Speed of light

[The Code]

Jupiter gives of a great deal of energy being a failed star.. We saw what a few amps and volts can do on a small scale in the VT... I was going to add, what could a few million billion trillion amps/volts do in a dark galaxy or around a black hole? or around a dark galaxy that just consists black holes? and the effect it would have on merging galaxies..

mark

[Chris Peterson]

It's going to take very close up examinaions to determine what that face is.

It didn't take any examination even from the first, blurry images to know it wasn't artificial. And now we have images with meter resolution. It's a hill, pure and simple. No further examination is necessary. It obviously isn't artificial. Of course, there is no rational reason to believe anything on Mars is artificial.

[Chris Peterson]

Jupiter gives of a great deal of energy being a failed star.. We saw what a few amps and volts can do on a small scale in the VT... I was going to add, what could a few million billion trillion amps/volts do in a dark galaxy or around a black hole? or around a dark galaxy that just consists black holes? and the effect it would have on merging galaxies.

Jupiter isn't a failed star. It is nowhere near large enough to support fusion. Jupiter has a hot interior, because of residual heat of formation and radioisotope decay. It emits about twice the radiation it absorbs, and is cooling down as a consequence.

There is no evidence of significant electrical currents in deep space, so such things don't influence galaxies, dark or otherwise, merging or not. The currents seen around planets with strong magnetic fields sound impressive, but are small with respect to the entire energy budgets of the objects involved. Also, it would be a mistake to see these currents as a primary source of energy; they're just the result of energetic particles from the Sun being channeled by local magnetic fields.

There is no indication that dark galaxies consist of black holes- not even central black holes like those found in most large galaxies. They are made up of the same thing ordinary galaxies are: a mix of normal and dark matter. The only difference is that the normal matter isn't hot enough to glow in visible light. It's still plenty bright at longer wavelengths.

[The Code]

Jupiter gives of a great deal of energy being a failed star.. We saw what a few amps and volts can do on a small scale in the VT... I was going to add, what could a few million billion trillion amps/volts do in a dark galaxy or around a black hole? or around a dark galaxy that just consists black holes? and the effect it would have on merging galaxies.

Jupiter isn't a failed star. It is nowhere near large enough to support fusion. Jupiter has a hot interior, because of residual heat of formation and radioisotope decay. It emits about twice the radiation it absorbs, and is cooling down as a consequence.

There is no evidence of significant electrical currents in deep space, so such things don't influence galaxies, dark or otherwise, merging or not.

I would not pass this off mate... A giant black hole does not lose anything, including its magnetic field of 250 million times our sun......

Mark

[astrolabe]

Hello ari,

Sometimes I do get invited to plop my derriere onto someone's boat for a sail and the first ten seconds or so after the engine is shut off is always magical.

"The BB people don't refine, Astro, they invent excuses (inflation, DM, DE as examples) for observations which contradict the original theory. That is not refinement .. it is hard headedness and akin to fraud."


To biz........ It does seem that keeping an open mind has come back to bite you in the sense that one should include ALL avenues in the quest for knowledge. And while I've seen you progressively adopt new ideas to hang your cosmological hat on, I can't help but feel that BB has a lot to offer in an arena as complex as our Universe is. At this stage of our meager knowledge I think it premature to be convinced too strongly in one school of thought over another, intuition notwithstanding. You know a really good devil's advocate would say this- that would be ME! I just want to be sure that if Plasma Cosmology or MOG was the Big Consensus Dog that your nature wouldn't then have you promoting a new puppy theory called "Big Bang".

[Chris Peterson]

It does seem that keeping an open mind has come back to bite you in the sense that one should include ALL avenues in the quest for knowledge.

That is certainly true. But any quest for knowledge is doomed to failure without critical thinking skills. And one of the most important is the ability to evaluate ideas for quality. Keeping all avenues open is very different than giving equal consideration to all avenues.

At this stage of our meager knowledge I think it premature to be convinced too strongly in one school of thought over another, intuition notwithstanding.

There is nothing wrong with strongly favoring a viewpoint if it is well supported. The real problem comes from an unwillingness to give up that viewpoint if the evidence changes. Intuition is our worst enemy in physics. Time and time again we've learned that what is true need not be intuitive. The most successful ideas in modern physics have come from those who were able to put intuition aside and follow the evidence, regardless of how non-intuitive, or even counter-intuitive it seemed.

[astrolabe]

Hello Chris,

Good responses. In other words: True, and true.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Chris said

There is nothing wrong with strongly favoring a viewpoint if it is well supported. The real problem comes from an unwillingness to give up that viewpoint if the evidence changes. Intuition is our worst enemy in physics. Time and time again we've learned that what is true need not be intuitive. The most successful ideas in modern physics have come from those who were able to put intuition aside and follow the evidence, regardless of how non-intuitive, or even counter-intuitive it seemed.

You hit the nail on the head.

I got to agree sometimes.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

This is very informative

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0274
Three-Dimensional Magnetic Reconnection

Authors: Clare E. Parnell, Andrew L. Haynes
(Submitted on 2 Mar 2009)

Abstract: The importance of magnetic reconnection as an energy release mechanism in many solar, stellar, magnetospheric and astrophysical phenomena has long been recognised. Reconnection is the only mechanism by which magnetic fields can globally restructure, enabling them to access a lower energy state. Over the past decade, there have been some major advances in our understanding of three-dimensional reconnection. In particular, the key characteristics of 3D magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) reconnection have been determined. For instance, 3D reconnection (i) occurs with or without nulls, (ii) occurs continuously and continually throughout a diffusion region and (iii) is driven by counter rotating flows.
Furthermore, analysis of resistive 3D MHD magnetic experiments have revealed some intriguing effects relating to where and how reconnection occurs. To illustrate these new features, a series of constant-resistivity experiments, involving the interaction of two opposite-polarity magnetic sources in an overlying field, are considered. Such a simple interaction represents a typical building block of the Sun's magnetic atmosphere. By following the evolution of the magnetic topology, we are able to explain where, how and at what rate the reconnection occurs. Remarkably there can be up to five energy release sites at anyone time (compared to one in the potential case) and the duration of the interaction increases (more than doubles) as the resistivity decreases (by a factor of 16). The decreased resistivity also leads to a higher peak ohmic dissipation and more energy being released in total, as a result of a greater injection of Poynting flux.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0803.3807
Simulations of Ultrarelativistic Magnetodynamic Jets from Gamma-ray Burst Engines

Authors: Alexander Tchekhovskoy (1), Jonathan C. McKinney (2), Ramesh Narayan (1) ((1) Harvard CfA/ITC, (2) Stanford University/KIPAC)
(Submitted on 27 Mar 2008 (v1), last revised 8 May 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Long-duration gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) require an engine capable of driving a jet of plasma to ultrarelativistic bulk Lorentz factors of up to several hundred and into narrow opening angles of a few degrees. We use global axisymmetric stationary solutions of magnetically-dominated (force-free) ultrarelativistic jets to test whether the popular magnetic-driving paradigm can generate the required Lorentz factors and opening angles. Our global solutions are obtained via time-dependent relativistic ideal magnetodynamical numerical simulations which follow the jet from the central engine to beyond six orders of magnitude in radius. Our model is primarily motivated by the collapsar model, in which a jet is produced by a spinning black hole or neutron star and then propagates through a massive stellar envelope. We find that the size of the presupernova progenitor star and the radial profile of pressure inside the star determine the terminal Lorentz factor and opening angle of the jet. At the radius where the jet breaks out of the star, our well-motivated fiducial model generates a Lorentz factor $\gamma\sim 400$ and a half-opening angle $\theta_j\sim 2^\circ$, consistent with observations of many long-duration GRBs. Other models with slightly different parameters give $\gamma$ in the range 100 to 5000 and $\theta_j$ from $0.1^\circ$ to $10^\circ$, thus reproducing the range of properties inferred for GRB jets. A potentially observable feature of some of our solutions is that the maximum Poynting flux in the jet is found at $\theta \sim \theta_j$ with the jet power concentrated in a hollow cone, while the maximum in the Lorentz factor occurs at an angle $\theta$ substantially smaller than $\theta_j$ also in a hollow cone. [abridged]

Most papers if not all talk about spinning black holes and Neutron stars and whatever.

We notice the jet coming out with a spin.

But! does the body of the black hole spin?

How can we tell?

We cannot see within.

[Space Explorer]

By : Space Explorer

Can you imagine or visualize Hubble with the capability of zooming in on specks of light beyond it's current reach that may only appear as big as the eye of a everyday sewing needle? Can you truly imagine and appreciate Hubble than enlarging / enhancing that speck of light to where it would reveal what is there? Can you again imagine all of the wonderful things that would be discovered if this could be done?Maybe new stars, solar systems, and new planets. Finally,can you imagine Hubble with the capability of going even beyond all of this? How? Secondly , Hubble also having the capability of revealing the dark surfaces of a planet as well.Again, can you imagine or visualize Hubble exposing the dark areas of that planet? Maybe revealing land masses and continents. Maybe even mapping the planet's surface. Maybe even revealing water. But, let's not also forget. By being able to use the same capabilities next in zooming in on a planet's surface. Maybe revealing mountains at the north pole of the planet. With canyons and the such and other surface like areas. Suppose , with this technology Hubble could also get down onto the planet's surface to some extent. Finally, can you visualize and imagine Hubble with such capabilities what it may hopefully do for space exploration, and finding :"blue-like planets" in the universe maybe suitable for the elements of life life ?

Someday I do feel and believe it very well could happen. Maybe to even some extent now.Suppose a person on this wonderful site minimally could produce such results in photos. Wouldn't that make continual new data available to be looked at maybe never seen, discussed, recognized/realized before.

Hopefully, this commentator will bring some of this technology available now for you look at in photos on this website . In new images submitted here for discussion. I'm Space-Explorer inventor of possibly this kind of new technology. No, it is not yet on Hubble.However, to a limited degree I'm honored to bring some of this technology here to this website in new photos. Never seen by anyone ever before.My system is not perfect. but, it hopefully could offer new capabilities I feel and believe in space exporation as I have aforementioned above. maybe even more.I bring this new technology to this site for open and honest respectable discussion. For I too may be able to improve this technology by doing this. You may ask :"How"? By opening these photos open for discussion may allow me to understand feedback. In order to take seriously into my heart and mind. Allowing me to improve this technology also by what I learn from all of you on this discussion board.For this only could improve, what I've already have tried to invent here.Honest respectable/honorable discussion on any and all images I present to this site for discussion on an open forum, I do feel and believe can only help .Helping the betterment of this new technology for space exploration at hand.I look forward to our future discussions starting here very soon. On the new images I submit to this site .(SEE BELOW:"ZOOMING IN EXAMPLE OF OLDEST GAMMA RAY BURST"-(TWO EXAMPLES OF TECHNOLOGY AT WORK).MUCH MORE IS TO COME THANK YOU!

Best , To All of You!

Sincerely,

Space Explorer

[apodman]

What kind of angular resolution are you talking about? Give me a number.

Your images sound great. I don't want to wait until they are APODs to see them. Please post a small sample here for us to view.

[Space Explorer]

May 19th,2009

From : Space Explorer

I'm new to this forum and have yet to get the hang of it. But the angular resolution is subjective to the conditions of whatever it is that is photographed in space.I just posted two examples. The first shows the oldest gamma ray burst known in the bottom left corner of the image itself. Immediately to the right it is greatly enlarged/enhanced new image of the same gamma ray burst. However, as you can see this reveals a lot more of what was not noticed to the naked eye before.However, I even take this a step beyond that . The second arrow points to a little white speck.

The enlarged /enhanced speck result is noticed in the upper left top corner above it.This is the end result. I can show a series of step X step sequenced enhanced /enlargements that would show the end result being the same. However, this would require quite a bit of images uploaded into this forum. Which I'm willing to do. However, at this point I'm just trying to present a simple introduction demonstration to get started on all of this. As I promised earlier in my comments on this forum.For which I will be posting much more of soon. Hopefully in the days to come.However, I estimate with my equipment that the angular resolution is about 1500 digits per square inch.I hope this has answered your question and post reply. Thank you for commenting.

[bystander]

Could you please explain how your technology (or any technology) can exceed the original resolution of the photographs.

[Space Explorer]

Question : How could your technology-(or any technology) exceed the resolution of the photograph itself..? I'll answer this question the best I can. The technology that I have invented can most simply answer this question this way.Suppose the photograph for all sakes and purposes has a resolution level when the photo was first taken at let's say as just an example 300 digits per square pixel inch-(d.p.i.).Does this mean that the photo taken at this d.p.i. level is at:"it's maximum attainable resolution that the photo can possibly attain under the laws of physics"...? No . How..? The simple fact that todays everyday digital cameras have settings on them. Where you can set for instance the d.p.i. level at either 300 or 600 d.p.i. When you take a picture already answers part of this question.Showing the the resolution level under and in which the photo was taken does not mean that was the maximum resolution level. An image can be taken of a space anomaly or anything else for that matter.It depends too on how sophisticated the equipment is taking the photo also.

The technology I've invented in doing this also has the capability of increasing the d.p.i. level on the image. In other words, if the d.p.i. level was for example 300 d.p.i. and than
my technology comes along and adds another 1500 d.p.i. to the image you now have an image with a total resolution d.p.i. level of about 1800 d.p.i. Therefore increasing the capability of what can be seen and not.

However, than another question that could be asked is:"Than what is the maximum resolution d.p.i. level an image of a heavenly body can attain? It's my experience that with each photo some may have more capability for maximum d.p.i. levels. others have less. They may be able to attain . It is a unique situation from image to image. Because of a large varying amount of conditions of what is being photographed at the time , can come into play on all of this. I hope this has answered your question for the most part.

Thank you !

Space Explorer

[bystander]

I still don't see how you can add information to a photo. Once the image is exposed, the resolution is fixed, no more informaton can be added. All you can do is smooth out the graininess of a zoom. You can not add information where none existed.

[Space Explorer]

INVENTOR USING STAR TREK TECHNOLOGY ZOOMS IN ON PLANET HD189733B?

The inventor of APEP :"Space explorer in his latest demonstration of mapping a planet find life on HD189733B?

The discovery of building blocks of life on one of the closest known planets orbiting a star other than our own sun is a gas giant planet HD 189733B. Astronomers have detected water and carbon dioxide, key signs of life in the atmosphere of HD 189733B orbiting it's star 63 light years away form Earth in the constellation Vulpecula. Scientists have said for sometime that life would be found soon, it was just a matter of time, has that time come.


Photo provided by Hubble Space Telescope
(SEE FIRST ATTACHMENT)
The carbon dioxide is the main reason for the excitement," said Mark Swain, a research scientist at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
In a separate study, published in the journal Nature, a team from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena has found the signature of water vapor in the superheated atmosphere of the same planet.

The fact that Methane was found lead to Space Explorer to conducting his investigation using APEP. Methane, composed of carbon and hydrogen, is one of the main components of natural gas, a product of petroleum. On Earth, methane is produced by a variety of sources: natural sources such as termites, the oceans and wetland environments, but also from livestock and manmade sources such as waste landfills and as a by-product of energy generation.

Space Explorer using APEP-Advance Photographic Extraction Process successfully extracted images beyond the Atmosphere surrounding the planet to reveal the surface and structures showing signs of what is believed to be oceans and land masses but green belt areas thriving in what is considered a very harsh and hot environment.

On July 11, 2007, a science team lead by Giovanna Tinetti published the results of their observations using the Spitzer Space Telescope concluding there is solid evidence of significant amounts of water vapor in the planets atmosphere. A follow up observation made using the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the presence of water vapor and organic compound methane. Methane at high temperature should cause water and methane to react, replacing the atmosphere with carbon monoxide.

Space Explorer may not only found water in the atmosphere but across the planet verifying Hubble's result with these photos. APEP is a digital imaging system that could add estimated 600% to Hubble's visual enhancement of images. Soon APEP will be upgraded with HD-High Definition imaging that are estimated to increase it's imaging capacity . This new imaging capacity could lead to a new system for planet hunting scientists to use and revolutionize the entire Optical imaging space program. APEP-HD could soon be available to Universities and Observatories . If interested please contact me Space Explorer at rsmty@gvec.net

Below in the second image/attachment wide star field image of the region around HD 189733B and it's Star HD189733 is located in the center, just to the left of the planetary nebula Messier 27. The field of view is approximately 2.7 x 2.8 degrees, credits NASA/ESA/Digitized Sky Survey 2, Acknowledgement: ESA/Hubble.

(SEE-2ND- ATTACHMENT)

Below as I begin to use this technology to zoom in on both the North and South pole of the planet the photo below seems to show :"a land mass possibly rising above the clouds" that are estimated to be thirty miles high.Of course if we were to measure this by earth standards that may hardly apply here. Since this planet is known to be approximately 1/3 larger than the mass of Jupiter itself.The blue color may be a clue of what may lie below the clouds. As I apply the technology more and more to this image as we zoom in on it this more and more apparent detail should be noticed.Plus all of the dark areas that hid the planet before in which it does not seem Hubble was able to determine at the time when this image was taken. However, now with Space Explorer's technology applied we now may get a brand new look at the planet never seen on a known scale before.Furthermore, we have to remember that scientists have already basically determined that there may be signs of water on this planet. Just how much we will now get ready to see.

(SEE THIRD ATTACHMENT

Above in this APEP-(means;"Advanced Photographic Extraction process). photo it shows what is thought to be a large amount of water on the surface with land masses or continents similar to what is found on Earth. The gold spot and the white reflection is the Sun's energy highlighting the water vapor in HD189733B's atmosphere. However, we continue to apply the power of this new technology even more.This is shown in the next image.

(SEE-4TH-ATTACHMENT)

(SEE-5TH-ATTACHMENT)

Of course in this fifth attachment /photo we see the top of the north pole and planet never as seen before.However, can this technology get us yet closer? We will now see in the 6-7th attachments.

But what does the other side of the planet look like compared to Hubble's image and that of this new technology? Our first attachment # 8 will answer this for us.

(SEE ATTACHMENT # 8)

In attachment number 8 we see (1) as Spitzer Space Telescope -AS-IS image. However, when this technology of Space explorer is applied again we can see what seems to be a considerable difference. We not only see what appears to resemble possible water, but also land masses. maybe even continents shown in considerable detail.Maybe this new technology could be used for space exploration.The mapping of planets and the such. Space Explorer will reveal more in the near future to come. Thank you!

[apodman]

I estimate with my equipment that the angular resolution is about 1500 digits per square inch.I hope this has answered your question.

This does not answer my question. You don't know what angular resolution is.

You asked about zooming in on distant objects, so lets consider one we all know:

Mimas (APOD 2009 May 18) is 400 km in diameter and is 1,200,000,000 km from Earth at its closest approach. Take the arctangent of (400/1,200,000,000) which makes the angular size of Mimas about 0.07 arcseconds. The angular resolution of the Hubble is about 0.05 arcseconds, which means that at maximum zoom the Hubble can show Mimas as 1.4 pixels in diameter. In other words, it can show it as a dot with no detail. At the same distance and zoom, Hubble can show Titan (whose diameter is 13 times that of Mimas and whose angular size is about 0.9 arcseconds) as 18 pixels in diameter, and so with a small amount of detail. In both cases the angular resolution is still the same: 0.05 arcseconds per pixel.

Extrasolar planets as viewed from Earth have much smaller angular sizes than Mimas (do the math), and so Hubble can't possibly view them as more than 1 pixel. Tell us how you are going to improve on that.

"Dots per inch" in your photograph is not an informative number as you could display the photograph at any scale. To be informative, the resolution must be expressed angularly, as in dots per arcsecond. The Hubble, with a resolution of 0.05 arcseconds, can view an object as 20 dots per arcsecond. That's 1 dot for Mimas, 18 dots across Titan, and 36,000 dots across our own Moon. Tell us how you are going to improve on that.

[apodman]

blah, blah, blah

(SEE FIRST ATTACHMENT)

blah, blah, blah

(SEE-2ND- ATTACHMENT)

blah, blah, blah

(SEE THIRD ATTACHMENT

blah, blah, blah

(SEE-4TH-ATTACHMENT)

blah, blah, blah

(SEE-5TH-ATTACHMENT)

blah, blah, blah

We will now see in the 6-7th attachments.

blah, blah, blah

(SEE ATTACHMENT # 8)

blah, blah, blah

I don't see any attachments, and your rambling off-the-subject text doesn't address what you set out to tell us: what increased resolution you can produce, and how you're going to do it. Until you give us some real information, your whole dissertation adds up to nothing.

[Chris Peterson]

Criminy. Science forums really bring them out of the woodwork. You see it in all science forums... without aggressive moderation they rapidly decay into noise.

[apodman]

The following information has been supplied by Ronald Nussbeck

APEP- Advanced Photographic Extraction Process. Since 2003, inventor Ron Stewart has made several ongoing improvements ...

APEP MORE EASILY UNDERSTOOD

APEP (aka PPP-Penetrating Photographic Process), what does it stand for and how may it be more readily understood ? APEP means; (ADVANCED-PHOTO-EXTRACTION-PROCESS). Or simply a new photo technique process, that can extract very small pieces of an image out of a photo, and present that in a series of enlarged enhancements.

The first step in extracting images from a photo by APEP, that cannot be seen with the naked eye or any other process, is to take a color photo that has as little as 100 DPI and transform it into a black and white image, and increasing the concentration of DPI to 1200.

The second step is to take the black and white photo which now has 1200 DPI and enhance the image again until the image has a total concentration of about 4800 to 6000 DPI, bringing the image to the maximum resolution under the laws of physics.

blah, blah, blah

blah, blah, blah

I am Ronald Nussbeck the author of PROOF ALIEN’S EXIST

UFO, Alien, Scientist Find Evidence Of Life On Planet HD189733B? ... The inventor of APEP-Advanced Photographic Extraction Process Ron Stewart in his latest demonstration of mapping a planet find life on HD189733B?

[makc]

let me comment as a programmer:

there are very good enlargement algorithms that analyze color gradients over several adjacent pixels and generate new pattern for every source image pixel, in fact adding new information to the image. maybe this guy came up with one of this kind of algorithms. it is important to understand, however, that added information is bogus, and its only use is aesthetic - to please an eye.

it is too bad that this guy does not know basic concepts such as angular resolution he made something he is proud of, but he is not prepared to present it to the public.

[apodman]

he made something he is proud of, but he is not prepared to present it to the public.

Most of the text in the rambling post above was copied and pasted from the content at the UFO Digest link I cited above. Either this guy is the inventor promoting his wares or a fan riding the inventor's coattails. Either way the claims are unreal.

added information is bogus, and its only use is aesthetic - to please an eye

True.

[Space Explorer]

I still don't see how you can add information to a photo. Once the image is exposed, the resolution is fixed, no more informaton can be added. All you can do is smooth out the graininess of a zoom. You can not add information where none existed.

Let's put it this way. The same amount of information is there. But, let me explain it in another way. If a true image's "total resolution capacity" is let's say 5,000 d.p.i..Meaning ;suppose you take an image of a star suppose that in order to captivate every imaginable amount of detail it has to offer under the laws of physics would be at a total of 5,000 d.p.i.

In other words, if you invented a new space telescope that could take a photo of the same thing at 6000 d.p.i. it could only produce an image at a resolution only as good as 5,000 d.p.i.However, if Hubble's current capacity to captivate an image is let's say even 2500 d.p.i. Hubble could still improve it's technology to reach that 5,000 d.p. i. capacity.

My technology takes the exiting image-at whatever d.p.i. level the photo was originally taken at and re-photographs the original image at a higher d.p.i. level. If the original photo was photographed at 1200 d.p.i my technology basically rephotographs the image at 3000 d.p.i. etc.Or much more.I hope this helps you to understand than how in effect this could produce a new better image. Plus, the other capabilites this technology has to improve the photo as I've already have aforementioned in my posts and demonstrated in a number of other photos now on this forum for discussion.I hope this helps you and others reading this , to have a better understanding of this. Thank you !

Best!

Space Explorer

[makc]

My technology takes the exiting image-at whatever d.p.i. level the photo was originally taken at and re-photographs the original image at a higher d.p.i. level. If the original photo was photographed at 1200 d.p.i my technology basically rephotographs the image at 3000 d.p.i. etc.Or much more.