beecee

And even on some other so called science forums.

I would assume that as per the article, "Dark matter can get stuck in planets’ gravities, as if in quicksand" could also possibly apply to our own gas giants then?

Ahh yeah, OK thanks for that...sort of counter intuitive the way I was looking at it, but makes sense.

Yes, I wanted to give the most pessimistic amongs us, plenty of scope. 😉 Adding to that anyway, my argument about manned space flight, particularly putting boots on Mars and returning them safely, has always been with a variable time frame. On a more serious note, I just hope that the least loss of lives possible, is achieved in pursuit of science, exploration, adventure, and simply, because its there. There will always be plenty to take up the challenge. The defunct Mars One fiasco attracted something like 200,000 from memory, for a one way trip. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One

I voted no in the OP poll. In saying that and trying to make sense out of the negativity and some fence sitting being shown in this thread, I have some questions of my own....all say within a time frame of 100 years. [1] Will we go back to the Moon? [2] Should we go back to the Moon? [3] Will we establish a colony there? [4] Should we establish a colony [or space station] there? [5] Will we land men on Mars? [6] Should we land men on Mars? [7] Will we establish a colony on Mars? [8] Should we establish a colony there? The next two questions go beyond the 100 year time frame and up to 500 years.... [9] Will we become a space faring race and leave our solar system? [10] Will that be in generation type star ships, or via new physics and technological know how? My own answers are yes most certainly for the first 8 questions, and yes possibly for the next two.

It certainly is! Important that is. As I have often said, some of these [those with no obvious or lilely mundane explanation] should be investigated under the auspices of the scientific methodology. Let me say Moontanman, it is rather pleasing to discuss this subject with you, and the reasonable position you seem to have taken. Far better then discussing it with what I term the "nutty brigade"

Cosmology, particularly measuring the expansion rate and age of the universe is a continuing matter of refinement of the measurements. With the recent gravitational waves discoveries, we are able to be more accurate...it's as simple as that. https://phys.org/news/2021-05-gravitational-wave-scientists-method-refine-hubble.html Gravitational-wave scientists propose new method to refine the Hubble Constant—the expansion and age of the universe more at link.............. the paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/abf502 Mapping the Universe Expansion: Enabling Percent-level Measurements of the Hubble Constant with a Single Binary Neutron-star Merger Detection: Abstract: The joint observation of the gravitational-wave (GW) and electromagnetic (EM) signal from the binary neutron-star merger GW170817 allowed for a new independent measurement of the Hubble constant H0, albeit with an uncertainty of about 15% at 1σ. Observations of similar sources with a network of future detectors will allow for more precise measurements of H0. These, however, are currently largely limited by the intrinsic degeneracy between the luminosity distance and the inclination of the source in the GW signal. We show that the higher-order modes in gravitational waves can be used to break this degeneracy in astrophysical parameter estimation in both the inspiral and post-merger phases of a neutron star merger. We show that for systems at distances similar to GW170817, this method enables percent-level measurements of H0 with a single detection. This would permit the study of time variations and spatial anisotropies of H0 with unprecedented precision. We investigate how different network configurations affect measurements of H0, and discuss the implications in terms of science drivers for the proposed 2.5- and third-generation GW detectors. Finally, we show that the precision of H0 measured with these future observatories will be solely limited by redshift measurements of EM counterparts.

😊 Great minds and all that! Just about to post on the same thing. The expansion of the universe/space/time causes a cosmological redshift for EMR, not a Doppler shift. The other type is gravitational red/blue shift, caused by any EMR climbing out and/or falling into gravitational wells...climbing out is shifted to the redend and falling in is blueshifted.

https://www.wired.com/story/wheres-the-dark-matter-look-for-suspiciously-warm-planets/ Physicists calculated that these mysterious particles will betray their location with heat. To prove it, they’ll need the most powerful telescopes in the cosmos. Soon we'll have a cutting-edge thermometer: NASA’s new James Webb Space Telescope is expected to launch this fall.PHOTOGRAPH: DAVID HIGGINBOTHAM/NASA/MSFC WE'RE BATHING IN an uncertain universe. Astrophysicists generally accept that about 85 percent of all mass in the universe comes from exotic, still-hypothetical particles called dark matter. Our Milky Way galaxy, which appears as a bright flat disk, lives in a humongous sphere of the stuff—a halo, which gets especially dense toward the center. But dark matter’s very nature dictates that it's elusive. It doesn’t interact with electromagnetic forces like light, and any potential clashes with matter are rare and hard to spot. extract: For that reason, Leane is suggesting that we look for them in the Milky Way’s vast collection of exoplanets, or those outside our solar system. Specifically, she thinks we should be using large sets of gas giants, planets like our own Jupiter. Dark matter can get stuck in planets’ gravities, as if in quicksand. When that happens, particles can collide and annihilate, releasing heat. That heat can accumulate to make the planet piping hot—especially those near a galaxy’s dense center more at link.......................... the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.161101 Exoplanets as Sub-GeV Dark Matter Detectors: ABSTRACT: We present exoplanets as new targets to discover dark matter (DM). Throughout the Milky Way, DM can scatter, become captured, deposit annihilation energy, and increase the heat flow within exoplanets. We estimate upcoming infrared telescope sensitivity to this scenario, finding actionable discovery or exclusion searches. We find that DM with masses above about an MeV can be probed with exoplanets, with DM-proton and DM-electron scattering cross sections down to about 10−37  cm2, stronger than existing limits by up to six orders of magnitude. Supporting evidence of a DM origin can be identified through DM-induced exoplanet heating correlated with galactic position, and hence DM density. This provides new motivation to measure the temperature of the billions of brown dwarfs, rogue planets, and gas giants peppered throughout our Galaxy. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Question: So why just exoplanets? Why not some of our own gaseous giants? Isn't there current debate about Jupiter's heat source? And how hard and by what method can they determine it to be possibly caused by DM particles?

Leaning on swansont's correct scientific statement above, could anti matter exist as BH's? Which prompts me to ask if we throw the same amount of anti matter inside a baryonic matter BH, would they both disappear in a flash of gamma radiation? Other then being of opposite charges, are we sure that this is all that distinguishes matter from anti matter? Another possible source is Dark Matter...at least according to this following reputable link...... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03431-5 13 NOVEMBER 2019 Link between antimatter and dark matter probed: Ultrasensitive experiments on trapped antiprotons provide a window onto possible differences between matter and antimatter. Now they could also shed light on the identity of dark matter — the ‘missing’ mass in the Universe. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Mind boggling stuff and personally makes me wonder how and why so many people are critical of science!

Thanks...I even had contributed to your thread when you posted it! My only excuse is that I had just had eye cataract surgery and still had one eye covered. [That'l do anyway till I think of something better! 😊

Actually out of my comfort zone, but have been interested in the science of abiogenesis and evolution from when I started visiting science forums. So some questions that I have thought about. Is cancer, or can cancer be described as evolution gone mad? Can it be inferred as evolution? I once had a physicist named Dr Karl Kruszelniki make a prediction that in time, we will be living forever. At the time I thought he was crazy despite the high reputable reputaion he has In Australia. I still think he is crazy on that score https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kruszelnicki and https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2012/09/14/life-death-and-disagreeing-with-dr-karl/ "Yeah, well, I’m hanging out there for the genetic revolution and with a bit of luck, I will be, probably, in the last generation to die and you’ll be the first generation to live forever. Maybe I’ll be able to join in that generation. And by ‘forever’, I mean 500 to 5,000 years with a healthy 18- to 25-year-old body". Does this prediction sound scientifically valid? As medicine and technology do allow us to live longer, is cancer an inevitable outcome of old age? Assuming the rest of the body stays healthy, is cancer then an inevitable consequence as we do age? I have also seen the good doctor at a science gathering around 20 years ago and he certainly is impressive and humouress to boot. Quick note, as per the good Dr narrative/quote, by forever he means "And by ‘forever’, I mean 500 to 5,000 years with a healthy 18- to 25-year-old body". [still seems way over the top for me]

Thanks exchemist...off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin!! Can I kindly mod amalgamate this with the other? please?

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/bicellum-brasieri-09615.html Bicellum brasieri, a freshwater protist that lived nearly one billion years ago, had two distinct cell types and could be the earliest multicellular animal ever recorded. Found in the Scottish Highlands, the microfossil reveals a new insight into the transition of single-celled holozoans into more complex multicellular animals. “The origins of complex multicellularity and the origin of animals are considered two of the most important events in the history of life on Earth, our discovery sheds new light on both of these,” said Professor Charles Wellman, a researcher in the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences at the University of Sheffield. Professor Wellman and colleagues examined thin sections of phosphatic lenses from the Diabaig Formation in Scotland that preserve populations of organisms trapped in ancient lake bottom sediments. In several thin sections, they observed cell clusters that are composed of aggregations of two distinct cell types, indicating a condition that constitutes a step toward complex multicellularity. Further investigation revealed a second set of cell clusters that appeared very similar in size and form but that lacked the fully differentiated second cell type. more at link................

You need to talk to a Kiwi about that sort of thing! 😉 "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_humour "Australians are the butt of Kiwi humour (and vice versa) — even at the highest diplomatic level. During the 1980s, then–Prime Minister of New Zealand Rob Muldoon was asked about the increasing exodus of New Zealanders leaving the country to work in Australia. His comment was that by doing so, they were raising the average IQ of both countries.[3][4] The joke derives from the Will Rogers phenomenon. In general terms, Australians are stereotyped in New Zealand humour as being brash, boorish and lazy. New Zealanders, in return, are seen by Australians as being behind the times and mocked as "South Seas Poms" There are a large number of (mainly crude) sheep jokes. As befitting the trans-Tasman rivalry, Australians tell said jokes about New Zealanders, and New Zealanders tell them about Australians. [apologies to my cousins across the ditch 😁]

Not really, we are now manufacturing our own...It's simply the roll out methodology and getting the vqaccine to outlet hubs that seems at times to have hit a snag...improving though as we speak/type.

Same amount of fingers in Australia as anywhere else, but we are better looking then most, better lovers, and produce the best beer, not to mention vegemite! 😉

Australia have sent a load of the vaccines to New Guinea where it is rife, and also Fiji. But we are also complaining about the roll out in our own country where thankfully, it has been generally well controlled. Had my first jab of astr-zeneca at the end of March,[slight fever that night but quickly dissipated by morning] the flu jab last week and due for the second coronavirus jab at the end of June.

You know my point of view and my thinking, and I know yours. I actually agree with the highlighted section, with particular emphasis on "at this point" And the fundamental problems you see, are the same ones I see. That doesn't mean that we give up as such, and as IDNeon's posts would indicate. But at the same time I also understand that we will return to the Moon, within a reasonable time frame [Artemis] and in a larger time frame, will eventually make it to Mars. The difficulty of the problems to be overcome may mean not for up to half a century perhaps. And at the same time, I understand [as hopefully you do] that we also have much to solve with Earthly based problems, not the least being climate change and global warming, and all the other aspects that go with it. My ownly selfish attitude in any Mars manned expedition, is that it happens before I kick the bucket. Sadly, that most likely won't happen. None of that though detracts from the importance of continued space expeditions and manned landings on other bodies, in the course of time and when we have overcome all the problems that exist. I have said somewhere, that Elon Musk is not perfect, and probably have overstated his personality, which was to counter the nonsensical over-the-top accusations against his person. Overall though, he is attempting something worthwhile and has been chosen by NASA, PS: I only have an I-phone 7 😉

I am not actually disagreeing with you just confirming that as yet, they are only a prediction of GR, which as we know, has a pretty good track record. With BH's of course, we had observational data of there existence in the early seventies with Cygnus X1.

With relation to the OP, we also have confirmed a earth size planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the third member of this trinary system, but the furthest from the other two. Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf star. The planet has been designated Proxima Centauri b, and orbits at about .05AU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b

We have never seen or detected any wormhole, but it is a solution to GR equations.

The Earth IS a sphere, or more correctly, an oblate spheroid due to its rotation. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate otherwise and plenty of evidence to support the "oblate spheroid" fact. No, I didn't watch your video.

Conspiracy nonsense aside and unsupported jealous type claims and criticism of Musk and Space-X aside, here are some more reliable facts......... https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/5-facts-about-the-spacex-starship-that-set-it-apart-from-other-rockets/ 5 Facts About the SpaceX Starship That Set It Apart from Other Rockets: abridged rundowns: [1] It Features Raptors: COST EFFICIENT. AS DETAILED. [2] It Uses Methane:Most important advantage over H is storage safety and most importantly, CH4 can be made on the surface of Mars." [3] It’s Made Out of Steel: "Starship is being made out of steel, specifically a combination of 301 and 304L stainless steel. Titanium and aluminum, both being light and strong metals, tend to fail around 300-400 °F, while steel can tolerate closer to 1500-1600 °F. Steel also tends to become stronger when dealing with low cryogenic temperatures, something the other two do not". [4] It Can Land. . Landing and reuse is central to the SpaceX strategy. [5] It Will Be Able to Refuel in Space: "Science-fiction author Robert Heinlein once said in an interview that “If you can get your ship into orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere.” more reputable info at link.............. Of course Musk is not perfect. He is seen to be less then enthusiastic about covid 19, sadly, while NASA is following all the medical recomendations as detailed. NASA I believe is right with the established goals of the "Artemis program" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program The Artemis Program formally began in December 2017 under the Trump administration, with its initial focus including commercial mining of the Moon. Its stated goal is landing the first woman on the Moon; long-term objectives include establishing an expedition team and a sustainable presence on the Moon, laying the foundation for private companies to build a lunar economy, and eventually sending humans to Mars.[6] The Artemis Program is carried out predominantly by NASA and contracted U.S. commercial spaceflight companies, with international partners including the space agencies of Europe, Luxembourg, Japan, Canada, Italy,[7] Australia, the United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates,[8][9] Ukraine, and Brazil.[10] While NASA is leading the effort, it anticipates other nations playing a key role, with the eponymous Artemis Accords opened for signature since October 2020 for governments to participate. In February 2021 the succeeding Biden administration officially endorsed the Artemis Program.[11] In April 2021, NASA contracted SpaceX to develop, manufacture, and fly two lunar missions with the Starship HLS lunar lander;[12] the following month, the Lunar Gateway was announced as an international space station to orbit the Moon. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Here;s hoping that all parties work together to achive this reasonable achieved goal, with the full co-operation of all parties invoved.