John Rockefeller, chairman of the committee, said that the last argument has the following simple consideration: NASA can not stand still, and to hell with them, with the money. In general, the legislators agreed to a proposal to turn Barrack Obama’s program “Constellation”, abandoning the Moon and focusing on more ambitious goals.

In practical terms, this means (if the bill will be passed by the Senate) that the Office of Aeronautics and Space Administration should immediately begin work on a new booster for heavy loads, and not wait for 2015, as proposed by Obama is concerned with the state of the U.S. budget. Accordingly, the flight to the asteroid must be held as early as 2016, but not in 2025-m.

Before Mars Americans will arrive a little later, but still much earlier than mid-2030′s.

In addition, given the green light for extraordinary shuttle flights, despite the fact that machines were to go to the eternal “funny” after the last two trips in November 2010 and February 2011. Third, now the latest, the expedition to the ISS will be held in mid-2011-th.

 a complication in the relationship between strings and spacetime. String theory does not predict that the Einstein equations are obeyed exactly. String theory adds an infinite series of corrections to the theory of gravity. Under normal circumstances, if we only look at distance scales much larger than a string, then these corrections are not measurable. But as the distance scale gets smaller, these corrections become larger until the Einstein equation no longer adequately describes the result.
    In fact, when these correction terms become large, there is no spacetime geometry that is guaranteed to describe the result. The equations for determining the spacetime geometry become impossible to solve except under very strict symmetry conditions, such as unbroken supersymmetry, where the large correction terms can be made to vanish or cancel each other out.

The subject of the existence and properties of time has been a problem for many philosophers. John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart argued that anything existent cannot possess the characteristic of being in time. McTaggart’s rationale is that “nothing that exists can be temporal, and that therefore time is unreal.”[1] McTaggart begins by defining two ways of representing time, and then showing how these models are not appropriate. He holds that change is essential to time, and looks for this change in the events which he proposes make up time, not in the objects present in time. McTaggart looks for change in the wrong place, and attempts to prove that time cannot exist by showing how inappropriate models of time cannot be properly explained.

McTaggart’s argument begins by misrepresenting Kant. He states that “In philosophy, time is treated as unreal … by Kant …”[2] Continuing, he contends that there are no things to which either of two sets of temporal relations apply. The first set, the “A-series” of time uses relations such as past, present, and future; the “B- series” relates events in time as “earlier than” or “later than”. McTaggart asserts that these are the only two ways to order events in time. He terms all the “simultaneous contents of a single position [on the time line]” a group, and this group he considers to be a compound substance. This compound substance which consists of individual events may also be considered an event itself. McTaggart continues to argue that the B-series alone is inadequate to describe time. The A-series must be essential to time, McTaggart states, because the only events we perceive are those which are in the present, an A-series attribute. McTaggart’s argument begins: The B-series alone cannot account for change, because events which are earlier (or later) than other events will always be thus. McTaggart states, “The B-series depends on permanent relations, no moment could ever cease to be, nor could it become another moment.”[3] The death of Queen Anne, McTaggart purports, is static in that every characteristic of it never changes. The only characteristics relating to such an event which may change are whether it is in the future or the past (or in the present for a brief moment). Thus, change can only be found in the A-series.

McTaggart presents an argument put forth by Russell. Russell suggests that McTaggart is looking in the wrong place for change; change is in the objects, not the events. The example of a poker which is hot at one time and not hot at another if presented. Russell purports that the change is in the quality of the poker between the two times, while both events (ie. the poker being hot or not hot) are static. McTaggart agrees that Russell’s example does show change, but disqualifies it because it presupposes the existence of time. Russell’s tenseless view of time does not allow for an A-series, but McTaggart believes that the A-series is essential to time. Thus, the poker cannot be hot at one time and not hot at another, because there is no time. An alternative example proposes that the poker is hot on Monday, and not hot at any other time. McTaggart insists in this example that no change occurs in the poker itself, because it is always a quality of the poker that it is hot on that particular Monday and at no other time. To further prove his point, McTaggart introduces the Greenwich meridian analogy: “we can find two points in this series [on the meridian], S and S`, such that the proposition ‘at S the meridian of Greenwich is within the United Kingdom’ is true, while the proposition ‘at S` the meridian of Greenwich is within the United Kingdom’ is false. But no one would say that this gave us change.”[4] The essence of McTaggart’s A-series argument is summarized in the statement, “…no fact about anything can change, unless it is a fact about its place in the A series. Whatever other qualities it has, it has always. But that which is future will not always be future, and that which was past was not always past.”[5]

Returning to the B-series, McTaggart describes events as being earlier than an utterance, later than that utterance, or simultaneous with that utterance. He insists that such statements are always true or always false, and therefore no facts change. Thus, the B-series cannot allow for change. Since the B-series cannot allow for change, the A-series is essential to change, and therefore to time as well. To show that the A-series is contradictory, McTaggart states “Past, present and future are incompatible determinations. Every event must be one or the other, but no event can be more than one.”[6] If a given event is past, it must have been present and future. If one attempts to escape this contradiction by considering the past, present and future views of the same event as being distinct, then still each of these views of the event has pastness, presentness and futureness. The contradiction has not been escaped. Thus, the B-series does not allow for change and the A-series, which is essential to time, is contradictory. Because the A-series is the only way to account for change, by rejecting the A-series, change must be rejected as well. Rejecting change means rejecting time, which depends upon change, and the B-series, which requires on time.

While McTaggart’s argument may seem to support the contention that time cannot exist, this illusion quickly falls away under investigation. Neither his B-series nor A-series arguments support his conclusions. McTaggart’s initial statement that the A-series and B-series are the only way to represent time is definitely a debatable topic, but for the purposes of brevity and to add strength to my retort, I shall assume that they A-series and B- series are the only models. By grouping all the simultaneous events at a given moment together, and considering them as a compound substance, McTaggart changes the notion of time from a logical entity to a physical entity. This would mean that an infinite amount of time would have an infinite amount of matter, thus every piece of matter in the universe would have to be part of the compound substance of time. An interesting proposition, and a wise choice for McTaggart not to pursue it, as it is based upon a nothing but his own definition. If the compound substance representing all the individual events is an event itself, is the action of summing all the component events into a sum of events an event in itself? Then is the action of making this event also part of a larger summation of events? This implication would lead to an infinity of events which would spawn from the simple summation of even two events into one combined event. Once again, this is a risky argument, and while McTaggart introduced the possibility of it, he did not argue it.

Although it is not possible to properly describe Kant’s views of time in this paper, I will attempt to explain why McTaggart was wrong in believing that Kant felt that time was unreal. Kant’s general opinion of how we see the world is that we don’t actually experience the objects we perceive. Just like we wouldn’t consider a photograph of a chair to be an actual chair, we should not consider the interpretations from our eyes, hands, etc. of a chair to adequately represent the chair. In truth, all we experience is a representation of the chair. In his transcendental aesthetic, Kant attempts to reveal what is actually real through a two step process, “First isolate sensibility, by taking away from it everything which the understanding thinks through its concepts, so that nothing may be left save empirical intuition. Secondly, we shall also separate off from it everything which belongs to sensation, so that nothing may remain save pure intuition and the mere form of appearances, which is all that sensibility can supply a priori.”[7] By filtering out anything that is not empirically evident (like dragons and unicorns) and then filtering out anything that we can sense (like tables and chairs) all that is left is that which is common to everything we experience, but not as a result of that experience. The only remaining things after this filtering are time and space. Everything we experience has space and time. Kant continues to describe time and space as “pure” intuitions, but that is beyond the scope of this argument.

McTaggart claims that the B-series does not allow for the “present”, and therefore we experience time in an A-series sort of way, via the present. If we define the present as a time which is neither earlier than or later than the utterance of a given phrase, we can represent the present in a B-series system. Furthermore, the B-series can allow for change. McTaggart tries to refute this possibility by presenting a poker which transcends time. He states that a poker which is hot on Monday and not hot at any other time (this presupposes time as much as Russell’s argument did) has the quality of being hot at no other time than that Monday, and that is the quality of the poker. Returning to McTaggart’s previous claim – that we experience time in the present, and the present alone – how can the poker have qualities that extend over several days, past our perception? Even if the poker did have qualities past our perception, we would have no way to verify those qualities. Thus, for a poker to be hot on a particular Monday and not hot at any other time, change must be involved. McTaggart’s example of the Greenwich meridian further demonstrates his misconception. Assuming that time is one dimensional, imagine the Greenwich meridian being a time line. Call point S, within the United Kingdom, “Monday”. Point S`, not in the United Kingdom, shall be called “not Monday”. If time is one dimensional, and we exist at a single point in time, then we can imagine ourselves as observers standing either at S (Monday) or S` (not Monday) or somewhere else, but never in more than one place on the Greenwich meridian. If we stand at Monday and look around, we see the United Kingdom. Travelling to Tuesday, we see something which is not the United Kingdom. When asked if there was a change, we must say “Yes, there was a change.” Now imagine that we have broken free of our one-dimensional time line and we are now orbiting above the earth looking at the Greenwich meridian. We see a line drawn on the surface of the earth. Is there any change? Of course not, we are looking at a line that always spans the globe. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that as long as we consider ourselves the be “within” time, and only able to experience the present, then we will see change as we move along a time line. If we are looking down upon time from a different dimension, we are able to see more than one point of time at once and will not recognize change. McTaggart clearly states that we only experience the present, but violates this statement with his example. Russell correctly stated that McTaggart was looking for change in the wrong place, and McTaggart’s retort only strengthened this contention.

In order to express the notion of change, it is not essential to literally state that change has taken place. If we state that a balloon is inflated at one instance and not inflated at another (earlier or later) instance, then change has occurred, without the requirement of A-series predicates. Thus the B-series can represent the present and does allow for change.

McTaggart’s claim that all events must be have past, present, and future determinations is simple to understand from a macroscopic level, but his explanation for why these qualities are incompatible is quite convoluted. It is quite obvious that from a single viewpoint, a given event cannot have more than one of these qualities, but nobody ever asserted this. Each event is past, present and future in relation to no less than three distinct events, and assuming an infinite time series, a given event is past or future to an infinite number of other events. An easy solution to any concerns over the multiplicity of infinities spawned is to imply that the past and the future don’t physically exist, they are merely representations. Thus, just like there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, there are an infinite number of events both prior to and subsequent to the completion of this sentence. Prior to the completion of the former sentence, it was just a probability, and subsequent to its completion, it shall be known as a logical truth (this sentence is complete) but not anything physical. The confusion arises from confusing the sentence itself with it’s own completion. The same analogy can be extended to events in time. Events do not exist, it is their results that exist. The death of Queen Anne is represented by Queen Anne being dead just after being alive, but the event does not exist, we simply mark the time of the first moment of her being dead as the event of her death for indexical purposes.

McTaggart’s claim of the future and past and their events as actually existing is nothing more than assuming that things which are defined exists. One could just as easily argue that dragons are large, green and scaled beasts which breath fire and fight knights. Just because dragons are defined does not mean that they exist.

Conclusion

To defend his argument against Russell’s claim that he was looking for change in the wrong place, McTaggart misinterpreted Russell’s complaints and demonstrated how Russell’s arguments were incompatible with his own criteria for change. Thus I reassert that McTaggart was looking in the wrong place for change, and short of resolving McTaggart’s self contradiction, there is no defence. I have also shown where McTaggart went wrong by showing how his own Greenwich meridian argument contradicts his earlier statements. McTaggart does not explain why it is inappropriate for events to be related to an infinite number of other events via pastness and futureness. Indeed, he does not discuss whether or not there can be an infinite number of events at all. If one were to claim that an infinite number of events cannot exist, I have established that events do not actually exist, only their representations exists. Furthermore, I purport that an infinite number of events must exist. Much as there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1 and an infinite number of points between two distinct points on a line there are an infinite number of events between any two distinct events. Time shares qualities with numbers and Euclidian geometry in that it is not a physical entity. McTaggart’s models of time as being part of a “block” universe, or frames on a reel of film obviously disagree with my arguments, but I have demonstrated how in order for time to be real, these models are inappropriate.

McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.87 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.86 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.90 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.93 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.93 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
McTaggart, J.M.E., Time p.94 in Gale, R. “The Philsophy of Time” MacMillan, 1968.
Kemp, N. translation Critique of Pure Reason (Transcendental Aesthetic).

The following is a theory presented considering the future possibility of the discovery of yet another planet in ‘our’ solar system. 21 years ago, Zecharia Sitchin (linguistic scholar & historian of ancient Hebrew, Sumerian, Akkadian, and other early Mesopotamian civilizations) published The 12Th Planet (1976) which discusses the periodic return to our solar system of a large, red planet called Nibiru by ancient Sumerian historians (and Marduk by the Babylonians). Nibiru was home to a race of war-prone hominids referred to in ancient texts by either their earlier Sumerian name of Anunnaki or their later Hebrew name of Nefilim (the word Nefilim is mentioned repeatedly in the Bible). The Anunnaki are described as handsome, well developed human look-a-likes who are physically larger than humans; averaging 10-15 feet tall. While the rank and file astronauts who first came to Earth were called Anunnaki by Sumerian historians, the ruling royalty were always referred to as gods. The Anunnaki were technologically capable of interplanetary space travel when they first arrived on Earth about 45,000 years ago.  Based on data presented by researcher Zecharia Sitchin, this planet (Nibiru) makes an appearance every 3,600 years and last came about 160 BC according to Sitchin from his research of legend (The Great Flood, Ice Age, Dinosaur Extinction, etc.) and theory. Given that a number of planets and masses in our solar system have recently been discovered within the last forty years, it is feasible that a discovery such as is submitted in this theory is possible and likely probable.  The scenario presented takes into thought that this assumption is correct and of what the geo-magnetic reaction of Nibiru will be provided that the much larger discovered planet’s (Nibiru’s) magnetic field will come into contact with our planet’s (magnetic) field.

What would the reaction of this planet be provided that another planet many times the size of this one comes within an affective number of miles?  By studying historical references and magnetic reactions based on composition, proximity and orbital pattern, the submission here is then, that within that moment of approach and the ‘discovery’ (magnetically) of the planets to each other, that the smaller planet being Earth would stop it’s normal pivotal spin temporarily until the redistribution of the surface material composition would ‘break’ or interfere with this hold while Nibiru continues in orbit.

The surface magnetic field distribution is skewed based on the, I will use this term, collaboration (composition) of its materials with respect to material that blocks the force additionally (lead-based pollution, non-magnetic concentrations, etc.).  At one part of the spin and to include current proximity then, the field of the larger mass during approach, will ‘grab’ that part of the surface locking that which is most cohesive in force jolting the spin to a stop.  The surface distribution will adjust from this and break the hold during which the larger mass moves on.

It is given that the crust is unevenly distributed in terms of magnetic-to-non-magnetic materials (This may be relative to the ‘wobble’ in orbit and Polar magnetic north changing +/- 10 degrees constantly).  Whereas the core is where the majority of the force emanates from as it’s liquidity becomes denser the farther the distance from the core, there are parts of the crust where the force is more likely to reject penetration of the magnetic force because of the presence of non-magnetic and force-repellant material in that portion of the crust.

As an example, there is a greater concentration of magnetic material in land forms (continents), which is highest in terms of surface layering, as any material relative to this force in weight has sunk in water forms (oceans, etc.) and therefore will be farthest and having lesser magnitude to the force having lesser resistance through land masses, originating from the core, with the material throughout the crust laid out in contiguous concentration.  Weather and atmospheric conditions must be taken into account additionally as dust; water and pollution have their own levels of concentration.

Atmospheric and surface phenomenon removes, adds and subsequently ‘stirs’ the amount of magnetic material throughout the upper layers of the earth’s crust.  This material will always be drawn to return to it’s point of attraction creating a perpetual motion in tandem with the magnetic attraction of those objects, planets and asteroids that are within the this planet’s magnetic field.

An addendum here is that the present surface continents have a high-enough concentration in magnetic materials and based on the position of Nibiru at the time of contact to produce the pull away from this planet’s core toward Nibiru creating the land forms we now know.   This would be dependent on the side of this planet that gets caught in orbit jolting the spin to stop.  In contrast to this, the continents on the opposite side of the planet having a high-enough magnetic material concentration will be most sunken because the pull of it’s localized material will be thru this planet’s core (by least resistance and amplification) in it’s attraction to the 12th thus giving credit to previously above-surface-hosted continents assuming residence at the sea floor.

Considering that the core amplifies the force on the side opposite the attracted object, this amplification, therefore, would create the spin effect where all objects within orbit are within the magnetic field, all at different moments and relative to where the amplification is ‘pointed’ at that moment.  Consider ‘surface distribution adjustment.  This is your spin effect.  It is agreed that when there is a wave in the ocean, our planet is turning and the surface adjusts continuously changing the magnetic force distribution.  The tide receding and overlapping the shore by even one foot along a whole continental coastline can do this.  It is the wave happening because of the spin and the spin happening because of the wave!  This is to include other surface phenomena simultaneously.

Provided you had pure coordinates in place for the velocity and revolutions of the approaching planet (it has it’s own magnetic composition), the force composition of the approaching planet, the force composition of this planet and the force composition of the orbital environment to include the position of this planet in orbit at the point of approach, an exact point of reference could be made to where this planet would cease the pivotal spin and at the precise time.  Currently, technology does not exist to calculate this information.

Spot-checking this in review, when there are two attracted magnetic forces with non-magnetic material in between, there will still be some (again dependent upon material composition) attraction only lesser in degree as opposed to the absence of non-magnetic material interfering with any part of this attraction.

With respect to the land form vs. water form amplification (least resistance) issue and while I initially believed that the higher concentration of magnetic force was via continent surface, this may not be true.  The fact is that water is conductive and therefore, there would be the absence of repellant material within the oceans.  The bottom of the water bodies adjust with respect to movements changing amplification.  The possibility for amplification of the magnetic force might be greater thru the bodies of water because of the conductivity of water as opposed to the land masses, however, the outcome would be the same as I said before and this amplification would ‘point’ at that which is within it’s closest path in orbit continuing the spin by surface distribution adjustment.

In this perspective Dr. Pat Nash, (Physics Advisor – University of Texas at San Antonio) had provided following opinion thru a message:

“Your ideas are very interesting, but you haven’t yet discussed some important effects that are more observable.  For instance, if Planet Nibiru passed close enough to affect the Earth magnetically, then its gravitational attraction would be strong enough to pull the Earth out of its orbit.  The Earth could fall into the Sun, or at least be left with such a highly eccentric orbit that at times it would pass so close to the Sun that the outside temp could approach 700k.”

In reply to this message, the following opinion can be concluded :

Citing history with the events of the flood, dinosaur extinction, etc., it is natural to believe that a situation such as these events will happen again…this time until the above becomes true such as Earth leaving the present orbit.  This is submitted to the public with time as a perspective and the theory that the subject for this research was responsible for the past situations just mentioned.  Post-events, Earth continued to exist as we now know it.  The excessive temperature is contained to the area directly facing the sun when the rotation of the Earth temporarily ceases in this pass.  Alternatively, the area furthest from the sun freezes.  The areas in-between allowed life to sustain and thereby proliferate to a new cycle.

The encounters
of dwarf galaxies are typically billions of light years away, so these occurred
billions of years ago. However,  some of these galaxies analyzed in the new
study are relatively close, only 166 million light years away, which means that
the process now observed in these has been in quite recent; speaking cosmically:
only 166 million years ago.

Astronomers have known for decades that these dwarf galaxies are
gravitationally
pulling each other. The classic spiral forms have been stretched considerably,
casting long strips of gas and dust. The brightest object in the image obtained

by the Hubble Space Telescope actually corresponds to two
colliding galaxies. The whole system shines down markedly, due to the massive
and stormy birth of many stars. These births are triggered by the compression of
hydrogen gas exerted by close encounters between galaxies. Under these
conditions, hydrogen is more easily concentrated in clumps from which stars are
formed.

The Hubble observations have added important insights into the history of
this group interaction, allowing astronomers to determine when the meeting
began, and predict the future merger.The researcher have found the oldest stars
in a few
globular clusters and old dating back some ten billion years ago. Therefore, the
system is long, and has not yet resulted in a large elliptical galaxy.

Most other dwarf galaxies as they already went through this phase of
interactions during billions of years ago. Instead, these nearby galaxies are
grouped closely for the first time. This meeting has been under way for a few
hundred million years at most, a blink in cosmic history. This is an extremely
rare local example of what was a fairly common event in the archaic and distant
universe.

The astronomer Sarah Gallagher of the University of Western Ontario, is
the principal investigator of the study.

In an attempt to solve the problem of “Lost Dwarf galaxies”, two astronomers used the WM Keck Observatory to study a population of galaxies darker and lighter mass than all existing ones. Each composed by a 99 percent of dark matter. The results suggest that the problem of the Lost Dwarf galaxies is not as severe as previously thought, and may have been fully resolved.“It appears that the galaxies which are very small and extremely difficult to perceive- exist in abundance than we thought,” said Marla Geha, co-author of the study and researcher at the Hertzberg Institute of Astrophysics in Canada. “If you had asked me last year whether these small galaxies are much darker, I would have said no. I’m surprised that so many have now been discovered tiny galaxies dominated by dark matter.”

The riddle of the Lost Dwarf galaxies comes from a prediction model of the “Cold Dark Matter” which explains the growth and evolution of the universe. He predicts that large galaxies like the Milky Way should be surrounded by a swarm of no less than several hundreds of galaxies, although much smaller, known as “dwarf galaxies.”Other researchers also explained why a few tiny galaxies around the Milky Way are too rich in dark matter, the invisible stuff that makes up most of the matter in the universe. The key idea behind this seems to be the presence of bigger, brighter galaxies next door. Simulations indicate that million-degree coronas around these larger galaxies could have took away much of the visible gas in their young neighbors while leaving the dark material behind. Many scientists believe that all galaxies large and small should have started out the same—as a ball of dark matter with a disk of visible matter in the center. But some small galaxies, which we termed as “Lost Dwarf Galaxies”,contain roughly 100 times more dark matter per star than the Milky Way and are a million times less luminous. They also tend to cluster around bigger galaxies such as our own. In  some new simulations of galaxy formation,  it is revealed that, 10 billion years ago, the darkest of today’s “Dwarf Galaxies” (such as Draco, Ursa Minor and Andromeda IX) were forming around big galaxies from the same mix of visible gas and dark matter, much like planets would form around a star. But they happened to get pulled into orbit around the central galaxy earlier than their counterparts. Once there, according to these recent simulations, shocks from the central galaxy’s gravity, and pressure from the hot corona around it, combined to knock loose most of the smaller galaxies’ shimmering gas. Ultraviolet radiation, which dominated the universe at the time, would have heated these small ones’ visible gas, leaving it weakly attracted to the little galaxies and thus easy to scrape away.

The researchers might have done a good job of simulating all of the relevant physics and setting the orbits of the dwarfs; but they made the case that the Milky Way has very likely stripped the gas (and the ‘life’) out of many of the dwarf
galaxies we see around us.

Josh Simon (California Institute of Technology) and Geha used the Keck II telescope 10 meters with the DEIMOS spectrograph to conduct follow-up studies of eight new dwarf galaxies discovered recently. The results allowed the duo to calculate precisely the total mass of each galaxy.

To their surprise, each system was among the smallest so far measured, 10,000 times smaller than the Milky Way. So scientists now know that dwarf galaxies can be even smaller than what was estimated as possible.

The formations of galaxies are so small that it is not an easy phenomenon to explain from the theoretical point of view. It is unclear how the stars could form in galaxies so small. Measurements were made of 814 stars in the eight dwarf galaxies in the WM Keck Observatory. It was found that those stars are moving much more slowly than any other known galaxy (about 4 to 7 kilometers per second). For reference, the Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way at an approximate speed of 220 kilometers per second.

One implication of these results is the possibility of several hundred completely dark galaxies right here in the cosmic neighborhood of the Milky Way, which are not discovered yet. The next challenge for astronomers is to find a way to detect its presence. In the meantime, space is still the best place to detect the effects of dark matter and narrow down the constraints on what sort of particles dark matter might be. The newfound dwarf companions to the Milky Way are now presenting a rare opportunity to learn details about how dark matter behaves on a relatively small scale very close to home.

The current most favored theory is that it is some sort of particle that interacts only extremely rarely with normal matter in any other way than tugging its gravity. Physicists hope to settle the question in the next few years by possibly creating dark matter particles in the world’s largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a particle physics laboratory in Geneva.

There might be several ways to look at larger-scale distribution of dark matter. Already hundreds of models are in existence to look at the overall distribution of dark matter in the universe, which help to make sense of the structure of the universe in the largest scale. But the predictions of those models can be quite different for smaller scales.

Astronauts working in spacesuits to build the Space Station may get even colder than the suit designers imagined. Measuring the effects of extremely low temperatures on astronauts was the first step in making a better space suit.

Walking in spaceSpace suits must provide complete life support, safety, comfort, and mobility when astronaut leave the ship for up to 8.5 hours.Space suits therefore must provide compartments for the storage of food, water, oxygen, and waste, as well as protection from temperature extremes, vacuum, and micrometeoroids.

The suit, including gloves, boots, and helmet, contains many subsystems, each with a variety of sensors, transducers, and control elements. One area that needs improvement is the temperature inside the gloves.

The figure below shows the suit’s complexity.

Space Suit Design and Functions

1. First inner and outer liners of swimsuit fabric for comfort.
2. Next transport tubes for cooling and ventilation.
3. Third the pressure garment and its cover restraint.
4. Next layers of Mylar insulation, and a ripstop liner.
5. Outermost is the thermal micrometeoroid garment (TMG).

The general principle behind the space suit is that the astronaut’s body makes heat that is controlled by the life support system. If it gets to hot in the suit, either because the astronaut is working hard or in direct sunlight, the water cooling removes the heat. The reverse problem is when the astronaut can’t put enough heat into the space suit to stay warm.The lack of heat is felt first at the body’s extremities, notably the fingers tips. Boots can be heavily insulated to keep toes warm, but glove insulation is limited by the need for manual dexterity. Space walk efficiency can be adversely affected when astronauts’ hands become uncomfortably cold.To study the problem and improve glove design, NASA outfitted space suit gloves with tiny, battery-powered temperature loggers. The instrumented gloves were worn by astronauts Bernard Harris and Michael Foale during NASA’s STS63 mission flown by space shuttle Discovery.

HOBO Loggers mounted in glove
To monitor the temperature of the astronauts’ fingers, the gloves of the space suits were equipped with HOBO Littler temperature loggers. The units were secured between the outermost and insulation layers on the glove backs, out of the 100% oxygen environment of the glove interiors.

Four of the data loggers were connected via a cable 8-10 inches long to small thermistors sewn into the finger tips. A fifth HOBO measured the temperature on the back of the glove where the devices were placed.The data indicated that because the suits were being subjected to environments colder than their design limits, they were unable to keep the astronauts comfortable during the EVA if there were lulls in the astronauts’ metabolic rate. Rather than trying to further insulate the gloves, NASA engineers have decided to move to internal heaters for the finger tip areas.

The Inglefield Land is visible in the lower right corner, his gray contrasting with the white and blue colors of turquoise ice cap.

In the picture, blues, purples and greens represent the waters of Nares Strait, which is divided into different sections. The narrow passage between Inglefield Land and Ellesmere Island is the Smith Sound, which stretches on 88 km between Baffin Bay south (not shown here) and Kane Basin (waters of one blue dark, located above the Inglefield Land). It is in this that drains the glacier Humboldt Greenland’s largest glacier known about the planet.

As the images represent the radar backscatter from the surface and not the light reflected, there is no color on a standard radar image. This image was created by combining three acquisitions by the ASAR (Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar) Envisat conducted the February 2, April 14 and November 10, 2009 over the same region. The colors of the image resulting from changes that are occurring on the surface of these acquisitions.

I ran the simulation over night at a much slower speed and after 15 hours the

simulation was predicting the orbits of the planets more accurately as in the bottom picture. The only problem was that the orbits were circles, instead of elliptical. I explain the reason for this problem below.

Next I ran a simulation of the planetary system orbiting 55 Cancri with the
two known planets. The orbits were stable, with the planet closest to 55 Cancri
causing the star to make a small orbit of its own.

I then ran the same simulation with the third calculated planet, and the system was still stable with the third planet having a slightly elliptical and off center orbit. (You can find more information about the planetary system around

55 Cancri here:

 One of the features I found very interesting, is the “Activities”. These

consist of 28 pre-programmed simulations that show such things as a rocket launch, gravity assist, and double star systems. Some features are of less obvious use, for example the “Catch that Satellite” and “Two colliding stars.”

The help file is adequate, but could use more, maybe something that will tell

you why something happened in a simulation.

I noticed three problems other than the accuracy. Sometimes when you zoom in to
the maximum setting, the program will shut down. When I ran the simulation
overnight, I could not operate the zoom with the short-cut keys.

Strangely,

the Sun, planets, and our moon were pre-programmed into the program to use in

your own simulations – yet it neglected to include all of the orbital data for

them, which makes the program harder to use (such as setting up a simulation of
our solar system). Other than this the program was error free.

Aimed at personal users and the educational market, this program is a good
deal for the money, especially for schools. It requires only a little knowledge of astronomy and physics/math to run and understand the pre-programmed simulations.

Creating your own simulations (such as extrasolar planetary systems) requires more skills, but any dedicated user should be able to figure it out.

• Product:Orbit Xplorer
• Relevant Links: homepage
• Company/Vendor: Tore
  Ottinson
• Price: $25 shareware, $90 site license
• Category:Physics
• Platforms:Windows 95/98/NT/2000
• Requirements:Windows XP, Vista
• Latest version:2.2.1.0 (January 2009)
•  

The complete review-
There’s nothing more fun than playing God, and here’s your chance to do it!Orbit Xplorer allows you to design and alter your own solar systems… but it’s more than that. ScienceMan can see this program being of considerable usefor examining gravitiational interactions.
So how do you use orbit explorer? Well, it’s really not that hard, but I
wouldn’t recommend this program for younger students. They would definitely be
intimidated by the parameters screen for configuring your interactions.
Originally I was hoping to be able to recommend this simulator junior high
courses, but after having played with it for awhile, I think it’s more appropriate for high school and college students.Anyway, after choosing how many objects you want in your simulation, simply click on the simlulation tab and watch your perfect simulation take effect;… ooops! Heh, heh. Well, maybe it’s not all that easy. It would probably be wise to study the parameters screen first.

The settings are fairly straightforward. Choose how many objects you would
like in your simulation, and the spreadsheet adjusts accordingly. You can choose to enter parameters for all of your objects from scratch, or you can drag and drop the pre-configured “objects” such as the Earth and the Moon into the spreadsheet and all of the fields will automatically fill.There are a lot of other powerful features included in the parameter screen as you can see. View your sim from different perspectives, changing the scale allows you to zoom in or out, choose to see coordinates, stars, etc. The program includes just about every setting you could want.
So now you’re ready to build a real WORKING simulation!

 

As you can see, you can choose to track the orbit, and create projections as well. Cool!

It should also be noted that the program also allows for the display of cool NASA images of the planets as well as a beautiful starry background image.

The other excellent feature of this program is the ability to control and
measure many aspects of the simulation. You can speed up or slow down the sim,

you can call up graphs for position, velocity, acceleration and energy for all

of the objects, or view these measures as digital readouts on-screen as the

simulation takes place.

To top it all off, included sample simulations will have you learning in no

time! Interesting problems are addressed in the html format activities;

ScienceMan thinks this is a great program, and it is certainly economical.

Junior High students would likely become quickly frustrated with having to

jump between the parameter and simulation screens, so I wouldn’t recommend

this program for younger students. But if you’re looking for an orbital

simulator for your senior high or even your college level class, you will

definitely get good use out of Orbit Xplorer! 

or 

In this project, the researcher focuses on the design and implementation of artificial intelligence systems “swarm” to solve complex problems. Currently, the understanding of how artificial intelligence “swarm” is largely based on estimates and individual intuitions of experienced researchers. It is enough to consider practical applications or to accurately predict the behavior of systems designed by the researchers.



The objective of E-SWARM project is to develop a methodology for engineering design and implementation of artificial intelligence systems “swarm”. Marco Dorigo is betting that in the future, the “swarm” an important tool for researchers and engineers interested in solving certain types of complex problems. To build the foundations of this discipline and to develop an appropriate methodology, researchers will solve various difficult problems in areas of optimization, robotics, networks and data mining.



The I-SWARM project will start in 2010 under the supervision of Marco Dorigo, Research Director FNRS within the laboratory Iridia (CODE Department, Computer and Decision Engineering).