Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 224 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#54377 - 08/30/15 06:57 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
I googled "Wet behind the ears" that is very clever.

I have been working on a translation of an funny expression from my homeland which a literal translation is "To make heaven one must first die".

Most tell me that means you must go thru really horrible things before good things (heaven).

That doesn't make the correct meaning which is supposed to be ... I really love you (enough to hope you go to heaven) but right now I could kill you.

I have been struggling for weeks trying to get a good English expression for it.


Edited by Orac (08/30/15 06:58 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
.
#54378 - 08/30/15 08:17 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Idioms can be confusing things.

Welsh has "glas wen" which literally translates as "blue white".
A non Welsh speaker might suspect that this has to be "white blue" because of the Welsh order of words, but who would suspect that the idiomatic translation is "sarcastic smile"?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54381 - 08/31/15 07:48 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
Quantum Mechanics is going to spoil your day and rip every piece of spacetime you stopped time in apart.


I need to get my head round this.
How does it happen?
Does it happen before time stops?
If so, how does QM know time is going to stop?
If not, how can it, or anything else happen after time is stopped?

I suppose it could happen at the instant at which time stops; but that introduces the fun of deciding what an instant is, and how long it lasts.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54382 - 08/31/15 09:25 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Orac
What Eistein realized was both can be true, time can stop in one frame of reference and not stop in another.


I may be splitting hairs here, but we've all got to do our special thing. smile

This statement suggests that time can stop in a specific F of R. Would it not be more accurate to say that an observer in one F of R can observe time apparently stopping in another F of R, but could not observe time stopping in his own F of R?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54383 - 09/01/15 04:13 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I need to get my head round this.
How does it happen?
Does it happen before time stops?
If so, how does QM know time is going to stop?
If not, how can it, or anything else happen after time is stopped?

I suppose it could happen at the instant at which time stops; but that introduces the fun of deciding what an instant is, and how long it lasts.

The logic is detailed in the cosmological big rip but the discovery of the Higgs tells us that we have field(s) outside what we call space. It has a non-zero constant value in space and although usually unseen to us if we put enough energy into a localized area you can see a very brief interaction which is what we do with the LHC. The EM field is basically the same but has a constant zero value.

That unseen Higgs field is connected in some manner because we detect it via conservation of energy via QFT in the standard model. So in some way time in QM must connect to the Higgs field because QM has no other way to do energy conservation than quantum states in time evolution.

So we are back to frame of reference issues again just because time is stoppped for space it is not going to be stop for whatever the connection is in the Higgs domain as you can't access it. Energy in space and time has conservation with something in the Higgs/EM field domain.

The Higgs/EM fields will resist the change (conservation of energy again). Here is what happens when you collapse an electromagnetic field but constrain the reaction force in one dimension

The experiment take 1 battery connect each terminal to a piece of aluminum foil on a desk and place then seperated but not touching. Now drop something metal between the two strips blocking the field and see what happens.



That experiment sometimes goes by another name called a rail gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

There is a really layman friendly description of what is happening here
https://blogs.csiro.au/helix/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2013/07/lenzs-law-and-rail-guns.pdf

So the Higss/EM and whatever other fields there are will act according to QFT and oppose your change. The reaction to stopping time in a section of space would be swift and brutal and the best educated guess is it will try to "expel" that section of space hence it would create a rip.

What "expel" looks like in reality is hard to guess at because it hard to put structure and visualization around the field domain. What you can be sure of it's all bad for the section of space you froze time.

You may care to revise Prof Strassler on the Higgs
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/

Quote:
"No matter how you are moving, you are not moving relative to the Higgs field. That sounds bizarre, but remember something else bizarre: that no matter how you are moving, light is moving about relative to you at the same speed, namely 300,000 meters per second. Our intuition for space and time is not correct — that’s what Einstein figured out — and it is possible for there to be fields that are at rest with respect to all observers!"

The theory of how is easy ... what it looks like whole other thing smile

Momentum of field conservation is only briefly covered for layman here at end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law
You need QFT to go into a proper deeper understanding.

Bottom line stopping time in what we call space would be a really bad idea the fields will react, it's just a matter of how much damage they do in conserving the energy between the domains.


Edited by Orac (09/01/15 06:24 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54384 - 09/01/15 04:20 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
This statement suggests that time can stop in a specific F of R. Would it not be more accurate to say that an observer in one F of R can observe time apparently stopping in another F of R, but could not observe time stopping in his own F of R?

Very nicely done and that is actually important in one situation which I suspect you have realized.

I informally gave the full answer to Dave Proffitt but lets see if you can deduce it ... I am going to reverse your question.

How would you prove that universal time (time in every reference frame) is stopped?

Think about your answer above smile

You obviously have friends in high places given our discussions smile

Your quantum squeezing got a write up today. Now that I never thought I would ever get to actually see
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-scientists-particle.html


Quote:
On the right, part of the field has been reduced to lower than is technically possible, at the expense of making another part of the field less measurable.


And Lubos obviously has friends in CERN as well
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/both-cms-and-atlas-see-52-tev-dijet-and.html


Edited by Orac (09/01/15 08:38 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54385 - 09/01/15 06:59 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Interesting that you picked that particular quote from Matt Strassler. I don't know if you looked down the discussion part of the article; but he and I (and my accidental alter-ego) had an exchange on just that point.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54386 - 09/01/15 07:15 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Something I should mention before we leave the language thing.

Some time ago, someone on an on-line forum described my son (Chrys) as a “grammar Nazi”. He took it in the light hearted way in which it was intended, and has since used the term to refer to himself. I suspect that in your use of “racist” you may have not intended it to be taken as an insult, but it is not really a term one should use lightly; it can be very offensive.

I note that Dave has been absent from the thread since that remark. Let’s hope we have not lost him; SAGG is not too well endowed with lively posters.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54388 - 09/02/15 12:02 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Interesting that you picked that particular quote from Matt Strassler. I don't know if you looked down the discussion part of the article; but he and I (and my accidental alter-ego) had an exchange on just that point.

Edited: After I read your exchange will Matt I want to expand some things.

Matt is just echoing a thing everyone who does QFT runs across the problem that we have a reference frame we are exchanging energy that is difficult to reconcile in our time and space reference. To us that domain looks like it has no time (or all times) and spacially it is everywhere and that is difficult to imagine.

Conceptually the only real way to reconcile it is the way you did that the stopping of time in our domain is an illusion of our frame of reference the same as it is at the event horizon of a black hole.

The space part sometimes works to people if you create and use a planck distance grid and put the fields in the gaps, Brian Greene uses that one a lot.



The problem is we don't really know that is true and higher dimensions and holography are equally valid answers.

The only really important part is realizing that you are dealing with two very different "domains", the classical one we recognize and love and one very much different to ours. What these domains are is an open question to be settled sometime in the future.

Then all you need to remind yourself before trying to make things absolute like "stopping time" etc is to think about the other domain. Would and should the happening in our domain translate into the other domain.

As you know all the particles in our domain here have energy and interactions with the higgs and EM fields. So it should be obvious the amount of energy involved and bad things are going to happen if you froze time in only our domain.

For my part I seriously doubt you can actually stop time and so don't bother thinking much beyond it would be very bad.

Can I say for a layman you now have a pretty good understanding of everything from first principles. I think you probably also now realize why at times I pull my hair out with some comments.

When I look that Bill G and you basically started with very similar science understanding and both wanting to try and blend QM into your classical physics. You were stumbling around with energy and time and all sorts of weird classical descriptions of it, and now look at you. You chose to follow the science evidence, asked the questions, and resolved them in the only possible ways. You basically end up exactly where science is today. I have seen you answer questions with authority that a time ago would have caused you endless problems and recognize errors (sometimes even from scientists who should know better). You now need to stop asking me for confirmation of things you have already worked out. Trust what you can deduce logically and listen to arguments against. I am happy to act as a sounding board but I am not interested in making you agree with everything I say or think.


Edited by Orac (09/02/15 02:28 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54389 - 09/02/15 12:20 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Some time ago, someone on an on-line forum described my son (Chrys) as a “grammar Nazi”. He took it in the light hearted way in which it was intended, and has since used the term to refer to himself. I suspect that in your use of “racist” you may have not intended it to be taken as an insult, but it is not really a term one should use lightly; it can be very offensive

No I definitely did not mean offense and yes I now see it's only used for human race situation, it wasn't translating to me like that. So did what I say not make sense or does it just look like another foreigner with a bad English and that what you meant about light hearted.

Looking at synonyms it would appear I wanted discriminatory looking at it's use

examples given

discriminatory practices in housing,a discriminatory tax

So Dave was being discriminatory in his choice of reference frame ... does that work?


Edited by Orac (09/02/15 01:25 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54390 - 09/02/15 02:45 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Oh wow Lumo has written an article because another scientist got it wrong on the event horizon in GR smile

It basically runs thru everything we have been discussing and in extreme detail and fluent English .. unlike mine.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/richard-muller-vs-basics-of-general.html#more

Haha he is right and I did.

Quote:
Everyone who got a well-deserved A in any general relativity course will agree with me. The event horizon is not a special locus "locally". Locally it looks like any "fictitious" surface we imagine anywhere in space – which is moving by the speed of light.

He also basically covers off the situation I was trying to make that a solid inside a black hole defies SR/GR. Dave is on one hand using GR to create the black hole and then contradicting GR, all I want is consistency. Either Dave thinks GR is right or wrong it can't be both without heavy explaining.

Quote:
In particular, no plastic foil may be sitting at the event horizon – because the event horizon is a lightlike surface which means that the plastic foil would be basically obliged to move at the speed of light which the massive objects aren't allowed to do. Also, you may stand on the surface of Earth because of the pressure from the solid matter that our planet is made of. But there can't be any "solid surface" inside the black hole (lower than the event horizon) because that surface would be a purely spacelike, 3+0-dimensional surface, and massive objects' trajectories can't be spacelike (a spacelike trajectory only occurs for the forbidden faster-than-light tachyons). So any idea that you may "stand on a permanently solid surface" at a fixed Schwarzschild R inside the black hole contradicts the strictest laws of physics – the most universal laws of relativity. There cannot be anything to safely stand on inside the black hole.

Subjectively that boundary is very much like the sound barrier you don't want to try and sit on it the "vibrations" for want of a better word would be horrific. The same arguments ran on the sound interface for years before someone had the courage to just try and push thru it.

You really would want to pass thru it fast, having said your goodbyes to the world smile

I had forgotten about the funny partially collapsed star idea that used to circulate because time was really slowing ... it has been a while.

Really that is probably no better or worse than that article by Ethan. Scientists sometimes have gaps in there knowledge and sometimes they don't know them smile


Edited by Orac (09/02/15 04:07 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54391 - 09/02/15 02:50 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
pokey Offline
Member

Registered: 08/22/07
Posts: 84
Orac typed,

"Looking at synonyms it would appear I wanted discriminatory looking at it's use
examples given"

I would go with "biased".

Top
#54392 - 09/02/15 03:34 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: pokey]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Oh good word, I will go with that one in future.

I tend to use that with results in science but obviously it means the same thing when used with people and their views.

Unfortunately using words not specifically for "humans" is actually an insult to Samarkand. I have seen that particular objects do it in English, I love when people call each other "wet mops" that carries the same context to me translated or not.

I understand racism very well as I am Caucasus. An African or Afro-American would face less racism than me in Russia, despite my heritage being neither Arabic/Muslim my language is enough. Google "Caucasus racism" should give you a good splattering of hate sites. Please do not mix up Caucasus meaning all Caucasian like many do .. here is a prime example of a naive American. It's a regional thing, a White American would not face the same problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxfIuD7c1Mk

In Russia, the term Caucasian is a collective term referring to anyone descended from the native ethnicities of the South Caucasus and North Caucasus.

Strangely one of our strongest terms of endearment translates to "I want to eat your liver". The root of why I occasionally hear in English as well, with the expression "you look good enough to eat". The best bit to eat of any animal in many cultures is the liver and now you have the full context of what the expression means.


Edited by Orac (09/02/15 08:19 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54395 - 09/04/15 11:31 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Orac, no calling people names, especially racist. There is nothing in any post to give a hint of that, and it is a very charged epithet. Don't use the term if you don't want to be banned for a while. I want to keep this forum clean and polite, and names like that are beyond the pale. The saying goes, the one who resorts to name calling is admitting he has run out of ideas. Lets keep this forum going with ideas, not name-slinging.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#54396 - 09/04/15 01:02 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
AR2 did you actually read the posts and it's context?

I was using the word racist in the context of a reference frame. Again that lack of English thing ... wrong word !!!!

It has the right meaning but you don't use it for non human context, I got that now. Bill S and Pokey were offering me correct words, which were discriminatory and biased. I settled on biased which I will use of future, however it reads strange to me.

My native language which is closely related to Arabic
http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-arabic/biased

We don't use that word as an adjective, even in Arabic they would use the word tendentious or prejudice.

If I translate "someone has a biased view", naively I would think you meant they were facing looking in a particular direction. Now I know what it means the translation sort of makes sense.

The language Lemma's between English and Arabic are very different.

I would like to complain about your consistency. I am berated for using a wrong word yet it took a petition by a group of us to get you to act of postings that claimed the Holocaust didn't happen. You similarly dragged your feet with racist posts from PreEarth. I am not sure you should be lecturing me on things about racism as that was not a choice of word issue but complete lack of sensitivity and understanding on your part.

Now I made this mistake once before using the taboo word "sanity". Since it was pointed out it had bad context have I ever used it? I am sure I can manage to avoid using the word "racism" ever again in a similar fashion now I am aware. The subtleties on taboo context is not something easy to pick up in languages.

Bill S has also pointed out my use of the word stupid in places is offensive, which sometimes was not what was intended (not always). I more correctly mean sometimes mean "naive" so I have another word substitution that I am trying to keep in mind.


Edited by Orac (09/04/15 01:57 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54398 - 09/05/15 07:22 PM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
I have decided to give this forum one more try after all that has been said.
I want to get back to the core objections of Orac because I believe he is not alone in making them. The main one is that he maintains that Born rigidity is not compatible with relativity.
Now this is not one of the core tenets of relativity. It is derived from the belief that no physical body could exhibit Born rigidity - all bodies must yield to sufficient pressure. This is certainly true in everyday experience, but that is no good guide to what happens inside a black hole. Here we do have exceptional circumstances. The forces must already be somewhat greater than those that sustain a neutron star, otherwise the black hole would not have formed. All I am asking is that you accept this as a remote possibility at this stage, rather than asserting that my ideas are not worth investigating further because I do not understand basic relativity.


Edited by Blackholeinside (09/05/15 07:24 PM)
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54399 - 09/06/15 02:56 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
You need to post a lot more than some hand waving and ask us consider ... the idea is 100 years old and has been considered smile

You are right about one thing it is not just me against you, it is anybody who has ever passed first year SR/GR coarse that is against you. There is exactly zero possibility it exists as you can falsify it rather easily.

Can you try to following Lubos's example he put it in nice mathematical terms of your Schwarzschild coordinates in mathematics you love, so perhaps the penny will drop.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/richard-muller-vs-basics-of-general.html#more

Yes it makes the geometry "static" but it is easy to show that the apparent "static" is blatantly wrong. Lubos does it two different ways but there are in fact hundreds of way to do it as it really trivial to show time is still actually running at the horizon in different reference frames.

Relativity says all frames are equal and time can appear different in other frames and that includes the illusion of stopping. You also can't take time from one reference frame and impose it on other frames ... that is a NO NO and about the worst breach of relativity possible.

What do you want us to simply ignore the facts?

There is nothing new or novel about your idea, it was known 100 years ago and was an arguement against relativity. Anyone who has done a relativity coarse knows the naive interpretation of Schwarzschild coordinates and it's clear falsification. As Lubos said, it is a bit of a joke with scientists when people take such naive understanding and wanting to put a solid in the black hole interior.

You may investigate it all you like, but no scientist will bother wasting further time on you if you just refuse to learn. The fact is time will cross the event horizon and GR/QM are still holding and so no born rigid bodies can exist there because the argument follows the same maths as outside the black hole. The only point at which GR/QM will break down is much closer into the singularity if such a thing exists and that is the scientifically accepted situation. I am really surprised a mathematician struggles so much with relativity.

You have clearly been told the same answer by a number of us. About all I can see you doing from here Dave is diminishing whatever academic reputation you had by being extremely academically lazy and willfully stubborn in ignoring evidence.

The maths argument against born rigid bodies doesn't change either side of the Event horizon as time hasn't stopped and the forces are fractions of a neutron star at the EH (Your Schwarzschild solution is 1/4M ... it's tiny as M is large ... Neutron star is 7x10E12 ... weird isn't it and it requires understanding). The stranger part for you to understand the bigger the black hole the less surface gravity at the event horizon ... it's all backwards! See you need to understand what surface gravity is and how it's defined, which is why the result seems really strange.

Hint here is you need to turn things to a tidal force between two points at a set distance ... and it still ends up strange smile

I am done, I can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. You haven't dealt with a single objection and you can say consider the possibility. Well I considered the possibility and given I can falsify it .... where exactly would I go from there.

Until you look at evidence and frames that time does not stop at the event horizon, no-one can help you. Time is not the same in every reference frame (there are actually tests of it), we hope you did at least get that bit from your poor understanding of relativity .. universal absolute time does not exist in relativity whistle


Edited by Orac (09/06/15 06:07 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54400 - 09/06/15 06:05 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
Of course I accept that time is different in different reference frames, I just struggle withe your belief that it has validity in every frame but the one I am standing in.
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
#54401 - 09/06/15 06:08 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Blackholeinside]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
You do know the twin paradox has been tested right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Quote:
The twin paradox has been verified experimentally by precise measurements of atomic clocks flown in aircraft and satellites. For example, gravitational time dilation and special relativity together have been used to explain the Hafele–Keating experiment. It was also confirmed in particle accelerators by measuring time dilation of circulating particle beams.

Hard to believe or not it's beyond you to dispute smile

You are now drifting into crackpot territory that you want to make black holes special. The beams circulating in the accelerators are at 0.9999c and very close to what should be happening at the event horizon of the black hole.


Edited by Orac (09/06/15 06:14 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54402 - 09/06/15 06:13 AM Re: Black hole theory [Re: Orac]
Blackholeinside Offline
Member

Registered: 02/15/15
Posts: 40
Loc: Kent, UK
I don't dispute the twin paradox. What is there to dispute. But what are you saying is wrong with my frame of reference?


Edited by Blackholeinside (09/06/15 06:17 AM)
_________________________
Dave Proffitt
http://blackholeinside.co.uk

Top
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.