Starship Asterisk*

In reading 'Discover': June 08, I came across 'Loop Quantum Gravity' proposed by Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara of the Waterloo, Ontario, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. The article says her idea "unifies quantum and gravitational realms." Anyone have any thoughts on this? Okay .. I see on Wiki it's not 'her' idea, she's a proponent. Why don't these articles give more background? Ahh - Granny was right after all .. the universe was knit together. Interesting url -
arXiv.org > hep-ph > arXiv:hep-ph/0503213

Also, in the same magazine, Theoretical Physicist Itzhak Bars of University of Southern California suggests 'a new symmetry that treats an object's position and its momentum as interchangeable at any given instant.' 'Adding two-time physics to M Theory should help us close in on "the fundamental theory that so far has eluded all of us." According to the article, this theory incorporates not only a second dimension of time, but a fourth dimension of space, and to me vaguely resonates of my E=mc2 T (Time). My latest thought, birthed by reading the Discover article .. Time Loops - Time running in loops in both directions simultaneously .. on the same loop. That would give the second dimension. I just emailed Itzhak with that thought.

Hello All,

I'm posting this in order to clarify and/or amend my post:

astrolabe wrote:A fact that is proven can certainly, and without doubt, be a belief. But it is not (and can never be) the other way around in a scientific methodology

This is not a correct conclusion! The fact of the matter is that a belief CAN result in a proven fact with rigorous, repeatable and unbiased testing, otherwise where in scientific endeavors would we now be without our dreams and ideas.

More simply stated: a fact can turn into a belief, but for some the belief is the fact, or stated as such. I'm more than likely still going to be in hot water over this.

Hello ari,

Thank you for being patient with me. I can be a real jerk if I don't pay attention and get out of my own head once in a while.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

astrolabe wrote:Hello aristarchusinexile,

aristarchusinexile wrote:The universe is expanding into water according to the ancient Hebrews

All well and good, but not for a scientific forum. Because it cannot be proven to be within current accepted theory? I would have to say yes. And, other than stating that, any arguments by me either for or against such an idea would be meaningless. Not said to be harsh at all, just meant to be a reminder of the parameters in this Forum for rendering a discussion as a scientic astronomy-related (or APOD) topic.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Within five years astronomers will have confirmation .. possibly two years, using the big telescopes being built now.

Until then........................!

I merely answered the question to the best of my ability. One cannot do more than that .. but one can do much less.

Agreed- one can do much less, which reminds me- I should lay off the caffeine a bit, eh? Ya think?

P.S. I envy Thor's grandson but leave it to the next generation to wanna speed things up. I guess he missed 30 days of diamonds in the sea at night and dark non light-polluted skies lavish with stars, planets and the big MW. Oh well, que sera, sera.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

One of the questions that is bugging scientists around the world is the mechanism that creates JETS large or small.

This paper written recently adds a further discussion on the pinching of magnetic fields.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1326
Magnetar Driven Bubbles and the Origin of Collimated Outflows from GRBs

Authors: N. Bucciantini (1), E. Quataert (1), J. Arons (1), B.D. Metzger (1), Todd A. Thompson (2) ((1)Astronomy Department, UC Berkeley, (2)Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton)
(Submitted on 5 Oct 2007)

Abstract: We model the interaction between the wind from a newly formed rapidly rotating magnetar and the surrounding progenitor. In the first few seconds after core collapse the magnetar inflates a bubble of plasma and magnetic fields behind the supernova shock, which expands asymmetrically because of the pinching effect of the toroidal magnetic field, as in PWNe, even if the host star is spherically symmetric. The degree of asymmetry depends on the ratio of the magnetic energy to the total energy in the bubble. We assume that the wind by newly formed magnetars inflating these bubbles is more magnetized than for PWNe. We show that for a magnetic to total power supplied by the central magnetar $\sim 0.1$ the bubble expands relatively spherically while for values greater than 0.3, most of the pressure in the bubble is exerted close to the rotation axis, driving a collimated outflow out through the host star. This can account for the collimation inferred from observations of long-duration gamma-ray bursts (GRBs). Given that the wind magnetization increases in time, we thus suggest that the magnetar-driven bubble initially expands relatively spherically (enhancing the energy of the associated supernova) while at late times it becomes progressivelymore collimated (producing the GRB). Similar processes may operate in more modestly rotating neutron stars to produce asymmetric supernovae and lower energy transients such as X-ray flashes.

astrolabe wrote:Hello All,

I'm posting this in order to clarify and/or amend my post:

astrolabe wrote:A fact that is proven can certainly, and without doubt, be a belief. But it is not (and can never be) the other way around in a scientific methodology

This is not a correct conclusion! The fact of the matter is that a belief CAN result in a proven fact with rigorous, repeatable and unbiased testing, otherwise where in scientific endeavors would we now be without our dreams and ideas.

More simply stated: a fact can turn into a belief, but for some the belief is the fact, or stated as such. I'm more than likely still going to be in hot water over this.

Don't be too hard on yourself, Astro, leave that to the real jerks like me. I appreciate tremendously your statement '... a belief CAN result in a proven fact with rigorous, repeatable and unbiased testing, otherwise where in scientific endeavours (Canadian spelling 'our') ..." would we now be without our dreams and ideas."

astrolabe wrote:
P.S. I envy Thor's grandson but leave it to the next generation to wanna speed things up. I guess he missed 30 days of diamonds in the sea at night and dark non light-polluted skies lavish with stars, planets and the big MW. Oh well, que sera, sera.

Yeah .. we just shoulda been on that first raft, Astro. But I hope my three or four months in my canoe this season will dissipate my disappointment. Wish you and everyone from Apod could be there .. bringing their own canoes of course, mine's only 16' long.

Good to hear from you Harry. I've been wondering where you've been.

I thought that jets originated in Germany.



Or was it in Alexandria

Further to what I've read on this stuff, a bounce universe does not require a singularity.

The Germans also had a rocket plane which was successful in shooting down allied bombers. The first Mach 2 jet (Avro Arrow) was Canadian .. scrapped on orders from the U.S. because they had nothing to shoot it down with. Even the latest Israeli superjet is pretty much a copy of the Arrow. The Arrow people were put in charge of every department of the U.S. moon mission, and probably the ICBM development as well. Canadian Avro also had the first succesful jet airliner, the Jetliner, but the U.S. ordered it out of production as well.

according to Hubble Law (if I understand correctly, as I am only an amature Physicist... full time Auto Mechanic) objects outside the Hubble sphere (13.8billion ly away) objects such as galaxys would be moving away from us faster then the speed of light, IE: light hasn't had time to reach our small speck in the universe.

aristarchusinexile wrote:The Germans also had a rocket plane which was successful in shooting down allied bombers. The first Mach 2 jet (Avro Arrow) was Canadian .. scrapped on orders from the U.S. because they had nothing to shoot it down with. Even the latest Israeli superjet is pretty much a copy of the Arrow. The Arrow people were put in charge of every department of the U.S. moon mission, and probably the ICBM development as well. Canadian Avro also had the first succesful jet airliner, the Jetliner, but the U.S. ordered it out of production as well.

Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow

• First Flight: 1958 March 25
  Max Speed: Mach 1.96
  Ceiling: 56,000 ft.

Convair F-106 Delta Dart
Developed from F-102, which was devloped from the XF-92A delta wing project (1940's).

• First Flight: 1956 December 26
  Max Speed: Mach 2.3
  Ceiling: 57,000 ft

So, who was first?

The Israeli Air Force flies F-15's and F-16's which will eventually be replaced by F-35's, none of which have anything to do with the Arrow.

The Avro Canada C102 Jetliner first flew 1949 August 10 and never made it past prototype stage (not very successful). The de Havilland DH.106 Comet beat it into the air by 13 days (1949 July 27). The Comet and its derivatives are still in service today.

As for your other contentions, I don't know, but I suspect they are as groundless as these. If you are going to come up with a good conspiracy theory, at least make sure you have your facts right.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Smile

Although those jets are not in the topic.

It does rise the issue for future mechanisms involving magnetic pinch to drive jet plains and space ships.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Re Collimated Jets

This is of interest, sometimes we see so called black hole and think that they are inactive.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702126
Jets from the faintest black holes

Authors: Elena Gallo (UCSB)
(Submitted on 5 Feb 2007)

Abstract: The question whether quiescent black hole X-ray binaries are capable of powering relativistic outflows is addressed by means of simultaneous radio/X-ray observations of a nearby system steadily emitting X-rays below 1e-8 times the Eddington luminosity. The robust detection of a radio counterpart suggests that a synchrotron emitting outflow is being powered by this system, even though its degree of collimation remains unknown, and hard to investigate. With the inclusion of the A0620-00 data, the non linear radio/X-ray correlation for hard state black hole X-ray binaries appears to hold down to very low quiescent luminosities. However, an increasing number of outliers is being found at higher luminosities, questioning the universality of such correlation, or at least its normalization.

bystander wrote:

When fitted with the new Canadian Iro ... gger]F-102, which was developed from the XF-92A delta wing project (1940's).

• First Flight: 1956 December 26 Max Speed: Mach 2.3 Ceiling: 57,000 ft

[/list] So, who was first?[/quote]

From Wiki: "The Convair F-106 Delta Dart was the primary all-weather interceptor aircraft for the United States Air Force from the 1960s through the 1980s." Your information includes earlier aircraft leading to the 106. Also, setting a speed record in a dive is not like flying machs on the level.

bstander wrote:The Israeli Air Force flies F-15's and F-16's which will eventually be replaced by F-35's, none of which have anything to do with the Arrow.

The Israelis also have their own homebuilt delta wing fighter, but I can't find it on the internet so far. Okay .. the history is here. The Lion. http://www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Ic ... other.html It's another relatively close copy of the arrow, but smaller.

Bystander wrote:The Avro Canada C102 Jetliner first flew 1949 August 10 and never made it past prototype stage (not very successful). de Havilland DH.106 Comet beat it into the air by 13 days (1949 July 27). The Comet and its derivatives are still in service today.

The Comet had poorly designed wings which caused crashes at takeoff, and repeatedly blew up in midair because they designed square windows which allowed changing internal air pressures to create stress fractures at the corners. The Avro Jetliner had round windows, and was completely successful as an aircraft. However, the U.S. ordered Avro to turn full production to Canadian designed fighter jets (including, I believe, the CF 100 and 102) for the Korean war, allowing the U.S. aircraft industry time to develop their passenger jet industry.
From Wiki: "The de Havilland Comet was the world's first commercial jet airliner to reach production.[3] Developed and manufactured by de Havilland, it first flew in 1949 and was considered a landmark British aeronautical design. After a successful introduction into commercial service, early Comet models suffered from catastrophic metal fatigue, causing a string of well-publicised accidents. The Comet was withdrawn temporarily and redesigned. The Comet 4 series subsequently enjoyed a long and productive career of over 30 years, although sales never fully recovered. The Hawker Siddeley Nimrod, the military derivative of the Comet airliner, is still in service."
Avro's Jetliner is far from the only Canadian "first" in technology to be ordered out of production by the U.S./British industrial-military machine. Had they known about RIM's Blackberry it never would have gotten into production in Canada .. but one of the U.S. corporations would have mysteriously acquired the technology and patents.

Check out http://www.eurofighter.com/et_cu.asp for another copy of the Arrow, modified only slightly with the addition of the small wings near the cockpit. Notice that the Eurofighter has greater capabilities in all areas than the X35, and as the F35 is a derivative of the X35, probably the F35 as well .. so far I haven't found the F36 .. okay, the F36 from what I read seems to be in early stages of development.

I don't follow the logic that just because the universe is expanding it must have been infintesimly small in the past. The logic follows that it must have been smaller and smaller in the past, but who's to say how small it was when the big bang occured? Why could it not have been, say, the size of the sun or a basket ball? The W-map image of the early universe does not clarify this for me. Could someone explain?

Nahhh, just tell us why you dont want it to be that small. So, why dont you want the univers to be that small at the beginning? (Gravity and spacetime expansion tell us that.)

What is known for now in science is what it is said, that the univers was a singularity or an infinitesimal small point at the beginning. But the theory dont go to the start. It's just speculation from theory. Now tell us why it should'nt be that way. You might have discover something interesting. And i think we all want to know if you have new information and theory about it.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Thank you aristarchusinexile , that was very interesting.

I started this topic re Astrophyical Jets

But! Interesting side topics.

Doum wrote:Nahhh, just tell us why you dont want it to be that small.

I think he made it really transparent before that he is after some evidence to back up Nietzsche's concept of "eternal return" (or whatever the english name is). It's funny how, after detonating good old christian ethics, Nietzsche had to invent grounds for his own why couldn't he just give it up completely?

Nietzsche wrote:God is dead.

God wrote:Nietzsche is dead.

apodman wrote:

Nietzsche wrote:God is dead.

God wrote:Nietzsche is dead.

Is Nietzsche Dead? Or just sleeping? From what I understand, Nietzsche wrote 'God is dead' as a commentary on the lack of love in his society.

Zarathustra wrote:I don't follow the logic that just because the universe is expanding it must have been infintesimly small in the past. The logic follows that it must have been smaller and smaller in the past, but who's to say how small it was when the big bang occured? Why could it not have been, say, the size of the sun or a basket ball? The W-map image of the early universe does not clarify this for me. Could someone explain?

"Says Who" there ever was a Big Bang? http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/3428

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Thank you aristarchusinexile , that was very interesting.

I started this topic re Astrophyical Jets

But! Interesting side topics.

Topics on Astrophysical Jets belongs in an Astronomy forum, Harry.
For the uninitiated who might he casually looking in, this link Relativistic jet is a good place to begin.

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Smile

Although those jets are not in the topic.

It does rise the issue for future mechanisms involving magnetic pinch to drive jet plains and space ships.

Harry! Exellent idea. I also just discovered I might be able to boost my moped's miles per gallon by placing a strong magnet near the combustion chamber's air-fuel intake port .. the field allowing gas and air molecules to mix more efficiently.

bongman wrote:according to Hubble Law (if I understand correctly, as I am only an amature Physicist... full time Auto Mechanic) objects outside the Hubble sphere (13.8billion ly away) objects such as galaxys would be moving away from us faster then the speed of light, IE: light hasn't had time to reach our small speck in the universe.

I don't know about the faster than light speed, but the possibility exists that light hasn't reached us yet because there is nothing emiting light .. that there is a finite edge to the light emitting matter of the universe .. and what is beyond that boundary is what was questioned.