😉 Keep asking any genuine questions you have and listen to the answers. We have some good people on this forum.

Keep learning! You certainly have an advantage over me...I'm an old bastard, you have plenty of time...use it wisely! Science and the scientific methodology is awesome.

Again, we call that process spectroscopy. in other words, simply applying the principal of known and proven spectroscopics, based on electromagnetic radiation/light and the observational data we see. The following may be relevent also.............. https://phys.org/news/2021-05-capturing-photon-harnessing-quantum-noise.html MAY 7, 2021 Capturing a single photon of light: Harnessing quantum's 'noise problem' Scientists at Raytheon BBN Technologies have developed a new way to detect a single photon, or particle of light—a development with big applications for sensors, communications and exponentially more powerful quantum computer processors. The team has published its work, which centers on the use of a component called a Josephson junction, in the academic journal Science. The discovery builds on the same team's previous research into a microwave radiation detector 100,000 times more sensitive than existing systems. more at link................ the paper: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/409 Abstract: Josephson junctions are superconducting devices used as high-sensitivity magnetometers and voltage amplifiers as well as the basis of high-performance cryogenic computers and superconducting quantum computers. Although device performance can be degraded by the generation of quasiparticles formed from broken Cooper pairs, this phenomenon also opens opportunities to sensitively detect electromagnetic radiation. We demonstrate single near-infrared photon detection by coupling photons to the localized surface plasmons of a graphene-based Josephson junction. Using the photon-induced switching statistics of the current-biased device, we reveal the critical role of quasiparticles generated by the absorbed photon in the detection mechanism. The photon sensitivity will enable a high-speed, low-power optical interconnect for future superconducting computing architectures. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: some interesting answers here also................. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-size-and-shape-of-a-single-optical-photon Q: What is the size and shape of a single optical photon? A:That's completely ill-defined. A photon is a unit of energy in a mode of the electromagnetic field. The mode itself is defined by boundary conditions. For example, a mode can be defined by the mirrors in a laser cavity. It's tempting to treat the photon as some sort of ping-pong ball bouncing back and forth between the mirrors, but the principle of superposition means that the photon is travelling in both directions, to form a standing wave. However, it is the mode shape that is important for working with single photons, as once you know the mode, you can align all your optics to ensure the photons go where you want them. For example, if you want to overlap two photons, it is their mode shapes that must be overlapped. This can be tested in a two photon interference experiment called Hong-Ou-Mandel interference. So mode shapes can be reasonably well defined, and that's as much as we can say about the shape of a photon.

Some of us are what could be described as old farts. But remember, us old farts are there! You have yet to get there! 😉

https://www.google.com/search?q=CRISPER+Experiment&oq=CRISPER+Experiment&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i10l9.2094j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Crispr Overview CRISPR was originally employed to knock out target genes in various cell types and organisms, but modifications to various Cas enzymes have extended CRISPR to selectively activate/repress target genes, purify specific regions of DNA, image DNA in live cells, and precisely edit DNA and RNA. https://www.garvan.org.au/research/kinghorn-centre-for-clinical-genomics/learn-about-genomics/dna-base/collection1/genome-editing-with-crispr-cas9?gclid=Cj0KCQjwytOEBhD5ARIsANnRjVgLD0H9IlrnBy7QLzGqXZpmsyahwO44_6BLE1rSJa-yUvTVrT3rqcMaArJwEALw_wcB https://getanimated.uk.com/meet-lulu-and-nana-the-worlds-first-crispr-genome-edited-babies/

The roll out of the vaccine in Australia and those getting the jab, is actually still rather slow, and while we are in a far more advantagious position in being an Island nation and being able to, and have closed borders when necessary. In that respect we seem to be behind the UK and USA in their roll outs and efforts to get vaccinated. Perhaps having succeeded in controling the outbreak from the beginning, we have become complacent? A recent "outbreak" in Sydney [two people] have seen restrictions again applied...compulsory wearing of masks on public transport, no singing ]church choirs etc] no dancing, and a limited number of people allowed in your home at any one time. Sometimes over the past 18 months or so, we have gone 40 to 50 days without a recorded positive case, and then inevitably that run is broken. Sometimes hostility is needed against anti vaxxers. In much of Australia, with regard to the run of the mill, normal childhood vaccinations, we have reacted in refusing to let the children of such anti vaxxers, from attending Kindergarten and learning classes, and they are automatically refused government welfare in some cases. Sad for the children in such situations, but necessary to stop and/or contain many of those childhood virus'

Thanks for taking the time to answer those questions. I obviously disagree with you, but you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

I had a slight fever that night which was gone by morning...funnily enough no soreness whatsoever. The nurse giving me the jab was though very pretty!😊

Science is about models that align with observational and experimental data. While we obviously can never measure "directly" what is happening inside a star, we are able to apply other validated scientific models [such as light] to gauge what is happening inside a star...we call that process spectroscopy. in other words, simply applying the principal of spectroscopics, based on electromagnetic radiation/light and the observational data we see. Not sure why you keep mentioning "creationism" and comparing it with science...with science of course, we have evidence to proceed with, despite in some situations of maybe not knowing why. Keep in mind science is a discipline in continued progress and is not weighed down by myth and such. If a new hypothesis describes in a better manner, the light/photons and the wave/particle duality currently described by theory, and it ticks all the boxes and more, it will be accepted after of course running the gauntlet of professional critical review.

Wiki gives in my opinion a pretty good explanation..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. The concept of virtual particles arises in perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. A process involving virtual particles can be described by a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines. Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles, the longer the virtual particle exists. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction. The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles". It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate. more at link........

A good start in that education, and obviously sound reasoning, would be to take the medical advice.

What are your feelings regarding those questions Ken?

That may or may not be true...so what? Give up? Don't even try? Sorry I believe in giving it a go and testing science/technology to its limits, of which we are ignorant of anyway. [that is the limits of science of which you appear to be putting a limitation on] Having the right attitude, is searching for answers in addressing those well known problems, and solving them if we can. We don't know the answer to that until we try and give it all we have got. We can all thank the visionaries and risk takers for the advancements in science in most cases. Sure some will [thankfully] get it right, and any failures will be duly noted and rectified. You don't think we should give it a try? While I am certainly ignorant of how and what process is being, and has been made in solving the problems with getting to Mars, AND "ALL THOSE OTHER HARD THINGS", I'm pretty sure that they are all being looked at as we type/speak. The simple fact of the Artemis projects and others can vouch for that I believe. Robotics and automation will always lead the way to eventual boots on the ground, no matter how much effort is required. Lord Kelvin: 1895: “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”,

I was going to start another thread, but perhaps this is better here. https://phys.org/news/2021-05-blue-crew-space-july.html Blue Origin will fly first crew to space in July

It is and was of course nothing more then a refinement of measurements. Pointing out that fact is of course valid and required. The link to the "futurism" site in the OP, most certainly indulges in over the top, "wrong" headlines, and is one that I actually avoid for that reason. Of course most science news sites [including my favourite physorg which gave the proper headline at https://phys.org/news/2021-05-gravitational-wave-scientists-method-refine-hubble.html] create headlines to attract readers. The trick is of course to read the whole article in detail, particularly if it is inferring some outstanding retribution or invalidating of accepted mainstream science. While sensationalism and journilism is par for the course, pop science articles can and do grab the curious amongst us and perhaps create an interest in science in general...and Lordy knows! that is something science really needs! I believe I am proof of that.😊 My point being, [other then the futurism link ] let's not be too critical of science news outlets in general because they are imo, doing a job. My own methodology is that if I see any article making some sensational claim re "new science" for example, I will immediatly check it out elsewhere. Any such discovery or sensational event would of course be plastered across all news outlets. And of course even reputable scientists make their own errors in judgement, or more correctly, jump the gun in great anticipation of a long sort after discovery. Remember the BICEP2 experiment. To the credit of science in general though, it did what it does best and the errors in that experiment were dismissed in relatively short time by science itself...as it of course always does.

I'm no expert, but they certainly look top line professional artistry to me.

Magnificent! 13 year old girl. Playing Il Silenzio (The Silence)