The Cassini-Huygens exploration of Saturn, a seven-year joint venture of NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency, is realizing more surprising discoveries. In addition to discovering that Cassini is geologically active in contrast to its nearby neighbor Mimas, Cassini has now proven that it is Enceladus indeed that is responsible for the E ring of Saturn. The E ring of Saturn is Saturn’s broadest, faintest ring. Enceladus is a small moon 314 miles across that so bright it reflects nearly one hundred percent of its heat. For this reason, it is a very cold moon, with a temperature of near minus 330 degrees Fahrenheit. Its orbit is influenced under the large gravitational pull of Saturn as well as the gravitational influence of large nearby moons Tethys and Dione. Previous voyages by Voyager as well as Cassini have shown it to be a moon having sharp geological contrasts over its surface for a moon of such small size. It has long been speculated that Enceladus has somehow been responsible for the E ring of Saturn. An ice particle stream propelled by water vapor was first detected through the use of the High Rate Detector (HRD) of the Cosmic Dust Analyzer (CDA) on Cassini’s approach of 286 miles in July. However it was not confirmed until November 26, 2005 when Cassini made the closest approach of any of Saturn’s moons yet. This orbit of 109 miles used infrared detection to confirm the ejection of ice particles in a plume from the south pole. This plume of ice particles confirms a theory proposed that Enceladus is a source of the fine ice particles responsible for making up one of Saturn’s rings, the E ring. The E ring is composed of ice particles near the 3 micron range. The average size of particles emitted by Enceladus is in the 10 micron range. However, this theory is still consistent because the largest particles are believed to be too large to escape the moon’s gravity. The medium-sized particles probably leave the atmosphere but are pulled back before fully escaping. Only the finest, tiniest particles of the plume make it out to form the E ring. Enceladus is very similar to a comet in the way it ejects ice particles. The difference lies in the fact that in a comet the ice is warmed by sunlight. The source of Enceladus’s heat is largely unknown. Some sort of internal mechanism, possibly a tidal force or a radioactive mechanism, is creating an enormous amount of heat for such a small moon. This is the wonderful unsolved mystery behind Enceladus, and the ultimate reason for the existence of Saturn’s E ring. 1) Enceladus Erupting – A Nasa Report – 12-7-05 2) Enceladus Plume – Jet Propulsion Laboratory – 12-6-05 3) Possible Source of E Ring – Bill Arnett – 2-17-05 4) Saturn: Moons: Enceladus – Nasa: Solar Systems Exploration – 10-6-03 5) Enceladus’s Tiger Stripes are Really Cubs – Nasa Release
Scales of critical attacks and remarks addressing the well-known theory of special relativity have recently acquired so imposing a scope that it is right to speak about an approaching crisis. Gradually to an increasing number of scientists, the numerous imperfections of this theory and the dead state of the scientific methodology introduced by it become apparent. Apparently, it is time to seriously upgrade STR and to subject it to corrective revision. With what is it necessary to begin? In a rebuke to writers on STR, the fact was repeatedly put that they were really mathematicians rather than physicists. In building the theory, the formula of Lorentz‘s transformations already prevailed, and they tried "to adjust" reality to them. And as the selection had been initially made, all other alternatives "had been simply killed off and it had unwittingly blocked off a road to them. Thus, the deductive "mathematical" methodology prevailed. Frankly, positivistic philosophical-methodological methods absolutizing the observer s position and denying availability of objective characteristics for natural subjects and other phenomena have also played a noxious role. Within the framework of a materialistic methodology, the situation when each of two observers moving past one another would fix alternative spatial and time reductions in the other system and thus would be right, never could be considered. The problem is natural to scientists gravitating to materialism in similar situations: and what takes place in these two systems actually? But instead of an answer, they here receive a positivistic-philosophical "fico": it appears, there is nothing actually; there is only one subjective semblance of the phenomena which is taken as the scientific basis. So, two essential methodological defects which STR promoted created the deadlock observed today. Therefore, it is necessary for us to subject a problem within a relativistic situation to more stringent methodological analysis in which the path to the correct solution can be found. Earlier, in the article “Relativity of Simultaneity Versus Other Relativistic Effects”, we have already identified that creators of STR have demonstrated scandalous tendentiousness in the consideration of specific space-time relativistic effects. They have preferred relative reductions of lengths and reducing periods as main effects, and the effect of a relativity of simultaneity has been pushed into the second plan, and presented in the capacity of being dependent on the first two. For this reason they designedly did not deduce the value of mistiming of clocks, basing the last effect, on the thought experiment with Einstein’s train that would be quite natural and rather simple. Writers on STR have used this experiment qualitatively and the quantitative ratio was deduced later, after obtaining the formulas of Lorentz’s transformations for space and time coordinates. The outcome of this tendentious approach was that the effect of the relativity of simultaneity found itself in the backyard of STR and the methodological specificity introduced by it has remained scantily studied. There was a fatal error in it as will be exhibited below. The specific features introduced by this effect in a methodological situation, appear so considerable, that it causes a radical change in the attitude towards the problem. It is considered that the effect of the relativity of simultaneity s "mistiming" of clocks lays in points along the line of relative motion for two moving systems. Formulas for the value of this mistiming are deduced in STR. However the importance of some details of mistiming for physics, in our opinion reflected badly on the theory. In our preceding article we attempted more deeply to uncover this situation. Actually, the question is that in any points removed from each other along the line of relative motion of two systems, there is a relative distortion and a relative displacement of the time scale. We shall pay attention to the relative displacement. Clearly, in one of the systems, all events happening at any point removed from the origin of coordinates for two systems will happen with relative forestalling, and in other, accordingly, with relative delay. The value of this displacement demonstrates dependence on the relative velocity of the systems and the distances between the points along the line of motion. It is important to realize that the indicated displacement occurs along the trajectory at the same time, changing from point to point. The question is about a new total factor in our time-space perception, a role and value which is very important to evaluate correctly! This total factor essentially distorts our customary cognitive methods. It is necessary to strain our space-time imagination a little to understand it. The special situation generated by the relativity of simultaneity Earlier, we had already drawn attention to the unforeseen problem generated by the effect of the relativity of simultaneity. If we combine the space-time origins of coordinates of two systems at any point (O=O`) then in all remaining points of the line of their relative motion, the relative displacement of the time scale will occur. In outcome synchronize in two systems those events which happen instantaneously in point O=O ` can only. In particular, only the instantaneous values of the vector quantities present at this point can be compared. All remaining events appear with some relative time-shift, and this fact of relative forestalling/delay is necessary for the relative comparison of the two systems. Actually these two systems demonstrate essential relative nonlinearity. Events meet in one point and then change along the x axis. So, with solitary instantaneous events all is simple enough. And how would it be with a simultaneous comparison of two and more events occurring at miscellaneous points in space? Here appears a major problem. The factor of relative forestalling/delay of events in miscellaneous points makes the act of such comparison impossible in principle! What does this imply? The classical act of measurement of spatial parameters implies simultaneous matching of the ends of a measured object with marks on a template. Clearly, that the effect of a relativity of simultaneity makes such classical act of direct measurement in a relativistic situation when the subject and a template are in two systems moving past one another, essentially impossible. We must look into this problem in detail. So, it is methodologically impossible, impermissible, to compare space segments directly in two systems! We have the same problem concerning time increments. Their direct comparison is also methodologically incorrect. All this results in the fact that direct comparison of any processes consisting of two and more events becomes impossible. In particular, it concerns any motion along any non-zero spatial segment or during any non-zero period. And now let's recollect Michelson s experiment and the "strictly scientific" deduction of the well-known Lorentz’s transformations on the basis of its results. In light of the problems found by us, the expectation of experimenters and theoretical-geometrical calculations of the creators of STR look at best, naive or ridiculous. The methodology, with which they were guided, is completely impermissible. It in mechanics of Newton one could join simultaneous processes of motion of a boat and a river (in the classical example of traversing a fast river) in one spatial drawing or a graphic diagram, and then get the resultant velocity from a right triangle. In relativistic mechanics, all this is impermissible! There can be no direct comparisons of spatial segments, periods and processes of motion, especially on one linear diagram! No direct comparisons of vectors spreading in the space and time, of right triangles composed of them and simple formulas of transformations! Specific relative space-time nonlinearity of the worlds, of the parallel flows of a development of events in two systems causes us to refuse former primitive methodological methods and to search for others (pro
bably, indirect) methods of comparison. Events occur in the special time proportions in each of two flows, and the arbitrary transfer, mixing of formulas, and values of variable data are completely impermissible in these flows. So, the correct methodology of direct comparisons does not exist and cannot exist in principle. What then do the formulas of Lorentz’s transformations offer us? Here, each of two moving experimenters independently (subjectively) makes a decision about what instants to consider as the beginning and the end of the act of measurement of a spatial segment or time period within the current process. But for all that, as it has been exhibited in our previous article, the solutions of the two experimenters contradict one another. Therefore it is no wonder that the results of such measurements are different. The situation where each experimenter considers that there are reductions of lengths of segments and periods in the other system is the effect of these subjective comparisons. Apparently, the cognitive value of similar comparisons and measurements is specifically subjective and comparable to the value of routine visual or acoustic illusions. It is given that Lorentz’s transformations are deduced from biased (non-objective) methodology and concern only private subjective - illusionary aspects of reality. They do not suit the extraneous objective observer. Watching for the meaningless measurements of two experimenters moving past one another and knowing about the absence of a correct methodology for direct comparisons, this observer should come inevitably to the conclusion that it is necessary to deny any statement about such comparisons in principle. And in the causes of the illusions of relative reductions, he needs to put forward a progressing relative displacement of the time scale along the line of relative motion of two systems. Then the point at issue will vanish. Then the absurd and irritating paradoxes, over the last hundred years will vanish also. In total, all of special relativity will be reduced to the one indicated phenomenon. Contrasted to the former version, the new special relativity theory appreciably wins in simplicity; therefore there is every reason to call it Special Relativity Lite.
"Everything is simpler than you think and at the same time more complex than you imagine." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) Complexity rises spontaneously in nature through processes such as self-organization. Emergent phenomena are common as are emergent traits, not reducible to basic components, interactions, or properties. Complexity does not, therefore, imply the existence of a designer or a design. Complexity does not imply the existence of intelligence and sentient beings. On the contrary, complexity usually points towards a natural source and a random origin. Complexity and artificiality are often incompatible. Artificial designs and objects are found only in unexpected ("unnatural") contexts and environments. Natural objects are totally predictable and expected. Artificial creations are efficient and, therefore, simple and parsimonious. Natural objects and processes are not. As Seth Shostak notes in his excellent essay, titled "SETI and Intelligent Design", evolution experiments with numerous dead ends before it yields a single adapted biological entity. DNA is far from optimized: it contains inordinate amounts of junk. Our bodies come replete with dysfunctional appendages and redundant organs. Lightning bolts emit energy all over the electromagnetic spectrum. Pulsars and interstellar gas clouds spew radiation over the entire radio spectrum. The energy of the Sun is ubiquitous over the entire optical and thermal range. No intelligent engineer - human or not - would be so wasteful. Confusing artificiality with complexity is not the only terminological conundrum. Complexity and simplicity are often, and intuitively, regarded as two extremes of the same continuum, or spectrum. Yet, this may be a simplistic view, indeed. Simple procedures (codes, programs), in nature as well as in computing, often yield the most complex results. Where does the complexity reside, if not in the simple program that created it? A minimal number of primitive interactions occur in a primordial soup and, presto, life. Was life somehow embedded in the primordial soup all along? Or in the interactions? Or in the combination of substrate and interactions? Complex processes yield simple products (think about products of thinking such as a newspaper article, or a poem, or manufactured goods such as a sewing thread). What happened to the complexity? Was it somehow reduced, "absorbed, digested, or assimilated"? Is it a general rule that, given sufficient time and resources, the simple can become complex and the complex reduced to the simple? Is it only a matter of computation? We can resolve these apparent contradictions by closely examining the categories we use. Perhaps simplicity and complexity are categorical illusions, the outcomes of limitations inherent in our system of symbols (in our language). We label something "complex" when we use a great number of symbols to describe it. But, surely, the choices we make (regarding the number of symbols we use) teach us nothing about complexity, a real phenomenon! A straight line can be described with three symbols (A, B, and the distance between them) - or with three billion symbols (a subset of the discrete points which make up the line and their inter-relatedness, their function). But whatever the number of symbols we choose to employ, however complex our level of description, it has nothing to do with the straight line or with its "real world" traits. The straight line is not rendered more (or less) complex or orderly by our choice of level of (meta) description and language elements. The simple (and ordered) can be regarded as the tip of the complexity iceberg, or as part of a complex, interconnected whole, or hologramically, as encompassing the complex (the same way all particles are contained in all other particles). Still, these models merely reflect choices of descriptive language, with no bearing on reality. Perhaps complexity and simplicity are not related at all, either quantitatively, or qualitatively. Perhaps complexity is not simply more simplicity. Perhaps there is no organizational principle tying them to one another. Complexity is often an emergent phenomenon, not reducible to simplicity. The third possibility is that somehow, perhaps through human intervention, complexity yields simplicity and simplicity yields complexity (via pattern identification, the application of rules, classification, and other human pursuits). This dependence on human input would explain the convergence of the behaviors of all complex systems on to a tiny sliver of the state (or phase) space (sort of a mega attractor basin). According to this view, Man is the creator of simplicity and complexity alike but they do have a real and independent existence thereafter (the Copenhagen interpretation of a Quantum Mechanics). Still, these twin notions of simplicity and complexity give rise to numerous theoretical and philosophical complications. Consider life. In human (artificial and intelligent) technology, every thing and every action has a function within a "scheme of things". Goals are set, plans made, designs help to implement the plans. Not so with life. Living things seem to be prone to disorientated thoughts, or the absorption and processing of absolutely irrelevant and inconsequential data. Moreover, these laboriously accumulated databases vanish instantaneously with death. The organism is akin to a computer which processes data using elaborate software and then turns itself off after 15-80 years, erasing all its work. Most of us believe that what appears to be meaningless and functionless supports the meaningful and functional and leads to them. The complex and the meaningless (or at least the incomprehensible) always seem to resolve to the simple and the meaningful. Thus, if the complex is meaningless and disordered then order must somehow be connected to meaning and to simplicity (through the principles of organization and interaction). Moreover, complex systems are inseparable from their environment whose feedback induces their self-organization. Our discrete, observer-observed, approach to the Universe is, thus, deeply inadequate when applied to complex systems. These systems cannot be defined, described, or understood in isolation from their environment. They are one with their surroundings. Many complex systems display emergent properties. These cannot be predicted even with perfect knowledge about said systems. We can say that the complex systems are creative and intuitive, even when not sentient, or intelligent. Must intuition and creativity be predicated on intelligence, consciousness, or sentience? Thus, ultimately, complexity touches upon very essential questions of who we, what are we for, how we create, and how we evolve. It is not a simple matter, that... TECHNICAL NOTE - Complexity Theory and Ambiguity or Vagueness A Glossary of the terms used here Ambiguity (or indeterminacy, in deconstructivist parlance) is when a statement or string (word, sentence, theorem, or expression) has two or more distinct meanings either lexically (e.g., homonyms), or because of its grammar or syntax (e.g., amphiboly). It is the context, which helps us to choose the right or intended meaning ("contextual disambiguating" which often leads to a focal meaning). Vagueness arises when there are "borderline cases" of the existing application of a concept (or a predicate). When is a person tall? When does a collection of sand grains become a heap (the sorites or heap paradox)?, etc. Fuzzy logic truth values do not eliminate vagueness - they only assign continuous values ("fuzzy sets") to concepts ("prototypes"). Open texture is when there may be "borderline cases" in the future application of a concept (or a predicate). While vagueness can be minimized by specifying rules (through precisifaction, or supervaluation) - open texture cannot because we cannot predict future "borderline cases". It would seem that a complexity theory formalism can accurately describe both ambiguity and vagueness: Language can be construed as a self-organizing network, replete with self-organized criticality. Language can also be view
ed as a Production System (Iterated Function Systems coupled with Lindenmeyer L-Systems and Schemas to yield Classifiers Systems). To use Holland's vocabulary, language is a set of Constrained Generating Procedures. "Vague objects" (with vague spatial or temporal boundaries) are, actually, best represented by fractals. They are not indeterminate (only their boundaries are). Moreover, self-similarity is maintained. Consider a mountain - where does it start or end and what, precisely, does it include? A fractal curve (boundary) is an apt mathematical treatment of this question. Indeterminacy can be described as the result of bifurcation leading to competing, distinct, but equally valid, meanings. Borderline cases (and vagueness) arise at the "edge of chaos" - in concepts and predicates with co-evolving static and chaotic elements. (Focal) meanings can be thought of as attractors. Contexts can be thought of as attractor landscapes in the phase space of language. They can also be described as fitness landscapes with optimum epistasis (interdependence of values assigned to meanings). The process of deriving meaning (or disambiguating) is akin to tracing a basin of attraction. It can be described as a perturbation in a transient, leading to a stable state.
If you have already ruled out home solar panel as an alternative means of power because of its expensive price, then better think again. Indeed, solar panels nowadays, especially those that can be used to provide enough power for most of your appliances, are exorbitantly priced. The price of a system can run from $20,000 up to $50,000 depending on your energy needs. This is why many regrettably have to give up plans of setting up home solar panels on their rooftops. There are other means of acquiring solar gadgets without having to spend so much. First of all, there are many second hand or used solar panels that anyone can buy from solar dealers – these are priced much less than the brand new ones but are still in good running condition. Is it okay to buy second-hand or used home solar panel for your home instead of buying a brand new one? Of course, especially if the used solar panel that you bought is still of good running condition. However, pass up on solar items that have major defects or damage on them. You might also decide on passing up on the old model type of solar panels on sale. Better think again. The older, very first home solar panels are the ones that are durable and really functioning well. They simply are such great buys especially if used properly and well taken care of by the previous owner. As for the lifespan of a used solar panel, it can really be hard to tell. Some takes years and years before bogging down and needing some repair or a replacement on a spare part or two. Most of the time, the gadget is installed on the appropriate location or top of your roof and that’s it. You let it be as it needs minimal maintenance. The main thing to do when buying used home solar panels is to avoid those that have damage on them, such as cracks and broken glass, moisture on the glass and damaged lines and connections. Unless you have extra cash to repair these defects, then it is best to steer away from these used solar products. If purchasing your own full system is outside your budget indeed there is a more affordable way to take advantage of solar for you electrical needs. A product is now available where you can actually rent the whole solar panel system for no more than you pay the electric company for energy. A company called Citizenre has come up with an innovative way to make solar an affordable lifestyle choice. Citizenre REnU program packages solar power for you in a simple and smart way. Plainly put, the Citizenre Corporation pays for, installs, owns and operates the solar installation. You don’t have to worry about maintaining the equipment or any of the other concerns that come with making an investment into solar power. All you have to do is pay a flat monthly rent. You generate your own, renewable energy from the solar panels you rent and this power offsets the power you were buying from your utility. Your savings can cover the monthly rent and even put money back in your pocket. And since your rent is locked in for up to 25 years, you can save significantly over time as electricity prices continue to rise. These are some of the benefits the customers receive: -No upfront investment, no need to become a financial expert to justify your investment. -No waiting for rebates. -No headaches with the city and the utility; let us handle the engineering, procurement, and construction. -With our flat monthly rent and our “Performance Guarantee” you can generate your own, renewable electricity and pay for the rent with your savings.
Since your Agreement will show the amount of energy your system can generate, it is simple to calculate your savings. -Hassle-free operating and maintenance; it’s handled by the experts. -Actual hedge against future utility price increases: you can “lock in” your rates for the electricity generated from the solar system at your home for a period of up to twenty-five years, far longer than the guaranteed rates offered by other electricity providers. Indeed, a solar panel, whether brand new, second hand or rented, is definitely a wise choice as it helps you in minimizing your electric bills, helps the worlds growing energy needs and is especially an environmentally healthy and helpful choice. If you're interested in getting more info on a free solar panel installation check out www.jointhesolution.com/rethink-solar Also if your interested in joining the solution and becoming a Citizenre sales associate check out www.powur.net/rethink-solar