Observations cause a major upset in planet formation theory, and the time needed for evolution.Two days ago, we reported the evidence for youth in Saturn’s rings and moons (19 Dec 2018). A new report from Science Magazine extends this youth out to the planets around other stars. Daniel Clery, in his article “Hints of young planets puzzle theorists,” gives observational evidence that the long-standing “core accretion” model for planet formation is wrong. At least 20 exoplanets have dust disks that can’t be as old as expected. Keep in mind that planetary scientists still make ‘reckless drafts on the bank of time’ (2 July 2007) as do the geologists, tossing around millions and billions of years like politicians with OPM (other people’s money). In this quote, Clery sounds like a politician realizing there’s not enough revenue for his favorite program.HL Tau, a mere stripling of a star no more than 1 million years old, was swaddled in a surprise. Four years ago, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile revealed gaps in a bright disk of dust around HL Tau—apparently swept clean by unseen planets that had formed millions of years earlier than astronomers thought possible. But now, an ALMA survey of 20 disks around nearby young stars suggests the precocious planets around HL Tau are no anomalies—a result that will keep theorists busy for years.There aren’t enough cloths to swaddle the baby. How big a surprise is this? Clery quotes an astronomer:“It’s spectacular,” says Joshua Winn of Princeton University. “We will never think about disks in the same way.”The findings appear to falsify the favored core accretion theory. “The process is expected to be slow, taking millions of years to play out.” These exoplanets are too young for that. Many of the cleared lanes are farther out than Neptune is from the sun, Clery says, adding to the problem, because there should be a paucity of dust at those distances.Planetary Science: the myth that dust bunnies turn into real bunnies, given billions of years.The evidence takes away support for core accretion theory and hands it to the “heretical” theory called disk instability. How fast is that process?An alternative model relying on unstable ripples or clumps in the disk that collapse under their own gravity can make planets faster, especially large ones in distant orbits. But Marco Tazzari, of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, notes that the survey found few spiral arms—signs of disk instabilities—in the disks. “There are many structures we cannot account for,” he says.The astronomers only see the lanes cleared of dust, not any planets themselves. Their proposed solution? Futureware. “To untangle these issues, astronomers need additional observations,” Clery writes. At least they are looking now, instead of just modeling. Clery’s article illustrates the latest revision of Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong has already gone wrong.” Scientists are just finding it with the ALMA Telescope. It also illustrates H. L. Mencken’s conjecture, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”Both theories, therefore, don’t seem to work. And what about the rocky, inner planets? Disk instability is not as helpful in those cases.Ashes to Ashes and Dust to DustAt New Scientist, Leah Crane demoted our planet by saying, “Earth may be made up of rocks blasted by gusts of solar wind.” Don’t you feel better now? Our response should be, “If you say it MAY be, it also MAY NOT be. How do you know?” She sings the old Bob Dylan ballad, “The answer, my friend, is…’The solar wind consists of ions, not rocks.Earth may have started as dust in the wind. Unlike in many other stellar systems we’ve seen, the area close to our sun is empty. That may be because early in the solar system’s formation, the solar wind blew rocks near the sun into the area where Mercury, Venus, and Earth eventually formed.That’s odd; we know a lot about the solar wind, and our sun isn’t blowing chunks these days. For cover, Crane runs to Christopher Spalding at Yale University, who has a “simulation.” If you start with the right size pebbles, he says, and if the sun was more active in the past, and if Jupiter contributed its gravity – then rocks 100 meters and smaller “may have acted as building blocks for these rocky worlds.” They “may have,” he says, but he’s cheating. Getting dust to grow into pebbles by accretion is one of the big hurdles in planet formation theories (28 June 2018). At least the ALMA team had observations, not just simulations.Readers, please realize that secular astronomers believed the core accretion model for decades. And before that, textbooks routinely taught the planetesimal hypothesis. And centuries before that Laplace presented the nebular hypothesis, for which he famously told Napoleon it had no need of God. Well, now we have telescopes that fail to confirm it, and the recent “alternative hypothesis” of disk instability isn’t looking too good, either. Let’s put the findings together in a logical way. If exoplanets form quickly, then Saturn formed quickly. If Saturn’s rings and moons are young, then Saturn is young. If Saturn is young, the solar system is young. If the earth is young, then Charlie & Charlie* were wrong; life must have been created. Tell me, theistic evolutionists, why you feel so compelled to abandon Genesis and desire the company of people who keep turning out to be wrong? Don’t you believe Psalm 119:99? “I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation.”*Lyell, Darwin.Recommended resources: Michael Denton is neither a Christian nor a creationist, but his recent books The Wonder of Water (see the video), and Children of Light (hear his podcast) make a compelling case that our universe, our star, and our planet were intended for beings like us. Isaiah said as much long ago. “For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain [i.e., by random forces or the Stuff Happens Law], Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:18).For your amusement, here are some Murphy’s Laws that seem appropriate to the story:If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong.If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which something can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.Whether things can go wrong or not, it depends on your frame of reference. Regardless of your frame of reference, things will go wrong anyway.Two wrongs don’t make a right. It usually takes three or four.If your action has a 50% possibility of being correct, you will be wrong 75% of the time.Anything that can’t possibly in a million years go wrong, will go wrong.The probability that something can go wrong is directly proportional to the square of the amount of inconvenience it can cause you.The only time something’s right is when everyone agrees its wrong. (Visited 594 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The ways to grow a tech startup company are outnumbered only by the ways to skin a cat.In between multiple rounds of venture capital from investment groups and skin-of-your-teeth bootstrapping, there exists an ecosystem of organizations designed to grow startups with a mixture of business acceleration, development assistance, small rounds of funding (usually just enough to keep Top Ramen on the table), and general advisement. Each organization has its own trademark way of doing things, and here are five that we find fascinating.Y Combinator: From “Babies” to BusinessesThis Silicon Valley-based venture firm is known for attracting some of the youngest technical talent around and molding their inklings into viable companies through a three-month process that occurs twice a year. The hacker-heavy program is headed up by Paul Graham and Anybots founder Trevor Blackwell, both Harvard grads.How They Invest: Y Combinator gives the startups a small amount of money (around $20,000 or less) in exchange for a 2-10 percent share in the company.Startups They’ve Helped: Disqus, PosterousTechStars: Mentors as Far as the Eye Can SeeThis organization began in Boulder, CO, and has recently branched out to a new office in Boston, MA. The business acceleration summer program is best known for its huge, diverse, and truly impressive stable of experienced mentors, who run the range from entrepreneurial rockstars to financial geniuses. We’ve done a slew of video interviews with TechStars folks lately; check them out.How They Invest: TechStars gives startups $6,000 per founder in exchange for roughly 6 percent equity in the company.Startups They’ve Helped: SocialThing, BrightKiteRemarkable Wit: Venture TechnologistsThe Nashville-based offices of Remarkable Wit are basically a sweatshop for greatness with no capital added. This team invests development talent, consulting services, executive expertise, and operations and production labor to get startups up and running. Founded by Emma email marketing alum Marcus Whitney, this organization takes a longer amount of time than a business accelerator to become a true technology partner to the companies in its care. Check out our video interview with Whitney earlier this year.How They Invest: Remarkable Wit invests time and labor – but no capital – in exchange for equity.Startups They’ve Helped: MoontoastSproutBox: More Money, Not Necessarily More ProblemsIn Bloomington, IN, the SproutBox team is taking four startups at a time and pumping around a quarter of a million dollars into each one over the course of ten months. In addition to all that mouth-watering lettuce, the ‘Box is also investing teams and resources. Although they just launched this year, they plan to start a new cycle every three months.How They Invest: SproutBox gives funding and resources in exchange for equity.Startups They’ve Helped: DecideAlready, CheddarGetterLaunchBox Digital: Capital (And More!) in the CapitalThis firm, based in Washington, D.C., offers capital, advisement, and all-important access to investors and press for early-stage startups. Their inaugural class from summer 2008 took nine startups through a 12-week accelerator program with enough seed funding to get them started. Once the program is finished, demo days take place both in the northern Virginia tech corridor as well as Silicon Valley.How They Invest: LaunchBox offers startups up to $20,000 for 6 percent equity in the company.Startups They’ve Helped: ShareMeme, Buzzable jolie odell A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… Tags:#start#startups Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting Related Posts 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market
Pagasa: Kammuri now a typhoon, may enter PAR by weekend LATEST STORIES Lacson: SEA Games fund put in foundation like ‘Napoles case’ Nikki Valdez rushes self to ER due to respiratory tract infection Chinese ref ‘beaten’ as draw sparks match-fix claim Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss PLAY LIST 02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games “No matter where you go you’re trying to win your team a Stanley Cup,” Shattenkirk said. “There’s no better place to try to do it for me than in New York.”Rangers GM Jeff Gorton praised Shattenkirk for leaving money and years on the table, and even New Jersey’s Ray Shero — who made a strong push to sign the top free agent available — gave him credit for signing in New York because it was “where he wanted to be.”The NHL’s hard salary cap and players re-signing to so many long-term deals means super teams like in the NBA won’t happen. But where and who matters more and more to hockey players than simply how much and for how long.Thornton had more than half the 31-team league reach out to sign him at age 38 and signed for $8 million for one year because he simply wanted to stay in San Jose.“It was nice getting courted by all these teams, and I felt bad saying, ‘Hey I’m going back to San Jose,’ but that’s where my heart is and that’s where I’m happy,” Thornton said.ADVERTISEMENT FILE – In this June 12, 2017 file photo, Golden State Warriors forward Kevin Durant reacts after scoring against the Cleveland Cavaliers during the second half of Game 5 of basketball’s NBA Finals in Oakland, Calif. A person with knowledge of the situation tells The Associated Press that Durant has agreed to terms on a two-year deal worth about $53 million to remain with the Golden State Warriors. The deal calls for about $25 million in the first year with a player option for the second season. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the contract cannot be signed until Thursday, July 6, 2017. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File)Kevin Shattenkirk could’ve got more money but took less to join the New York Rangers.Joe Thornton could’ve got a multiyear deal from someone but wanted to stay with the San Jose Sharks.ADVERTISEMENT China furious as Trump signs bills in support of Hong Kong LOOK: Jane De Leon meets fellow ‘Darna’ Marian Rivera Pagasa: Kammuri now a typhoon, may enter PAR by weekend Ethel Booba on hotel’s clarification that ‘kikiam’ is ‘chicken sausage’: ‘Kung di pa pansinin, baka isipin nila ok lang’ Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. MOST READ Another vape smoker nabbed in Lucena View comments Likewise, Sharp couldn’t pass up going back to Chicago where he was part of three Stanley Cup teams, even if his contract is worth just $850,000 with performance bonuses. Sharp said he was “coming back to make some more great memories and try to help this team win another Stanley Cup,” which Campbell tried last offseason, too.Familiarity with Nashville and coach Peter Laviolette led Scott Hartnell to return to the Predators one a $1 million, one-year deal, after playing his first six NHL seasons with them.“Absolutely love coming back to Nashville,” Hartnell said. “I wish it was October already.”That kind of natural excitement doesn’t happen everywhere. Executives around the league don’t begrudge players for making personal choices.“Players have priorities on where they want to play: family reasons, where teams are, whether they’re on the verge of winning a Stanley Cup or a rebuilding situation,” Buffalo Sabres GM Jason Botterill said. “I think that happens every year.”Some money factors could play a role, such as Alexander Radulov making more in Dallas than he would have earned on the same, exact contract in Montreal or Vegas, Tampa Bay and Florida having a leg up in states with no income tax. But the Stars wouldn’t have attracted Radulov if they weren’t contenders.“Trying to win is a huge component to players picking places,” said veteran winger Chris Kunitz, who won the Cup three times with the Penguins and signed with the Lightning. “I think we’re all pretty fortunate in what we do, but we also want to go out there and compete and have a chance to win.”Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Brian Campbell and Patrick Sharp could’ve got more money the past two summers but took the Chicago discount to return the Blackhawks.The NHL is becoming more like the NBA with top players forgoing longer, big-money contracts to pick their preferred destination, a trend that has added a new wrinkle to free agency.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSWin or don’t eat: the Philippines’ poverty-driven, world-beating pool stars“It’s their opportunity to go to where they want to go and sometimes you might have to take a little bit less money to go there,” Dallas Stars general manager Jim Nill said. “Do you want to go to a good team? Is it a city you want to go to? Is it where your family wants to be? … It’s players finding the right fit for where they want to be and having the money that they can live with.”Shattenkirk is not exactly LeBron James, but the New Rochelle, New York, native filled that role on Saturday when he turned down offers of seven years and over $30 million to sign with the Rangers for $26.6 million over just four years. The 28-year-old defenseman felt like it may be his only opportunity to “fulfill a lifelong dream” and wants to help pull off what LeBron did in Cleveland.