How the past, present, & future can be perceived.

The word "now" sounds like just a simple, three letter word. Sometimes, however, "now" be perceived as an infinitesimally small slice of time between the future and the past. There is no single answer to how long the present time is. If we were to think more and more about "now", then we would realize that our perception of the present time might be getting ever shorter. And if this is the case, then it now seems that as result, the past and the future would now seem to be longer than may have thought before. In other words, the more we divide time up, the shorter the now gets. In fact no one knows yet what is, and if there is, a fundamental building block of time, unlike matter, which we know is made up of atoms. When I think about what "now" really is, I think that it is made up of this smallest unit of time, although again, there is no single answer to what is considered to be in the now. And after I have pondered this mystery quite a lot, I realize that the future and past are "collapsing in on themselves" in a sense, into that infinitesimally small time frame . So, I start thinking to myself, if this is so, then is there even such thing as the present? Maybe it's just a blend of the past and the present. We probably like to think "now" quite a lot. Yet, does this word mean a single moment in time? If you say "now" one minute, and another minute later, you say it again while referring to the first time you've said it, are you still describing the same moment? Or, perhaps, what could really be happening is that the moment we might all think of as "now" is ever present. It is generally considered that the past and future are all the same. In other words, this means that both exist at the same time.

Theory of parallel universes?

On my next blog post, I will be discussing the possible existence of parallel universes. In fact, I will also give my own explanation so to tell about the paradoxical nature of this kind of theory. That will help you gain further insight into what a parallel universe essentially is. The theory that I am about to propose shortly will "blend" our own universe with another/other parallel universes. In other words, I will explain why there may be virtually no border between parallel universes. By border, I do mean difference, in a way. In fact, I'm talking about something that has the features of both. So keep checking for updates, as well as for new topics.

Here's a great analogy to help explain what I've written preciously about thoughts

I have something great to talk about. I have come up with an analogy to help explain the theory that I was proposing in my last posts. First of all, think of a thought as behaving somewhat like a particle, in which the particle is "connected" to another through the process known as quantum entanglement. Now, if this thought is "connected", or entangled, to something else in the universe, then the two could be affecting each other. And that something could mean either an event and/or an object, which could be just about anything, and which could, perhaps, reside light years away. However, if science has only proven this concept for individual particles, how could this be possible for something that's larger and made up of many particles? well, we don't know. However, I have an idea. All, or some, of the particles that make up an object could each be entangled with other particles. And, maybe, the particles with which they are entangled are the exact particles that are taking part in generating a thought. From here on, you can draw an idea on how our thoughts could be affecting the universe, and/or maybe the reverse is happening as well.

"Cosmic thoughts and consciousness" part 2 of 2

I've heard of a whole bunch of astounding topics that diverge from mainstream science including morphic fields, epistemology, and a couple more of which are mentioned in my blog. The reason I decided to write about them is that since learning about them, I've really gotten interested and wanted to spread the word. In this post, I want to talk about thoughts a little bit more. And, by the way, I want to talk a little bit about consciousness since I didn't quite get much into it in part one. One of the most mystifying questions one may ask about consciousness is, "If there is such a thing about the afterlife, will I have the ability to somehow, access past memories after death?" Well, I'll leave that up to you. However, I will include that I've noticed something interesting about thoughts. And this isn't a fact, it's just something that I like to think about. The human body can die and be destroyed... and what about thoughts? How do you destroy a thought? This kind of a question is right there on the verge of being a thought versus being a belief. In fact, maybe it could be both? As I'm writing about this, I'm reminded of a new question which I had come up with before. How definitive is the boundary between what is intuition and what is something else, such as belief, consciousness, or thought? Maybe that boundary is totally nonexistent? Maybe the reason for why we include, or for that matter remove, such a boundary, is because our own minds fool us into doing so. Reality makes a whole lot of sense, and, at the same time, is mind boggling to think about.

My theory on "cosmic thoughts and consciousness" part 1

So, as we all might know already, the saying goes that actions speak louder than words. How about thoughts? Thoughts are a mysterious thing, as is telesthesia. We all know that thoughts can influence what someone does, and can determine what someone says. And thoughts are only thought to have effects on ourselves, if we decide to keep them to ourselves. However, the reason I'm going to write this post about thoughts is because I am willing to offer a perplexing idea. That idea is actually more of a theory, or a notion, that mere thoughts have more to them than just the ability to affect oneself, or others, for that matter. What if they can also have the ability to shape reality? So, first of all, what I'm trying to get across is not that something can happen as a result of an action which would then, in turn, be the result of a thought. Obviously we as people use thoughts in order to achieve a goal, which is achieved because we decided to act on that thought. So, of course, it doesn't seem as though a thought all by itself should lead to achieving a goal unless there is an act that follows in its footsteps, so to say. Before I continue, keep in mind that this is a truly complicated theory of mine to define. However, I will try to explain it as best I can so that it makes sense. This theory proposes that mere thoughts, which originate from the mind, also have external effects on the environment, with one exception. We will go ahead and skip the part of acting upon those thoughts. So, what this means is that even when your thoughts are kept to yourself, that they are somehow connected to the outside world, which in turn responds to those thoughts. You most certainly cannot achieve something just by thinking about it, if you keep that thought to yourself, and we all know that. Or do we? So, does that thought do much if it's stuck in our head all the time? Well, it probably could influence our actions, ideas, and/or opinions to some degree, depending on what the thought exactly is and if our mind is coming back to it. Those are the internal effects, however. The thought may actually be causing something to happen, or affecting how something is unfolding in the tangible world. In other words, it may be shaping reality. However, there is yet another intriguing possibility. The thought could be having an influence on other people. And nobody, not even yourself, would have any idea that it is happening. In fact, we may never even know if such thoughts of ours are affecting reality. The reason for this is that there is no known possible method for determining any truth behind this mystery; nobody has even an idea on how it could be possible to connect occurences in our own reality to our own thoughts. Is the nonliving world somehow connected to our consciousness? Does our mind, or our consciousness, seem so mysterious, because it has something to do with an additional dimension of reality? Remember the theory I had posted. There is something I still hadn't mentioned about it- another reason for why I find the theory so interesting. I'm just now starting to think about it, as I'm writing this sentence. The reason is that, it reminds me a whole lot about quantum mechanics and theoretical physics, which are basically the same topic. These topics do, in fact, pose some strange questions and, for that matter, reveal some strange answers. Take nonlocality for example- I had talked about this before on my blog. This is the phenomenon known to exist between separate particles, in which the particles may be separated by many light years. Although these can be extremely vast distances, these particles are connected in a way. As one behaves a certain way, the other one will respond accordingly. So, I just decided to tell about this phenomenon because it's exactly what came to mind as I was thinking about my theory. It seems like my theory may have something to do with quantum mechanics, as the things learned from there have much in common with this kind of phenomenon, with the exception that the quantum world has to do with very small particles. If you've read my previous post about time, you may remember how I was reading about physics in order to be able to explain the nature of reality. I think I am on to something. Anyways, I think another subject that would tie in well with the topic of thought would be psychology, and, especially, psychic research. The latter of the two has quite a bit in common with the notion of thought that I came up with.

Sounds from space?

Recently I wrote in one of my posts that SETI had detected an unknown signal back in 2012. If you'd like to read more about it, here's the link: http://strangesounds.org/2014/03/is-this-the-new-alien-wow-signal-seti-has-recently-detected-a-new-unexplained-strange-sound.html. Now, I'd also like to tell you about ANOTHER unknown signal which has been detected. This time, though, it was detected by astronomers in Australia. For more info, here's the link to that discovery:
http://coolinterestingstuff.com/extragalactic-radio-waves-a-mystery-scientists-say-alien-life-forms-could-be-responsible

"Metaphysics" update, the "sixth sense"

Recently, I wrote a blog post called "Metaphysics" in order to provide some more information about our strange reality. Well, let's talk some more about it. As you may know, in my last post I wrote about the possible relationship between energy and paranormal phenomena. I hinted at the idea that solar energy may influence sightings. However, there is another possible clue which could help to explain such occurences or premonitions. This is the theory of extrasensory perception, or ep. This is the supposed ability of the mind to unconsciously sense details about your surroundings. Your mind might, perhaps, be able to collect this information. The mind can then try to make sense of this information and may then try to put the pieces together. And, on extremely rare occasions, when all of the pieces fit together, the mind can then make a correct assumption, or, sometimes, prediction. Or, better yet, a premonition. So, assuming that this is truly how thoughts work, is this perception responsible for psychic abilities? in other words, is ep the same as intuition? Here's another question involving intuition. Can information travel to the mind literally through thin air? And if so, can this data than be accepted through our minds? and if so, this information had to have some type of its own source. Though the question is, what is the source of such mysterious information? Well, that's anyone's guess, though many people like to think that such information comes from "another dimension". Sounds a little mystifying, doesn't it? However, at the same time it sounds to me like something that perhaps a scientist would think about. Anyways, this "other dimension" is most likely just the name for another realm, or world. Many might think that this means a world which we are disconnected from. However, this is probably not the case given that many people claim that they are psychic or have unexplained thoughts that seem to translate into the real world. So, even though these kinds of thoughts are rare, they do seem to happen to people. So the intuition is likely to be connected between our own world and another realm, one which could just be composed of energy here on Earth. And on that note, perhaps there is some energy here on Earth of which we aren't aware of. Maybe it's plausible that our world is filled with dark energy? And is it then possible that dark energy, all that it is, is a byproduct of antimatter? Could dark energy, or dark matter, be responsible for creating a realm which may be invisible and/or detectable to us?

This is the Grand Canyon. From a weather balloon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EABQ5psUz70
Look for my comment!

How's the blog?

I'm trying to find out how people like my blogs. Leave a comment. Are they too short, are they just right, anything I should improve upon, should I include more in the posts, etc. Perhaps most important of all, is the information helpful in any way? I surely hope none of it's a waste of time. I'm writing these blogs for two main reasons. 1) to inform people about things they are less likely to know about, by writing topics that are interesting and go well with what people want to read. And 2) As practice in writing.
So, what would you want to read about?

The most interesting facts and questions involving the world and the universe

This will be about the universe in general, including the Earth. I'll discuss some of the most perplexing mysteries to date, as well as give facts about the universe.

1) The mystery of the aligned nebulas

Astronomers have, over the years, discovered something perplexing about planetary nebulas around the Milky Way's interior. Unlike other kinds of nebula, these nebula seem to all point in one direction. This most likely indicates an unknown force located somewhere at the interior of the Milky Way. This force is thought to cause the magnetic fields of the nebulae to change and be attracted in a way as to cause all the nebulae to point in a single direction. Of course, the other question that remains is, why doesn't the force also effect other kinds of nebulae? Could this be the force responsible for the black hole at the Milky Way center?

2) Dark matter?

This is the theory that came up, perhaps as result of astronomers observing the phenomena of light bending. If light bends around objects, then what is to blame for this phenomena? It happens that dark matter is Dark energy's enemy, just as matter is the enemy of antimatter. Perhaps studying dark matter & energy will help unlock the mystery to number 5.

3) The most recent signal from space

In 2010, researchers at SETI came upon a strange new signal coming from nearby a star. This signal hasn't made any major news for some reason. However, the signal was deemed strange, as the rhythm that it produced doesn't match anything natural. Since this event, astronomers have continued listening to the area of sky from which the signal originates. This way, they still have a chance of figuring if the signal is natural or not.

4) Likelihood of ET

The existence of ET is unimaginably difficult to predict, for two main reasons. 1) There is an unimaginably enormous amount of exoplanets in our nearby galactic neighborhood alone, and

2) There is also a great amount of variables to consider in the search for life. Perhaps one of the most intriguing mysteries of ET is this- What if the life found a planet breathes, say, hydrogen, instead of oxygen or carbon? What would the biological system of this life be like? When exploring whether there is advanced life on other planets, there are a couple of main questions to be addressed, ones that are perplexing in their own right.

1) How long would it take an ET society to advance to our level of intelligence?

2) How many stars in the Milky Way alone? How about other galaxies.?

Alright, first of all, I'm not even going to answer the second question. Why? First of all, we can only give an approx. estimate. And besides, the answer is so large, it's probably pointless to think about, even if we were just thinking about stars in a single galaxy.

The first question is likely several, if not, many times more difficult to answer than one may think. Why? Well, in seeking the answer, this can very easily be oversimplified. The reason is that, there are some serious variables that are more likely than not to be overlooked. Think about life on Earth. On one hand, it may seem unbelievable how intelligent the human species is, considering our current level of technology. Does it still seem so unbelievable, when you consider the fact the humans have existed on Earth for millions of years. So, it took us millions of years to come up with electricity. Without such breakthroughs in technology, a society is more likely than not to just end up living how it initially did. And thinking further upon this, think about what had to take place in order for humans to come about in this world. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for a major disaster, supposedly a meteor impact, that allowed for new species to come about. So next time you think about an earthlike planet, keep this in mind- Our world wasn't made with people on it, and it sure wasn't made in a way that would ensure, or inhibit, future generations to be intelligent. It's just a natural disaster in the past that stands in our way. One that was unimaginably unlikely to start out with. And the same can be said for other planets.

The variety of planets on which ET could exist is enormous. So, does a habitable planet necessarily need to be Earthlike? Think about Mars. Mars was thought to once harbor life. An argument stating that Mars was Earthlike isn't truly far-fetched, yet, what are such chances of this argument being true? When it comes to figuring out how many planets may have intelligent life, however, the science behind this kind of thought gets exponentially more complicated the more one thinks about it. Let's take this question for example- "How likely is it that planet X has a society that's as advanced as we will be in 2000 years?"  or, "How many planets in our galaxy have society that's as advanced as we will be in 2000 years?"  Is far more complicated than asking "How likely is it that planet X is home to a society with modern day technology? Why? Because for the first question, as opposed to the second, you're narrowing down you search. And the more specific an answer you need, the more variables you'd need to take into consideration. So, the first two questions aren't merely twice as difficult as the third. In fact, they are exponentially more difficult, as you need to realize that as a society advances in terms of technology, they are challenged by difficult circumstances. Really the only way to know fully what this means is to either observe society's advancements over time, or study what kinds of challenges could be in the way for society. Of course, intelligence and life overall depends greatly on the planet's environmental conditions, which could vary in numerous different was. These could include incredible heat, frigid temps, extreme wind, extreme radiation (such as on mars), extreme geologic activity (evidence also found on Mars), etc. Conditions such as these wouldn't be all that volatile for bacteria, however. Given this information, you are probably very safe to think that the universe is teeming with life. And bacteria on other worlds isn't a problem, unless of course our civilization ever comes into contact with it. And there you go, just like that, maybe people could take advantage of these otherworldly pathogens for their own mad purposes?

5) Where did the antimatter go?

Antimatter is among the strangest mysteries of the universe. Antimatter may sound like science fiction, and it actually exists. One of the most perplexing facts is that antimatter particles have been confirmed to exist near the ISS. These high energy particles are called neutrinos, interestingly enough. The question that practically all physicists are asking themselves is, why does the universe end up with an excess amount of matter, as opposed to antimatter. Personally, I think that answering question probably takes a better understanding of the phenomena itself. Although we've known about it since at least the mid 60's, there's still a huge amount of information to be known about antimatter. Scientists have successfully produced these exotic particles in a lab. Such particles have an extremely volatile nature associated with themselves. They behave exactly as one would expect ozone to behave with CFC. One particle of antimatter can destroy greatly vast amounts of ordinary matter. This makes antimatter a potential future source of energy, especially for space travel. The implications might be staggering. A bomb made up of one gram of antimatter could very likely be equivalent to the energy of a thermonuclear weapon, many times over. But these particles would be as difficult to make into fuel as they are powerful, meaning that in the near future we surely shouldn't look to them as a potential energy source. 

6) Quantum mechanics 

This field of science is perhaps the most mysterious topic of all. Why? Because it presents a world that is both extremely strange and real at the same time. Quantum motion is basically totally different than anything we notice in our day to day reality. Subatomic particles seem to disappear and reappear at random. Two particles may be related to each,  meaning that they're dependent. What one does may effect what the other one does, no matter how far apart they are. This is what's known famously as nonlocality. The quantum world is much like what one may find in a fantasy world, except at a scale many times smaller. The main reason for the strangeness is that basically the laws of physics

breaks down at such scales. Studying these kinds of phenomena, however, has led to some truly astonishing ideas, such as quantum computing, and it may also lead to new breakthroughs in technology. In what maybe the most remarkable experiment of all, a particle has been successfully suspended, or "frozen" in an attempt to replicate what's known as absolute zero. This has been done using multiple lasers, pointing at a single particle. What makes this so remarkable is the fact that, this does essentially go against the laws of physics. One of the questions that has come to my attention about this experiment is, what happens to other particles that come into contact with this frozen particle? Also, I've been wondering awhile about whether gravity somehow influences the behavior of particles.

What happens to atoms if they're put under ever increasing heat or pressure? Well, they break down into their particles, such as ions. This is the reason for why neutron stars are so astonishingly dense. In fact, if a handful of neutrons from a neutron star were somehow put in your hand, they'd go right through. Remarkably, it 's theorized that neutron stars may not be the densest stars in the universe! There are also the theoretical quark stars, made up of particles many times smaller.

Neutrinos

Neutrinos pack immense power. As they enter the Earth's atmosphere as cosmic rays, they do something which other powerful radiation mostly fails to do. They reach the surface of the Earth! In fact, neutrinos are so powerful they may even have the ability to penetrate the Earth! It's thought that every second, at least three billion or so of these particles go through a person. Other forms of high energy such as Gamma rays are also known to be extremely powerful. However, these cannot fully penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. The reason is that they are made up of small frequencies, which more readily disperse in air. Virtually all high energy radiation that tries to reach Earth get trapped in a region of the atmosphere called the Ionosphere. This is where the aurora originates. It's also far hotter than any other place in the atmosphere, even though the heat is widely dispersed.

7) Are we close to global destruction?

It isn't always far fetched to think that the world will be destroyed "soon". By "soon", I mean the close future, or about 100 to 1000 years from now. Of course, when it comes to global catastrophe, many people's first thought is that we will destroy the world. Instead, let's talk about a couple natural disasters which have the force to destroy probably most of the world, and let's talk about them soon (you can laugh about that later). Taking things seriously though... One of the main natural threats to society is a supervolcano. These volcanoes are so large, in fact, that they can implode upon eruption. This doesn't always mean, however, that they aren't still active. One of the most potent volcanoes in the world is definitely Yellowstone. Upon examining it's past eruptions, it's eruption cycle indicates one eruption approx. every 70,000 years. There is something startling and intriguing about this particular time span. Because it's also the same time that's passed since it's last eruption! Supposedly, there is a massive supervolcano hidden underwater somewhere off the coast of China. It's thought by geologists that this specific volcano might be the largest on Earth. One thing is certain about such a volcano; were it to erupt, a new, enormous landmass could emerge simultaneously. This wouldn't be your average volcano however. It is perhaps possible that a volcano like this could cause significant water pollution, and it would similar effects as a land-based volcano would have. If the volcano erupted relatively close to the water's surface, where large amounts of light can still penetrate, it would be more than likely that we could see sea temperatures drop dramatically. How would ocean temperatures then compare to that of a land-based eruption? Only time will tell.

On another note, the date of the last major meteor impact is also startling. It happens to be about 30,000 years, making it more or less the same time span since the last major impact. In fact, this may have been something more devastating than a meteor- a comet. So, given these two dates, one for Yellowstone's last eruption, and the other for the last major meteor impact, are we approaching a time, somewhere in the near future, when something catastrophic will happen to the Earth? There still is another major threat to the world, though. An event, to be more specific. And this event just happened to occur in the 19th century. If it were to happen today, however, the consequences would be far worse. It's called a radiation, or solar storm. The event was known as the Carrington event. It had to do with a major dose of solar radiation, which crippled power across the entire US. These days, though, the power grid is probably not the most vulnerable thing to these kinds of storms. Instead, the storm would effect Satellites the most. Satellites orbit at such distances from Earth, they would be literally pummeled by radiation. Interestingly, satellites orbit above the ionosphere. Usually when we think of a radiation storm, we think of solar radiation. What we don't think of though, is the phenomena that's known as a gamma ray burst. In my opinion, such phenomena would be fascinating to observe, and probably not healthy to look at though.

Some facts about the universe and our world, and more questions to think about

• The diameter of the Milky way is estimated at about 60,000 light years.
• A flight to Mars using antimatter as fuel is estimated to take only five days.
• The largest stars in the universe compared to our own are like comparing the size of the Sun to the Earth
• The average distance from the Earth to the Sun is over nine million miles
• The sun's outer atmosphere is the hottest part of the sun
• A burst of space radiation may destroy much of the Earth's atmosphere, making us much more vulnerable to solar storms
• The sun can eject solar energy at millions of miles per hour, causing radio blackouts and often times causes low frequency radio disturbances. In addition, solar storms can also cause ground currents, which are not totally uncommon in the arctic.
• The phenomena of Noctilucent clouds is quite a mystery; They are supposedly appearing more and more frequently. Could this be evidence of air pollution?
• The arctic can see some other mysterious phenomena, especially during the spring and fall. During this time, red auroras can be observed, in addition to nacreous clouds.
• In other areas of the world, totally different phenomena can appear. Upper atmospheric lightning, as well as exploding ball lightning, are events that just can't be witness in the arctic. Another even more mysterious event that takes place is similar to ball lightning in that it comes in glowing orbs as well. Unlike lightning, these phenomena appear much more frequently and can be witnessed in deserts. One of the most famous areas for viewing these orbs is Marfa, Texas. Another area where this is supposed to happen, although very rarely is it reported from, is Kilauea National park of Hawaii. A NASA satellite has captured the western half of Australia aglow by unknown lights at night, thought to be related to this phenomena. Some explanations for what the satellite actually observed include forest fires & lightning. However, the lights are much too bright for any of these phenomena. The western half of Australia is probably well too dry for this many storms at one time.
• The size of atoms
• An atom to a nucleus is the same as a football field to a golf ball. The size of a raspberry to the size of the Earth is a good comparison to the size of a hydrogen atom to a grapefruit. The smaller the atoms of a solid, generally the more strong is the solid.

Ever wonder...?

• Will the solar system ever be the "grounds" for a planetary collision?
• Will we ever have the chance to witness two meteors or comets collide?
• How likely is it that comet debris will someday cause catastrophe on Earth? How about other solar system planets?
• Where is the limit of our solar system; where are the farthest reaches of extrasolar planets?
• Why are there straight lines of meteor craters in our solar system?
• Does life exist elsewhere in the solar system, even it is just bacteria?
• If humans came into contact with bacteria of extraterrestrial origin, what kind of antidote would they have to concoct?
• What happens to a nuclear explosion in space?
• How long will SETI keep observing until an ET signal is received; what are the chances of such a signal reaching Earth?
• Will society's advancements some day allow for human existence on planets that are currently deemed uninhabitable?
• If an apocalyptic meteor struck Earth, what life would exist to replace humans?
• Will future space exploration involve sending AI to explore other worlds?
• Will Andromeda actually collide with the Milky Way?; what would this ensue?
• If an ice age happens to coincide with a supervolcanic eruption, is Earth doomed twice over?
• If an ice age, OR super volcanic eruption, were to coincide with that of the sun's Super Giant phase, what would prevail?
• Will Andromeda collide with the Milky Way at the same time that the sun will be a red giant?
• Would a non-rotating world still be a plausible candidate for life?
• What new discoveries will be unveiled the the James Webb Space Telescope?
• Quantum printing for the future of 3d printing? This kind of technology would almost certainly need to be upgraded upon arrival on the market. In terms of speed, that is. What a waste of time it may be if you find out about the new Quantum 3d, and it only prints one million molecule layers each second?
• Will biodegradable, flexible, and/or portable batteries be a thing of the future?
• Will TV ever be foldable?
• Will future technology give people the ability to modify electronics in new ways? Will they be able to quickly and easily design and make their own technology, suited perfectly for their needs?
• Will telepathy sometime be the name of the game for social media?
• Might humans have the ability to some day have an idea immediately and electronically contructed into virtual reality by just merely thinking about it? How about sending that idea to someone telepathically?
• Can ET be something other than biological?
• Will biology and AI merge together to form hybrid tech?
• Will technology enable us to literally manipulate the real world, in every sense of the word?
• In engineering AI, is there actually a clear, defined, line between what will, someday, be AI, and what will otherwise be biological?
• Does AI truly pose a serious threat to society in the future?; Will it help us as much as others can?; Will they replace many jobs?
• I may update this in the future with much more info and questions.

Some of the most fascinating science articles of September (updated frequently)

Intro

Every month, I keep a record of various science & research stories, specifically the ones that I think should be found most interesting. Of course, there are many science articles out there that you might find interesting. If you happen to stumble upon some stories that you think should be included, do not hesitate to leave a comment. That way, many of us who are interested in science and research have a resource to go. Has it ever been a while since you have heard or read that one story, and now there seems to be no way to get back to it, and perhaps you want to share the great idea or story with someone else? Well, if so, then I hope this blog will help. I've included dates to show when each story came out. I have also tried to make tags to show when each blog post was written, so that we know what month the post is about, although in the past I would do so for each week. So anyways, I thought that these tags would be helpful, although when I view the blog myself, I do not see the tags anywhere. So It looks as though, as far as I know, you won't be able to view this blog as a "scientific journal", or archive, for the most part. I mean, I did not want the readers to need to scroll down just to see a certain month. I wanted to effectively design a record of scientific accomplishments. I will see if there is a solution to this problem. BTW, if you know anything about this, feel free to discuss this issue in the comments section. The topics covered in these articles include science, weather, climate, the mind, and the universe.
28 light into DC current
25 Pacific sea levels
research uncovers interesting features of genes
24 Black hole tens of times larger than expected
New research reveals more about black holes
New theory tries to explain missing mass of the universeh
23 2 brains linked together for game
22 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150922150223.htm
21Nature's fundamental symmetry
18 Interesting research into water
Interesting find on electrons & microbes
17 3d imaging with regular digital camera
Interesting research into cells
16 Black holes to collide
15 Sound and brain waves
Red drwarfs and planetary secrets
New discovery on CLIMATE
14 The mind and quantum mechanics
Hydrogen
13 Discovery of new solar system
11 ing Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Breakthrough Observation of Mott Transition in a Superconductor
10 Rare Find: Galaxy Cluster With Bursting Heart
smartphones
new rail technology
Complex Networks, Gravity and Quantum Mechanics
Ultrafast Uncoupled Magnetism in Atoms
9 Ocean life triggers ice particles in clouds, scientists say
8 Spotlight On Mysterious 4-Stranded DNA
7 Glowing Nanodiamonds Levitated in Vacuum
4 Arizona ants may help predict evolution
http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/09/arizona-s-virgin-ant-queens-could-shed-light-predictability-evolution?rss
New galaxy discovered, formed shortly after big bang
3 Wormhole created!
Heat waves and climate
http://news.sciencemag.org/sifter/2015/09/eso-image-shows-cosmic-recycling-at-work?rss=1
'Littlest' quark-gluon plasma produced: State of matter thought to have existed at birth of the universe
New, ultrathin optical devices shape light in exotic ways
2 Earth gets a CT scan
How the rainforest burns

The science of photography & videography

I've been avid in the sense that I've been quite interested in photography and videography. Believe it or not, there really is a science behind these topics. You can learn much, much more about such topics than you probably realize. They are topics which can offer lifetime learning. Let's talk about photography first. The reason why this topic is so interesting to many, is that it's made up of many aspects, if one can call it that. It's interesting to learn the relationships between exposure, depth of field, contrast, etc. I've been learning about this topic for quite while, and I've learned many interesting things which probably most people wither don't know, or don't realize. One of the most interesting things about photography is what's known as dynamic range, or DR. This is basically a measure of contrast in an image. It's a measure of the difference of light and dark tones which can be captured in a single scene at once. So, how does this quality of cameras compare to that of the DR of human eyesight. Well, generally speaking, modern SLR cameras record a DR of about twelve stops of exposure. In comparison, the human eye has a DR of about 16. However, the DR which can be achieved by human eyesight may be much higher. For example, if you stare at a static scene for thirty minutes or so, you'll notice that the dark areas now appear lighter, while highlights appear darker than they did initially. So, what determines how much DR a camera has? I've done quite a bit of research into this. It turns out, that there is a clear relationship between DR, sensor size, and resolution. The higher the pixel density of a camera, usually translates into two things. Less DR, and lower light sensitivity. On the other hand, higher pixel density also means more fine detail is able to be captured in a single image. There are ways of increasing/decreasing an image's DR. However, to increase DR, you will need to take at least three images with varying exposure in order to make the process work, then use a program such as PS. The less that the images vary in terms of exposure, the more gradual the tonal transitions will be in the final image. This is why I like to change the exposure manually. However, this of course, does present problems in many situations. If objects move between images, this can cause artifacts in the final image. These are otherwise known as 'ghosting'. Sometimes I like to think about what I wish my dream camera would be like. If I could design my own and make it become a reality, I think I would design a camera with a large sensor, such as APS-C or full frame. Then I would have the resolution be somewhat low, like only five megapixels. Then I would have the camera be able to achieve in-camera superresolution, or SR. This would definitely be the way to go to make perfect high dynamic range, or HDR, images, as there would be no worry of uneven tonal transitions. As for now, I guess there's no way to design you own camera, at least as I know of. Anyway, such low resolution would allow for pretty fast photo bursts. Also, it would cut down on costs. Of course, this would be challenging if the scene I'm trying to capture isn't static. However, I think such camera technology would be basically like a paradigm shift. It's not a far-fetched idea. It's just that no one seems to want to develop such technology.
In astrophotography, low light capabilities often compete with the need for resolution. However, low pixel density is key to creating successful astrophotos. You can leave your camera out to take a longer exposed image, and still unallowing for trailing. So, why are bigger pixels more light sensitive? Because larger pixels can be thought of as "light buckets". The bigger the pixels, the more light they can be filled with. Many people think that upgrading a camera means they will achieve better photography. However, this is probably far from true, at least in some ways. One of main reasons for why this is a myth, is because overall, slr cameras don't produce images that are much better in every way as opposed to compact cameras. Yes, it's true. SLR cameras may be able to capture a significantly wider DR, are more light sensitive, and have the abilities to create very shallow dof (Depth of field) as well as lossless image compression. However... several aspects of compact cameras make them good competitors in the camera market against SLRs. For example. in macro photography, you just can't get such a wide depth of field with SLRs as opposed to compacts... you're best would be using the smallest aperture. This comes with the cost of image quality. And in the modern world, many compact cameras already have manual controls. They also have high quality lenses which have been rivaling expensive SLR lenses for quite some time. In addition, in recent times, manufacturers have been able to include fairly large sensors in compact cameras. In fact, Sony has been able to put a full frame sensor in their RX-100R! Combine this with lossless image quality, and you have pretty much the same technology as you'd find in SLRs. Except these cameras can fit in your pocket. I still wish that someday manufacturers will include the features found in advanced software, such as PS, into their cameras. Especially since my PS software is gone from my old computer for good. In addition to the abilities featured previously, I hope that more cameras have the focus stacking ability. Virtually everything which can be learned about photography relates somehow to video making. Also, many of these things are helpful in the formation of other forms of art. One of these things that I've found are most evident would be perspective. Perhaps nothing is more intriguing than this aspect of photography alone. It does a great deal in determining the success of a photo. In order to draw attention to a subject, generally it's not a good idea to include the subject in the middle of the frame. In fact, an image is more successful if the subject of focus is placed to the right, as opposed to the left. Wait, but why? Well, people usually tend to look from left to right. Therefore, their vision will end up to the right, where the subject is located. One of the things that are truly powerful in composition are leading lines. In order to draw attention to a subject, it maybe important to include elements such as a river, a row of rocks, or a crevice, so as long as these elements form lines, leading to the subject itself. Combining these elements make the composition even more powerful.

Contrast

Contrast is about equally as interesting as composition, as it can make a photo much more interesting. Usually when you think about contrast, you think of light and shade. However, there are still more kinds of contrast, ones which you may not realize. I've noticed this because I've read about images that combine water with rocks, and I've seen images in which these other kinds of contrast are used.  Images of water include rivers many times. What makes rivers an interesting subject to photograph, is that they move. In a long exposure, the smoothness of a flowing river can many times be contrasted by the roughness of rocks. This contrast between textures, however, can be much more evident during the winter, as the rocky texture contrasts against shiny, glassy smooth ice. The tones of light reflecting off of ice create for very smooth reflections. Compare this to rocks. Another form of contrast is that of one created by complimentary colors. Ever wonder why is it that many times, when people order food, green entrees come with red? These colors are on opposite sides of the color wheel, making them appear vibrant against each other. Perhaps another form of contrast could be used in order to show depth, or perspective, in an image. This is the relationship between large objects and smaller objects. For example, in the morning, when the light creates large shadows, you can show the perspective of a vast landscape by having a person stand relatively close to the camera. Then, you can include trees at varying distances away from the camera. If you have tall trees close to the camera, and the same tall trees are also included in the distant background, there you have it. In this instance, shadow also plays a role in enhancing the size of objects. This brings us to yet another form of contrast, which is a lot like previous ones discussed here. Have you ever looked at a sunrise, or sunset, and thought, how does this appear so magnificent? Well, the answer is this... Many times, a sunrise/set, include various types of light, especially if you're observing a specific kind of scene. For example, a rocky shoreline, above which dramatic clouds hover, and sunlit sand creates various shades of color. Let's add by saying that there is foliage in front of the sun. There are a couple of main reasons for why images of such scenes can be so magnificent. One reason is that it's possible to capture an extremely wide DR using post processing. The other reason is that, again, this scene includes a wide variety of light. The foliage creates transmitted light, while the rocks create hard light. The hard light is contrasted by the smooth shades found in the sand. If there is light being reflected back towards the sand, this phenomena can create some truly great tones of color. For example, if there is orange coming from the sun, and behind the scene there are tall green trees, then these two colors may be blended in the midst of the sandy shades. The clouds, just like the foliage, can also create transmitted light. This can be beneficial, as the color of the light won't be green as in the foliage. As is with the sand, the interplay of colors in the clouds can be captivating as well, with colors such as pink, purple, and orange mixing. Believe it or not, if you use PS, and you're idea is to create images to the likeness of film, in some instance PS can do a strikingly good job at it. And, in fact, if you can learn enough about PS then chances are that you won't need any film simulation software at all. Being a member of the popular website DPreview.com, I learn a wealth of information and the site is full of interesting discussions. Probably most of the members know a whole lot about this stuff. Much more, that is, than an average person would.

Increasing resolution

You don't need a 25 megapixel camera in order to achieve images of such resolution. This is a fact, and it's quite possible to achieve such results when photographing static scenes, landscapes in particular. Basically, the process involves the formation of separate panoramas. These panoramas are then stitched together into what many like to label a mosaic. The great thing about this process too, is that it can done using software which is totally free. The program I've found which does a great job in this is Microsoft ICE. In fact, one a mosaic is completed in ICE, the program then shows how large the photo file is, and how many pixels it is made up of. The good thing is that it'll be alright if the source images result in uneven edges, as ICE has an auto crop command which makes use of the largest possible image area for the largest resolution. Use lossless compression, throw it into a program like PS, then use ICE. The final image is likely to be nothing short of breathtaking. In fact, I've quite a few files like that waiting for me to process them. The only problem now is that I don't think I'll be able to retrieve PS from my old computer. Not for the time being, at least. Until I can get all of my technical issues solved, I can't post the link to my Flickr page in order to show my progress. I think it's likely that there is a, what I like to call, resolution limit to cameras in general. The reason being that it's not the sensors or the internal components which will fail to deliver ever higher resolution. Instead, it has to do with optics. In order for cameras to keep achieving ever higher resolution, or more megapixels, lenses will at some point need to improve significantly. So here comes another problem. People who have a great interest in photography many times seek a camera with great zoom capabilities. Well, the thing about zoom is that it usually results in reduced image quality, because the optics don't perform as well at a given zoom setting. So, in order to produce optimal lenses for cameras that pack many more pixels, manufacturers will need to narrow cameras' zoom ranges. I've found that cameras these day are, however, generally sharp at all zoom settings, even when viewed at 100% (dot by dot)

Videography
I think modern technology is making great strides in videography. I think it's crucial that we try to create camcorders with ever higher resolution. The reason I have for this is that when we save recorded videos, they will meet our resolution standards for many years to come. Since camcorders record at several times less resolution than professional photo cameras, there's a whole lot of room there for them to record video quite well in low light situations. And of course, it also allows for way more DR. In fact, fairly recently, Canon has come out with a camera that can record movies using just ambient light from the moon. The light sensitivity of this camera is many, many times that of even the most expensive professional cameras. Generally, cameras for photography have sensitivities ranging anywhere from 100 to at least 128,000 ISO when it comes to the most expensive ones. Can you guess what the ISO on the Canon camcorder is? You're more likely to get it wrong than right. It's four million! Using such a setting, one could successfully record using merely just a few candles to light the way. more info. I have never been able to record something using mere moonlight (lol). However, I do have a pretty good feel for how much light sensitivity it'd take to be able to see well using just the moon. So much, in fact, that to just take a picture using an ISO setting of 100, it takes at least 5 minutes of exposure time to make an image look as bright as it otherwise would in daylight. This gives us a sense of how powerful camcorders can be in their low light abilities. Let me tell you, once I got the right image under the moonlight, the resulting image was nothing short of breathtaking, at least in my opinion. A moonlit landscape can differ from sunlit landscapes in several ways. Take stars for example. Getting an image of stars in sunlight is literally unattainable. Yet under a moonlit photo, it's quite possible to notice hundreds and hundreds of stars, even if you have the camera pointed so it aims right beside the moon. Also, the same story holds true for artificial lighting. When are you ever going to be able to see lights during daytime? So, would such a scene be possible to capture using video? Probably not. In order for this to possible, one would probably need a long exposure, such as eight seconds or longer. With a much shorter exposure, such as 1/30 of a second, the light from the moon would be practically shining exactly the same way over each of the frames. In a long exposure photo,the reason the stars can be seen is that the exposure is long enough that, during this time, the moon can move a good part across the sky. This means the light has changed a lot, as compared to what we may see during the daytime. Back to the Canon camera. From what I've read, many people hope that the camera can be used for scientific applications. That sounds truly exciting, to be honest. Will this lead to any new scientific discoveries? You know, one of the things I'd be really interested in if I could own such a camera is to be able to achieve high speed video in lowlight. In fact, such a camera might even be able to create excellent photos. You could record a static scene in low light, then combine the frames in PS, for example to create a noise-free image. The applications for astronomy would most certainly be staggering. You could also combine frames in order to create a much brighter image by combining added light from each frame. You could undoubtedly have lots of fun with such technology. So, what video technology is coming up next? We've already had 4k recording in many devices for quite some time, including Samsung phones. As video quality improves, so can high speed video making. The higher the resolution a video camera is made with, the more power it has to be able to achieve slow motion, lower resolution video clips. In the modern world, some camcorders have the remarkable ability to record using lossless compression. And yes, this means the kind of lossless compression one may find in photography. Combine this with 4k and you get video quality at such a level that it rivals regular photos! SLRs can be great at making movies. However, there are a few big problems with this idea. For more on these problems, here's some more info. Long story short about SLR video, is that you're probably much better off just getting a camcorder.Time lapse video have almost always captivated me. I mean, you get to see the world from a whole new perspective in time. It has a lot of things in common with long exposure photography. I guess not many people think about it. However, time lapse and long exposure photography is essentially the exact opposite of high speed photography. I have always wondered how fast of a shutter speed it's even possible to attain. On that note, what's the longest exposure we can possibly attain? I guess for that answer, since we are continuously learning more and more each day, only time will tell. Time will almost certainly help us understand more, and help us to answer our most intriguing questions. Whether I'm able to retrieve PS back or not, I'll give you my Flickr page in case you'd like to see my work. https://www.flickr.com/photos/31391486@N04/

The Great lakes, the winter of 2013-2015, and more. (updated today)

The year of 2013 was quite warm for most of the time. Eighty five degrees was getting to be common, even as early as mid march. The summer was rather hot. The fall was quite mild, and made it feel as if summer was becoming quite prolonged. However, as residents of North America, at least those in the Eastern half of the US, would soon find out, December would about to bring a rather abrupt and strong change. This would make for a winter which hadn't been seen since perhaps the 1990's. In fact, one might need to look even further back into the past in order to read about a winter with such strength. I live in Southern Michigan. This winter was quite long. It brought with it loads and loads of quite frigid cold fronts. These fronts would pass across the great lakes about once every other day, if not once every day. It seemed like just about every night brought with it subzero temps during January. In late December, nighttime temperatures were already dropping into the teens just about every night. Freezing cold fronts pushed as far south as Florida, causing frost warnings. Also, the Eastern US had loads and loads of lake effect snow early on in the season. One of the best examples are places such as Buffalo, and Michigan's upper peninsula Subzero temperatures had prevailed even into late March. By the spring of 2014, we still can't notice much of a change in the great lakes, except for one thing. There is a record amount of ice cover, at 92.2%. As residents of the Eastern United States would later find out, this would have undesirable consequences on the following summer. The summer of 2014 was quite mild. It was also rather wet, whether that has anything to do with the lakes or not. Because of this, the lake was quite cold during the summer, resulting in a summer with mostly below average temperatures. Summer temperatures couldn't really get above 85 degrees or so, except for really late august or September. As another truly harsh winter was approaching, we would later find out that the lake was going to change significantly, in another way. First, though, let's talk about the historic lake effect snow that happened in a couple of areas of New York. During the course of a day, during December of 2014, Boston received seven feet of snow. In Buffalo, snow bands could be witnessed over Lake Erie, looking like a white wall. After winter 2015 had finally ended, it was official. For the first time in over quite a while, the water levels in the great lakes had risen. Thirty inches, to be exact. Ever since 2014, the water levels were continuously receding. This can really make one wonder, is this where the water went instead of to places such as drought stricken California? Well, what really happened to the great lakes was caused by a combination of winter conditions. One was the constant frigid temperatures, which for most of the time, were under about twenty five degrees. The ice kept most of the lakes from evaporating due to the strong winds. Then, the lakes evaporated at quite a slow pace in the spring. So, is this increase in water levels going to somehow effect the upcoming winter? It's quite likely. Especially since this upcoming winter is forecast to be part of what known as El Nino. This phenomena is known to cause winters which are extra mild. Given that it's also known to cause record low water levels, we can also conclude that the lakes will certainly have a significant effect on climate here in the eastern US. So, the lakes will help make this winter warmer than it otherwise would've been. Thanks to the excess water levels, it would take winter temperatures quite a while to cool down the lakes. In the process, the lakes are quite likely to literally produce many, many, boatloads of lake effect snow. In fact, after the snow from Boston was taken care of and taken away to a dumping ground, the snow piles were so high, that they still remained through July, as they were still at least seven foot high by that time. And this is the main reason for why Michigan is known for having milder winters than normal, when it comes to temperatures- because of it's warming effect. On the other hand, the opposite situation is the reason for why Michigan has rather mild summers- because it takes a long time and a great deal of energy for the lakes to warm up. The influence on the climate here is part continental, like most of the rest of America, and part marine. I myself think this is quite an interesting combination. Near the lake, temperatures can be up to at least ten degrees different than in the mainland. Another interesting fact about the great lakes has also to do with how the lake heats up and/or cools down. It starts out with strong winds passing over the surface of the water. These winds, often times caused by strong storms, cause waves to form. Thanks to these waves, the water's surface area increases. So, this allows for the lakes to cool down or heat up faster than normal. Believe it or not, just like other large bodies of water, such as the sea, or ocean, these lakes have significant tides. When it comes to the great lakes, these tides can change so quickly that just by merely staring one can notice the changes. Also, the wind reverses direction every day, blowing onshore during the night, and offshore during daytime. People try to take advantage of these onshore winds by setting up wind turbines, some of which are offshore. In addition to moderating the seasons, the lakes also help induce rapid weather changes. The temperature one day may be fifty degrees, while the next will bring temperatures in the upper eighties.

"Metaphysics"

Intro

Welcome to Metaphysics. Let's explore the topic of physics, psychology, and everything in between. In fact, let's also get into the controversial paranormal realm. When it comes to paranormal, I don't think there's nothing paranormal about life, but I'm also a skeptic.
I'm an avid researcher into things that involve science & the mind. I think it's quite interesting that you can, perhaps, learn about metaphysics just by studying physics or psychology alone. Well, I enjoy studying all three. Learn about the mind & physics, separately, I have found something quite interesting about the two. Each subject is equally as interesting, as each is equally as mysterious as the other. Just as we don't know if we'll ever know everything that has to do with the human mind, we might never know everything that has to with physics. After all, how we can know everything about our mind, for example, if in order to obtain this knowledge, we are using our mind itself to do the thinking. I consider this as a kind of paradox, if it ever was one. But, are physics influenced by the mind, as opposed to the mind being controlled by the laws of physics? How much do we really know about our minds? Well, very recently I just picked up a physics book which I haven't read in about five years or so. I started reading more into the double slit experiment. This is an experiment in which, photons are emitted. They are then recorded. They are sent again, but this time that are not recorded. Only the resulting pattern generated is recorded, in order to confirm whether the photons act as either a wave, or a particle. As paradoxical as this may seem, there's some real science to it. The book that I'm reading on this subject is called The Fabric of The Cosmos, written by Brian Greene. I really enjoy the way which he writes in explaining what our universe is like at the quantum level. The interesting part about it is that as I read the book the first time in years, a few hours ago I was watching Through The Wormhole. Don't you just love those kinds of shows? I think our society is, in general, getting pretty good at identifying what kinds of mysteries the world, & the universe are dishing out there. It really is something to wonder about. So, to get back to the story, the episode I was watching was dealing with time travel. One of the questions that's explored in the show is this: Does the future influence the past? That's quite an intriguing question in my opinion. I've been thinking about this topics for quite a while. And then, I started reading The Fabric of The Cosmos and guess what the topic was? That's right. "Do future events influence the past?" In fact, I also started reading about other aspects of time. One of these was the notion of erasing time. Another includes the notion of shaping time. I'm still trying to get around the idea of erasing time. Specifically, what it exactly means. Nonetheless, when I fully figure it out, I'll be glad to give an update. On the other hand, shaping time, according to the book, is an even more exotic concept. I've just started reading about this. Anyway, this includes modifying the double slit experiment by marking the photons, in order to have one go right, and the other go left. This involves changing their spin to point a certain way. From what I've read so far, this experiment produces even more amazing results. Anyway, let's sum up the double slit experiment. Is it really paradoxical? This regards the experiment without the markers. Well, actually no, it isn't. In fact, the photons travel as both waves & particles. By the end of the experiment, we see that either they have created interference, or behaved as particles. What we record is the pattern that is more pronounced. I think I'll leave it at that. For more info, I would recommend picking up a copy of the book The Fabric of The Cosmos.
The mind
I've heard some fascinating stories of the human mind. I really wonder, can psychology explain paranormal phenomena? The reason the paranormal theory, or realm as some may call it, is so intriguing, is because many stories are perplexing. I've personally heard such stories. One of them has to do with a haunted trailer in Jackson, MI. Supposedly, the man who lived in the trailed before choked someone. Well, a close friend of mine, who majored in phsychology, happened to live there. She didn't know about the incident in the past. According to her, one night she was being choked, & had felt a hand on her neck. She couldn't make a noise. Then she started hitting her boyfriend, after which he noticed she was in trouble. After the incident, some research was done into the history of the trailer. Turns out that people living there in the past have had the same experiences. Believe it or not, this also included her boyfriend. However, as many may know, there are countless other stories out there in the real world that all relate to one, great question. If we can't explain something using common knowledge (such as science or psychology), does that mean it can't be true? Of course, many, perhaps all, rationally minded people, would think so. However, my friend who I just told you about, does admit to things which she's experienced- things that just fall short of explanation, at least for all the knowledge she has for psychology. I always like to find explanations for things. At the same time, I'm open minded. This is because I've had my own experience. (Link, more info)  Yet, alternative science, such as metaphysics, would answer a whole bunch of questions. Ever wonder why psychics are often times so successful? Well, I was very intrigued after I read about the supposed relationship that the future has with the present, or past. According to what I've heard about psychics, they have the ability to describe crime scenes in unbelievable detail, although they themselves don't have any outside knowledge of the events. So, what kind of science could possibly explain such mysteries? Well, I myself can tell you quantum physics is quite strange, although it's not made up in any way. So I think this would be one of the best candidates into exploring what's called the paranormal world. If the future does, in fact, influence the past, then that could support some perplexing scientific theories. And if you really think about these theories, you may come to a perplexing conclusion... Is our reality, perhaps, even stranger, than what we call the supposed paranormal world? If intuition &/or paranormal happenings are real, perhaps we are living in a world, which is being controlled ENTIRELY by some kinds of advanced society. In other words, maybe we are living in some kind of simulated reality? This idea may sure sound far-fetched. However, if you take into account the strangeness of the world, this theory would almost certainly answer many questions. Could these just be glitches, whether intentional or accidental?
Do our thoughts or emotions themselves have any influence on the physical world? Now that's what I call alternative science. I'll update on this topic, as in the future I'll be learning about this much more. As for now, I've submitted my story to a discussion thread. More info

Month of August in science

Summary
August didn't cease to amaze this year (if a month's worth of science ever did). It was quite great monitoring research news. Yes, I know I set out to report mainly on science. However, the sources which I've use contain a larger variety of stories, or articles. I thought I'd make the post each month from now on. This way, it's much longer with much more information. This month brought with it many great stories, and I've picked out the ones that I thought were most interesting. However, this month also brought with it some truly depressing, unfortunate articles. For example, the fact that humans are causing extremely significant plastic pollution in our waters. Also, mammal species have severely been depleted by human activities. I looked at the map that shows what the animal world would look if there would be no people. This year, unfortunately, another rhino species has become extinct. In 2013 was the other rhino extinction, the black rhinos. I learned some new, fascinating things about our world, as well as our universe through these articles. One of these was how scientists have solved one of the greatest mysteries of our sun. Some other ones have included quantum mechanics. Still others included finding a double black hole, as well as the interaction of bacteria with amoeba, and new insights into the exotic technology known as quantum computing. Want to know more?
Aug 31 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/nearby-quasar-may-be-home-dynamic-duo?tgt=nr
new-microscope-techniques-give-deepest-view-yet-living-cells?tgt=nr
Plastic litter major threat to water birds, may go extinct in 2055
Aug 30 Scientists 'squeeze' light one particle at a time
Aug 28 New experiment verifies quantum spookiness
Seeing quantum motion; even one day ripples in the fabric of space-time?
Hurricane-triggered quakes could help scientists track raging storms:
DNA 4d
Quantum mechanics
http://t.co/MLOGMs319W double-black-hole-spotted-in-nearby-quasar
Aug 27Supermassive Black Holes in Nearby Quasar
Aug 26 Optical illusion caused by staring at someone
A world of mammal diversity has been lost, because humans:
Aug 25 quantum computers
Aug 24 Bacteria Make Farmers Out of Amoebae
A little light interaction leaves quantum physicists beaming
Solar Mystery of Coronal Heating Problem
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2015/08/secretive-fusion-company-makes-reactor-breakthrough
Aug 20 World without people
Dark matter
Exotic particle Experiment attempts to snare a dark energy 'chameleon'
July 2015 record heat
http://news.sciencemag.org/physics/2015/08/tiny-fountain-atoms-sparks-big-insights-dark-energy
Aug 19 Smart drug
Aug 15 http://www.spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=25&month=08&year=2015
Aug 10 Death of the universe
Dark Energy Hiding Behind Matter's Screen?
Astronomers discover new planet orbiting two stars -- ScienceDaily
Aug 5 , 2015 distant protogalaxy connected to the cosmic web
Ultra Ultra-fast electron camera