5 Mistakes That Made Disney’s ‘Tomorrowland’ a Movie Flop

http://www.cheatsheet.com

• Nick Cannata-Bowman
• More Articles

• May 31, 2015

Now more than ever, Hollywood has been inundated with sequels, remakes, reboots, and adaptations. It’s far easier to take an already-made story with a built-in audience and turn it into a full-on franchise than it is to gamble on an original script. Because of this, the “original” movie has begun to die off completely, in favor of massive cinematic franchises, sometimes even spanning multiple decades. Unless you’re Pixar, trying to make money off of an original story is a risky proposition to say the very least.
Some have of course succeeded at it. James Cameron’s Avatar still has the highest box office haul of any movie in history. Christopher Nolan’s Inception saw similar success, becoming an iconic addition to the annuls of sci-fi. But for every Avatar and Inception, there’s a Cowboys & Aliens out there that only barely made back its money at the box office. And then of course, there’s Brad Bird’s Tomorrowland, a scattered mess of a story that at its core had so much potential to be a boon toward original scripts. Instead, it only strengthened the claim of sequels and reboots has on the film industry for a whole host of reasons.

Source: Pixar

1. The return of Brad Bird’s odd, Randian exceptionalism

Brad Bird has generally made a career off of making stellar, heartfelt cinema. Movies like The Iron Giant, Ratatouille, Up, and The Incredibles all grace his resumé, so needless to say there’s no arguing his skill as a filmmaker. But within much of his body of work is a strangely Rayndian message of exceptionalism, pulled straight from the pages of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. The Incredibles is his most overt try at that message emphasizing only a few people deserve to be “super,” and that a world where everyone stands on level ground is nothing short of a dystopian nightmare.
Tomorrowland carries with it that same odd theme, something that seems more than a little out of place in what amounts to a movie aimed at children. The general message: An elite of the world’s most innovative and intelligent thinkers and dreamers leave to create their own utopia in an alternate dimension, leaving Earth behind. In the end, our hero sends out a recruiting force to find more people on Earth deserving of living in this utopia, still keeping their existence a secret from the ordinary population not worthy of joining them.

Source: Disney

2. The weak story

Woven into the overtly Randian slant, we have a story we’ve seen told a billion times. An ordinary person (in this case a kid) sets out on a mission, and finds out she’s essentially the chosen one who can save the world from utter destruction. Her chosen-one-ness is defined mostly by her being super duper hopeful, along with her ability to “know how things work.” George Clooney plays a jaded mentor-esque figure who finds his heart again thanks to his more optimistic ward.
What was supposed to be an original script was still massively derivative, pulling just about every beat of its tale from the hero monomyth. We’ve seen Bird (and his writing partner Damon Lindelof) do much better than they did with this one, making it that much more disappointing that an intriguing concept became overshadowed by a poorly-written plot.

Source: Disney

3. The unexplored universe

It’s not like Tomorrowland‘s universe is worthless in and of itself, and that’s what makes its story that much more disappointing. The movie may carry the namesake of the alternate dimension of geniuses and inventors, but we spend almost three quarters of the film watching our main characters not actually in Tomorrowland. When they finally do arrive, they spend most of their time duking it out with Hugh Laurie inside a building.
But what about the expansive universe of Tomorrowland itself? Apparently it was started by Nikola Tesla and his friends in Paris, what happened there? Who was originally chosen to live in this new society? Is it one city, or an entire new planet? Why did it shut its doors for good and kick George Clooney out? None of those questions are addressed even a little, instead giving us a good hard look at our main character driving across Texas in a stolen truck looking for a way into this city we never really learn anything about.

Source: Disney

4. The sense of impending doom and gloom

A large portion of Tomorrowland was predicated on the idea that the world was doomed to utter destruction in approximately 68 days. A series of disasters caused by climate change, nuclear war, poverty, famine, and revolution were predicted by some super-machine created by George Clooney, with our protagonist apparently possessing the power to offset by not accepting it as an inevitability.
Unfortunately, the movies ends and that doomed future still felt pretty feasible. The polar icecaps are melting, war and famine are still worldwide epidemics, and Tomorrowland is still not sharing any of their amazing technology with Earth to help prevent any of this. You don’t walk out of the theater feeling like anything is going to be OK. In fact it’s quite the opposite. If anything, you come out of the experience feeling as though we’re pretty much all screwed.

Source: Disney

5. The true failure as an original script

This one is a fundamental problem with the entire project of Tomorrowland. As an original story that flopped in its opening weekend thanks to its lackluster story, it hurts the future of other original movies in the process. A studio getting a risky new script put on their desk is less likely to take a chance on it knowing that movies like Tomorrowland didn’t end up panning out well for anyone. Instead, they’re more likely now to take the safe bet in yet another sequel or reboot. The franchise route is always the easiest, and that’s only further emphasized each time an original movie falls short of expectations.

Why Dinosaurs Would Have Never Built Spaceships

Bruce Dorminey Contributor

I cover over-the-horizon technology, aerospace and astronomy.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

http://www.forbes.com/

Anyone’s who’s ever stared into the eyes of a snake can attest to their cold-blooded instinctual ire.  But the gray matter needed to create thinkers like Einstein and Edison requires more than steely instinct.  That’s one reason most researchers scoff at the notion that dinosaurs — whether cold-blooded or not — would have ever evolved into a technological spacefaring civilization.
“Physiologically, ‘classic’ dinosaurs, like Brontosaurus, Triceratops or Tyrannosaurus rex are most akin to reptiles like snakes, alligators, and lizards,” Bruce Lieberman, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, told me.  “In modern ‘reptiles’ there is always a very small brain size ratio relative to body size, [which] is why you can’t really ‘train’ a pet snake to do complex tricks.”
Dinosaurs may have been cunning and very efficient in adapting to their environment, but they also had no reason to evolve into Mesozoic philosophers, Peter Ward, a University of Washington paleontologist and most recently the author of “A New History of Life,” told me.

The skeleton of an adult Tyrannosaurus rex.
 (Photo credit: SVEN HOPPE/AFP/Getty Images)

Yet, for argument’s sake, even if the dinosaurs had survived the climatic ravages triggered by the comet that struck the Yucatan coast some 66 million years ago, could they have vectored into anything like human intelligence?
“The notion that some subset of dinosaurs would have evolved into human-like creatures is absurd,” Lori Marino, an evolutionary neurobiologist and executive director at the Kimmela Center for Animal Advocacy in Kanab, Utah, told me.   “We [haven’t] any data to suggest that complex technology has survival value along evolutionary timescales.”
Ward notes that mammals would not have evolved to be the dominant species they are today if the dinosaurs hadn’t been wiped out.  So, are we humans really here as a fluke?

Ward sees human evolution as a low probability event, in large part because brains are expensive.  “No cell in biology requires more oxygen than a nerve cell which has to fire a chemical charge across a long thin [brain] cell,” said Ward.
Ward says that when dinosaurs first evolved during the Mesozoic — the era spanning some 250 to 65 million years ago — Earth’s atmospheric oxygen levels were much too low for large brains to have developed.  “To have enough energy for intelligence is going to require oxygen,” said Ward.  “For life on land, it’s got to be high oxygen and getting high oxygen is very difficult to do.”
But to evolve, intelligence is thought to also require some sort of environmental stressor.
For humans, that arguably happened some 20 million years ago, as a result of fluctuations in East Africa’s climate due to the formation of the East African Rift System.  Long-held evolutionary theory has been that regional climate upheaval — due to a 6,000-mile long, deep crack in Earth’s crust which extends from present-day Mozambique to Lebanon — may have spurred the need for emerging primates to develop an intellect capable of predictive analysis in order to manage chronic food shortages.
This arguably would confirm ‘necessity’ as the most powerful driver for the evolution of intelligence.  But if we humans were wiped out, what species would take our place as the next smart phone-wielding, high-tech civilization?
“If no other species has the need to evolve a technological intelligence then it will not happen,” said Marino.  “Only if there is selective pressure to develop a complex technological intelligence, will it happen again.”
Even so, ironically, Ward says if we were out of the picture, it’s arguable that that some species of crows or parrots, themselves vestigial dinosaurs, might evolve to take our place.  Ward is continually impressed by the resourcefulness of the African Grey Parrot, which he notes also has the ability to manipulate objects between its beaks and claws.
“African Grey Parrots increasingly seem to have the analog of human intelligence,” said Ward.  “They can add and subtract and even speak in complete sentences.”
Parrots evolved intelligence for the same reason we did; they were dealing with forested areas that were being changed through rapid climate change, Ward says.  “Parrots had to be able to visualize where food would be in two weeks and that required the ability to predict the future,” he said.
As for giant octopuses, which are sometimes touted for their relatively large brains?
“They have this enormous brain and they don’t have enough oxygen to fuel it,” said Ward.  “Unless they change their whole blood system — which would be too radical an evolutionary change, an octopus can’t get enough oxygen to their inordinately large brain.”
As for sea-bound mammals such as dolphins and whales?
Ward doesn’t ever see a tech civilization first developing in a water medium.  “For really advanced technology, you need to smelt [metals] and you can’t smelt underwater,” he said.  But as Marino points out, technology is also really just a reflection of a given species’ psychology.
“Our use of technology is very consistent with our nature as great apes,” said Marino.  “So, if a very different kind of species were to develop the capacity to build spaceships, they would use their technology in ways that would reflect who they are.”

German War Files - Jet Aircraft, V1, V2

Download

Sea Cat (1963)

Download

RAF Buccaneers attack HMS Kent (1978)

Download

Jonathan Winters Montage_Part 2_Orinda Film Festival_2003

Download

Jonathan Winters Montage_Part 1_Orinda Film Festival_2003

Download

Bob Newhart - "Defusing A Bomb" - HILARIOUS!

Download

Jonathan Winters on The Jack Paar Show

Download

Study: Tattoos Can Cause Serious, Long-Term, Adverse Reactions

https://www.yahoo.com/health

Grace GoldMay 27, 2015

Inks of certain colors are the most problematic. (Photo: Getty Images)

Whether it’s a skull, cross, rose, or mom’s name in a thorn bush wrapped around the bicep, about one quarter of American adults have a tattoo. But a new study says about one out of every 10 inkers does not anticipate something that can come along with them: a severe, ongoing skin reaction.

In the just-published NYU Langone Medical Center research that studied tattoo-clad New Yorkers, those who reacted to tattoos experienced a rash, itching or swelling that lasted anywhere from four months to several years, with the longest-lasting complications stemming from ink shades of red and black.

“While we know infections are a risk of tattoos and can be dependent on tattoo parlor practices, a lot of the complications in our study — and that I have seen in my patients — do not have to do with the tattoo artist or parlor practices, but rather the qualities of ink and how the body’s immune system responds to it,” Marie C. Leger, MD, PhD, study lead and Assistant Professor at the Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, tells Yahoo Health.

(Photo: Getty Images)

The 300 respondents ranged in age from 18 to 69, with most having no more than five tattoos — and 67 percent of studied tattoos were on the arms. “We were rather alarmed at the high rate of reported chronic complications tied to getting a tattoo. Given the growing popularity of tattoos, physicians, public health officials and consumers need to be aware of the risks involved,” added Leger.

Related: The Psychology of Tattoos, as Demonstrated by Rex Ryan

While less than a third of the affected study participants saw a doctor for the reaction, the majority returned to the tattoo parlor to complain or ask for guidance. “Tattoo artists are ‘first responders’ when people have problems,” says Leger, who adds that a planned follow-up study will examine what kind of reactions artists see most frequently, and how clients are directed, in an effort to get people to the right place for help.

Experts are not surprised by the news. “While tattoos are popular among Americans, there is still little to no regulation of what exactly is being injected into the skin,” says Jeremy A. Brauer, MD, dermatologist and Director of Clinical Research at Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York, where he has seen patients with tattoo reactions — most often to red ink. The majority of patients have allergic contact dermatitis, which is marked by redness, swelling and itching in the area of the tattoo.

Treatment of tattoo reactions “can be challenging” says Brauer, who uses oral antihistamines combined with oral or injectable steroids to quell the inflammation. Blistering sometimes occurs and requires wound care and dressings, while evidence of infection is treated with antibiotics. More recently, there have been reports of successful laser treatment with both ablative and non-ablative fractional lasers, adds Bauer.

Related: FDA Warns That Tattoos Can Cause Infection 

For some, the discomfort never completely goes away, and they are even driven to remove the tattoo altogether. While nanosecond (“Q-switched”) lasers have been the tattoo removal standard, the newer PicoSure laser is now clearing tattoos in “far fewer treatments than before,” says Bauer. The laser also addresses and improves scarring that can be an accompanying issue with tattoos.

And when it comes to tattoo removal, there’s one design that stands out as the one most people want to get rid of: 52 percent of RealSelf.com doctors say tribal tattoos are the style they most frequently are asked to remove, for any number of reasons – from discomfort to regret. 

Looking ahead, Leger also has plans for a bigger survey to determine what tattoo dye components are most closely tied to adverse reactions. She hopes her investigation might also reveal other factors that put some people at higher risk of suffering chronic complications.

Searching for Advanced Alien Engineering

 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics

Thought Experiments

28 May

By Kate Becker on Thu, 28 May 2015

Picture this: You’re the emperor of an advanced alien civilization. For millions of years, your planet’s engineers have been building bigger and better gadgets: supercomputers, spaceships, flying cars, that sort of thing. All this ultra-tech makes life pretty fantastic, but it takes a lot of energy. Where is all that energy going to come from?

Image by Flickr user longan drink, adapted under a Creative Commons license

 

In 1937, the science fiction writer Olaf Stapledon imagined one answer: an enormous, spherical solar collector, built to encircle an energy-hungry civilization’s home star like a giant mylar balloon. This hypothetical mega-structure would grab every last photon of sunlight, providing enough energy to run whatever future technologies engineers could dream up. In 1960, physicist Freeman Dyson fleshed out the scheme: instead of a giant balloon, he speculated, an advanced civilization might crumble up its solar system’s uninhabited planets to create a swarm of rocks that could gather solar energy more efficiently. Dyson also pointed out that, if such a sphere or swarm existed, it would look to us like an unusually dark star, radiating waste heat in the infrared.
“Dyson spheres,” as they’re called (to Dyson’s chagrin), have become sci-fi staples. But they have also gotten some (semi) serious attention from scientists searching for evidence of intelligent life beyond Earth. In two studies, published in 2004 and 2008, Richard Carrigan, a researcher at Fermilab, searched for lopsided, infrared-heavy spectra among some quarter-million infrared sources in a database amassed by the IRAS satellite. IRAS, launched in 1983, surveyed about 96% percent of the sky. The result: no Dyson spheres–or, at least, none that he could confidently distinguish from other potential lookalikes.
If a civilization is sophisticated enough to build a Dyson sphere around one star, though, why should it stop there? Why not outfit a whole galaxy with Dyson spheres? As Jason Wright, assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State, wrote:

Consider a space-faring civilization that can colonize nearby stars in ships that travel at “only” 0.1% the speed of light (our fastest spacecraft travel at about 1/10 this speed). Even if they stop for 1,000 years at each star before launching ships to colonize the next nearest stars, they will still spread to the entire galaxy in 100 million years, which is 1/100 of the age of the Milky Way.

That is, an advanced civilization can fan out across its home galaxy pretty quickly, cosmically speaking, and a galaxy overrun with Dyson spheres and other energy-collecting super-structures would have a global surplus of mid-infrared radiation. With that in mind, Wright and his colleagues have been searching for evidence of such supercivilizations by looking for galaxies whose spectra skew to the infrared. Their campaign, called Glimpsing Heat from Alien Technologies Survey (G-HAT), scoured some 100 million objects observed by NASA’s Wide Field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) satellite. In a paper published in April, lead author Roger Griffith reported that, from all those millions, they found 50 galaxies showing infrared excesses that could maybe, possibly be due to alien technology–but, far more likely, are due to natural astrophysical processes. (Incidentally, as Lee Billings reported in Scientific American, the G-HAT team wasn’t able to secure funding from the usual government sources; their work is supported by a grant from the private Templeton Foundation.)
Things may be looking a little bleak for Dyson spheres—and intelligent ET in general, if you’re guided by the Fermi paradox—but there’s some consolation from a pair of researchers in Turkey, who point out that alien engineers might not choose to put their Dyson spheres around sunlike stars in the first place. Instead, they argue, superintelligent engineers would build their Dyson spheres around dim stellar embers called white dwarfs. These mini-Dyson spheres would be all-but undetectable.
Why white dwarfs? First, they’re cooler than stars like the sun, so, assuming that you want to live on or near the Dyson sphere and that you don’t want to be burned to a crisp, a Dyson sphere should be placed much closer to a white dwarf than to a sun-like star. That means that the sphere itself could be a lot smaller and, potentially, easier to build.
Meanwhile, Zaza Osmanov, a researcher at the Free University of Tbilisi in Georgia, has proposed that super-advanced extraterrestrials might build Dyson spheres around pulsars, rapidly rotating neutron stars that emit focused beams of radiation from their poles. To capture this energy, you wouldn’t need an entire sphere: a smaller ring, coinciding with the path of the pulsar’s beam, would do the job.
It’s all extremely speculative, of course, and many would argue that searches for the signature of Dyson spheres, rings, and swarms are so unlikely to turn up any answers that they aren’t worth the computing time. But, as Wright puts it, there’s only one way to make a discovery: “You gotta look.”
Go Deeper
Editor’s picks for further reading

NOVA: Eavesdropping on ET
In this NOVA podcast, SETI astronomer Seth Shostak explains why he thinks it’s just a matter of time before we find evidence of other intelligent life in the universe.
Popular Mechanics: Cosmic Megastructures
Read up on the engineering challenges behind imagined cosmic megastructures, including Dyson spheres, space colonies, and more.
SETI Institute: SETI 101
A short history of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, with links to more information on the Fermi paradox and the social implications of a confirmed detection.

The Feasibility of Interstellar Propulsion

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/science

THE BLOG

Benjamin T. Solomon Become a fan Member, Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion Technical Committee, American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics; founder, Xodus One Foundation

Posted: 05/28/2015 4:47 pm EDT Updated: 16 minutes ago 

 

Recent revelations of NASA's Eagleworks Em Drive caused a sensation on the internet as to why interstellar propulsion can or cannot be possible. The nay sayers pointed to shoddy engineering and impossible physics, and ayes pointed to the physics of the Alcubierre-type warp drives based on General Relativity.
So what is it? Are warp drives feasible? The answer is both yes and no. Allow me to explain.
The empirical evidence of the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, now known as the Lorentz-FitzGerald Transformations (LFT), proposed by FitzGerald in 1889, and Lorentz in 1892, show beyond a shadow of doubt that nothing can have a motion with a velocity greater than the velocity of light. In 1905 Einstein derived LFT from first principles as the basis for the Special Theory of Relativity (STR).
So if nothing can travel faster than light why does the Alcubierre-type warp drive matter? The late Prof. Morris Klein explained in his book, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, that mathematics has become so powerful that it can now be used to prove anything, and therefore, the loss of certainty in the value of these mathematical models. The antidote for this is to stay close to the empirical evidence.
My good friend Dr. Andrew Beckwith (Prof., Chongqing University, China) explains that there are axiomatic problems with the Alcubierre-type warp drive theory. Basically the implied axioms (or starting assumptions of the mathematics) requires a multiverse universe or multiple universes, but the mathematics is based on a single universe. Thus even though the mathematics appears to be sound its axioms are contradictory to this mathematics. As Dr. Beckwith states, "reducto ad absurdum". For now, this unfortunately means that there is no such thing as a valid warp drive theory. LFT prevents this.
For a discussion of other problems in physical theories please see my peer reviewed 2013 paper "New Evidence, Conditions, Instruments & Experiments for Gravitational Theories" published in the Journal of Modern Physics. In this paper I explain how General Relativity can be used to propose some very strange ideas, and therefore, claiming that something is consistent with General Relativity does not always lead to sensible outcomes.
The question we should be asking is not, can we travel faster than light (FTL) but how do we bypass LFT? Or our focus should not be how to travel but how to effect destination arrival.
Let us take one step back. Since Einstein, physicists have been working on a theory of everything (TOE). Logic dictates that for a true TOE, the TOE must be able to propose from first principles, why conservation of mass-energy and conservation of momentum hold. If these theories cannot, they cannot be TOEs. Unfortunately all existing TOEs have these conservation laws as their starting axioms, and therefore, are not true TOEs. The importance of this requirement is that if we cannot explain why conservation of momentum is true, like Einstein did with LFT, how do we know how to apply this in developing interstellar propulsion engines? Yes, we have to be that picky, else we will be throwing millions if not billions of dollars in funding into something that probably won't work in practice.
Is a new physics required to achieve interstellar propulsion? Does a new physics exists?
In 2007, after extensive numerical modeling I discovered the massless formula for gravitational acceleration, g=τc^2, where tau τ is the change in the time dilation transformation (dimensionless LFT) divided by that distance. (The error in the modeled gravitational acceleration is less than 6 parts per million). Thereby, proving that mass is not required for gravitational theories and falsifying the RSQ (Relativity, String & Quantum) theories on gravity. There are two important consequences of this finding, (1) we now have a new propulsion equation, and (2) legacy or old physics cannot deliver.
But gravity modification per g=τc^2 is still based on motion, and therefore, constrained by LFT. That is, gravity modification cannot provide for interstellar propulsion. For that we require a different approach, the new physics.
At least from the perspective of propulsion physics, having a theoretical approach for a single formula g=τc^2 would not satisfy the legacy physics community that a new physics is warranted or even exists. Therefore, based on my 16 years of research involving extensive numerical modeling with the known empirical data, in 2014, I wrote six papers laying down the foundations of this new physics:
1. "A Universal Approach to Forces": There is a 4th approach to forces that is not based on Relativity, String or Quantum (RSQ) theories.
2. "The Variable Isotopic Gravitational Constant": The Gravitational Constant G is not a constant, and independent of mass, therefore gravity modification without particle physics is feasible.
3. "A Non Standard Model Nucleon/Nuclei Structure": Falsifies the Standard Model and proposes Variable Electric Permittivity (VEP) matter.
4. "Replacing Schrödinger": Proposes that the Schrödinger wave function is a good but not an exact model.
5. "Particle Structure": Proposes that the Standard Model be replaced with the Component Standard Model.
6. "Spectrum Independence": Proposes that photons are spectrum independent, and how to accelerate nanowire technology development.
This work, published under the title Super Physics for Super Technologies is available for all to review, critique and test its validity. (A non-intellectual emotional gut response is not a valid criticism). That is, the new physics does exist. And the relevant outcome per interstellar propulsion is that subspace exists, and this is how Nature implements probabilities. Note, neither quantum nor string theories ask the question, how does Nature implement probabilities? And therefore, are unable to provide an answer. The proof of subspace can be found in how the photon electromagnetic energy is conserved inside the photon.
Subspace is probabilistic and therefore does not have the time dimension. In other words destination arrival is not LFT constrained by motion based travel, but is effected by probabilistic localization. We therefore, have to figure out navigation in subspace or vectoring and modulation. Vectoring is the ability to determine direction, and modulation is the ability to determine distance. This approach is new and has an enormous potential of being realized as it is not constrained by LFT.
Yes, interstellar propulsion is feasible, but not as of the warp drives we understand today. As of 2012, there are only about 50 of us on this planet working or worked towards solving the gravity modification and interstellar propulsion challenge.
So the question is not, whether gravity modification or interstellar propulsion is feasible, but will we be the first nation to invent this future?

Graphene sponge can absorb light and emit energetic electrons for breakthrough solar sail propulsion

 http://nextbigfuture.com/

May 28, 2015

The direct light propulsion of matter was observed on a macroscopic scale for the first time using a bulk graphene [graphene sponge] based material. The unique structure and properties of graphene and the morphology of the bulk graphene material make it capable of not only absorbing light at various wavelengths but also emitting energetic electrons efficiently enough to drive the bulk material following Newtonian mechanics. Thus, the unique photonic and electronic properties of individual graphene sheets are manifested in the response of the bulk state. These results offer an exciting opportunity to bring about bulk scale light manipulation with the potential to realize long-sought proposals in areas such as the solar sail and space transportation driven directly by sunlight.

Two working mechanisms have been well documented for beam-powered propulsion: either an external laser beam ablates/burns off propellant to provide propulsion similar to conventional chemical rockets or the direct radiation pressure generates the propulsion force governed by the Maxwell electromagnetism theory as has been proposed for the solar sail. The light intensities (irradiance) of Watt level laser and simulated sunlight in our tests were at 10^5 and 10^4 W m-2 level respectively. Based on the radiation pressure theory, the propulsion forces produced by the radiation pressure of such laser and simulated sunlight should be both at ~10^-9 N and they are orders of magnitude smaller than the force required to move and propel the bulk graphene object

So the direct radiation pressure induced mechanism can be excluded. Another possibility for explaining our laser-induced propulsion and rotation is the conventional laser beam ablating or burning off of graphene material to generate a plasma plume or carbon particles and molecules for propulsion. But such a mechanism normally needs extremely high laser power supply, so pulsed laser sources (ms/ns level pulse width and gigawatt level peak power) or ultrahigh power continuous wave laser (up to megawatt level) were used. This is contrary to our light-induced motion which can even be observed with sun light which has a much lower power. Note that the continuous wave lasers that we used were only at the Watt level.

No ablation could be detected.

These results prompt them to search for other possible mechanisms for macroscopic direct light manipulation. It is well known that graphene sheet shows unique optoelectronic properties due to its Dirac conical and gapless band structure, which allows graphene to: 1) absorb all wavelength of light efficiently, 2) achieve population inversion state easily as a result of the excitation of hot electrons and the relaxation bottleneck at the Dirac point and then 3) eject the hot electrons following the Auger-like mechanism. Many studies of this effect have been reported not only for individual suspended graphene sheets but also for reduced graphene oxide sheets. In the competition of different relaxation pathways of carriers at the reverse saturated state of the optically excited graphene, due to the weak electron-phonon coupling, the Auger-like recombination is proved to be the dominant process and plays an unusually strong role in the relaxation dynamics process of the hot carriers (electrons).

Graphene sponge

They believe Auger-like recombination is probably also the dominant path for the relaxation of the hot electrons for their photoexcited graphene

The average current was measured at about 3.0 × 10^-8 to 9.0 × 10^-7 A under the laser power 1.3-3.0 W (450 nm, power density 3.71× 10^4 -8.57 × 10^4 mW cm-2 for 3.5 mm2 laser spot, which means that the electron ejection rate should be about 2.0 × 10^11 to 5.7 × 10^12 s-1, so a power of 2.2 × 10^-6 to 6.4 × 10^-5
J s-1 (Watt) could be obtained based the average kinetic energy of 70 eV for the ejected electrons. This is larger than the energy necessary (more than 10^-6 Watt) to vertically propel the sample.

Note the actual propulsion force/energy should be significantly larger than the values estimated above, since clearly not all the electrons were collected in the measurement. Thus, this propulsion by Light-Induced Ejected Electrons (LIEE) is actually an energy transfer process, where the photon energy is absorbed by graphene bulk materials and converted into the kinetic energy of ejected electrons, rather than a direct momentum transfer process like in the earlier proposed propulsion by light pressure.

While the propulsion energy/force is still smaller compared with conventional chemical rockets, it is already several orders larger than that from light pressure. Assuming the area of a typical solar-cell panel structure on the satellite is ~50 m2 and because a laser-graphene sponge-based rocket does not need other moving parts, with a payload of 500 kg, the acceleration rate would be 0.09 meter per sec squared . Since the density of graphene sponge is very low and no other onboard propellant is needed (the required vacuum and light are naturally available in space), the theoretical specific impulse of our laser propulsion could be much higher

Author: brian wang on 5/28/2015

 http://www.mnn.com/

Spacecraft built from graphene could fly without any fuel

Add this to the list of graphene's amazing properties: It can transform light into motion.

By: Bryan Nelson

Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 03:47 AM

Graphene is a wonder material made of carbon atoms arranged in a honeycomb lattice.

 (Photo: Wiki Commons)

Even though it is only one atom thick, graphene is 200 times stronger than steel. It conducts heat and electricity with great efficiency, is nearly transparent, and might just be the most useful material ever discovered. The amazing properties of graphene, as well as the many inventions that have spawned from its discovery, are becoming too numerous to count. Now scientists have stumbled upon yet another incredible hallmark of this wonder material: It turns light into motion, reports New Scientist.

 

This latest graphene breakthrough came entirely by accident. Researchers discovered it while using a laser to cut a sponge made of crumpled sheets of graphene oxide. As the laser cut into the material, it mysteriously propelled forward. Although lasers have been shown to shove single molecules around, they shouldn't be physically capable of moving a structure as large as the graphene sponge. 

 

Baffled, researchers investigated further. The graphene material was put in a vacuum and again shot with a laser. Incredibly, the laser still pushed the sponge forward, and by as much as 40 centimeters. Researchers even got the graphene to move by focusing ordinary sunlight on it with a lens.

 

How is this possible? Researchers still aren't sure, but there are two leading theories. One explanation is that the material is acting like a solar sail. Basically, photons can transfer momentum to an object and propel it forward, and in the vacuum of space this effect can accumulate and even generate enough thrust to move a spacecraft.

 

When researchers tested the solar sail theory, however, it worked too well. This led them to consider a second possibility, that the graphene is absorbing the laser's energy, building up a charge of electrons. Eventually extra electrons are released, which act like a propellant, pushing the graphene material in the opposite direction.

 

Though this second theory is a bit vague and incomplete, scientists were able to detect a current flowing away from the graphene as it was exposed to a laser, suggesting that the theory is at least on the right track.

 

So what does this all mean? It means that researchers may have just accidentally discovered a propulsion system for a spacecraft that requires no fuel whatsoever. Essentially, a spacecraft built from graphene could explore the heavens powered by nothing more than sunlight. 

 

"While the propulsion force is still smaller than conventional chemical rockets, it is already several orders larger than that from light pressure," wrote researcher Yongsheng Chen and colleagues of the discovery.

 

More study is required before researchers can say for sure if the material can offer a viable alternative to fuel propulsion, but the results so far are exciting. Truly, there seems to be no end to the amazing qualities of graphene.

 

Why Native American DNA does not show up in a DNA test

Download

Disney's 'Tomorrowland' Failure Is Not About Audiences Rejecting Originality

  http://www.forbes.com/

   

  Scott Mendelson Contributor

I cover the film industry. full bio →

 

Comment Now

 

First of all, I am aware that I am discussing the would-be failure of a major motion picture based on four days of worldwide box office play. So if Brad Bird’s Tomorrowland ends up having magic legs and/or catches fire overseas becoming a proverbial Pacific Rim, then I’ll happily apologize in writing at that exact moment. But let’s assume that the writing is on the wall for the $190 million sci-fi adventure film. Tomorrowland is most likely a box office miss. Its $41 million Friday-to-Monday Memorial Day weekend probably points to a final domestic total of between $82m and $103m. The plausible best-case scenario seems to be a $120m finish (if it plays like Bruce Almighty) and double that overseas for a $360m worldwide cume. The fantastical best case scenario is a Life of Pi situation where it clobbers the film’s domestic take, but that’s unlikely. Worst case scenario is, well, Green Lantern. The word around town is that Tomorrowland is a pretty big miss and that its failure is about an aversion to original films. But I would respectively argue that the problem with Tomorrowland was Tomorrowland.



All due respect, but Tomorrowland does not look like a film that cost $190 million to produce. It has moments of razzle-dazzle and spectacle. But for much of its running time, it is an unquestionably polished and gorgeous-looking kid-friendly road trip adventure that is squarely set on a recognizable planet Earth and only gets a little sci-fi freaky in its third act. Without discounting production troubles and reshoots and all of the other things that cause a budget to balloon, there is little reason to have expected a film like Tomorrowland to recoup an estimated $190m budget barring variables that were clearly not present in this particular case. While I admire the willingness of Walt Disney DIS -0.8% to allow one of their prized animation directors to spend nearly $200 million on an original personal project, that doesn’t necessarily mean that said project was a box office guarantee, even with George Clooney in a prominent role.
This was an original film whose marketing pretty much hid any real notion of what the film was about. Aside from the idea of a young girl finding a magical pin that hinted at a futuristic utopia and a supporting turn from George Clooney as a curmudgeon tangentially connected to said world, there was no real indication as to what the film was about or what the narrative journey might be. That in itself is not a fatal problem if the movie delivered in terms of spectacle or mind-blowing plot turns, but that was not the case. This is where the reviews hurt. It’s not just that the reviews for Tomorrowland were mixed/negative, but rather that the reviews quickly revealed that there wasn’t anything spectacular being hidden behind the curtain.
Brad Bird and Damon Lindelhof’s Tomorrowland was basically the bare bones movie that was advertised, a film about a young girl who finds a pin, finds an inventor, and eventually goes to Tomorrowland to quickly thwart a world-ending threat. There were no unspoiled surprises or unrevealed plot turns or set pieces that would spur word-of-mouth, no “Let It Go” or “Coma Doof Warrior” that would get audiences talking over the weekend. What glimpses of spectacle and big-budget adventure Disney teased in the marketing was all you got in the finished film. That’s not necessarily a knock on the film, but that is an issue where you’re trying to market a big-budget original spectacle while also attempting to create the impression that you’re hiding something impressive.
And as much as we like George Clooney as a person and as an actor, he is not a by-himself box office draw for much more than around $13 million on opening weekend. The $32m Fri-Sun take was actually his seventh-biggest opening, behind Gravity ($55m), Batman & Robin ($42m), The Perfect Storm ($41m), and the three Ocean’s movies. And as much as we film nerds love Brad Bird, he’s not remotely Chris Nolan or James Cameron in terms of marquee value for the general audience. So you had cryptic marketing campaign based on an original premise that had an added-value element movie star and a trusted brand name in family-friendly entertainment. But the reviews then highlighted that it wasn’t that good, that it wasn’t hiding anything incredible, and that it was questionable how much kids would enjoy the picture. Those were the three trump cards undone a week prior to opening. Of course, hiding the reviews until the last minute would have only increased the perception of turmoil.
Absent expectations regarding its existence as a big-scale live-action original from one of our best filmmakers, Tomorrowland is a somewhat enjoyable B-movie adventure, closer to Race to Witch Mountain than Inception. But Race to Witch Mountain was a $50 million production, not a $190m mega-budget spectacular that was sold under the presumption of mystery. That’s another problem not necessarily specific to Tomorrowland. We live in such a spoiler-happy culture that merely withholding significant second-and-third act story points in the marketing creates the impression of something resembling a so-called “Mystery Box.” Brad Bird simply didn’t want audiences to think they knew everything about the movie before walking into the theater. That shouldn’t necessarily indicate that there are some Lost-level plot twists throughout the picture.
Yet remember the howls of protest (by critics mostly) over Brave not revealing its actual plot or even Hancock daring to withhold major second act character turns from the marketing campaign. Disney and Sony respectively didn’t announce that they were running a secretive marketing campaign; they just kept their mouths shut. The avenue chosen (or at least the impression created) by Tomorrowland was similar to the path chosen by Paramount/Viacom Inc.’s campaigns for Star Trek Into Darkness and Interstellar, where merely not given away somewhat conventional plot beats and character reveals was seen as shrouding the film in mystery.  Interstellar and Tomorrowland are similar in that you realize once you rewatch the trailers that you did see most of the would-be pay-offs, albeit out-of-context. But that’s an issue that is bigger than one movie and one marketing campaign.
Yet there have been plenty of relatively successful “original” Hollywood entertainments over the last few years, from Interstellar to Kingsman: The Secret Service (based on a comic book that 99% of the audience had never heard of) to Neighbors to Lucy to Gravity to (relatively speaking) Pacific Rim. The relative disappointment of Tomorrowland isn’t about audiences rejecting an original big-budget spectacular, but rather, like Jupiter Ascending, a case of audiences not quite buying the pitch only for reviews to confirm their suspicions just before the release date. I wish Tomorrowland were a better film, and frankly I wish it were a cheaper film as sometimes (Edge of Tomorrow) the budget is the thing that kills you. The variables that led Brad Bird’s Tomorrowland to a disappointing debut are specific to Tomorrowland.
That Tomorrowland didn’t quite work as a piece of art or as a box office success means little more than Tomorrowland didn’t work as a piece of art or a box office success. Disney can afford to swing-and-miss, so better than they do so on films like this than Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. As far as the so-called death of originality, we’ve got three wholly original star vehicles of varying shapes and sizes (San Andreas, Aloha!, and Spy) just in the next two weeks. The so-called original blockbuster will survive Tomorrowland. After all, you have to roll the dice on The Fast and the Furious before you can make Furious 7.

If you like what you’re reading, follow @ScottMendelson on Twitter, and “like” The Ticket Booth on Facebook. Also, check out my archives for older work HERE.

Dennis Stanford: Ice Age and Clovis Culture

Download

Naked Science - Telepathy

Download

Planning Begins for USAF Next-Gen Air Dominance

 http://www.defensenews.com/

By Aaron Mehta 2:50 p.m. EST March 7, 2015

(Photo: Aaron Mehta/Staff)

WASHINGTON — The US Air Force is about to start a deep-dive process that will eventually decide what technologies and capabilities it will fund to ensure air dominance in the world of 2030.
And while that includes the potential for a sixth-generation fighter, top service officials continue to stress that the result of the process will likely be a family of systems approach.
Maj. Gen. Tim Ray, director of Global Power in the service's acquisition realm, and Maj. Gen. Paul Johnson, director for Operational Capability Requirements, told Defense News that the Air Force will shortly stand up a team to begin researching these decisions.
The Next-Generation Air Dominance program will be the first pilot program for the Air Force's new Capability Collaboration Team (CCT) structure, part of a broader strategic process unveiled by Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, at last month's Air Force Association convention in Orlando.

DEFENSE NEWS

AF Pledges Greater Transparency for Industry

The CCT comprises a number of operational, scientific and technical experts from an array of backgrounds, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Air Force Research Labs and the major commands. The group will explore in depth various options that could matter in the future, before putting out a product with two components.
The first is a list of technologies the CCT has decided will be needed for air superiority in 2030. The second is a road map for how to achieve those technologies.
For example, the CCT could decide that directed energy weapons are a key part of the strategy. It will present to the chief and secretary a guide for what areas of directed energy need investment, how those investments should be prioritized, and perhaps most importantly, a timeline for when those investments would need to pay off in order to be fielded by 2030.
Johnson said the goal is to be able to guide limited research and development funds from being spread to many projects — with the hope that one works out — toward being focused on a small handful of technologies.
"It's not about a decision to start a program, to go do x, y and z," Johnson said. "It's not a decision to go build the next-generation fighter. It's a set of decisions about what more do we want to learn, how do we want to learn it, and how fast do we want to learn it? It's 'out of this set of technologies, we want to chase these four.' "
Timewise, the CCT will begin meeting in the next few weeks. It will spend the next three years researching technologies before presenting a final product in 2018.
The Pentagon is littered with well-intentioned studies into new technologies. What makes this different, Ray said, is the focus on finding actionable items and then creating guidelines to make them real.
"This isn't a slush fund," Ray said. "It's not just. 'hey I'm going to go solve cold fusion, give me a couple of years and I'll get back to you.' It's 'how do I get that power supply correct of that kind of pod to do directed energy,' or 'how do I get this signature from this range to that range?' "
For that to work, Ray said, industry must play a critical role. That fits with a promise from Welsh, who in Orlando pledged that industry would be brought in earlier in the technology development process.
"[Right now] you have to wait until we kind of make up our mind and give you a plan, so you can't energize your resources, your thinking, to help us get ahead of this curve," he said at the conference. "We're not talking to you about it. We must do that. You should be part of this transition planning. You should be part of the [process] in developmental planning."
At the same time, Ray warned that industry needs to be prepared for a shift away from the days of one prime controlling everything from development through production.
"We have a lot of known players and we want to hear what they have to say. The interesting part will be if we get out of the program business, how many more voices will we get that aren't the prime players?" Ray asked rhetorically. "Technology is moving way too fast for us to lock down a program and say it's all got to go through one guy."
That may lead to more focus on studying and prototyping technology without a guarantee of future production, Johnson said.
"When I bring industry in here, industry is understandably interested in what the program is going to look like, which is not my conversation at this point," Johnson said. "So I've got to make it workable so when I get ready to do some experimentation or prototyping, that industry is willing to participate in that, knowing that at the end of the day there may not be anything after that."
Rebecca Grant of IRIS Research said opening another avenue of communication with industry is a net positive for the service. And while she said the CCT brings "all the right ingredients" together, she said the service needs to stick with the concept to make it really work.
"The best technology development stories come out of this mix of people and insights," she said. "What we don't know is if you can get everyone together in a room and just [have] the big insights. Like exercise, you need do this on a regular basis and go for the small gains as well."
Mark Gunzinger, a former service official now with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, called the CCT a "great idea" that could "help accelerate the transition of new, potentially game-changing technologies into the program of record." However, he also offered a word of caution.
"Beginning these efforts by 'researching new technologies' may take teams down the path of trying to figure out how emerging technologies could help airmen improve how they operate today," he said. "I think it's also important to challenge current operational concepts and think through how new technologies could enable airmen to operate very differently in the future."
Hints of the Future
Both generals stressed that the goal is to allow the CCT to be as open as possible as it explores future concepts.
"We can't be prescriptive. We do have to be open," Ray said. "We have to show them what's going on in the intel community with data management, with cyber, with space, so they can begin to look at the tools and what they mean and the implications of those things. It's a broader exposure."
However, the men did drop a few hints as to what technologies they foresee the CCT considering.
Johnson expressed confidence that the 2030 solution would not involve just the development of a heavily advanced fighter with all-onboard capability, noting "there is every likelihood it's going to be some sort of family of systems, and hopefully it will be a mix of old and new.
"I would have every expectation that it will probably be 'programs' — that's one man's opinion," he added. "Sensors, weapons, the whole collection of things."
That family could include a mix of modernized versions of legacy systems in use today, working hand-in-hand with new systems that will be online by 2030. The CCT will be on the lookout for what Johnson called "quick wins," things like experimental sensor upgrades that could be put onto current systems relatively quickly.
The CCT will also look at how to build in growth for potential future technologies, Ray said, noting "we certainly realize we need to build in more inherent adaptability in what we do."
That includes looking at how to build in excess power and create space for any new system, to make sure there is the ability to add newer technologies as they come along.
The generals casually mentioned directed energy and signature reduction as other technologies that will likely be looked at, which isn't news to anyone who has followed the talk about a potential next-generation fighter.
Grant highlighted directed energy as an area that could really gain from the CCT model.
"The time is right for demonstrating progress in directed energy," she said. "I think all future systems from here on out, we're going to have a discussion in directed energy on those systems. We'll be talking about it a lot more."
While the focus now is on the family of systems, there is confidence in industry that a major part of that will involve a sixth-generation fighter.

DEFENSE NEWS

Kendall Unveils 6th Gen Fighter Strategy

The Air Force isn't alone in looking at next-gen air dominance technologies. The Navy has said it is looking at a next-gen fighter to replace the F/A-18 and complement the F-35C, and Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall has launched the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, a DARPA-led development program for X-planes to test technologies and concepts.
Johnson said he is in regular contact with his counterpart in the Navy, and Ray added that the lead Air Force representative to the initiative will also be part of the CCT.
That should create a cross-cutting of technologies between the three sides, including, perhaps, letting the CCT test some of the technologies on a prototype plane, then bring those results back into its research.
Industry, meanwhile, is gearing up for what could be a lucrative contract.
Northrop Grumman has already stood up a pair of teams, dedicated to the Navy and Air Force programs respectively, while Boeing has quietly released several mock-ups of future fighter concepts.
Orlando Carvalho, the head of Lockheed Martin's aerospace division, told Defense News that the company's SkunkWorks division is working on a design, but said that work is a natural outgrowth from the company's previous developments.
"When it comes to next-generation air dominance, that work for us is a continuum," he said. "We don't discretely stand up teams, disband teams around that — that's what we do at the SkunkWorks, and it's a continuum."
Carvalho said the Pentagon has "definitely" communicated with companies about what future threat scenarios, tactics and requirements may be.
Both Ray and Johnson are sympathetic to industry's desire to know what a next-generation fighter may look like, but insist they need this structure to prevent the proverbial cart from leading the horse.
"The automatic question [from industry] is when do we do the AOA [analysis of alternatives]? I don't want to hear about an AOA," Ray said. "I want to do some learning first. I want to know what the alternatives are before I begin to analyze those alternatives. Right now we don't even know what the alternatives are."

 http://www.ibtimes.com/

Russia’s Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA Fighter Jet Can Defuse Enemy Plane’s Stealth Capability: Report

By Kukil Bora @KukilBora on May 29 2015 7:59 AM EDT

 

The Sukhoi PAK FA fighter jets will reportedly go into

 mass production in 2017. Wikimedia Commons 

 

Russia’s fifth-generation Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA fighter jet is equipped with an advanced defense system that can neutralize an enemy plane’s stealth capability, a report said Friday, citing a unit of Russian state corporation Rostec. The planes, which will go into mass production in 2017, are claimed to be capable of outperforming the F-22 and fifth-generation F-35 fighters of the U.S. Air Force.
The T-50 PAK FA fighter jet will be built with composite materials, and come with advanced electronic systems and engines to ensure the plane can stay mostly undetected by radars and other optical and infrared technologies, Russia’s Sputnik News reported.
“The PAK FA is already to some degree a flying robot, where the aviator fulfils the function not only of pilot, but is actually one of the constituent parts of the flying apparatus,” Sputnik News quoted Vladimir Mikheyev, the deputy head of the Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies (KRET), a unit of Rostec, as saying.
KRET has created an advanced internal navigation system for the T-50 PAK FA jet, which autonomously processes navigation and flight information. The system can also determine position and motion parameters in situations when there is no satellite navigation, and make contact with GLONASS, Russia’s satellite-based navigation system, which works alongside the Global Positioning System.
The Russian air force will get 55 Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA jets by 2020 and the aircraft will replace the country’s Sukhoi Su-27 fourth-generation fighter jet. Russia is also expected to buy at least 50 Tupolev Tu-160 “Blackjack” heavy strategic bombers, which will be produced simultaneously with the country’s new bomber, called PAK DA.