The Expanse: A Prophetic Vision of Our Future?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Having been raised in the southeast United States, I can personally attest to the ungodly resistance any would-be Chavistas will encounter on approach to the Appalachians. I've known many in this region who literally dream of such an opportunity for righteous, wholesale slaughter. I'm talking entire families ready, willing and very much able to engage any threat. Not out of some adherence to a political ideology but simply for the thrill of the fight. Raise the stakes by making said fight necessary to preserve a way of life and you've got the makings of a real-world Armageddon. Sure, conquest would be inevitable but the losses in men and material to the conquerors would be so astronomical as to prove prohibitive to occupation. This leaves the aggressors two viable options: 1) a modern variation of Hadrian's Wall or 2) the Aliens Option: the only way to be sure.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

i liked the series and just finished downloading the latest season.
They have great special effects, realistic space physics, and a good capturing plot.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I've heard good things but never watched it - just finished the first episode and it's great so far.

I agree that this could illustrate a fairly accurate depiction of the dystopian future based on what we are seeing in terms of NGOs gaining more control over world affairs & increasing scarcity of resources (along with colonizing of space).

Good thread, S & F

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Amazing about the "local fluff" and it's effect on the solar system. From Wikipedia . . .

The Solar System is located within a structure called the Local Bubble, a low-density region of the galactic interstellar medium.[3] Within this region is the Local Interstellar Cloud, an area of slightly higher hydrogen density. The Sun is near the edge of the Local Interstellar Cloud. It is thought to have entered the region at some point between 44,000 and 150,000 years ago and is expected to remain within it for another 10,000 to 20,000 years.
The cloud has a temperature of about 7,000 K (6,730 °C; 12,140 °F),[4] about the same temperature as the surface of the Sun. However, its specific heat capacity is very low because it is not very dense, with 0.3 atoms per cubic centimetre (4.9/cu in). This is less dense than the average for the interstellar medium in the Milky Way (0.5/cm3 or 8.2/cu in), though six times denser than the gas in the hot, low-density Local Bubble (0.05/cm3 or 0.82/cu in) which surrounds the local cloud.[3][5]

Wiki Article

Oye, Du ferí da Belte!... Im gut, keyá?

a reply to: rom12345

Never. Communism is a form of "Martial Law." After all the Jewish hater Karl Marx stated that communism is a "permanent dictatorship of the proletariat." Even when it does not help most of the people whom are the "proletariat." Has it ever worked for the people, or the country?... No.

Does anyone realize what democrats/progressives/the anti-Trumpers are doing to America's youth? Under the guise of "fighting racism" they are dumbing down America's youth. Now "math is racist," science has been replaced by the false religion of climate change. Biology(aka science) is being denied to satisfy the imaginary genders of a very small minority, etc.

Has anyone in here seen HBO's Chernobyl? Did you not realize that the Soviets replaced people whom actually knew science with for example whom worked his whole life making shoes and knew nothing about science, but was put in charge of ? When he was confronted by a real scientist, can't recall her name, and she pointed out that she knew the problem in Chernobyl was real and would become worse, but the man in charge told her he didn't think it was that bad? when she told him he had no background whatsoever in science and was only a shoemaker his response was "power to the proletariat." (or something like that. I am paraphrasing.) Which was part of the reason why Chernobyl occurred... Not to mention the fact that they wanted to deny Chernobyl was that bad because it would reflect poorly on the Communists, which was also part of the reason the disaster occurred.

This is true in all communist countries. The best experts aren't always the ones in charge of things. Normally the most loyalists to the revolution, even if they are not experts, are the ones chosen. Which is what democrats want in the U.S. as well.

Democrats/progressives are leading us towards a similar future. In their future only their loyalists will have the most prestigious jobs in science, government, etc. But what kind of engineers will we have when "math" has been labeled by the left as "racist" and America's youth are being dumbed down?...

Knowledge is power, and democrats/progressives/anti-Trumpers don't want the people to have any power.

What doctors will we have in the future when they will deny that only two sexes exist and will treat imaginary gender problems as if they were real?...

The left/democrats/never-Trumpers are destroying America's future, and they are doing it on purpose. It's easier to control dumbed down people and they can be indoctrinated into believing lies as if they were truth.

This is the future the left/democrats/progressives are leading us to.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

That article is outdated. Remember that anyone can write anything they want in Wikipedia, and they are very anti-science.

In the 1970s astronomers and astrophysicists thought that it would take us around 10,000-50,000 years to enter the region of the local Fluff which is denser and has temperatures of over 1,000,000 Kelvin. Do notice the one we had been in was only 7k Kelvin. it is also much, much denser than the region of the Local Fluff we have been in. But not that long ago astronomers realized that we have been moving much faster and the cloud was not as far away as they first thought it was.

BTW, for those that don't know the Local Fluff I am referring to is also known as the "Local Interstellar Cloud."

This article is from 2010.

...
Is the Sun going to enter a million-degree galactic cloud of interstellar gas?

A group of scientists are suggesting that the Ribbon of enhanced emissions of Energetic Neutral Atoms(ENA) discovered last year by the NASA Small Explorer satellite IBEX could be explained by a geometric effect coming up because of approach of the Sun to the boundary between the Local Cloud of interstellar gas and another cloud of a very hot gas called the Local Bubble.

If their hypothesis is correct, IBEX is catching matter from a hot neighboring interstellar cloud, which the Sun might enter in a hundred years.
...

The Ribbon - Is The Sun About To Enter A Million-Degree Cloud Of Interstellar Gas?

As for the claim it is just a hypothesis, that's a lie. They know full well we have been encountering small sections of this cloud already for the past 10 years or so. I have given dozens of scientific articles over the years proving this has been happening.

The following is one of the old articles, it's from 1978, in which French astronomers were speculating that once we started entering this cloud drastic Climate Changes would occur on Earth.

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud?



Vidal-Madjar, A. (CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France); Laurent, C. (CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France); Bruston, P. (CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France); Audouze, J. (Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)

Abstract

Observations indicating a hydrogen density gradient in the vicinity of the solar system are reviewed, particularly observations of an anisotropy in the far-UV flux around 950 A from the brightest and closest O and B stars as well as a variation in the local D/H ratio along the lines of sight to Alpha Cen and Alpha Aur. Possible mechanisms that may strongly affect the observed D/H ratio on a very small scale are considered, selected radiation pressure is proposed as the most likely mechanism for deuterium separation, and it is shown that this mechanism would be effective only if the density gradient of the nearby interstellar medium has remained stable for at least about 10 million years. This time scale is taken to imply the existence of a nearby (less than 2 pc distant) interstellar cloud. Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the 'near' future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 223, p. 589-600 (1978)
Pub Date:
July 1978
DOI:
10.1086/156294
Bibcode:
1978ApJ...223..589V

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud?

Here is a photo showing the direction our Solar System is moving into the new region of the Local Fluff.

originally posted by: chr0naut
...
skepticalscience.com...

Skeptical science?... The same people who claim that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1980s? Which throughout the years some of us, and myself included have proven in these forums through various scientific articles to be lies? Among the many other lies they post in there as if they were truth?...

Here is a graph showing how the strength and number of magnetic storms on the Sun had continued to increase until we had the pause around 2005-2006 at which time our global temperatures also slowed down because the sun's activity lowered during that time.



The blue data in the graph shows the increase in magnetic storm activity on the Sun had continued to increase despite the lies that the Sun's activity stopped increasing, you take your pick, first it was claimed in the 1950s, and then the 1980s, when these are only lies.

Here is a NASA scientific article debunking the lie from your preferred site "skeptical science" that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1980s...

March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
...

...

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

That research shows that until at least 2003, the end of the study, this trend had continued to increase.

What's more this article is from 2004.

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years

An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades
October 28, 2004

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.
...

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years

That site "skeptical science" was founded by a former Australian cartoonist and web developer, John Cook. Whose Phd is in cognitive science, aka cognitive psychology of climate science denial..., which has nothing to do with "Climate change..." Except "imaginary feelings" which hide a need to control people. AKA a control freak.

John Cook has also been found to "cook" a lot of false data. Alongside many other activist scientists that are more interested in activism than on real science and have been found to have lied, hidden scientific facts, changed and deleted raw temperature data, etc... Among many of their crimes against humanity "so they could FEEL better..."

Cook's 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut
...
skepticalscience.com...

Skeptical science?... The same people who claim that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1980s? Which throughout the years some of us, and myself included have proven in these forums through various scientific articles to be lies? Among the many other lies they post in there as if they were truth?...

Here is a graph showing how the strength and number of magnetic storms on the Sun had continued to increase until we had the pause around 2005-2006 at which time our global temperatures also slowed down because the sun's activity lowered during that time.

The blue data in the graph shows the increase in magnetic storm activity on the Sun had continued to increase despite the lies that the Sun's activity stopped increasing, you take your pick, first it was claimed in the 1950s, and then the 1980s, when these are only lies.

Here is a NASA scientific article debunking the lie from your preferred site "skeptical science" that the Sun's activity stopped increasing in the 1980s...

March 20, 2003 - (date of web publication)

Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
...

...

NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE

That research shows that until at least 2003, the end of the study, this trend had continued to increase.

What's more this article is from 2004.

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years

An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades
October 28, 2004

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.
...

The Sun is more active now than over the last 8000 years

That site "skeptical science" was founded by a former Australian cartoonist and web developer, John Cook. Whose Phd is in cognitive science, aka cognitive psychology of climate science denial..., which has nothing to do with "Climate change..." Except "imaginary feelings" which hide a need to control people. AKA a control freak.

John Cook has also been found to "cook" a lot of false data. Alongside many other activist scientists that are more interested in activism than on real science and have been found to have lied, hidden scientific facts, changed and deleted raw temperature data, etc... Among many of their crimes against humanity "so they could FEEL better..."

Cook's 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination

Generally, solar activity has been measured in sunspot number since 1755-1756.

Solar activity reached a recent peak of a 332.33 sunspot number in October-December 1957, and peaks have been diminishing since them. Last year's 'peak' in October-December had a sunspot number of only 24.07.

Based upon known science, the next grand solar minimum is estimated to be due somewhere about 2050. The reducing solar activity observed since the late '50's is entirely in line with the proposed aggregate levels of solar activity.

The thing is, there is something chaotic in solar fluctuation. This doesn't mean that is entirely unpredictable, but that that there is a latitude of variation within calculable limits.

The papers you have highlighted are explicable as spurious variations and do not negate the overall movement in solar activity. It is like the difference between local weather events, and global climate. They are two different things and are often confused by climate change deniers.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Generally, solar activity has been measured in sunspot number since 1755-1756.

Solar activity reached a recent peak of a 332.33 sunspot number in October-December 1957, and peaks have been diminishing since them. Last year's 'peak' in October-December had a sunspot number of only 24.07.

Based upon known science, the next grand solar minimum is estimated to be due somewhere about 2050. The reducing solar activity observed since the late '50's is entirely in line with the proposed aggregate levels of solar activity.

The thing is, there is something chaotic in solar fluctuation. This doesn't mean that is entirely unpredictable, but that that there is a latitude of variation within calculable limits.

The papers you have highlighted are explicable as spurious variations and do not negate the overall movement in solar activity. It is like the difference between local weather events, and global climate. They are two different things and are often confused by climate change deniers.

Wrong. That "belief" that solar activity is just measured through sunspots is an "old belief." But like always, the real science deniers are not up to date with science...

solar activity
noun Astronomy.
the sum of all variable and short-lived disturbances on the sun, as sunspots, prominences, and solar flares.

www.dictionary.com...

The sun is a magnetic variable star that fluctuates on times scales ranging from a fraction of a second to billions of years.

Solar flares, coronal mass ejections, high-speed solar wind, and solar energetic particles are all forms of solar activity. All solar activity is driven by the solar magnetic field.

Credit: NASA

www.nasa.gov...

The claim that the sun's activity has been reducing since the 1950s, or the 1980s are old lies based on old speculation and ignorance.

Not to mention the fact that a few years back the sun started acting strange. During a time when the Sun's overall activity was declining considerably around 2007, instead of emitting less heat the sun was emitting more heat and more light. Which led the lead scientist to speculate that we could be seeing a new solar cycle different from past ones for "unknown reasons."

Declining solar activity linked to recent warming

The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.

Quirin Schiermeier

An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle.

Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.

The study period covers the declining phase of the current solar cycle. Solar activity, which in the current cycle peaked around 2001, reached a pronounced minimum in late 2009 during which no sunspots were observed for an unusually long period.

Sunspots, dark areas of reduced surface temperature on the Sun caused by intense magnetic activity, are the best-known visible manifestation of the 11-year solar cycle. They have been regularly observed and recorded since the dawn of modern astronomy in the seventeenth century. But measurements of the wavelengths of solar radiation have until now been scant.
Radiation leak

Haigh's team compared SORCE's solar spectrum data with wavelengths predicted by a standard empirical model based mainly on sunspot numbers and area, and noticed unexpected differences. The amount of ultraviolet radiation in the spectrum was four to six times smaller than that predicted by the empirical model, but an increase in radiation in the visible wavelength, which warms the Earth's surface, compensated for the decrease.

Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.


The spectral changes seem to have altered the distribution of ozone molecules above the troposphere. In a model simulation, ozone abundance declined below an altitude of 45 kilometres altitude in the period 2004–07, and increased further up in the atmosphere.

The modelled changes are consistent with space-based measurements of ozone during the same period.

"We're seeing — albeit limited to a very short period — a very interesting change in solar irradiation with remarkably similar changes in ozone," says Haigh. "It might be a coincidence, and it does require verification, but our findings could be too important to not publish them now."
Sun surprise

The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
...

www.nature.com...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Not sure if there are any fans to this Amazon series.

I started watching this some time ago and really liked it, then for lack of time and other reasons, I got away from it. I think I stopped around the end of season 1 or the beginning fo season 2. I'm surprised it is still going. I'll have to go back and watch it again.

Thanks for the reminder!

Watched it awhile back, was pleasantly surprised that finally a good Sy-Fy series had been made.
It's been a long time since Babylon 5, StarGate, Far Scape, Firefly.

One of the only criticisms I had was seeing some mistakes.
You know like a plane in a western?
In the Expanse it was engine sound effects of space ships. You're in a vacuum, who the Eff thought this would be acceptable??? Then there was a scene of their Med-Bay, they did a space jump & naturally a table & chair went flying.
No one in the prop department had access to a few bolts??? Especially since "jumping" was a common thing?

I absolutely HATE accidentally seeing stuff like this cause then I look for more & it ruins a show for me.

One classic screw up long ago in a western was a bunch of people going to the Green River & worried about Cherokee
Indians while in MONUMENT VALLEY!!! While it was fun to pick out all the Italian/indians Monument Valley being located supposedly in Virginia was epic.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: chr0naut

Wrong. That "belief" that solar activity is just measured through sunspots is an "old belief." But like always, the real science deniers are not up to date with science...

solar activity
noun Astronomy.
the sum of all variable and short-lived disturbances on the sun, as sunspots, prominences, and solar flares.

www.dictionary.com...

The sun is a magnetic variable star that fluctuates on times scales ranging from a fraction of a second to billions of years.

Solar flares, coronal mass ejections, high-speed solar wind, and solar energetic particles are all forms of solar activity. All solar activity is driven by the solar magnetic field.

Credit: NASA

www.nasa.gov...

The claim that the sun's activity has been reducing since the 1950s, or the 1980s are old lies based on old speculation and ignorance.

Not to mention the fact that a few years back the sun started acting strange. During a time when the Sun's overall activity was declining considerably around 2007, instead of emitting less heat the sun was emitting more heat and more light. Which led the lead scientist to speculate that we could be seeing a new solar cycle different from past ones for "unknown reasons."

Declining solar activity linked to recent warming

The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.

Quirin Schiermeier

An analysis of satellite data challenges the intuitive idea that decreasing solar activity cools Earth, and vice versa. In fact, solar forcing of Earth's surface climate seems to work the opposite way around — at least during the current Sun cycle.

Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist at Imperial College London, and her colleagues analysed daily measurements of the spectral composition of sunlight made between 2004 and 2007 by NASA's Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite. They found that the amount of visible light reaching Earth increased as the Sun's activity declined — warming the Earth's surface. Their unexpected findings are published today in Nature1.

The study period covers the declining phase of the current solar cycle. Solar activity, which in the current cycle peaked around 2001, reached a pronounced minimum in late 2009 during which no sunspots were observed for an unusually long period.

Sunspots, dark areas of reduced surface temperature on the Sun caused by intense magnetic activity, are the best-known visible manifestation of the 11-year solar cycle. They have been regularly observed and recorded since the dawn of modern astronomy in the seventeenth century. But measurements of the wavelengths of solar radiation have until now been scant.
Radiation leak

Haigh's team compared SORCE's solar spectrum data with wavelengths predicted by a standard empirical model based mainly on sunspot numbers and area, and noticed unexpected differences. The amount of ultraviolet radiation in the spectrum was four to six times smaller than that predicted by the empirical model, but an increase in radiation in the visible wavelength, which warms the Earth's surface, compensated for the decrease.

Contrary to expectations, the net amount of solar energy reaching Earth's troposphere — the lowest part of the atmosphere — seems to have been larger in 2007 than in 2004, despite the decline in solar activity over that period.


The spectral changes seem to have altered the distribution of ozone molecules above the troposphere. In a model simulation, ozone abundance declined below an altitude of 45 kilometres altitude in the period 2004–07, and increased further up in the atmosphere.

The modelled changes are consistent with space-based measurements of ozone during the same period.

"We're seeing — albeit limited to a very short period — a very interesting change in solar irradiation with remarkably similar changes in ozone," says Haigh. "It might be a coincidence, and it does require verification, but our findings could be too important to not publish them now."
Sun surprise

The full implications of the discovery are unclear. Haigh says that the current solar cycle could be different from previous cycles, for unknown reasons. But it is also possible that the effects of solar variability on atmospheric temperatures and ozone are substantially different from what has previously been assumed.
...

www.nature.com...

I have said this before, that If you wish to impress with scientific credibility, perhaps you could choose an avatar that does not speak so loudly of fundamental force denying kookiness?



The reason that they have used sunspot activity as an indicator of solar activity is that we have kept quite good records going back to the 1600's, and we can relate those solar fluctuations to great climate extremes like the Maunder and Dalton Minimums, and we have discovered geomagnetic reasons for those cycles and what factors seem to play a part.

For a scientific paper to say "we don't really know" "we cannot predict" about solar fluctuations, as these ones do, isn't good argument for the scientific acceptance of those papers and their levels of adherence to scientific principles.

If you will take as an example, for instance, the Peter Higgs first paper theorizing about the nature of the Higgs field, it was rejected, despite its academic credential, because there was nothing in it that was observable, repeatable, or predictive. It was only when he mentioned that there should be an observable Boson with a mass in a specific range that the paper was acceptable.

Although I realize that we do not yet know all there is to know about the mechanics of the Sun, or of the Earth's climate, Until there is undeniable proof that centuries of previously accepted science, which conforms rigorously to scientific method, is incorrect, and that other theories are proven, we don't discard the stronger but older science.

Sunspot activity as it relates to solar activity has not been thrown out, because it still works as explicatory theory, and these papers that say simply "but we don't really know" are not strong enough to de-platform the established paradigms.