Madelaine McMasters

Dillon Levenque wrote: The image is okay, but there appears to be something wrong with your color settings. I've seen NASA solar images and they don't usually show sunspots (let alone corona, if that's what that is) as lavender. Hey, I like lavender!!! I thought I'd turned off automatic white balance, but I think the camera ignored me and did its best to make the bulk of the image white. It should be red. I got better software to help aim/focus the camera too. I hope that helps. I've been too busy to get back to this, but will in the next couple weeks. After that, I'll turn my attention to Saturn and the International Space Station, which I think I can catch by recording video as I leapfrog my telescope in front of its path, using the finder.

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: The Sun is also a sure winner at the moment. I recently got a solar telescope. Here's my first attempt to photograph it. I've no idea what I'm doing, which means this is probably the best image I'll ever get.

Dillon Levenque wrote: The Robert Frost story (which I had never even seen a glimpse of let alone read or heard, so thank you) reminded me of a multi-family camping trip in the Sierras. One had a telescope and wanted to take advantage of the clear mountain air (we were at about 6000 feet). The tripod was so short we had to lie on the ground to see through the eyepiece, and given that by now, late in the night, the temperature was in the mid-thirties, that wasn't very comfortable. There was a great deal of muttering about 'heated observatories'. We felt very virtuous in our pursuit of knowledge. This will take nothing away from your hard earned virtue, but observatories aren't heated, as the warm air rising past the telescope would mess up the viewing. Visual astronomers freeze their asses off, just like you. It's the pasty skinned computer astro geeks, sitting in heated control rooms, watching monitors attached to electronic cameras that you can rightly curse. I've met a couple such astronomers and, wonder of wonders, they say there is still nothing so pleasant as sticking your eye right up there and taking a peek. "The Starsplitter" is my favorite Frost poem. Fortunately I already had a telescope by the time I first read it, or I might have burned down the family barn, if not the house.

Phil Deakins wrote: I've had a pair of binoculars and a small telescope for a very long time. For me to get into astronomy these days, I'd need a much better telescope and I don't feel the urge to go to those lengths. Check your local paper for summer star parties hosted by your local astronomy club(s). You'll get good views, good conversation and no setup/cleanup.

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: My first view through a decent telescope was of Saturn and its rings, absolutely gorgeous. It blew me away to realise I could see such wonders with my own eyes. The furthest I've ever seen into the universe with my telescope was the brightest quasar 3C273 at 2.4 billion light years. When I take my telescopes to our astronomy club's summer star parties and Saturn is up, I love to show newcomers how to look into the eyepiece (which does not come naturally when the telescope isn't like those we saw in childhood books). I tell them... "Just stick your eye straight in there and start looking around, I'll know when you see Saturn." "Really? C'mon, how will you know?" "I have magic powers." A moment later... "Oh WOW!!!!" "See, I told you. Isn't she beautiful?" It probably hasn't always gone that way, but I hope I can be forgiven for forgetting the people who were unimpressed ;-)

Dillon Levenque wrote: Binoculars and a small telescope are as far as I ever advanced as well, but just those give me a chance to learn a lot and see a lot. It's not all math and physics, although clearly to be able to wander the halls of some of the hypotheses of today you need plenty of both. I settle for reading and wondering about those topics. There are other ways to enjoy the night sky. See the moons of Jupiter and imagine the storm of excitement they induced in Galileo's mind. I've actually seen one of them with my 50mm binocs but a little larger telescope works better. I was also moved to read 'The Starry Messenger': his short explanation of what he'd seen and what he thought it demonstrated. A four hundred year old rational scientific discussion in a time when such things were virtually unknown. Learn the constellations. I know that has nothing whatever to do with astronomy but it's still almost a requirement since even the most scholarly comments will quite often refer to something as being 'in the constellation Virgo' without any other information, so if you don't know where that is or when it's best viewed from where you are you're reduced to finding stuff in the star charts. Besides, it's a lot of fun when the 'dots' finally connect and you do recognize a constellation. Not only that, just learning about the Big Dipper and Polaris will let you find your direction at night (here in the Northern Hemisphere, anyway)—that might be very useful. See the Rings of Saturn. I did once, in my back yard with the 90mm. Saturn was in a rather close conjuction and tipped at a very good viewing angle. Even though I couldn't really see colors or definition—it just looked like a bright gold construct, really—it was an amazing sight. Those are just a few things and I really got off topic. Regarding that: several people have offered rebuttals, NOT that there is any requirement whatsoever that they do so: as VRProfessor (first, I think) suggested: the burden of proof or plausibility is on the theorist. That would be the be the OP. It's not up to 'the scientific community' to disprove your theory. It is up to you to demonstrate to 'the scientific community' that it has plausiblity. ps: I've had several conversations with Madelaine and I'm not at all sure I'd be willing to wait out four words a minute. Ten, maybe. This is more a response to Phil than to you, Dillon. I'll never tire of seeing Saturn, Jupiter's wandering moons, or ours, as a young crescent setting in the west, or of the Sun rising over Lake Michigan. I enjoyed watching the local theater group perform "Fiddler on the Roof", though I've seen the movie and have a crush on Topol. I love hearing friends play music in my RL barn or in SL, even if (or because?) the folks playing the same songs on the radio are perfectly in tune. I enjoy visiting the places Ansel Adams photographed. I like the large print of Jim Brandenburg's "Autumn Passing" on the walls of my RL library and SL lighthouse... almost as much as I enjoy standing along Cedar Creek every December, hoping to see the same thing. In WInter, I enjoy watching Orion come up sideways, throwing his leg up over the lake and rising on his hands to look at me, knowing that his same knowing look compelled Robert Frost to write about it and the conversations that stem from standing outside in the cold with friends, to look through telescopes at quaking things that have been captured in stunning detail in books on coffee tables near warmly glowing fireplaces indoors. Dillon, thank you for thinking I'm worth as little as ten words a minute... or even remotely capable of it ;-)

Phil Deakins wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Well, we can't prove negatives, so I don't try. I can actually imagine endless alternative ways we might have come into existence, but the religious (and perhaps the string/brane/multiverse theorists ;-) are so good at it that I feel woefully outclassed. And just because a question goes around begging doesn't mean I'm gonna make up an answer for it. I have no problem with admitting I don't know. And this has seemed to be the dividing line between me and my faithful friends. They need to know "why" right now. I can wait. Nothing can be proved either way, of course, but I'd be interested to hear some of your alternative ways that existance might have come to happen - alternatives to that it was created, that is. I can only imagine one alternative - that it was always there - but I can't believe that because of the question, "How come?" I suspect that the reluctance among many to acknowledge that the universe might have a creator is simply that they prefer it not to be the case. While it may be that we ultimately can't prove the presence or absence of creation, science doesn't really care, does it? It simply seeks to find the truth, as revealed by nature. Science is done by people who may care about such things, but the overall messy process seems to be able to make progress even so. One might make a case for people having an interest in refuting creators that take an active role in daily human life, and can therefore be used as instruments of coercion (my God is the one true God, so I can rightfully take your stuff), but I can't see a reason for people to expend tremendous energy railing against the idea that our universe might have been "created" as a random result of physical laws we've not yet understood. Whether something always existed or simply popped out of nowhere is the sort of philosophical question best left to philosophers. I don't see a way to use the term "creator" without implying more than the evidence suggests... so far. It's not that I prefer a "creator" not to be the case, I think it's that most people prefer that "creator" be the case. I've seen more evidence to explain the latter than the former. I believe Heisenberg was right about uncertainty. I've certainly got it ;-)

8-20-2012 One day after stating that nature has ways of shutting down pregnancy in cases of "legitimate rape", the US political system began to shut down Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin's election prospects in reaction to his legitimate stupidity.

Phil Deakins wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: The "creation" argument is really looking for a sentient creator, possibily one that looks after us. I understand the comfort that ideology can bring to some, but it brings none to me, as I like to poke and prod and ponder and I see no evidence to support that ideology. If you allow for the possibility that the dimensions of space and time we observe spring from some larger dimensional space we can't probe, then we're sorta stuck in a state of perpetual wonderment. Could it get any better than that?! ;-) At the same time, you see no evidence against that ideoligy. What you also don't see is any alternative way that existance came to exist. (Existance includes such things as our universe springing from an existing multiverse, and some existing "larger dimensional space") I see no alternative to existance having beed created. Even the 'always there' idea begs the question, "How come?", which in turn leads to the conclusion that it was created and not always there. I've been careful not to suggest a sentient creator, to the extent of writing "someone or something" and such. Well, we can't prove negatives, so I don't try. I can actually imagine endless alternative ways we might have come into existence, but the religious (and perhaps the string/brane/multiverse theorists ;-) are so good at it that I feel woefully outclassed. And just because a question goes around begging doesn't mean I'm gonna make up an answer for it. I have no problem with admitting I don't know. And this has seemed to be the dividing line between me and my faithful friends. They need to know "why" right now. I can wait.

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: I think the thinking of something having to be intelligent to have made everything ..that comes from having to get so smart to understand it..once we see how long it took to get an understanding..well we start to think..this had to be from something intelligent..i mean look what had to happen just to understand it sorta.. so in a sense it could have just happened and be something that is some living breathing thing and we feel we have to justify it being something intelligent for it to exist..because it's so perfect..at least in our minds it is perfect..when really perfect could be the opposite of perfect and stuff is really just messed up and perfect is chaos..which really chaos is perfect and organized is not..i mean organized can only lead to becoming unorganized at some point..right? so really it's all just based on a hunch that things are in order..because order is something we invented.. Does science need a deity, an intelligence that created everything? Many would say no, we have the scientific explanations to dispel any notion of a deity. The universe runs perfectly for us using natural laws so why invoke some external being or source of power? However, some use science to support the existence of a deity too. The universe we inhabit is so finely tuned for human life, it could be argued it was created for us. For example, even a minute change in the size of the weak force would make it impossible for hydrogen to form and that of course is necessary to fuel suns and form water. Also, the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism had a 1 in 10 to power of 40 (equation won't display) chance of being fixed in the exact ratio needed for stable suns to form. There are many other finely tuned parameters too. So, is it pure coincicence that we live in a universe finely tuned for life where suns last long enough for planets to form that can sustain life with water in abundance or was it created especially for us? Could our universe be one of an infinite number of universes, a multiverse, so of course we end up in the universe that is finely tuned for us. The idea of a steady state universe "The universe is quasi-static, infinite, and everlasting" is as difficult to get your head around as to what came before the 'Big Bang'. The universe has either been around forever or it began at some point in time. Makes your head spin! Multiverse theory neatly disposes of the argument that conditions for life are just too finely tuned to have produced us by accident. If there are an infinite number of universes, there's plenty of opportunity to stumble across the conditions that support everything we observe in our own. The fact that we happen to live in this universe guarantees we'll witness the astronomically unlikely possibility of our own existence. Take two dramamine and enjoy the ride, Nyll!

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: And many would be wrong. We don't have the scientific explanations at all. The best minds on the planet have found it impossible to do away with a 'creator' and still explain how the universe/matter exists at all, including the space for it to exist in. Remember, there was absolutely nothing - no space, no matter, nothing - and then there was something. Nobody has any concept of how that could have happened other than it was arbitrarily created by someone or something. The more you ponder "How come it exists?", the more you are forced towards the idea of 'it must have been created'. The idea that it existed, reaching infinitely back in time asks the same question - "How come?" - which leads to the same conclusion. I wouldn't say that. Scientist may not have all the answers but certainly have many explanations and the overwhelming evidence is for the Big Bang theory. However, it is still a theory. To say that nobody has any concept of how there was 'nothing' and then there was 'something' is not quite correct. Although unproven, the inflationary theory offers one possible answer for example and I like this explanation. You have a vacuum with zero energy and zero mass. Quantum mechanics however says that entities are not exactly any number, not even exactly zero. So the amount of mass fluctuates around zero, with bits and particles fleeting into existence for the briefest of moments here and there with most flipping instantly back into nothingness. However, the bit of mass (or field of energy as mass and energy are equivalent) that started our universe came attached to an inflationery field and this field has an antigravitional force (negative energy) causing it to expand at an immense rate. So, you have a huge field of negative energy coupled with the sudden appearance of greater than zero mass but mass and energy are equivalent so when added together you still have zero total mass and energy. If you add up all the energy and mass in the universe, it may still come to zero. So the question "How did something come from nothing?" ceases to be an issue because there is no 'something'. We live in a universe exactly equivalent to the 'nothing' that came before the Big Bang. The "perversity" of explanations like this has always appealed to me. After reading Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" I did have the urge to yell out "You're all just making that up!". But, over the course of my life, I've had those "aha!" moments in which the beauty of the mathematics/physics underlying something I've observed becomes apparent to me. So, while the math of 10/11 dimensional multiverse theory escapes me, I well understand the elation one feels when it reveals its beauty to those who understand it. If it turns out that these theories don't reveal anything about the observable universe and that experimentalists can't refute them, the practical engineer in me will understand those people who dismiss the theorizing as a waste of time. Meanwhile, I'll be thankful that we have time to waste, because we can't prove that wasting that time won't ultimately benefit us. Play is serious business! ;-)

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: The problem with all of that is that it entirely misses the point. It's impossible to imagine absolute nothingness - no space, however tiny, no matter, no vacuum, no energy - nothing whatsover. The Big Bang theory requires something to bang, however tiny the something is. It also requires somewhere (dimensions) for the bang to occur in, however tiny that somewhere is. The Big Bang theory describes what may or may not have happened when something already existed. It doesn't describe anything about how that something came into being. The inflationary theory needs something to inflate, of course. It's not possible to imagine absolute nothingness - no place, no matter, no energy, no vacuum - absolute nothingness. But, unless the universe was always 'there', there had to be absolute nothingness, and then there was something. The something had to be created, since there is nothing in absolute nothingness that could cause it to happen. Alternatively, the universe may always have been there. Both cases beg the question, "How come?". And the only answer is a creator of some sort. Your post started when something already existed but where did that something come from? I don't think it misses the point. Renowned physicist Roger Penrose once answered the question of what came before the Big Bang by saying it was like asking what is north of the North Pole. The term north has no meaning at the Pole as the concept doesn't apply and the term 'before' has no meaning when when all of space and time was created in the Big Bang itself. Pre-big bang nothingness is absolute. In your scenario, who created the 'creator'? The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is part of a conglomerate of universes continually spawning new growth but then who created the first universe and who created the creator of that. There is no real satisfying answer to it all. Right, there's no satisfying answer. But I'm not bothered by that. The questions alone are interesting enough. The "creation" argument is really looking for a sentient creator, possibily one that looks after us. I understand the comfort that ideology can bring to some, but it brings none to me, as I like to poke and prod and ponder and I see no evidence to support that ideology. If you allow for the possibility that the dimensions of space and time we observe spring from some larger dimensional space we can't probe, then we're sorta stuck in a state of perpetual wonderment. Could it get any better than that?! ;-)

Ceka Cianci wrote: i have to say..things are just enjoyable to learn about.but i will never admit to knowing anything for certain when it comes to the universe and beyond or within.. You are in wonderful company, Ceka. Like you and Dr. Feynman, I too experience The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.

Phil Deakins wrote: Thank you for your long and detailed explanation, Madelaine. The maths is beyond me, of course, so I can't really comprehend the detail. Regardless of that, it doesn't change my view, which applies to a star that is millions or billions of light years away and not just a mere hundred light years away. I can't accept that such a star could perpetually emit sufficient particles (light), spreading outward from the star, that I can see at all points on earth - and even at all points in the universe. I should add that I can't really see how waves in a medium could survive over such distances either. Mainly because of all the other waves interfering with it. But I like the waves idea better than the idea of the perpetual emission of sufficient particles so that, from billions of light years away, I can see the light from the star at all points on earth and in the universe. Phil, nobody can see stars from other galaxies with the naked eye. All the stars you see at night are members of our own Milky Way Galaxy. From a sufficiently dark viewing area, one can see perhaps 6,000 of the estimated 300,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way. We can see the cumulative light output of our galaxy at night, as a faint, wispy strip of light cutting across the sky. I expect you've seen it. Even with the most powerful telescopes, we cannot resolve individual stars in distant galaxies, unless one goes supernova. During supernova explosions, stars can release as many photons as the entire galaxy they inhabit. I had the pleasure of seeing a supernova (SN1998A) in my backyard telescope in early 1998. I was barely able to spot the galaxy in my eyepiece, but did get a photograph using a sensitive home-made CCD camera (thousands of people built the "Cookbook Camera" in the mid 90's). I'll do a bit more math to show how it is we can "see" such distant things as galaxies. As you recall from my initial calculations, a fully dilated human eye accepts photons through an aperture of 30mm^2 area. That's simply too small to collect enough photons from a distant galaxy, though we can barely make out the faint light from nearby Andromeda on a clear night, as motorists sometimes do when driving in Arizona in the summer, when 911 operators are accustomed to getting calls of flying saucers on the horizon. Our eyes also require that minimum photon rate of 5-10 every tenth of a second. Our eyes cannot continue to accumulate photons indefinitely until an image is perceived, we must see quickly to avoid predators. But we can build machines that have both larger apertures, longer measuring times and higher sensitivity (you've already seen the single photon counters, which are 10 times more sensitive than the human eye). The old Palomar telescope has a primary mirror that's 5 meters in diameter, for an aperture area of 75 million mm^2 (pi*5000*5000). That's three million times more light gathering power than the human eye. If you mount a single photon detector on that telescope, you now have an "eye" that's 30 million times more sensitive than our own. If you turn that sensor on and measure the same spot in the sky for three hours (this is routinely done, Hubble can stare at the same spot for days), you can collect 10,000 times more photons than the human eye does in the 10th of a second I used in my previous calculations. So, we are able to build machines that are 300 billion times more sensitive than the human eye (3 million x 10 x 10,000). Light intensity falls off as the square of your distance from the light source, so that increased sensitivity is enough to allow us to see 500,000 (square root of 300 billion) times deeper into the universe. If you recall, my original calculations showed how it is that we can easily see stars that are 100 light years away. The sensor I've just described would now be capable of seeing that same star at a distance of 50 million light years (500,000 x 100). But recall that galaxies are collections of hundreds of billions of stars. That gives us yet another factor of 300,000 (square root of 100 billion), allowing us to detect such things from as far away as 15 trillion light years (50 million x 300,000). That's larger than the known universe! In fact we're not able to see that deeply into the universe because we need much more than one photon from a galaxy to make much sense of things, and there are sources of noise that confound our ability to discern a single photo from a distant star with one from a nearby streetlight. But I hope you can see how it is we catch photons from such distant sources. Going back to your preference for waves (as you doubted sufficient particles could reach our eyes), remember that a wave must be also be detected by something. The physics of detection requires that an electron be popped lose from an atom so that it can conduct charge from one place to another, producing either an electrochemical response (as in our eye) or an electronic response (as in a photo counter or image sensor). Electrons cannot respond to wave energies less than their minimum transition energy. This is the "quantum" of energy that underlies quantum mechanics. So even if light is only a wave, it must have sufficient amplitude to dislodge an electron. I think this puts you right back where you started when you doubted whether enough photons were emitted. Now you must doubt whether waves would have sufficient amplitude to be detected by the time they got here. You've already expressed that doubt, so I hope you are on your way to seeing, and believing, that astronomical numbers are indeed so large that we have a hard time grasping them, but that, when you do the math, it actually works! As for your concern about waves interacting, they actually don't (according to classical electrodynamics). If you are standing in a spot that's receiving waves from multiple sources, it can be quite a challenge to tease them apart, but the waves themselves do not alter each other. Photons, which have no charge, also do not interact with one another. That's good because photons are simultaneously particles and waves and you'd hope they behave the same way as either. In truth, photons can spontaneously fluctuate into pairs of charged particles (quarks or leptons) which can interact with particles from another photon, but such collisions are thought to be very, very rare. There are experiments underway to see photon-photon collisions inside particle accelerators. I don't think we've observed a such a collision yet, but I might have missed the news. My Father was amused by politicians saying that the US National Debt was approaching astronomical proportions. It currently stands at 15 trillion dollars or so. I've just gone through a series of calculations covering a range that's larger than the square of the square of the national debt and that's just the beginning. Welcome to astronomy, Phil! ;-)

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: <snip> Alternative theories on redshift abound. This is the abstract of Ari Brynjolfsson paper titled Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma. <snip> How does your theory explain the CMB by the way? As a final note, I’m rather dismayed over your dismissive comment on being unable to have a meaningful chat with Stephen Hawking. Yes, he pre-records speeches. What else do you expect him to do? His ‘speaking’ is limited to four words a minute using his using his cheek muscle, optical sensor and computer and unfortunately now it’s down to one word per minute due to a deterioration in the cheek muscle. A new voice method using his brainwaves is now being examined. Nyll, your CMB reference is apropo. Plasma cosmologies like Brynjolfsson's have been around for some time and increasingly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background by instruments like COBE aren't giving them any help. I suppose I was so eager to refute the dismissal of doppler redshift and "not a particle" ideas that I forgot leon's comment about Hawking. Many people have been able to have meaningful chats him, apparently finding the benefit of a chat with Dr. Hawking worth the effort. I wonder if the same can be said about me!

Phil Deakins wrote: What Madelaine said But seriously... remember how long it took String Theory to gain a good degree of acceptance. It was coceived in the 60s, became a failure, and was then resurrected in the late 80 and 90s. Even if your ideas have been considered and rejected by people who are able to realistically evaluate them, don't lose heart - that's what happened to string theory for a long time. However, theories come and fail. E.g. Lee Smolin, a respected theoretical physicist, came up with a good one ("cosmological natural selection") in the 90s, but it wasn't accepted by his peers. It failed - so far. Personally, I dislike the particularity of light idea for one simple reason. If if stand and look at a star in the cloudless night sky, I see light from it, if I move a fraction to the right, I still see light from it. If I move a fraction more, I still the light. I can move to an infinite number of points in any direction and I always see the light from the star. For that to happen, either the star must emit an infinite amount of light all the time, which is impossible, or what it does emit must cause spreading waves in some medium - like the waves of water when a pebble is dropped into a pond. The pebble doesn't spread - the medium does. So, for decades, I've been of the opinion that space is such a medium, that photons are the waves in that medium that are caused by the star, and that it is those waves that hit my retinas rather than some substance that was originally emitted by the star. I can't account for the experimental results that Madelaine mentioned, but there is a lot of physics that can't yet be accounted for, or that is re-evaluated in the future. So I was well pleased when I first heard of the Higgs Ocean idea. It suited my thinking down to the ground The entrance pupil of a fully dilated eye is about 6mm, for an entrance area of about 30mm^2. The retina can detect single photons, but neural filters will only trip when 5-10 photons strike within a tenth of a second. This filtering takes place because seeing individual photons would clutter our field of vision with noise. So, a star need only flood the Earth's surface with 10 photons per 30mm^2 every tenth of a second to be seen by humans. That's less than one photon per square millimeter, every tenth of a second. Photomultiplier tubes, which have been around in present form since 1937, are capable of detecting single photons in "geiger mode". Cheaper solid state diodes can now do the same thing. You can buy single photon counters on eBay. It's great fun to hear the "click click click" of photons entering such a thing after passing through "opaque" objects. A star like the Sun (there are far brighter stars) emits somewhere around 10^44 visible photons every 10th of a second (more are emitted at wavelengths we can't see). Let's imagine that star is 100 light years away, so at that distance, those photons spread to cover a spherical surface area of 4/3*pi*100ly^2, converted to mm^2. 100 ly ~= 10^21mm Square that to get ~10^42mm^2 that times 4/3*pi is ~10^43mm^2 So, we've got about 10^44 photons every tenth of a second flooding an area of about 10^43mm^2. That's about 10 photons per square milliimeter, every tenth of a second, which is hardly infinite and clearly visible. No matter where you move your eye, your pupil will intercept enough photons. Astronomical numbers are called that for a reason, Phil! ;-) ETA: This reminds me of MIT's recent work with "femtophotography" which requires an exquisitely fast and sensitive camera...

leon Bowler wrote: The big bang was put together after some noticed a red shift in distant stars, to say it was caused by things moving away from us at ridiculous speeds is a bit of a fantasy. If it's a fantasy, it's backed up by a heck of a lot of experimental observation, including experiments done on Earth, where red-shift has been observed in particle accelerators. Here is another explanation of red shift. Red shift = the changing wave length of light as it passes though space fill with cold plasma(dark matter) that is changing in pressure due to a standing pressure wave that resonates within the universe proving that light is a wave and not a particle and that the big bang is wrong. You will not be the first person to reject the wave/particle duality of Quantum Mechanics because it doesn't comport with your macro view of physics. If the wavelength of light changed after passing through matter, we'd observe it in lenses. We don't. I believe that's enough proof that it doesn't happen. Geoffrey Taylor (in 1909 using photons) and Claus Jonsson ( in 1961 using electrons) performed double slit experiments providing direct evidence that electrons and photons are simultaneously particles and waves. The experimental evidence disproves your theory that light is not a particle. That space is in fact filled with cold plasma, it is under pressure and that matter is the condensation of that cold plasma, also that this cold plasma is a conductor thus making an electro mechanical universe that drives the motion of the planets and stars. Also that things like electrons orbiting a nucleus is a fantasy, that all condensed balls of plasma vibrate and that peaks and troughs are formed on the surface, a peak is what people call an electron, as the ball is heated so those peaks get higher and the tip breaks of creating a free electron. The idea of "orbit" has been recognized as a "fantasy" for 100 years. The electron is real, but it does not orbit" the nucleus. Its existence is better described as a probability density around the nucleus. An element is just a ball that is vibrating at a harmonic relative to its radius, the peaks and troughs idea now allows bonds and on how the bonds are formed according to its radius, so makes the idea of electrons spinning around a nucleus wrong. Bond formation is much more a function of the configuration of an atom's electrons than the "radius" of the atom (in fact, the definition of atomic radius depends on the bond configuration of interest). Look at these various ways of defining the radius of an atom, mapped onto the Periodic Table (click the "Previous Table" and "Next Table" links to the right of the table to see the various radii under different circumstances) and give me a theory of how bonds are formed according to radius. The definition of atomic radius depends on what property of the atom you are interested in, whether it be co-valent bonding, crystal/molecule packing density, etc. Your description of "element" is quaint... and just plain wrong. I think the above theory explains every thing that is observed and is the ultimate unification theory. Your theory not only does not explain everying I have observed, it contradicts things I have observed. Do you agree with the above? No. Can you disprove it? All of the evidence I have presented, and which (to me) disproves your theory has been available indirectly via books for more than a century and some of it has been available for direct observation to me personally since I was a child. I directly observe the doppler red-shift of light emitted from hydrogen atoms in solar prominences every time I take out my solar telescope. That telescope contains an interferometer (a very precise optical filter) that can be tuned around the most visible hydrogen emission line ("Hydrogen Alpha"). There is detectable doppler shift in prominences that face the earth, as hydrogen atoms are accelerated by magnetic loops reaching out through the Sun's chromosphere. I am able to selectively tune my way from that portion of the prominence that is moving towards me (and is blue shifted), through the top of the arc, and back to the end of the prominence that is returning to the surface of the Sun (and is red shifted). It's a lovely thing to witness, particularly when contemplating all the physics at work in my telescope and the history of intellectual advancement that made it possible. Much larger and more sophisticated telescopes are capable of seeing the minute doppler shifts produced by the "wobble" of distant stars that are either one of a binary pair, or have planets. If your theorized "aether" existed, the planet hunters would have discovered its effect long ago. I don't expect any of the evidence I've cited to affect you, as it's been in front of you for at least the bulk of your lifetime. As we all do, you've done your best to reduce cognitive dissonance. We can do that by altering our beliefs to match our observations, or discounting observations that clash with our beliefs. We all do both in varying proportions depending on the circumstance. I'll leave it to others to believe what they will about your theory and my observations. Meanwhile, to the best of my ability, I'll continue to observe.

Hi IndigoBlue, Make sure you've disabled texture compression in your viewer ( I think that's in the advanced graphics tab of preferences). The Maitreya outfit you show appears to be mesh, or has a prim neckline. Either of those would provide much higher pixel density in that area than the clothing layer, where your dress is located. A spaghetti strap on a clothing layer would be only a few pixels wide, whereas a mesh strap could be hundreds of pixels wide. So, some of the pixelation you see may be unavoidable. Look at SL bikinis, which often have more detail in the bodice than dresses, you'll see a lot of pixelation in the tops, particularly in the area of your metallic piping near the armpits. Hi-Res snapshots make it easier to cut out a thing, but won't affect the resolution of the clothing texture. I usually use the polygonal lasso to cut things loose, as it leaves a smoother edge than any of the automatic tools. You may also get better results if you wear a monotone skin. For your particular example, wearing an all black skin might give you a better looking cutout.

8-11-1951 Garage inventor Cletus Brownville is injured when his flying car, constructed from a 1947 Citroen 2CV, skids off the runway during takeoff as he mistakes the parking brake handle for the flap actuator. 8-11-2008 Fashion model Sudsy Parmenter is injured when the glare of the Klieg lights causes her to lose sight of the runway and fall into the audience.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Coulda been worse. She could have been singing MacArthur Park. Jeepers you're mean (she says as she tries to stop humming it).

Syo Emerald wrote: Well, at least you are not giving me a link to your hometown on google earth and you don't tell me you are some 45 year old guy and asking for me age in the same minute :catvery-happy: When Google starts mapping other planets, I'll give you a link to my place... and to Perrie's. I'm 42 and (at the moment) in my basement, which was once my parent's basement. I won't ask your age. I'm sure you are old enough to know better.

Solaria Goldshark wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Solaria Goldshark wrote: I'd be willing to bet that the best of you take chances, make connections, and form lasting friendships despite any expectations of a person's real life situation. I don't understand the self contradiction here, Solaria. You give a list of wrongs, then say it's all good. It was meant to be contradictory by design. You are first and foremost your avatar, character, story. It's an avatar, a conversation, a story that draws you in. You meet people first as one identity, and then as the other as happens from time to time, a person's real life situation as they choose to share or not to share. Contradictory because I am not a literalist, and know that both parts of the experience can coexist. Many choose a complete separation and many choose no separation, and some can have it both ways. I have always thought that the best part of this nutty social experiment is the way people do meet and connect, and form bonds, and lasting friendships. But the in-world experience for many is contradictory to their real life experience and there are many who can forget this, or choose not to forget this. This whole experience is an exercise in contradiction. and the people behind the scenes are some of the wisest, most caring, funniest, smartest, fun people you can hope to meet. Not always so, but the majority in my experience. In minutes after starting this thread I received an IM in world from someone who began to debate me, I'm not sure if it was really a debate but it went on for quite some time. It was clear to me as the conversation progressed that this person had a few lifestyle issues with people here. I asked this person to post their remarks here, but they had admitted that they had been banned from the forums. (I thank you for your opinions mystery person). What you have described is no different than meeting people in RL, where they are the story they chose to tell, albiet with more limitations. I see no point in stating that there is a point to be missed, when you are not in a position to know their values, their goals, or their capabilities. If the people behind the scenes are the wisest, most caring, funniest and smartest people you can hope to meet, why do you think they are missing the point? Your argument continues to make no sense to me.

Solaria Goldshark wrote: There is no nice way to put this: (I agree.) When your real life photo ends up in your SL (avatar) tab, you''ve missed the point. (If you're looking for RL friends who are creative and open-minded, SL's for you! (mostly) ) When your focus is on an avatar's real life sex makes you cringe, you've missed the point. (I'd comment on this if I understood it.) When you've lost your ability to use your imagination, you've missed the point. (Have you ever gone to a movie, a concert or an art gallery or read a book? One can enjoy the imagination of others.) When you make SL a dating service, you've missed the point. (If you goal is to find a date, you could do worse than SL.) When you make this life similar to your own, what's the point? (When you like the life you have and the person you are, why change?) If a sense of escape is not the point, let's shut the whole thing down. (So SL is only for those who find RL overwhelming and must escape it? What about people who make their RL living by selling things in SL, should we boot them out?) If you've been disappointed by your experience, let's shut the whole thing down. (If we are obligated to enjoy the experience, where's the incentive to improve it?) If you've been heartbroken and can't go on, let's shut the whole thing down. (For those who can't go on, your advice is superfluous. I don't think there are a lot of them.) If you've felt cheated, angry or felt that the world owed you something, by all means, let's shut it down. (And by all means, do NOT return to RL unless none of this has ever happened to you there.) Grow up dear residents. (You first! ;-) I'd be willing to bet that the best of you take chances, make connections, and form lasting friendships despite any expectations of a person's real life situation...and the latter being the icing on the cake. The real risk being disappointed on what you might find on the other side. If you are, leave it at the door.....do not judge the pregnant wife, the slave, the wolf, the vampire, the **bleep**, the tranny, the manwhore, the prostitute, the warrior, the saint, the surfer, the slacker, the fashionista, the builder, the players...for they are all us, and we are legion....and we do not make excuses for our fetishes and fantasies, for that is the point. I don't understand the self contradiction here, Solaria. You give a list of wrongs, then say it's all good. Welcome to the escape. Frankly, you don't make me feel very welcome. Am I missing the point? I'll clear my plate for a serving of humble pie if I'm wrong. I'm a terrible cook, you needn't eat it.

8-7-2005 Installation of EZ-Pass toll facilities on the Peace Bridge reminds us that, although they've tried to make it easy to pay, peace still has a price. 8-7-2012 Mars Rover "Curiosity" beams back its first photographs from the Martian surface, including unexpected glimpses of white rectangles near the rover's wheels which, on close examination, are discovered to be (US presidential hopeful) Mitt Romney's tax returns.