BS: science surprises

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Iains
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 01:30 PM

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-gold-gravitational-sighting.html

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 01:02 PM

I get it but,
I would admit my concept of time is weirder than most. I am not handcuffed by the popular view of time. Only the bounds of mortality tie me to the mast on my exploration of multiuniversal shores.

I have seen how the past present and future are concurrent and that time can travel in a mirrored direction as well. Yep its weird for us 3D holographic humans. You've got yours and I have mine but we share the same river.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Senoufou
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 09:05 AM

Hahaha pfr! That's where we got our wedding rings from (many years ago)
Certainly not supernovas!

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Jack Campin
Date: 20 Jan 19 - 08:39 AM

Geomagnetic weirdness a couple of weeks ago

I don't know quite what to make of that, in particular I know nothing about the origin of the measurements or the credibility of the narrator.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 08:52 AM

"We always thought it came from supernovas....."

My mum mostly got hers from the Argos catalogue...

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Mo the caller
Date: 19 Jan 19 - 07:19 AM

"
Where does gold come from?
We always thought it came from supernovas....."


We did???

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:51 PM

https://www.livescience.com/strange-news

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:34 PM

There is residue

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:53 PM

Sage, 20 Years ago I did a cartoon of a gravity wave that compressed then stretched the Earth to a huge oval as Einstein and a grey alien squabbled at equations on a black board.


To my thinking if a gravity wave of such proportions did hit us, it would cause no damage. What do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:41 PM

I have long harbored the notion that the annihilation of matter and anti matter was not a 100% conversion to energy but there was some, very small, left over exotic residue that was neither energy or normal matter. This was my attempt to describe dark matter.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:23 PM

Matter gives rise to gravity and tells space time how to curve. The curvature of space time tells matter how to move.

Mr. Red There has long been a notion that time also had an anti time component born at the big bang just as there was eventually matter and anti matter that anihilated to leave a billionth more matter than anti matter.. so what the Houdini did you say? no worries-
You made me wonder if time got annihilated in a similar way as matter.
I know I have wasted lots of time.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:21 PM

I could try to understand an old fat universe theory...

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:06 PM

PFR Yes and no. An emerging universe is composed of energy before matter has yet formed. Matter after it has formed creates conditions for gravity. That expansion is remarkable.

An expanding belly emerges as more energy is stored as icky stuff

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Mr Red
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:00 PM

there is a school of thought that says if there is no scientific reason that disallows negative time, then there is no scientific reason to disallow negative gravity.

Think about it: space time gives rise to gravity so negative space time.....................

But then, some people are up themselves so maybe we have the evidence!

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 10:26 AM

"expansion is a strange and wonderous thing that has no gravity yet"

expansion.. gravity..???

is that something scientificky to do with our bellies and arses as we grow older and fatter...?????

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 08:01 AM

Universes are born small like the biblical mustard seed and 'grow'*

*expansion is a strange and wonderous thing that has no gravity yet

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 07:53 AM

Speaking unscientifically, if a cat has nine lives or Voldemort had 8 lives you can think about your entangled similar life elsewhere as eventually winking out in a way that you can almost feel. "Not tonight honey, I feel like I've died". :^/

Scientifically, String theory gives rise to an 11-13 dimensional space and structures that can build the smallest subatomic structures.

on the other hand

A Universe capable of reproducing other universes/multiverses, each with its own separate spacetime, gives rise to a possibility of building a similar you someplace else. Some think the 'womb' of these new universes lies at the center of super massive black holes where energies are beyond understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Senoufou
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:18 AM

I'm no scientist, but that String Theory thing is rather daunting.
If I've rightly understood it, there are parallel Universes all over the place. Perhaps I exist elsewhere? Gulp.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:15 AM

I had a vegan burger last summer that was not detectable as non meat in flavor. When squeezed it even bled. (beet juice)

I think the European Space Agency is out pacing NASA.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 11:46 AM

Vegans reckon it does...

..but then again, sawdust is meat and dairy free....

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 10:53 AM

I poked around the aLIGO site (CalTech) and looked at information about the Washington and Louisiana collectors. And even sent them a note about some typos and a page design problem (can't read it because the table and background don't align).

And that chick pea water trick - sounds cute but does it taste good?

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 10:16 AM

But this all pales into insignificance compared to the revalation
that the water in canned chickpeas can be whipped up with icing sugar into a meringue...!!!

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Senoufou
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 10:01 AM

I thought ununtrium, ununpentium, ununseptium and ununoctium had been renamed as Nihonium, Moscovium,Tennessine, Oganesson.
(I can reel off all 118 elements, boring nerd that I am)

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 09:44 AM

There's a pretty solid scientific consensus around that.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 12:14 AM

Birds are dinosaurs! Well, I was surprised...

Subject: RE: BS: Silly science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:23 PM

I'll raise you two Ununpentiums.
If there is massless matter is there also heavy space?

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:41 PM

Plutonium and beyond?

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 07:27 PM

The rules of space time are simple but hard to conceptualize.
Matter, in fact any object, tells space time how to curve. The curvature of space time tells matter how to move.

What if the condensation and compression of matter at the center of a black hole tells space time how to expand and accelerate?

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 09:23 AM

Surprise! this happened after this thread was started
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/world/second-repeating-fast-radio-burst-detected/index.html

now i'm not saying the Akashic field told me about this but

it is a surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Jan 19 - 05:04 AM

Really short half life isotopes have to be local decomposition products of other radioactive elements. Francium, for example, has a half life of 22 minutes. That is not a problem if the elements it decays from have a long life (eg Neptunium at up to 2 million years). But even so, given we are talking about moving physical objects at a tiny fraction of light speed, even 2 million years is not very long to cross the distances involved.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 02:51 PM

Funny coincidence that Spinning neutron stars went viral on the internet 9 hours ago
with a 13 pulse radio signal and then stopped.

Mr Red the mantle creating enough pressure to form gold would need something like impact help. The major gold deposits form roughly around the circle of fire which in fact could have been the impact that eventually became the moon.

Heavy radioactive elements have to be home grown in our own galaxy when you think about it DMcG.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Jan 19 - 05:14 AM

1) the signals from LIGO 1 & 2 (& soon VIGO in Italy) use the expected signal to tease out the signal from the noise! Not all astrophysicists (& statisticians) are convinced that the process is realistic. Think - trying to see vibrations that are 1/10000 the amplitude of the width of an atom when those atoms can vibrate more than their diameter, even near absolute zero. The jury is out still. And all detectors use the same algorithms.

2) there is a school of thought that thinks gold is "formed" in the immense pressures/temperatures in fissures in the mantle/crust. We can make artificial diamonds that are used in jewelry. Albeit yellowish. And make transuranic elements. The conditions kilometers below us are anything but benign, or achievable in the lab.


Just saying.

And so does the New Scientist.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 04:26 PM

I haven't looked into it, but I have wondered   occasionally how the radioactive elements with relatively short halflives got here from distant stars and nova.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 04:15 PM

Fair enough. While we can't negotiate truth I would place a bet that 1a's make less gold, if any, per event/explosion than pulsar explosions. Pulsars are numerous enough to base space navigation principles upon. Most neutron stars and magnetars can not be seen.
I spoke of gold as a popular curiosity that could intice/attract more questions.
Like bringing up diamond planets and 'diamond rain'.
What is rare here is not rare everywhere.
Perhaps what is rare is life but I usually think life is ubiquitous.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 01:21 PM

Given the relative frequency of supernovae type Ia, and neutron star collisions of the type which give rise to LIGO signals, I would still go for the supernovae as producing the most.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 01:21 PM

For the heaviest elements to form a neutron rich environment works best.

The really big science surprises are the ones that sound the most unbelievable. I sprained my brain when I entered the mirror universe.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 01:10 PM

It would have to be a bloody strong teaspoon then. And we don't understand comparisons with the size of London here. Everything must be compared with Wales.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 12:23 PM

Dave, probably even in a 1A but like an exam question 'pick the best answer'.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 12:19 PM

When they spin they release a electric kinetic beam at their poles and are called Pulsars.
As they grow old and split they may become magnetars spinning over 700 times a second.
Sometimes if they feed on a nearby star they could grow so much as to collapse further into a black hole.
The pulsar Neutron star may give us some clues as to the state of matter in black holes but we will never see it.

Speaking of new states of matter we have recently cooled/slowed matter more than deep space cold to 1/millionth of a degree which will make quantum computing more resilient.

Dark matter has been suggested to be composed of Fermions left over from the annihilation of matter and anti matter.


Other surprises that are not in text books yet are growing quickly.

Subject: RE: BS: science surprises
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 12:19 PM

It is very probably produced in both.

Subject: BS: science surprises
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Jan 19 - 11:30 AM

Where does gold come from?
We always thought it came from supernovas but it doesn't. However supernovas sometimes make neutron stars.
Thanks to LIGO and astronomers, the people who found gravity waves, a hundred second event showed us that gold comes from colliding neutron stars. Neutron stars are uniquely dense. A Neutron star is more massive than our sun but has collapsed to the size of London. 1 teaspoon of Neutron star weighs a billion tons.

The gold produced by the collision we 'saw' is about the mass of 12 solid gold Earths. Along with gold more of the very heavy elements like Platinum and Uranium are produced.