The fact that the gases inside the radiometer glowed when hit by microwaves leads me to think gas turned to hot plasma. This spinning plasma is exactly what I wanted to see, because at some point within the center of that round bulb, even if not totally spherical, there was an infinitesimal-micro center that fits the Axiomatic equation where all the ambient energy spinning around it is canceled out on a point. And that is significant. What should also be generated, though unable to measure it, is an axial discharge of positive charged energy, same as would be witnessed spat out the bipolar axis of a galactic black hole. Why is that significant? Because it represent power, both self-gravity power and electromagnetic power. And if power can be generated, it could also be used.

---

quote:

3. A partial explanation is that gas molecules hitting the warmer side of the vane will pick up some of the heat, bouncing off the vane with increased speed. Giving the molecule this extra boost effectively means that a minute pressure is exerted on the vane. The imbalance of this effect between the warmer black side and the cooler silver side means the net pressure on the vane is equivalent to a push on the black side, and as a result the vanes spin round with the black side trailing. The problem with this idea is that while the faster moving molecules produce more force, they also do a better job of stopping other molecules from reaching the vane, so the net force on the vane should be exactly the same — the greater temperature causes a decrease in local density which results in the same force on both sides. Years after this explanation was dismissed, Albert Einstein showed that the two pressures do not cancel out exactly at the edges of the vanes because of the temperature difference there. The force predicted by Einstein would be enough to move the vanes, but not fast enough.

---

---

quote:

For life as we know it to form and thrive, four conditions must be met: sufficient amounts of the so-called biogenic elements, a solvent (on Earth, that solvent is liquid water), a source of energy, and time "for the elements to build up and create a home and conditions for life to thrive," Venkatesan explained.

The biogenic elements include carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, sulfur, iron, and magnesium.

---

---

quote:

The report, released Friday, recommended that the space agency revive the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC), which was shuttered in 2007, or replace it with a similar innovation-focused entity in order to "seek out far-reaching, advanced concepts with the potential of significant benefit" to NASA's charter and future missions.
...
According to the report, a new NIAC entity should report directly to the office of NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, and be managed separately from other agency mission divisions. Initial grants for the new program could fund studies with up to $100,000 for a year in a Phase 1 approach, while a Phase 2 level could set aside up to $500,000 over two years for innovative research.

---

---

quote:

The union will start with a European-led orbiter in 2016, and continue with surface rovers in 2018...
The ultimate aim is a mission to return Mars rock and soils to Earth labs.

---

---

quote:

Based on the measurements, the team estimated about 100 kilograms of water in the view of their instruments — the equivalent of about a dozen 2-gallon buckets — in the area of the impact crater (about 66 feet, or 20 meters across) and the ejecta blanket (about 60 to 80 meters across), Colaprete said.

"I'm pretty impressed by the amount of water we saw in our little 20-meter crater," Colaprete said.

---

---

quote:

But has the cosmic expansion been speeding up throughout the lifetime of the universe, or is it a relatively recent development— that is, occurring within the past five billion years or so? The answer has profound implications. If scientists find that the expansion of the universe has always been accelerating, they will have to completely revise their understanding of cosmic evolution.

---

If diffuse gas and atoms are scattered within the light-cone of visibility from billions of light years within a higher G (about 4.5 orders of magnitude greater than Newton's G on Earth) in deep space, then light traveling through the diffuse atoms of space would encounter greater mass density closer in to us than farther away. Therefore, much like light hitting greater density of water, it would tend to refract at some point within that light-cone where the diffuse atoms density reaches some 'critical mass' within line of sight. This may be happening at about 6 billion light years, as the concentration of diffuse atomic space atomic mass gains greater density (within the line of sight geometric cone), where it is very diffuse beyond 6 billion years, but gains in density as it comes in closer to us and cone narrows. So, if redshift is from natural higher G gravitational redshift (meaning there is no expansion, merely an illusion), then as it crosses that 6 billion years boundary it 'refracts' into higher redshift, which now gives an illusion of accelerated expansion. (Could the ‘acceleration’ of the universe Big Bang, so called, expansion be a deep space high gravity artifact, a kind of ‘thermocline’ of how gravity affects distant lightshift in the light cone about half way from its ultimate visible distance 13.7 billion light years away?) Ergo, higher space atomic density in higher G means higher redshift, today understood as faster universal expansion, within the light cone as it narrows approaching Earth; think of projective geometry in reverse; and that is all it need to be to give the illusion of accelerated expansion.

Therefore, ‘accelerated’ expansion some 6 billion years ago may be merely an artefact of gravitational lensing on a cosmic scale, where distant light passing through much higher G over billions of light years ‘decelerates’ in higher line-of-sight gravitational redshifting to appear ‘more redshifted’, now interpreted as ‘accelerating’ cosmic expansion; in fact, it may be simpler than that, merely an artefact of ‘lensed’ deep space higher G redshifting light passing through it.

---

quote:

MSS J031300.36-670839.3, however, has no detectable sign of iron. Even within the margins for error, and astronomers assume an upper limit on the quantity of iron it contains, the star is still dated 13.6 billion years old. Previous “oldest star” record breakers have been dated to 13.2 billion years old.

---

---

quote:

In a paper published Thursday in Nature, researchers are challenging one long-held conception about how quickly the universe began warming during this transition period. …
According to scientists, the reionization period began several hundred million years after the big bang, when neutral hydrogen and helium particles began to condense into clouds…
The period ended about 1 billion years after the big bang.

---

---

quote:

The Hubble Space Telescope has spied the most distant galaxy yet.

It is so far away that the light from this extremely faint collection of stars, catalogued as GN-z11, has taken some 13.4 billion years to reach us.

Or to put that another way - Hubble sees the galaxy as it was just 400 million years after the Big Bang.

---

---

quote:

Garth Illingworth at the University of California-Santa Cruz, the co-author of the article in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, told reporters “We are seeing such bright, such luminous galaxies at this early time, that we’re really uncertain about what is happening here.”

---

---

quote:

The space observatory revealed six massive galaxies that existed between 500 million and 700 million years after the big bang that created the universe. The discovery is completely upending existing theories about the origins of galaxies, according to a new study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

---

---

quote:

On 12 July 2023, NASA celebrated the first year of operations with the release of Webb’s image of a small star-forming region in the Rho Ophiuchi cloud complex, 390 light years away.[273]
In September 2023, two astrophysicists questioned the accepted Standard Model of Cosmology, based on the latest James Webb Space Telescope studies.

---

---

quote:

Using Webb’s NIRSpec (Near-Infrared Spectrograph), they obtained a spectrum of a record-breaking galaxy observed only two hundred and ninety million years after the big bang. This corresponds to a redshift of about 14, which is a measure of how much a galaxy’s light is stretched by the expansion of the universe. ...
"All of these observations, together, tell us that JADES-GS-z14-0 is not like the types of galaxies that have been predicted by theoretical models and computer simulations to exist in the very early universe. Given the observed brightness of the source, we can forecast how it might grow over cosmic time, and so far we have not found any suitable analogs from the hundreds of other galaxies we’ve observed at high redshift in our survey.

---

---

quote:

After months stuck fast in deep Martian sand, NASA's embattled rover Spirit is facing a debilitating wheel problem that has slowed its escape efforts and could paralyze the long-lived robot.

Spirit has been trapped wheel-deep in sand for nearly eight months and engineers on Earth have been spinning the Mars rover's wheels in recent weeks to try and force it free. But the rover's right-rear wheel has been stalling, and now may be broken for good.

---

---

quote:

So working it out as per above:

delta G/ Newton's G/ 1AU = 7.239/6.67/ 1AU = 1.085 (dimensionless ratio?) which is further divided by 1AU:

1.085 / 1.5E+11 meters = 0.7233E-11 (dimensionless? or m^2 kg^-1 s^-2? - acceleration per one kilogram mass?)

---

1.085 / 1.5E+11 meters = 0.7233E-11 m^2 kg^-1 s^-2, which is same as 72.33E-15 cm/s^2 (per cm/kg),
which taking the numerical square root becomes:

a = -8.505E-7.5 cm/ s^2 as calculated using centimeters (vs. 8.74E-8 cm/ s^2 observed)*

This makes the Pioneer Anomaly acceleration a function of both distance and mass in a variable G system.

---

quote:

Now, a study led by De-Chang Dai of the State University of New York in Buffalo says the deaths of very massive stars may lead to "electroweak" stars that creep even closer to the black hole limit (arxiv.org/abs/0912.0520).

The cores of these stellar corpses can reach the same density as that of the universe 10-10 seconds after the big bang. At that point, the distinction between the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces breaks down.

---

---

quote:

Why is 1/AU^1/2 a meaningful value in planetary solar energy system, or the 'unity' of energy relationships? Are the outer planets progressively hotter K inside (by 1/AU^1/2), and cooler towards the Sun?

---

---

quote:

In the absence of any large body (that could potentially cancel out the gravitation between small objects), what would be stronger:

The gravitation between two oppositely charged particles or
The electromagnetic attraction between the same two particls?

---

---

quote:

Here's another question: Suppose we coud design two, star-sized magnets (both in mass/density) that were similarly charged. Would they repel each other in space or collide? In other words, In physics the electromagnetic force is supposed to be stronger than gravitation. Is there a limit, however, where the sheer scale of mass will cause gravitaion to "win out" over the electro-magnetic force? What if they were traveling toward each other at tremendous speeds? What role would that play?

---

---

quote:

The question should be: Why can't we find the gravitational waves that are an absolute prediction of relativity? Why can't we find what we call DARK MATTER, the observed deviation that is incompatible with both Newtonian physics and the relativistic appendage? Likewise the near earth flyby anomalies, Mercury anomalies, Pioneer anomalies.

---

---

quote:

The "theory of everything" is one of the most cherished dreams of science. If it is ever discovered, it will describe the workings of the universe at the most fundamental level and thus encompass our entire understanding of nature. It would also answer such enduring puzzles as what dark matter is, the reason time flows in only one direction and how gravity works. Small wonder that Stephen Hawking famously said that such a theory would be "the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God".

---

---

quote:

In 1998, two teams of astronomers announced that not only was the universe expanding, but it was accelerating as well. In fact, the farther away a galaxy is from Earth, the faster it is moving away, researchers have said.

---

Oct. 23, 2001: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1/30.html

If 1 x 1 = 1
then 1/2 x 2 = 1
or 1/4 x 4 = 1
and 1/8 x 8 = 1 etc...
or formally [1/n x n = 1], where the ‘n’ gets larger and larger until it approaches ‘infinity’. For every n there is its reciprocal 1/n no matter how large n, so their product is always axiomatic =1. Thus, we have: At the limit, where n goes to infinity while conversely 1/n approaches zero, we eventually get: 1/’infinity’ x ‘infinity’ = 1.

---

quote:

WE COULD be living inside a black hole. This head-spinning idea is one cosmologist's conclusion based on a modification of Einstein's equations of general relativity that changes our picture of what happens at the core of a black hole. ....
For his analysis, Poplawski turned to a variant of GR called the Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama (ECKS) theory of gravity. Unlike Einstein's equations, ECKS gravity takes account of the spin or angular momentum of elementary particles. Including the spin of matter makes it possible to calculate a property of the geometry of space-time called torsion.

---

Replacements for relativity

---

quote:

British theoretician Paul Dirac devoted a large part of his later life to cracking the complex structure of general relativity. He was puzzled by the extraordinary similarity between certain large numbers in the universe, such as why the size and total energy of the visible universe seemed to be related to the strength of gravity on the Earth's surface. To Dirac, Einstein's theory was incomplete because it was unable to explain these coincidences; he felt there might be something more to gravity.
So in 1938, he proposed a change to general relativity. Although it would still be a theory of space and time, its strength could vary from place to place - as if the actual fabric of space-time had a different stiffness depending on where you were sitting. So a star in one place would bend space around it by a certain amount, while an identical star in a different area might warp space much more or less.

---

(italics mine) Well, they're talking about "space-time" as possible variable to Einstein's General Relativity over large scales (though still seen as 'right' for our solar system), a baby step; but a step in right direction, if Newton's G ''constant" is in fact variable, even in our solar system.

Constant change: Are there no universal laws? - NewScientist article (subscription only) says that the alpha constant looks different in one direction of the universe from the other. I suspect this is due to intergalactic space gas densities being different, which at higher deep space gravity G will appear different for different locations from our 'stationary' location on Earth.

FYI, RE: "He (Dirac) was puzzled by the extraordinary similarity between certain large numbers in the universe, such as why the size and total energy of the visible universe seemed to be related to the strength of gravity on the Earth's surface." See: Cosmological constant, Hubble constant, Doppler redshift, MOND, Pioneer Anomaly - Are they all the same?

---

quote:

The discovery of a trove of potential alien planets, including dozens that could be Earth-size or habitable, is heartening news for those hoping to discover E.T. one day.
NASA's Kepler Space Telescope found 1,235 planet candidates beyond our solar system, according to an announcement Wednesday (Feb. 2). Of those, 68 are thought to be about the size of Earth, and 54 are at a distance from their stars where liquid water should be able to exist.
However, none of those planets are actually confirmed to exist —

---

---

quote:

Astrobiologist Richard Hoover of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., used scanning electron microscopes to analyze slices of carbonaceous meteorites that fell to Earth from space.
Based on the appearance of "filaments" and other features that resemble microbes, Hoover argues that the meteorites contain fossilized life in the form of cyanobacteria – single-celled organisms also known as blue-green algae. He supports this claim by presenting evidence of chemical compounds present in the meteorites that are consistent with a biological origin.

---

Planet Kelvin squared, times Venus orbital Energy squared, times 365 Earth days, times square root of AU distance from the Sun; all divided by Venus Kelvin squared, times planet Energy, times Venus orbit Energy, times orbit days, times Spin Ratio 2.32, equals (aprox) =1.

BTW, all is not lost in the above works... Where intelligence fails, cunning prevails.

There is an 'easy' fix to the Spin factor dilemma, where it always comes up as =1 when using black-body planet Kelvin temperatures. Perhaps that is the wrong approach, if planet interior heat is greater than black-body equivalent. For example, Earth's interior temperature, worked out using a Boltzmann constant, is about 10 times its 254K black-body temp (2540K). If we were to factor in something on par for all the planets, the above equation is then multiplied by 10 x black-body K across the board; but that leaves the Spin factor (=1) ten times planet's black-body Kelvin, which is wrong for Earth's spin equaling "one". Therefore, adjust the denominator by the same amount( viz. 2540K for Earth), and Earth's Spin is once again =1, as it should be. Now, try the same on all the other planets, and let's work it out, but here is how this works out to achieve desired Spin for each planet, since at present for each it is about =1. Therefore, adjust the upper by the 10X black-body Kelvin, but adjust the lower by a multiple (or fraction) of the same. This implies, necessarily, that interior planet temperatures are very different from their black-body numbers. Of course, I am assuming 'equilibrium' inner temperatures, which for Earth would be 254K x 10 = 2540K interior, for example, versus hotter or cooler actual inner temps. vis a vis solar heat received. (Mercury and Venus are special cases, however.)

Let's see how this works:

Mercury: ~<4420K? / ~4420K>?? = 58 days spin (solar 3/2 tidal resonance for 88 days orbit) ~ t/b adjusted?

Venus: 3210K / ~2145K? = -243 days 'spin' (retrogade -1.08 in its orbit) ~ adjusted, for temp K at Spin=1

Earth: 2540K / 2540K = 1 day spin

Mars: 2100K / 2040K = 1.03 day spin (Mars may be cooler than 10X black-body K)

Jupiter: 1100K / 2650K = 0.415 day spin
(Jupiter's K times 1/0.415 = 2650K interior heat - very hot planet)

Saturn: 811K / 1782K = 0.455 day spin
(1/0.455*811K = 1782K interior)

Uranus: 581K / 809K = 0.718 day spin

Neptune: 466K / 692K = 0.673 day spin

Of course, this is gross cheating! I am assuming interior planet heat is about 10 times its black-body temperature Kelvin in all cases, which may be totally wrong. But if it were discovered that interior temps, especially for outer planets, were as simulated here, or some approximation, then it would begin to account for why the planets spin they way they do.

---

quote:

Wiki: "Precession is the result of the angular velocity of rotation and the angular velocity produced by the torque. It is an angular velocity about a line that makes an angle with the permanent rotation axis, and this angle lies in a plane at right angles to the plane of the couple producing the torque. The permanent axis must turn towards this line, since the body cannot continue to rotate about any line that is not a principal axis of maximum moment of inertia; that is, the permanent axis turns in a direction at right angles to that in which the torque might be expected to turn it. If the rotating body is symmetrical and its motion unconstrained, and, if the torque on the spin axis is at right angles to that axis, the axis of precession will be perpendicular to both the spin axis and torque axis."

---

1. Mass: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/17.html#POST321
(Mass is gravitation equivalence)
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/17.html#POST323
(How 'volume times acceleration' is mass)
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/166.html
(Mass as a small 'remainder' function of Energy - per Axiomatic Equation)

2. Inertia: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/475.html#POST4689
(How e.m. energy modifies 'inertial mass' in the atom)
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/97.html#POST3366
(Rotating sphere inertia produces 'minute electromagnetic field, per Rindler)

3. Spin: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1177/1977.html?1309625395#POST5520
(Spin as evidence of super-small-micro black hole)

If 'mass' can be thought of as atomic-strong-force modified by electromagnetic energy into a 'remainder' force of gravity G, which by the Equivalence Principle defines inertial-mass, and this mass is measured from the mass-center of any massive object; then 'inertia' is a product of how this mass is modified by e.m. energy, and such inertial-mass is 'conserved' in angular momentum of any spin body; then the spin evident of such bodies is a function of some cancelation of all e.m. energy on a point, its axis, so a very small micro-black-hole results, though this is unmeasurable. In short, inertial mass put into high spin produces a surprisingly robust vector force. Could this be a usable, accelerative force of motion? The secret is what happens in micro-black hole dynamics inside the axis of spin?... We don't know.

[Postscript: MOVED G-force Note: It is not 'spin' that is the operative factor here, but rather the transfer of 'acceleration' that moves the apparatus along the axis. Spin merely transfers the gyroscopic effect, but added electrical induced acceleration pulses convert from radial to linear motion along the axis, as subsequent MOVED G tests showed, with 'kicks' of kinetic energy.

---

quote:

"In geometry, a torus (pl. tori) is, generally speaking, a doughnut-shaped object. More precisely, it is a surface of revolution generated by revolving a circle in three dimensional space about an axis coplanar with the circle."

---

"Dark energy is supposed to be the inherent energy of space-time, something we still don't fully understand. It would have been odd to receive a prize for having discovered a mystery…
Absolutely. The acceleration of the universe is the smoking gun of something. It may well be dark energy, but there are other possibilities. It could be that gravity on larger scales doesn't operate the way we think it does. The cleanest thing we can say is that the universe's expansion is accelerating and that's a great surprise."

---

quote:

A video based around Nicola Tesla's Tuned Coil. While pondering the basic circuit diagram I thought maybe the electronics were being used backwards ...if we reverse the circuit we could capture radiant energy from the atmosphere and use it as a source of power. Perhaps this is what Tesla intended in the first place? Tesla produced a paper talking about his vision for the future including a gravity shield, anti-gravity flying machines, The Magnifying Transmitter and other inventive technology. While Tesla had some scientific genius is without doubt although reading his paper I find some of his deeper beliefs about life, society, goverments and human sentience perhaps bringing about some of the very things he was trying to prevent? "Nikola Tesla is the true unsung prophet of the electronic age; without whom our radio, auto ignition, telephone, alternating current power generation and transmission, radio and television would all have been impossible. Yet his life and times have vanished largely from public access. This autobiography is released to remedy this situation."

---

*(We might also consider Venus vs Earth’s atmospheric composition, vis-a-vis the variable-G: Earth’s atmosphere is largely nitrogen and oxygen, with lesser amounts of carbon dioxide; whereas Venus is largely carbon dioxide. When comparing their densities it’s apparent that carbon dioxide has highest density, followed by oxygen and nitrogen’s lower densities. In a lighter G orbit, Venus best gathers heavier, denser gases, hence CO2, whereas higher G will gather lighter gases, hence nitrogen oxygen mix. On Mars, with lighter G than Earth and Venus, the high CO2 concentration is ‘favored’ because the planet is smaller than Earth or Venus, so must work harder to maintain it’s atmosphere for its small size. On Pluto, which has much higher G, and the planetoid smaller than our Moon, there is a surprisingly high atmosphere!)

Just some personal observations in scanning Martian landscape:

1. Soil appears to be like tiny granular marbles, visible in high + resolution.
2. Broken rocks have sharp edges, not common to 'water' environments, more like dry deserts.
3. What's 'hiding' under the rock ledges?.. more bio-blueberries?
4. Martian sky looks dusty pale, but Sun is clearly visible.
5. Distant dunes and mesas look like Monument Valley on Earth, may be water eroded, or merely sand blown.

It's fascinating spending some time with this great NASA panorama of Mars, kind of like hiking in a dry desert, hauntingly beautiful.

---

quote:

Now Christof Wetterich, a theoretical physicist at the University of Heidelberg in Germany, has floated a radical new theory. He theorizes that the expansion of space is an illusion; the universe isn’t going anywhere and, in fact, may be contracting. The spectral redshift is not due to the expansion of space like stretching a rubber sheet, but a slow and steady increase in the mass of the universe. ...

---

Addendum:
According to the Cosmological Principle the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so when we look in any direction its structure appears the same in all directions, as does its distribution of mass. But if we think about it, shouldn't there be some discrepancies if, and only if, we are not at its absolute center? So if the universe is some 13.8 billion years old after the Big Bang, and if Earth is some 5 billion years old since the accretion disk around our Sun formed the planet, then there should be some anisotropic and non-homogeneous observations possible. After all, if we are not at the absolute center of the universe, and we came into existence when it was already a fair size, some 8.8 billion years after creation, then looking in one direction should reveal less total mass than in its opposite direction; likewise, the Cosmic Microwave Background should appear more distant one way, but closer the other. In fact, the CMB (what is the origin background of the universe, its physical outer limits, in effect) should be more redshifted on the more distant side (traveling way from us due to expanding space) and less redshifted on the less distant, unless we were born exactly in the middle, unlikely (challeging the definition of 'isotropic' universe). But none if this is observed, which puts us dead center, and which makes us suspiciously terra centric, if so. So we are once more posed with a Copernican dilemma, that Earth is once more the center of the universe, which is unlikely. This begs the question, did the Big Bang actually occur, or is it the product of a fine Einsteinian, Lemaitreian fiction, where the math of General Relativity's cosmological constant happens to match the (observed) Hubble Doppler space expansion, and what fits handily into Fr. Lemaitre's Cosmic Egg creation cosmology? It would appear so, unless the distant cosmic light shift is from other than space expansion, making the fabled Big Bang origin of the universe rather suspect. Rather, beyond the distance where is the CMB, light is so stretched the universe remains dark to observations, so validates Olbers paradox.

---

quote:

"James Maxwell took a big step toward this goal when he unified electricity and magnetism, and physicists now understand that at high energies the electromagnetic and weak forces are aspects of the same force." (Unsolved Mysteries - Grand Unified Theory)

---

[Note: By happy coincidence, the Moon/Pluto mass/density ratio approximates the square root of its AU distance from the Sun, Viz. assuming Pluto's ~32 AU, taking the square is =5.66 (not so far off from earlier computed 5.63, which is square root of 31.7), so this could be a short hand formalism to estimate the relative mass density ratios of bodies. For example, per the above:

Set 1: 2.03 x 5.66 x 1.64 =18.84

Set 2: 2.03 / 5.66 x 1.64 =0.59

Which in effect, taking their density ratios becomes:
18.8/0.59= 31.86 G (pretty close to 31.7 G computed above)

Therefore, in effect, here is a simple shorthand method of calculating relative densities in a variable-G universe, per their relative AU cum G ratios as shown, if this is relevant as shown. By the same token, square root AU was used to balance planet spin ratios in order to bring orbits into relative unity, calculation short hand for planet energies at AU, or de facto Pioneer Anomaly, so not so strange.]

Addendum: There may be a short hand way to estimate Pluto's effective density, which is now at about 32 AU (~32 G) from our Sun, that could give us a real density for the mini-planet. If we take the square root of 32 (G), which gives a density of 5.66, we arrive at some proximity of what is Pluto's effective total density (if it were water, density of 1), which puts it at about the density of rock minerals (like cubic zirconium) though it is largely an ice ball, so would be adjusted downward. This would be a function of higher gravity-G, at about 32 G, of which its square root translates into a rock-like density, for the nitrogen and water ice of its composition, to act as if it were higher. (Viz., at Saturn's ~9 G the density ratio would be about 3, so water there would be three times as dense, about density of bromine, were it liquid.) Of course, this density would change depending on at what AU Pluto is in its orbit, so it would be maximum at aphelion, for example. But at this time this is merely a speculation, until we are able to effectively measure (with deep penetrating radar) Pluto's real density.

---

quote:

The second indicator was the maximum eccentricity (ME), reached by an orbit during a given integration time. Orbits with higher eccentricity may become unstable more likely, due to close encounters, thus the ME is a good indicator of stability (Dvorak et al. 2003; Nagy et al. 2006).
...
4. Conclusions
The orbits with high eccentricity and large semi-major axes become unstable in every investigated systems within a short time interval. Outside the sphere of influence but inside the Hill sphere orbits can exist with high eccentricity. However, in this region the effect of the Sun becomes significant, consequently a model of the four-body problem should be used stability investigation. Gravitational capturing take place at high eccentric primary orbit, accordingly this mechanism cannot establish a long time stable bounded triplet. However the stable region extends to remarkably large values of the semi-major axes, therefore it is possible that a third body exists in these systems. These bodies might have been born by thermal YORP effect or a major impact.

---

It came as a surprise that asteroid 10199 Chariklo should show rings around it. But in a variable-G universe, where Chariklo's orbit is at about 13 to 18 AU, there should be no surprise, as it inhabits a higher G environment, at about 13 to 18 G. For same reason we see rings for the outer planets, from Juputer to Pluto, having rings, the same could be predicted for any large body there, that rings of debris would form.

(Note: this is a continuation of earlier discussion on planetary spin as a function of black body temperatures showing parity between solar radiance received and orbit distance qua planet's black body, which proved inconclusive.)

Some points of possible discussion:

1. Can this imaginary idea of infinite interrelationship be a model for how the universe is self-organized?
2. What are the implications of an inter-connected reality for how we exist in it? Is our personal reality pre-determined?
3. Does such an infinitely interrelated reality have emergence, where the totality redefines itself in some evolutionary way, why we have life evolution?
4. Does 'free will' play a part in how our existence is affected by how we think and do, how we are in our lives? Does free will trump a predetermined universe?
5. Does each person have a personal identity definition within an infinitely interrelated universe, what defines for us Who we are?
6. If there is evolution of life, what is its purpose? Can it be a universal evolution of Consciousness in all living things, even on other worlds?
7. Does how we interact with each other, whether in good will or ill, have implications for how we manifest our lives, and the lives of others? Is our universe inter-active with us?
8. Is this imaginary scenario, that we are all inter-connected with a self defining, possibly evolving, Consciousness; can it possibly define our living being, our conscious reality?
9. Is the univetse a giant super computer?

---

quote:

Question: Why do electrons having opposite spins attract?
Answer: Electrons mostly repel each other due to having the same charge. Electrons with the same spin don't repel any more, but are not allowed to be in the same quantum state...
Electrons with opposite spins are already in different quantum states - being in different S_z eigenstates. So they can be in the same spatial state. This isn't attraction, but a lack apparent repulsion.

---

“The shield that protects the Earth from solar radiation is under attack from within. We can’t prevent it, but we ought to prepare.”

---

quote:

How bad could it be? Scientists have never established a link between previous pole reversals and catastrophes like mass extinctions. But the world of today is not the world of 780,000 years ago, when the poles last reversed, or even 40,000 years ago, when they tried to. Today, there are nearly 7.6 billion people on Earth, twice as many as in 1970. We have drastically changed the chemistry of the atmosphere and the ocean with our activities, impairing the life support system of the planet. Humans have built huge cities, industries and networks of roads, slicing up access to safer living spaces for many other creatures. We have pushed perhaps a third of all known species toward extinction and have imperiled the habitats of many more. Add cosmic and ultraviolet radiation to this mix, and the consequences for life on Earth could be ruinous.

---

ax^2 + bx + c = 0

---

quote:

If one is given a quadratic equation in the form x^2 + bx + c = 0, the sought factorization has the form (x + q)(x + s), and one has to find two numbers q and s that add up to b and whose product is c.

---

---

quote:

As an example, x^2 + 5x + 6 factors as (x + 3)(x + 2). The more general case where a does not equal 1 can require a considerable effort in trial and error guess-and-check…

---

x^2 + 5x + 6= infinity

1/(x+3)(x+2) = infinity

---

quote:

Extensive analysis of the follow-up shots showed that the shortfalls were due primarily to loss of energy from implosion asymmetries and fuel contamination in the hot spot from target capsule material, or “mix.” Researchers attributed the problems to small imperfections in the target capsules, which were of lower quality than the capsule used in the 2021 experiment, perturbations caused by the tiny tubes used to fill the capsules with DT fuel, and slight energy imbalances in the laser beams.

---

---

quote:

If you think of the Big Bang as an explosion, we can trace it back to a single point-of-origin. But what if it happened everywhere at once?

---

---

quote:

On the theoretical side, the only reason you’d trace back the apparent motion of all of the galaxies you see back to a point is if they all emerged from some sort of explosion. … But “explosion” is not the same as “expansion.” An explosion is something that happen in space, and the shrapnel from that explosion would move through space. Expansion, however, is something that happens to space, and affects how objects within your Universe perceive one another.

---

---

quote:

If the Universe is expanding, that has enormous implications for the Big Bang itself. It means the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion that happened at a point, but rather was the beginning of a relentless expansion that started at a particular moment in time. At that moment, the Universe — everywhere and in all locations — was filled with matter-and-energy, and was expanding and cooling in all directions.

---

---

quote:

In reality, the Universe has no center, or from another point of view, every point in space and every observer in the Universe can lay equal claim to being at the very center themselves.

---

*(Note, the ‘inputed’ size of the universe visible to our observations is greater than 13.8 billion light years, as it is believed to be growing at about the Hubble constant, making it now about 46 billion light years across if so.)