Ditch Dark Energy By Better Understanding General

The long-running debate has been rekindled by the suggestion that dark energy, which is 70% of all the stuff in the universe, may not be real. The theoretical inventions of dark energy and dark matter allow us to explain observations that we don’t otherwise know.

Gravitation appears stronger than we can explain using only light-emitting particles. We add dark matter particles to 25% of the universe’s mass-energy. These particles have not been detected directly. Gravity appears to be weaker on the larger scales at which the Universe expands than it would in a universe that contains only particles, ordinary and dark matter. We add dark Energy to the equation, which is a weak antigravity force that acts independent of matter.

A Brief History Of Dark Energie

Dark energy is as old as general relativity. It was include by Albert Einstein 100 years ago, when he apply relativity to cosmology. Einstein wanted to balance the self-attraction of matter and anti-gravity at the largest scales. He couldn’t imagine the Universe starting from a point and didn’t want it to change over time.

In 1917, almost nothing known about our Universe. It was discuss that galaxies could be objects at great distances. Einstein was face with a dilemma. His theory’s physical essence, summarized decades later in a well-known textbook, is:

Space tells matter how it should curve and matter tells it how to move. This means that space is naturally incline to contract or expand, and bend with matter. It is never still. Alexander Friedmann, who kept the exact same ingredients as Einstein in 1922, realized this. He did not attempt to balance the amounts of dark energy and matter. This suggested a model that allowed universes to expand and contract.

If only matter were present, then the expansion will always slow down. It could accelerate if anti-gravitating, dark energy was present. Many independent observations suggest that there should be accelerate expansion in a Universe with 70% dark energies since the late 1990s. This conclusion is based upon an old model of expansion, which has not changed since 1920.

Standard Cosmological Dark Model

Einstein’s equations can be fiendishly complicate. They are not just more complicated than those in Isaac Newton’s theory gravity. Sadly, Einstein didn’t answer some of the most basic questions. These questions include: On what scales can matter tell space how it curves? Is there a larger object than a single particle that can move in response to this question? What is the correct scale?

The 100-year-old approximation, introduced by Einstein & Friedmann, that the Universe expands uniformly on average, avoids these problems. As if all the cosmic structures could put through blenders to create a featureless soup. This homogenizing approximation was valid early in cosmic history. The cosmic microwave background, the relic radiation from the Big Bang, shows that the Universe was less then a million years old when there were very few variations in matter density.

Gravitational Instability

The universe isn’t homogeneous. Gravitational instability was responsible for the growth of stars and galaxies. Finally, a large cosmic web emerge, dominated by vast voids that were surround by galaxies sheets and thread with wispy filaments.

Standard cosmology assumes that the background expands as if there are no cosmic structures. Then, we do computer simulations with only Newton’s 330 year old theory. This creates a structure that is very similar to the observed cosmic web. It requires dark energy and dark material to be include. The model still has problems, from anomalies to tensions, even after it was able to invent 95% of the energy density needed to make everything work.

Standard cosmology further states that the curvature space is to be uniform across all places and independent of matter. This is in contradiction to Einstein’s fundamental idea that space curves because matter tells it how. There is not enough general relativity to be useful. You can summarize the standard model as follows: Friedmann tells time how to curve, Newton tells matter what to do.

Leaf-Curling Spiders Pair Up And Build A Family

You may have seen a spiders emerge from a curled-up brown leaf in your garden. You might be sharing your yard with Phonognatha graeffei, a leaf-curling spider (pronounced fonog-natha greefe-i), a fascinating member the Araneidae orb-weaving spider spider family (pronounced aranee-i­dee).

This spider is found in every state and territory of Australia. It builds an orb web from plants and places a leaf curled up as a hiding place. The leaf-curling spider is similar to other orb-weaving Spiders. It lives only for one year, and is most often seen in the late summer. They can be found in both urban and natural forests, and they make for interesting family arrangements.

How Do Spiders Curl The Leaves?

These spiders use silk to raise a leaf from the ground and place it in their web. They then gently curl the leaf using their legs and secure it with silk by making a cone or funnel shape. This curled leaf is then woven into the web with more silk. They might also use pieces of paper or snail shells if they are unable to find the right leaf.

Young spiders are less strong than adults and start by curling small, green leaves to make their nests. As they age, they move on to larger, dry leaves. Curled leaves, or bits of paper, protect the spider against hungry predators like birds. They protect the spider from parasitic spiders that lay their eggs on other insects or spiders and eventually kill their hosts.

The spider can rest in their cave, keeping their front legs extended and in direct contact with the web. The spider can detect vibrations from an insect in their web and will nip to grab it. Leaf-curling spiders are similar to other orb-weaving spiders. They will eat any insect that gets caught in their webs, including flies and moths. Even larger prey can be handle by them.

The spiders spend the majority of their time in retreat and only venture out during the day to find food or repair and rebuild their webs.

Venomous? Yes. Dangerous? No

Nearly all spiders that you see are venomous. However, being venomous doesn’t mean that you are dangerous to people. Leaf-curling spiders, like all spiders, aren’t consider dangerous to humans. The leaf-curling spider’s fangs are small and point together. They look a lot like pincers. Rarely do they bite. The spider may bite if you try to entice it. However, this can cause pain and swelling around the area.

If you see one, you can “leave” it alone. Remember, having leaf-curling Spiders in your backyard is something to be proud about! These tiny, fascinating creatures are great at keeping pest insects under control and are a friend to gardeners. Is there a nest of baby spiders or eggs in the curled leaves,

These Spiders Are A Fascinating Family

Unusually for spiders males and females leaf-curling spiders form a pair and share a leaf retreat. When she is young, the male will move in with her and when she becomes mature, he will marry her. One study found that the male moves in with the female when she is young and will mate with her once she becomes mature.

Cohabiting males can be cannibalize by females. This happens regardless of whether or not the female was starve. After mating, she makes another curled leaf retreat away from her web. This is her nursery retreat where she will lay her eggs.

It’s A Fascinating, Beautiful Place

Although spider are not a top choice for most people, I understand that. It can be a wonderful and sometimes beautiful experience to observe their lives and get to know their stories. For the functioning of our natural world and for us, spider and invertebrates like flies, beetles and snails are very important. They are also very cool once you get to know them.

Thailand Restricts Internet Freedom, Cyber Activists Work

A Thai man was sentence on June 9, 2017 to 35 years imprisonment for posting Facebook posts. He allegedly cyber insulted the King. This harsh sentence is only one example of Thailand’s growing repression in digital space. The Thai military junta has taken a tough stance against online criticisms and dissidence since the coup in 2014.

Authorities threatened to shut down Facebook in May if it didn’t remove inappropriate content. Facebook has not close down for not complying with the threat. At least not yet.

Cyber Repression In Thailand

Thailand’s cyber repression may be related to its turbulent history of military coups. The Computer Crime Act, which authorized state agencies to block any internet content that was deem to be a threat to national safety, was pass at the time of the 2006 military coup. It encouraged web users (many of whom were young) to report and monitor transgressions on the internet.

The initial effort was prompt by alarm over the fact that two of the main political factions in the country, the yellow shirts and red shirts, had taken the fight to cyberspace. The red shirts voiced opposition to the coup and questioned the monarchy. After the coup in May 2014, which was stage to promote royal secessionist status and maintain elite status quo in Thailand, internet control grew dramatically.

Hundreds of websites were block in May 2014. Working groups were form to analyze and monitor internet content. This increased control was accompanied with a dramatic rise in lesemajeste charges against critics and dissidents as well as ordinary citizens. Long jail sentences were also possible for non-criminal offenses like liking or sharing a Facebook message or post that insults the monarchy.

The Single Gateway proposal was introduce in 2015 to monitor internet content. It aimed to reduce the 12 existing internet gateways and create a single state-controlled portal.

Attack On The Single Gateway Policy

Pro-democracy activists from Thailand and civic groups wage a brave battle against these ongoing encroachments upon digital privacy. The Single Gateway plan was cleverly opposed by those who were not concerned about digital rights and freedoms of expression. However, they were raised in the debate. But the opposition was focused on larger issues such as ecommerce and the economy.

Concerned that the proposal would slow down internet connectivity in Thailand, some business groups raised concerns that the Single Gateway might discourage foreign investment in Thailand. The attempt to restrict internet access was also resent by ordinary people. Thailand has a 42% internet penetration rate. More than 29 million people use the internet to communicate, entertain, and order food online.

Techies and online gamers were concerned that the policy might slow down their online gaming experience and expose their personal information

Three Types Of Cyber Activism

Among these many concerns, there were three types of activism. The Internet Foundation for the Development of Thailand (THANETIzen Network) created a Change.org petition online in order to collect signatures against Single Gateway and provide information to citizens regarding the potential consequences of the proposed legislation.

Other discussion forums have also appeared on Facebook and other social media platforms. People from all walks of Thai society joined the discussion on internet control by joining groups such as The Single Gateway: Thailand Internet Firewall and Anti Single Gateway.

To wage cyber war against the Thai government, an anonymous group called itself the Thailand F5 Cyber Army used a distributed Denial of Services (DDoS). It demanded that the junta cancel its Single Gateway policy. They advised netizens not to visit the Ministry of Defense, National Legislative Assembly, and the Internal Security Operation Centre.

Many government websites temporarily shut down due to the attacks. This virtual civil disobedience was combine with other forms resistance worked. The junta declare that the plan had been abandon on October 15, 2015.

Computer Crime Act Campaign

However, the victory was short-live. The junta suggest that the 2007 Computer Crime Act be modify to better combat cyber threats to national security. They claimed it would aid in the development of Thailand’s digital economy. Again, activists were ready for a fight. Public criticism took a new form this time due to the law-and order frame of the amendment.

The concerns of the business sector about the economic consequences of internet control were abandon to concentrate on the proposed law’s broad threat to legal sanctions against violators. They feared that this fear would lead online self-censorship.

Online forums were use by netizens to discuss the effects of cyber law. This include the fact that the law was gear toward increasing sentences against loosely define cyber law offenders. These crimes could as simple as sharing a post on Facebook that is deem to be a threat to national moral integrity or distorted information.

Thai Network of Netizens and iLaw, rights groups, took to Twitter to engage with progressive online magazines and raise awareness about the issue. They also collaborated with environmental activists who had been subject to abuses of the Computer Crime Act by local authorities.

The F5 Cyber Army continued to attack government websites and provided manuals for ordinary citizens to wage cyberwar. A petition was also submit online to the National Legislative Assembly. It received over 300,000 signatures. However, the popular discontent was ignore. The Assembly passed the amended Computer Crime Act on December 16, 2016.