sunshaker

Top quarks 173 GeV, As I think the Higgs boson may be from another particles decay (top quarks), I wondered how 126 GeV fit into tables/quarks, Within these tables i had different thoughts on palladium 46, and its empty valence shell(shown in pink), to me it was a "weak point", What normally happens at weak points(snap/break), 46+46+80+172, 46+126=172 If this happens the table/quark splits at element 46 leaving a block of 126 (126gev Higgs) But then there are 2 weak points, 2 blocks of 46/45=92 Z boson 91.3gev ? Also centre block(46 to 126) 80= W boson 80 gev I still think particles with 45/46 GeV will be found, I have searched but found nothing yet on particles of this mass,

Just came across this short " 6 min fantasy film" dedicated to the rosetta mission. Collaboration Platige image and ESA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqwBXYn9E_M#t=313 When man becomes god, or at least on the way.

Came across these nano sculptures, http://www.jontyhurwitz.com/nano Smallest human sculpture to date. 80x100x20 microns.

Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1438/ This very detailed simulation of large scale structure was created as part of the Illustris simulation. The distribution of dark matter is shown in blue and the gas distribution in orange. This simulation is for the current state of the Universe and is centered on a massive galaxy cluster. The region shown is about 300 million light-years across. Credit:Illustris Collaboration

unless you agree in this thread to call people "crackpots" your rep goes down. I like to see even the way out theories, which I can take our leave, but I DO NOT PUT THEM DOWN, Nothing is yet proven. Some people cannot bend they just "snap"., Carry on with your thread, slapping yourselves on the back, how superior you are, to us poor ignorants. Shame on you, Shame on science. Everyone is allowed an opinion, if you do not understand that, you will never really understand anything. In the end, most what is known today will be proved "wrong".

I remember watching a program following some scientists into their homes, Most seemed like children did not understand the world they lived in, could not do basic tasks using washing machines etc, Do we call these "ignorants"? Scientists in my opinion can be focused in narrow fields, reminds me a bit like "Autism", perhaps where this lack of communication skills comes from. a computer can be programmed for certain tasks and working out complex math problems, Computers are not living or classed as a life form, should we redefine scientists to a bracket somewhere between a life form /machine ? It amazes me how this term crackpottery/crackpots gets banded about, Not long ago if you believed in multiverses you where a crackpot now it is fast becoming mainstream science, crackpots who where right http://blog.vixra.org/category/crackpots-who-were-right/ Some of these where treated terribly by the science community, only to be proved right sometimes many years later, and others taking the credit/noble prizes for their work. I think there are a lot of people/scientists who ought to think twice before spouting crackpottery about, just because they do not understand or believe or takes them out of their "comfort zone", Get what some call the "common man" interested in "science", without putting them down ignorant/stupid/lazy etc, when they are none of these, having their own "SKILLS" adapted to their environments. Perhaps then more public money will be redirected towards science projects If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough.

I have not taken a photo for a few years, I lost my photo files when my last computer died, But I must admit photos you take yourself feel more "real", Some of my favourite pictures where just simple photos I took myself.

MONSTER GALAXY ALMOST AS OLD AS THE UNIVERSE CREATING STARS 1000 TIMES FASTER THAN MILKY WAY http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/11/starburst-galaxy-observed-creating-stars-1000-xs-faster-than-milky-way.html

Unsure what type of table you mean. If I cannot attach something within the "more reply options" from my files/pictures, I WILL CUT AND PASTE IT TO THE FREE PAINT NET V3.5.11 , save then attach this in more reply options.

I often come across some nice astronomy pictures, but that do not warrant a thread of there own, so I thought I would make a thread where I could place some of these amazing pictures that are out there. This one caught my eye, Saturns southern auroura. http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011300/a011366/

This image compares the size of the Solar System with HL Tauri and its surrounding protoplanetary disc. Although the star is much smaller than the Sun, the disc around HL Tauri stretches out to almost three times as far from the star as Neptune is from the Sun. Looks to me like eight planets are forming, I wonder if 8 planets per solar system will become most common number found. The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has snapped a striking view of a multiple star system called XZ Tauri, its neighbor HL Tauri and several nearby young stellar objects. XZ alma short video https://plus.google.com/photos/113507009175485747967/albums/6078773072225371281/6078773078921921570

Was the "Higgs" devalued being announced to early? maybe for PR reasons, Should it just have been an unnamed "boson" until it was understood to a greater degree. Here in this short film they talk about multiple higgs bosons and composite bosons. Surely more research was needed before dishing out the noble prizes. ,

Thought this was cool. http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/11/new-telescope-array-captures-planet-forming-disk-orbiting-distant-star/

Hi, i'm no chemist had to google these chemicals, my guess after googling "iron sulfide toffee" came across this while googling Sorbitol & Potassium Nitrate Rocket Propellant http://www.doranaerospace.com/Sorbitol.html know what i'm making for next bonfire night.

We can all say what god means or does not mean to us, but I think along the lines of this very short story by Andy Weir ""The Egg". http://galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html To me it is all about balance/empathy.

For some reason my -negative as disappeared. I was thinking more alone the lines that towards the end it would take these gases longer to gather and reach mass/heat to ignite into stars, So the stars when they do ignite would tend to be massive stars. Until as you say they reach a time when they are no longer able to form. I understand the the density is constant, but temperature of the universe as not remained constant, it is always getting colder. There was also something i was reading the other day where there is more light between galaxies than within, Believing there are many more stars between galaxies than within galaxies. I realize stars work by nucleur fusion, but was still unsure how a temperature of space of near absolute zero would effect said stars, This concerns "black bodies"? is space defined as a black body? Also as universe cools stella winds would also cool, which I thought may cool the outer atmospheres of a star. I was thinking along the lines of space at these temperature acting like a Bose Einstein condensate, At the moment we use sodium atoms which are cooled with lazers, then "blown on with radiation" to reach near zero kelvin. What I believe the when helium is cooled to 2 kelvin it can act as a Bose Einstein condensate, And have read that in theory deuterium can also form a BEC, As light can be brought to a stand still in a BEC state, I thought that maybe when our universe temperature drops another 4 degrees F, These states may be possible and effect stars already in existence(Which tend to be hydrogen/helium) by slowing cooling them down from the outside inwards, If these states could be reached, you would have solar radiation/winds blowing upon stars adding to cooling effect.

1 second after big bang universe 1 billion kelvin, Now 2.75kelvin. I have not yet read up on the big freeze theory, but I was looking at the gas to solid temperature of the elements http://www.ptable.com/#Property/State I was interested in hydrogen/heliums gas to solid temperatures. Helium freezes at 1.15K / 457.6F(Under pressure) unsure without . Hydrogen freezes at 434.45F, As the universe temperature is roughly 454F, Already 20F below the freezing point of hydrogen, I was wondering how long the stars/sun can still function in these dropping temperatures, The sun is 15 million celsius at core but only 5526 celsius surface/photosphere, 4320celsius at the chromosphere. I was wondering if there must be a tipping point temperature where the cold of space first reduces the chromosphere then photosphere, turning stars/sun into a iceball? We have gone from 1 billion kelvin to 2.75 in only 13.8billion years, if the universe is 454F And absolute zero is 459.6F The universe as only to drop another 5 degrees F to reach this temperature, Which may be the tipping point? Also if the universe is expanding it will be cooling quicker, how long to drop just 4degrees F ? what effects would this have on new stars forming in colder temperatures? would this result in larger stars forming as perhaps more hydrogen is needed to obtain enough mass to ignite a star?

As Darwin also wrote "I am a firm believer, that without speculation there is no good & original observation". Did I say anywhere that I prefer "mad-up nonsense to science"? I love science, and am not knocking its place, but I also love the freedom of speculation, I believe you cannot have one without the other, they would both suffer for the others loss. Some people just do not have the capacity to speculate, where some do not have the capacity/education for math that is needed to give substance to their ideas/theory, Would you prefer for those without "math" to sit at the back of the bus and keep quiet?

This still does not answer a photon exiting a condensate Sorry never seen this but it still does not answer a photon exiting a condensate. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/30771-boseeinstein-condensate/ found this 3min video,using a BEC to slow down light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s surely a photon that as passed through the condensate that returns to c, would have a head start on the next photon that is still within condensate? Just came across this about creating photon molecules using BEC, Which perhaps answers this for me? I believe that the photons within condensate may be "spaced", Could you perhaps then pass another photon from different source to fill this gap causing a photon molecule to be released from condensate? http://discovermagazine.com/2014/april/6-how-to-make-light-matter

Been wondering about light/photons passing through different mediums, I believe light is still c relative to each medium, But from our perspective light is slowed down. I believe light can be slowed to a walking pace through a Bose Einstein condensate, I was wondering if a single photon/beam pulse was passed through a Bose Einstein condensate how would those photons exit condensate?, if one photon was still in condensate and nearest photon as just left condensate returning to c relative to us, would they exit cause a strope effect?(3) Or would photon "stretch?(2) I believe that the photons within condensate may be "spaced", Could you perhaps then pass another photon from different source to fill this gap causing a photon molecule to be released from condensate?(1). I know a photon when it exits will resume at c, just trying to understand the point of exit "half in/half out. Also the effect of the double slit experiment if done inside a Bose Einstein condensate, if the photon is at walking pace?

I believe everything is connected, in ways we can not yet even imagine, everything has a reason and a purpose that adds to the whole, if you take away something how ever mad you may think it is, then you can never have a complete picture, Take the guessing game when you have to guess the amount of beans in a jar, it as been proven the more people you get to guess the average will be nearly always spot on. http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/wisdom-crowds-why-many-are-smarter-few

Perhaps 380,000 years after the "big bang" seems a good enough place to start. Scientists are always looking for the "TOE", For that theory to work everything can be definable by science, which means "everything is science". So everything has a place, even our beloved speculation. There is some wild speculation, but I tend to be able to mostly see where they/me are coming from, I think speculators see a far greater universe/beautifuller, than those who stick to the "rigors of pure unadaulterated science", not that math/equations are not also beautiful, but a true artist uses all that is available.

I don't see why not, Nearly everything is science, even baking a cake. Most speculation on here has "science", Just not always math and equations. Nothing is yet proven, science is just varying degrees of speculation.

YAWWN! Speculation allows the mind to have fun, to run free, sometimes something comes out of the wildest ideas, It what makes us human. It is also where the egg heads can have there coffee break. Also there is only 2 speculation posts in the last 37 new content posts. Now I know how native americans must of felt, has their lands where slowly taken away from them.