 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / October 2004More evidence of negative curvature
Old Man, Climbing out of the well of gravity is harder than supposed because of the mount of expanding radiation. http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/3 Pioneer anomaly put to the test Physics in Action: September 2004 The European Space Agency is considering a unique experiment that could explain strange gravitational phenomena in the outer solar system Since 1998 astronomers have known that the space probes Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 are following trajectories that cannot be explained by conventional physics. Launched in 1972 and 1973, respectively, to explore the outer planets, the Pioneer craft are now at the edge of the solar system, with Pioneer 10 being some 86 astronomical units (about 13 billion kilometres) from the Sun. But they are not quite where they should be, based on the gravitational pull of the known bodies in the solar system. When the craft were at distances of between 20 and 70 astronomical units, researchers found that the Doppler frequency of microwave signals that were bounced off the craft drifted at a small, constant rate (see "Spacecraft anomalies put gravity to the test"). This drift meant that the craft were experiencing a constant acceleration directed towards the Sun, at a level that is 10 billion times weaker that the Earth's gravitational pull. The most obvious explanation for this anomalous deceleration is some mundane systematic effect, such as heat radiating from the craft or leakage from the propulsion thrusters. But no such mechanism has been found. Attempts to test the anomaly using other spacecraft such as Galileo and the Voyager probes have proved unsuccessful, and the deep-space missions that are currently being developed - for example the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) - will not be designed to test the properties of the Pioneer anomaly. Given this situation, we concluded that the anomaly could no longer be ignored. At its Cosmic Vision workshop in Paris this month, the European Space Agency (ESA) will consider plans for a number of experiments and missions that will test gravity in new ways, one of which is designed to test the Pioneer anomaly directly. If the anomaly is an indication of new physics, finding its origin might change our understanding of the laws of nature at a very basic level and turn our cosmic backyard into the new terra incognita. Theoretical proposals The inability to explain the Pioneer anomaly with conventional forces has led to several theoretical proposals. One is that the deceleration is due to the gravitational attraction of "dark matter" - the invisible matter that astronomers think is responsible for the excess gravity that appears to affect objects on galactic scales. Other explanations involve modifying Einstein's general theory of relativity, which many theorists think is necessary in order to merge gravity with quantum mechanics. Some of these theories suggest that gravity might attract a little harder than expected at large distances or small accelerations, so the concept of dark matter may not even be necessary. Meanwhile, there are a number of attempts to go beyond the Standard Model of particle physics. String theory and/or supersymmetry, for example, involve higher dimensions of space that introduce new degrees of freedom and possible violations of space-time symmetries such as Lorentz symmetry. This could result in very weak forces that act on the scale of the solar system, although different theories make different predictions of the precise corrections to the spacecraft trajectories. Some of these theoretical proposals have recently been given support by experimental results. For example, we now know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and some researchers have detected possible variations in the values of the fundamental constants (see "Dark energy" and "Are the laws of nature changing with time?"). However, no current proposal can explain the Pioneer anomaly. It is therefore vital to test our understanding of gravity more precisely, which is best carried out in the isolation and apparent weightlessness of space. We have argued that it is time to settle the Pioneer issue with a new deep-space mission that will test for, and decide on, the origin of the anomaly (Class. Quantum Grav. 21 4005-4023). Any result would be of major significance. If the anomaly is a manifestation of new or unexpected physics, it would be of fundamental importance. But even if it turns out to be due to an unknown systematic mechanism, understanding the anomaly could help engineers build more stable and less noisy spacecraft that can be navigated more precisely for the benefit of deep-space experiments. Pioneering mission Thanks to new technologies such as precise accelerometers, improved launch techniques and optical navigation methods, we have come up with a proposal for the most precisely tracked spacecraft ever to go into deep space. The craft is also designed to eliminate essentially all on-board effects that might mask the result, such as forces due to radiated heat. And its hyperbolic orbit, like that of the Pioneer probes, will allow it to distinguish between the different types of effect that might be causing the anomaly. Such a mission could also be an excellent opportunity to develop and test new technologies for spacecraft design, in-space propulsion, on-board power and many other developments that may ultimately find their way into many other space and terrestrial applications. In what turned out to be a gratifying and most encouraging surprise, a number of our European colleagues had also became interested in developing technologies that would enable the precise testing of the Pioneer anomaly. So now, almost seven years after we and our co-workers Philip Laing, Eunice Lau and Tony Liu published the initial analysis of the anomalous deceleration, interest has grown to the point that ESA is considering a mission that would test the Pioneer anomaly to the level of a thousand times better than the announced value of this mysterious force. Researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the University of Bremen and the Los Alamos National Laboratory are also preparing to reanalyse earlier, less precise, Pioneer data from the time when the craft were closer to the Sun. This should provide valuable information about the anomaly in earlier stages of the trajectory, and could also reveal other interesting properties of the effect - particularly during planetary fly-bys. Dispassionately, the most likely cause of the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft is on-board systematics, but the smoking gun has not yet been found. The only other possibility is the existence of new physics. This dichotomy represents a healthy win-win situation because either one of these two explanations for the Pioneer anomaly would constitute an extremely important discovery. About the author Slava Turyshev and John Anderson are at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena and Michael Martin Nieto at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, US > Old Man, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/9/3 >> Pioneer anomaly put to the test The Pioneer Doppler shift measurements (sans ranging) are the result of an ad-hoc experiment, whereof critical parameters are uncontrolled and / or unknown. If something can go wrong, it will. Old Man is all in favor of an pre-planned controlled experiment whereof no shadow of doubt can be cast over the results. [Old Man] >>Old Man, >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > [Old Man] We know gravity behaves differently for outer stars in galaxies; they go 'way too fast. That's why they invented Dark Matter. So, yeah, there *may* be a small tweak necessary for our gravity theory. However they'll have to tweak Black Holes into the realm of the impossible at the same time........... what to do............what to do......... John http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ >>>Old Man, >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >So, yeah, there *may* be a small >tweak necessary for our gravity theory. Tweaks are easy. Just throw in any convenient power series and fit constants empirically. Finding a set of postulates that seem natural and universal, and from which the tweak may be deduced, is hard. >However they'll have to tweak >Black Holes into the realm of the >impossible at the same time........... >what to do............what to do......... We'll get a new theory of gravity eventually. And I predict you won't like it any more than you like the one we have now.  Signature"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby [snip] > We'll get a new theory of gravity eventually. And I predict you won't > like it any more than you like the one we have now. Rare are words that are more true than these. Think the current set of theory is a pain in the a.s? > >>>Old Man, > >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > We'll get a new theory of gravity eventually. And I predict you won't > like it any more than you like the one we have now. In limited gravity theory there are no black holes and the lows of gravity are larger. If you doubled the earths mass gravity will increase less than double. But if you half the mass it has slightly more than half the gravitational strength. Gravity doesn't drop off as fast as unmodified GR predicts. And it doesn't increase as fast as GR predicts either. Limited gravity is the law. The infinite Einstein shift at the event horizon defines a black hole. There is only a finite Einstein shift therefore there are no black holes. There are no event horizons. Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- Mitch, Could it be that galaxies are a gravitational storm of collapsing mass and expanding energy, so that the black hole is actually the eye of the storm and the real activity is what we actually see, leading up to the edge? brodix > The infinite Einstein shift at the event horizon defines a black hole. > There is only a finite Einstein shift therefore there are no black holes. > There are no event horizons. > > Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- > Mitch, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > brodix I know that we see enormous amounts of matter being ejected from black hole's, or what we call black holes, at the center of the galaxies in jets. What is going on there? Could these be mini-Big Bangs? How is a black hole making matter? Gravitationally there is no difference between a black hole and the Big Bang; just more mass; thats all. The expanding energy you mention - is that mini-inflation? > > The infinite Einstein shift at the event horizon defines a black hole. > > There is only a finite Einstein shift therefore there are no black holes. > > There are no event horizons. Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- > Mitch, > > Could it be that galaxies are a gravitational storm of collapsing mass > and expanding energy, so that the black hole is actually the eye of > the storm and the real activity is what we actually see, leading up to > the edge? I'd have to pass that on to a more knowledgable source, but I noticed that mitchell is offering his "ideas", you're better off ignoring any "help" he has on the subject.. he's a well known troll here that we are all trying to ignore.. perhaps repost with a clear subject and maybe Al, Sam Wormley, or Bjoern will throw out some help. Seeya! have a good one > Mitch, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- Brodix, Because MorituriMax wishes to deprive me of any response of others I must defend myself. I have never said that anybody has to listen to me. The one who screams the most is always the guilty one. Whose out to get who here? Mitchell, Mori, I know that we see enormous amounts of matter being ejected from black hole's, or what we call black holes, at the center of the galaxies in jets. What is going on there? Could these be mini-Big Bangs? How is a black hole making matter? Gravitationally there is no difference between a black hole and the Big Bang; just more mass; thats all. The expanding energy you mention - is that mini-inflation? I'd have to pass that on to a more knowledgable source, but I noticed that mitchell is offering his "ideas", you're better off ignoring any "help" he has on the subject.. he's a well known troll here that we are all trying to ignore.. perhaps repost with a clear subject and maybe Al, Sam Wormley, or Bjoern will throw out some help. I've irritated a number of the experts here myself, so I've give a quick overview of the perspective I'm coming from; A long time ago, I first read of "Omega=1". The idea that the rate of expansion must be in inverse proportion to the force of gravity for the universe to be stable. Subsequent experiments have since proven this true. Ultimately, space is flat. This causes me to question the entirety of Big Bang Theory(BBT). For one thing, if observed expansion is effectively neutralized by gravity, then there can be no overall expansion. For another, wouldn't a convective process be a far more logical explanation for why these two sides of the equation are balanced. What goes up, must come down and vice versa, so to speak. When I was first considering it, I thought a form of unbalanced vacuum fluctuation would be much more logical. Not only is it similar to BBT, in that BBT is just a theoretical macro-fluctuation, but it fits in with the bottom up process of Complexity Theory. It was a physicist on the NYTimes forums whom I discussed it with who proposed what amounted to light as the energy source of an expanding radiation field. As developed in the following link; http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2404626 With that, it all fell into place. As gravity contracts mass, the process is shedding enormous amounts of radiation, from heat to light and all other forms. Remember E=mc2? Since gravity is the source of positive curvature, then light is the source of negative curvature, hence my point of this discussion, that not only does an object have to climb out of a gravity well, but on the other side of the equilibrium point it has to climb an expansion mound. As the universe as a whole is not expanding, this creates additional pressure on galaxies, therefore providing the energy for the additional rate of spin, so there is no need for dark matter. The reason light is still curved by gravity is because, given the enormous amounts of empty space, relative to what is occupied by gravity fields, this expansion is relatively very slight, so light in the vicinity of mass still has positive curvature. Since the light of the most distant galaxies must pass through more residual gravity fields then the light of closer sources, the effect is that their redshift is reduced by positive curvature, so that closer sources have a greater average redshift, thus the impression that the rate of expansion is increasing. And so no need for dark energy. The reason the cosmic microwave background is so smooth is because it is the phase transition at which space can no longer hold energy in solution and it starts to condense out as hydrogen. Black holes are the other side of the cycle; Where mass has heated up to the point of radiating back out all its constituant energy. A cosmic cyclone, so to speak. > Mitchell, Mori, [snip] STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. He is incapable of resonable discourse, and what you are doing only encourages him to keep doing it. > Mitchell, Mori, > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > to the point of radiating back out all its constituant energy. A > cosmic cyclone, so to speak. Gravity moves matter inward and light always moves outward from its source. Are you saying black holes are recyclers Brodix? That mass goes in but energy comes out? Many moons ago I posted my space curvature theory on the lines of GR. It goes like this. Space is both concave,and corvex. It fits well with local compession,and also with universe expansion. Bert > Many moons ago I posted my space curvature theory on the lines of GR. It > goes like this. Space is both concave,and corvex. It fits well with > local compession,and also with universe expansion. Bert Bert, This is basically my point. (that is "convex" and "compression.") regards, brodix Mitchell, > Gravity moves matter inward and light always moves outward from its source. > Are you saying black holes are recyclers Brodix? > That mass goes in but energy comes out? Recycle, or one side of a cycle. That of mass breaking down into energy. Then once it is distributed back out across the universe, it cools down to the point of condensing out as mass again. Unless it radiated into a body of mass somewhere along the line. Black holes have been observed to be fairly stable, so that not a lot actually falls into them. What does might account for the jets out the galactic poles. It should also be noted that galaxies gravitationally attract the mass in their local area, but radiate energy out for approximately 15 billion light years, so that energy is blended. I will add a post script about the nature of time and space that evolved out of trying to figure this out; Space is the Absolute and Time is a Third Order Function with Two Directions. There is no universal reference frame, but a reference frame is an abstraction in the first place. What is space? The idea that space is curved is derived from the assumption that it is only the context for physical properties and can so only be measured in terms of their motion. Now this motion is measured as a function of such properties traveling a distance and distance constitutes a line segmant, so it is one dimensional. Even our abstract reference frames are three dimensional, so we judge the reality of space on the basis of a component of an abstraction. Geometry never incorporated zero. Assuming the point as the center of a reference frame equals one, what is zero in geometry, other then empty space? (Consider that 4x0=0, but that 4'x0'=4'. Four feet is four feet, but if you wish to assign it a factor of zero, then it should have consequences.) In so far as current theory allows and observations support, space is ultimately flat, in that all gravitational collapse and universal expansion balance out. Newton's observation that; "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." still holds. Every curvature of the path of traveling mass exists in a larger equilibrium where the tension of any particular disequilibrium is balanced out. At the temperature of absolute zero, there is no motion and therefore no time, but the assumption isn't that there is no space. Space as the absolute is not a reference frame. It is equilibrium. In fact, any number of reference frames can be used to define the same space, so our map of space may be three dimensional for intellectually reductionistic convenience, but the actual territory of space is infinitely dimensional. In fact, science generally accepts this equilibrium, considering such concepts as matter/anti-matter, electromagnetic polarities, etc. It is those physical properties which exist in the equilibrium of space that are the second order. This matter and energy is neither created or destroyed, but is in motion and constantly changing form, which is called information. As the amount of energy doesn't change, old information is erased as new information is recorded. This is the process of time. Information which existed, but no longer does, is the past. Information which has been created and still exists is the present. Information which has yet to be created is the future. The measure of time is of specific motion against its context. As a measure of relative motion, the context is not an absolute, so it is moving in the opposite direction. To the hands of the clock, everything else is moving counter-clockwise. Our abstract units of time tend to be sequential, but the real units overlap. A day on the east coast isn't the same time as a day on the west coast. While we see the sun as moving east to west, the reality is that we are moving west to east. What this means is that while the unit of time goes from beginning to end, the process of time goes toward beginnings, away from endings. As daylight is draining from the east, it is pouring into the west. This relationship between units and processes is fundamental. Individuals go from birth to death, but the process of life is pouring into the next generation as it is draining from the older generation. While the products on an assembly line go from initiation to completion, the future for the process isn't with what is finished, but is yet to be started. What matters to this process is not so much the finished product, but the energy generated in the form of wages and profits that allow it to continue. Just as food and information passing through you propels you toward gathering more. What comes first, past or future? We see past events proceeding future ones, but the events themselves are first in the future, then in the past. Two people communicating with each other exist in each others future, but are perceived in their own past. Time is simply a function of subjective reality. Temperature is another method of measuring motion. It is scalar. Time has direction, so it is tensor. Mass is scalar and charge is tensor, but charge is balanced out within mass by the opposite charge. Just as the motion of the subjective is balanced out within the larger context. Government statistics are a scalar reading of the economy, in which particular motion is balanced out, leaving a scalar reading within the absolute equilibrium of space. regards, brodix [snip] NO, idiot. STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. He *cannot* understand. Eric, > NO, idiot. > > STOP FEEDING THE TROLL. > > He *cannot* understand. thank you for the personal insult I have no idea who Mitchell is, or who you are. I replied to him because he understood my observation that matter contracts and energy expands. My question to you is: Why does it matter to you whether he posits opinions here, or not? As with anything, I realize the basic principles of top down order and bottom up growth apply to the dynamics of this forum, as they do with all other aspects of reality. In that fresh minds are bringing in the raw energy of new questions and perspectives and the authorities who choose to monitor this forum attempt to guide them to where the current edge of scientific progress is at the moment. Just as with society and your own body, while individuals who seek to wreck the current order are a form of cancer, it should also be noted that when the police function gets out of hand, it is a form of auto-immune disease and can be just as deadly. Within the confines of this particular thread, I am trying to make as best sense of my ability to understand reality. Mitchell seems willing to consider what I'm trying to say, while your interest is to play some heavy-handed police role. > My question to you is: Why does it matter to you whether he posits > opinions here, or not? I'll give it a shot.. it matters because his "opinions" do not square with scientific fact. He comes up with the most off-the-wall ideas and challenges everyone to show him where he is wrong, when people do so, he says they can't... etc etc... Have a good one "Morituri-Max" > I'll give it a shot.. it matters because his "opinions" do not square with > scientific fact. He comes up with the most off-the-wall ideas and challenges > everyone to show him where he is wrong, when people do so, he says they can't... > etc etc... > > Have a good one He is the only one specifically addressing me. I've been through this forum various times over the years and it is safe to say that my opinions don't square with "scientific fact" either. I would be more then willing to respond to whatever argument you should raise, though. Having debated these issues for many years, I'm rather used to the gratuitous insults because I do realize that claiming to have something new to say is like claiming to be innocent in prison. That said, I do try to keep my observations as basic as possible. I just think there are a number of very basic logical fallacies which have become set in the canon of physical understanding. regards, brodix > He is the only one specifically addressing me. hokay.... you were warned.. you might have better responses if you went to a senior citizen home and spent some time chatting and playing games with the resisdents.. the alzheimer ones should give you the same quality responses, especially if they don't know anything about physics.. have a good one! I have developed a limited strength gravity theory. ...limited strength gravity *hypothesis* Name the difference M'n'M? It's a theory. You'll say anything to belittle me. Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- > I have developed a limited strength gravity theory. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's a theory. > You'll say anything to belittle me. To be nice since you didn't cuss me out this time I will make an exception. *Theory* A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. *Hypothesis* A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. ..given what you have said so far, hypothesis is being generous. > Eric, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > My question to you is: Why does it matter to you whether he posits > opinions here, or not? [snip] It matters because the only way this flaming idiot, Mitchell, will go away is if there is noone who responds to him. If you are unfamiliar with Mitchell, dig through googlegroups. Eric, > It matters because the only way this flaming idiot, Mitchell, will go > away is if there is noone who responds to him. If you are unfamiliar > with Mitchell, dig through googlegroups. You are responding to "him." I am responding to the points he raises. regards, brodix > Eric, > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > brodix Have fun. Perhaps you will suceed where all have failed? >> Eric, >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Have fun. Perhaps you will suceed where all have failed? If he does, we will truly know that Jesus is back... where's my shotgun.. Mori, > > Have fun. Perhaps you will suceed where all have failed? > > If he does, we will truly know that Jesus is back... where's my shotgun.. Wouldn't it be more effective to just say, "where's my gun..." A shotgun suggests a scattershot approach and I think you would want to imply your mind is much more precise then that. > Mori, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shotgun suggests a scattershot approach and I think you would want to > imply your mind is much more precise then that. not after me and cooter done drank a case of pabst blue ribbon.. koo koo koo.. > Mitchell, > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cools down to the point of condensing out as mass again. Unless it > radiated into a body of mass somewhere along the line. How do you define the two ends of the cycle brodix? Where in a black hole does matter turn to energy? And where does that energy convert back to mass? I do not understand what you mean by cooling down. Thanks, Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- > Black holes have been observed to be fairly stable, so that not a lot > actually falls into them. What does might account for the jets out the [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > brodix Mitchell, > How do you define the two ends of the cycle brodix? This isn't complicated. Background radiation is like the dew point of the atmosphere. Space can only hold radiation stable below the level of 2.7k. Above that and it condenses out as very basic forms of mass, such as hydrogen. This dynamic explanation for the smooth level of CMBR is far less complicated then the static explanation of Inflation Theory, which the Big Bang Theory requires. Of course CMBR is not completely smooth, as there are minute variations, but then neither is the dew point. The hotter it is, the more water the air holds. So there might be similar reasons why different areas of space have different levels of CMBR. > Where in a black hole does matter turn to energy? I said the black hole is basically just the eye of the storm. Most of the process is what we do see. Which is the concentration of stars swirling around it, burning off their accumulated mass. > And where does that energy convert back to mass? Obviously there is a range of ways. For one thing it could simply strike a massive object, causing it to heat up and expand, such as sunlight striking the earth. Look at the amount of additional biomass created every year. Now biological processes as we know them may be unique to this planet, or they may not be, but it is happening. Beyond that, as redshift shows, light ultimately travels no more then about 15 bilion light years. It is this energy, coming from all directions over every point in space, that creates the expansion effect. This is why the rate of expansion and the force of gravity are in inverse proportion, Omega=1, because they are opposite sides of the cycle. One of the elements powering this cycle is that there is more energy in space than it can hold in equilibrium. > I do not understand what you mean by cooling down. Light obviously possesses a great deal of energy. By the time it has been distributed across a thirty billion lightyear sphere around its source, this energy is dissipated. If I had more time I would check out what great crimes you've committed against scientific reasoning, till then I will just have to take everyone's word for it. And thanks for considering what I am saying. regards, brodix > Mitchell, > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > brodix Brodix, you are saying that energy in the form of light is driving the expansion? I am under the impression that the expansion itself is energy. Anti gravity pushing outward if you will. my crime, from the horses mouth, is that I believe there are no black holes. I have reasoning to prove it. I have developed a limited strength gravity theory. The failure that Stephen Hawking talks about requires my theory. It is the obvious correction to the failure. Anyway thanks mitch raemsch > I have developed a limited strength gravity theory. ..limited strength gravity *hypothesis* Energy is driving te expansion. The energy of the big bang is pushing the universe out. The universe don't expand by its self ,,its pushed out. But the energy presure inside is constant. Energy dont have shape or size. Its not air presure so dont think of that , dont be stupid and think the qualities are like psi. AS the universe expands , and matter don't .. a low forms around mass. Gravity . The energy presure of space is allso afected by wave interaction EMF. Light is a rize and fall in energy and changes diections to remain at C . tj, > Energy is driving te expansion. > The energy of the big bang is pushing the universe out. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Light is a rize and fall in energy and changes diections to remain at C > . "Energy is driving te expansion." " Light is a rize and fall in energy..." Mitchell, > Brodix, you are saying that energy in the form of light is driving > the expansion? Yes. Consider the following article from the Economist magazine. Specifically this sentence from the fifth paragraph; " indicate that the clusters are adding to the energy of the CMB by a process called inverse Compton scattering, in which hot gas boosts the energy of the microwaves. That, they say, might be enough to explain the irregularities without resorting to ghostly dark matter and energy." Cosmology Things fall apart Feb 5th 2004 From The Economist print edition What if the dark energy and dark matter essential to modern explanations of the universe don't really exist? IT WAS beautiful, complex and wrong. In 150AD, Ptolemy of Alexandria published his theory of epicyclesthe idea that the moon, the sun and the planets moved in circles which were moving in circles which were moving in circles around the Earth. This theory explained the motion of celestial objects to an astonishing degree of precision. It was, however, what computer programmers call a kludge: a dirty, inelegant solution. Some 1,500 years later, Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer, replaced the whole complex edifice with three simple laws. Some people think modern astronomy is based on a kludge similar to Ptolemy's. At the moment, the received wisdom is that the obvious stuff in the universestars, planets, gas clouds and so onis actually only 4% of its total content. About another quarter is so-called cold, dark matter, which is made of different particles from the familiar sort of matter, and can interact with the latter only via gravity. The remaining 70% is even stranger. It is known as dark energy, and acts to push the universe apart. However, the existence of cold, dark matter and dark energy has to be inferred from their effects on the visible, familiar stuff. If something else is actually causing those effects, the whole theoretical edifice would come crashing down. Space Tom Shanks' paper is published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. His research is based on data gathered from NASA's WMAP satellite. Sebastien Vauclair (in French) and colleagues published their findings in Astronomy and Astrophysics. According to a paper just published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society by Tom Shanks and his colleagues at the University of Durham, in England, that might be about to happen. Many of the inferences about dark matter and dark energy come from detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This is radiation that pervades space, and is the earliest remnant of the Big Bang which is thought to have started it all. Small irregularities in the CMB have been used to deduce what the early universe looked like, and thus how much cold, dark matter and dark energy there is around. Dr Shanks thinks these irregularities may have been misinterpreted. He and his colleagues have been analysing data on the CMB that were collected by WMAP, a satellite launched in 2001 by NASA, America's space agency. They have compared these data with those from telescopic surveys of galaxy clusters, and have found correlations between the two which, they say, indicate that the clusters are adding to the energy of the CMB by a process called inverse Compton scattering, in which hot gas boosts the energy of the microwaves. That, they say, might be enough to explain the irregularities without resorting to ghostly dark matter and energy. Dr Shanks is not the only person questioning the status quo. In a pair of papers published in a December issue of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Sebastien Vauclair of the Astrophysics Laboratory of the Midi-Pyrénées, in Toulouse, and his colleagues also report the use of galaxy clusters to question the existence of dark energy. But their method uses the clusters in a completely different way from Dr Shanks, and thus opens a second flank against the conventional wisdom. Cosmological theory says that the relationship between the mass of a galaxy cluster and its age is a test of the value of the "density parameter" of the universe. The density parameter is, in turn, a measure of just how much normal matter, dark matter and dark energy there is. But because the mass of a cluster is difficult to measure directly, astronomers have to infer it from computer models which tell them how the temperature of the gas in a cluster depends on that cluster's mass. Even measuring the temperature of a cluster is difficult, though. What is easy to measure is its luminosity. And that should be enough, since luminosity and temperature are related. All you need to know are the details of the relationship, and by measuring luminosity you can backtrack to temperature and then to mass. That has been done for nearby clusters, but not for distant ones which, because of the time light has taken to travel from them to Earth, provide a snapshot of earlier times. So Dr Vauclair and his colleagues used XMM-Newton, a European X-ray-observation satellite that was launched in 1999, to measure the X-ray luminosities and the temperatures of eight distant clusters of galaxies. They then compared the results with those from closer (and therefore apparently older) clusters. The upshot was that the relationship between mass and age did not match the predictions of conventional theory. It did, however, match an alternative model with a much higher density of "ordinary" matter in it. That does not mean conventional theory is yet dead. The Newton observations are at the limits of accuracy, so a mistake could have crept in. Or it could be that astronomers have misunderstood how galaxy clusters evolve. Changing that understanding would be uncomfortable, but not nearly as uncomfortable as throwing out cold, dark matter and dark energy. On the other hand, a universe that requires three completely different sorts of stuff to explain its essence does have a whiff of epicycles about it. As Albert Einstein supposedly said, "Physics should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Put Dr Shanks's and Dr Vauclair's observations together, and one cannot help but wonder whether Ptolemy might soon have some company in the annals of convoluted, discarded theories. > I am under the impression that the expansion itself is energy. > Anti gravity pushing outward if you will. And my point is that as radiation is the expanding energy being shed by the gravitational process, it is the anti-gravity. > my crime, from the horses mouth, is that I believe there are no black > holes. I have reasoning to prove it. > I have developed a limited strength gravity theory. > The failure that Stephen Hawking talks about requires my theory. > It is the obvious correction to the failure. At the risk of inflaming your critics, could you elaborate? > Anyway thanks Cranks Unite! (google me and you will find I'm not always that popular around here either.) regards, brodix > Mitchell, > > [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > > brodix When I first encountered relativity I saw what I thought of as a contradiction between the General Theory and the Special theory of relativity. That was that matter would reach the speed of light falling in a black hole. That is where I began with my theory; seeing an apparent contradiction. Ther next problem I saw with black holes in GR was that time would stop at the event horizon but somehow start over again and end again at the singularity. There is only one time and one end to time - not two. Time ending twice makes no sense. In gravitation theory there is something known as the Einstein shift or gravitational redshift. This is the redshift of emmitted light in gravity. At a black hole's event horizon where time is predicted to stop(the first time) the redshift is infinite. That means there is energyless light. Dead Light? PoppyCock. That General Relativity predicts light of infinite wavelength is absolute proof that the theory is wrong. Black holes are the very failure of GR. The solution to the problem is a limited strength gravity theory or finite gravity. To understand the strength of gravity and its limit a modification of the Equivalence Principle is in order. The priciple of equivalence states that gravity is equivalent to acceleration. The strength of gravity can be defined as a level of acceleration. Einstein equated weight in gravity with weight in acceleration. His gravity could go infinite though by his very definition of the equivalence principle. His acceleration is considered to be the Rate of Change in velocity. By this the acceleration could possibly be considered infinite in its extreme. By removing the Rate from the definition of aceleration in gravity(weight) we find that by that definition acceleration is limited. There is no rate in gravity (equivalent) acceleration(weight). By generalizing the equivalence principle we find the limit to gravity's strength. Gravity's equivalent acceleration is to be defined as just a change in velocity without any rate. The universal speed limit c defines the universal change in speed limit. The greatest change in velocity(without rate) is neccesarily a less than light speed change. By generalizing the equivalence principle gravitational acceleration in weight is limited. That is the strength of gravity is limited to a less than light speed acceleration where acceration in gravity's weight is defined without any rate. There is no rate to be considered in gravity's weight. Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- Mitchell, > When I first encountered relativity I saw what I thought of as > a contradiction between the General Theory and the Special theory [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > is defined without any rate. There is no rate to be considered in > gravity's weight. I generally see your point. The question is where does it lead you? Personally I find every insight tends to lead to a further question. While not approaching the situation from the same perspective, it seems similar to my point that black holes are essentially the eye of a storm and there is actually nothing accumulating there, just the wisps of energy which are being ejected out the poles. I don't seem to have as much luck stirring up debate on this issue with the local standard model proponents as you seem to have. Part of the problem with the standard model is its assumption that space is actually a dimensional reference frame, even though relativity proves it isn't a classic euclidian one. Therefore it can be thought of as curved, as opposed to references simply being relative. As I pointed out, geometry never incorporated the zero and for geometry, zero would be empty space. Therefore geometry doesn't create space, as the assumption that it is only a frame of reference presumes, but that it only defines space, which is most effectively understood as equilibrium Light is a wave conducted in the energy under presure from the big bang. Light is NOT driving the expansion. Energy under presure IS....dark energy. 100 % of all the energy that was ever inside the universe is still inside the universe. tj, > Light is a wave conducted in the energy under presure from the big bang. > Light is NOT driving the expansion. > Energy under presure IS....dark energy. > 100 % of all the energy that was ever inside the universe is still > inside the universe. A wave is still a form of energy. A wave is rize and fall in energy. A wave is a rize and fall in the sea . Conductive rate of light is the rate energy reacts with energy. More energy wount go faster , it will just change directions more and travel like a wavelenth. > Light is a wave conducted in the energy under presure from the big bang. > Light is NOT driving the expansion. > Energy under presure IS....dark energy. > 100 % of all the energy that was ever inside the universe is still > inside the universe. I agree. It is a "space" form of energy. The uuniverse is 100 % energy. Light , emf , electron are all waves . None of them are condenced energy. Condenced energy is a nutron and protron . Condenced energy is an eddy in energy. Energy in motion is a low presure without resistance . Its a low and two lows orbit the combined low wile the wave interaction from the waves they make ,,make them fit dipole locked in solids and dipole free in liquids. .tj, > The uuniverse is 100 % energy. > Light , emf , electron are all waves . [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they make ,,make them fit dipole locked in solids and dipole free in > liquids. So far as I understand your point, I don't have an argument with it. Your condensed energy, mass, is a consolidation of space, positive curvature and radiation energy is expansion of space, negative curvature. regards, brodix No space is just energy not in motion and nor radiating anything. radiating is photons ....just waves in the conductor. when magnets attract ,,the waves between take some energy out from between them and the energy presure is greater around them boath than between them and the energy presure of the universe pushes them together. repulsion is coliding waves that raze the energy betwen nd push them apart against energy presure. The energy presure inside the universe is constant , not getting less as the universe expands. just taking up more space . and matter just takes up more space in motion as to eliminate energy from expanding per time frame. per reaction . Its not my idia ,,,its ienstiens wavical universe. He could not find the words nor the minds to explain bent space with. > No space is just energy not in motion and nor radiating anything. > radiating is photons ....just waves in the conductor. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Its not my idia ,,,its ienstiens wavical universe. > He could not find the words nor the minds to explain bent space with. tj, You are basically on target, but remember that is is generally accepted and proven that the positive curvature of gravity and overall expansion balance out. So there is no effective expansion of the universe. The perceived effect is cancelled by gravity. This makes it much more logical for energy pressure to remain the same. My point is that this perceived expansion is actually negative curvature, which Einstein predicted with his cosmological constant. regards, brodix > No space is just energy not in motion and nor radiating anything. > radiating is photons ....just waves in the conductor. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Its not my idia ,,,its ienstiens wavical universe. > He could not find the words nor the minds to explain bent space with. Energy moves. I took that from you TJ. It's absolutely brilliant. Space is in motion. It, like time, is never still. It is not still and therefore is not empty either. Absolutely everything in the universe is moving - space, time and All. Bent space can only be explained adequately by a moving medium - interacting with and bending around mass. With all due respect space as energy also moves. Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- Mitchell, > Energy moves. I took that from you TJ. It's absolutely brilliant. > Space is in motion. It, like time, is never still. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > With all due respect space as energy also moves. I might be more appropriate to think of space as the equilibrium around which opposing elements, matter/anti-matter, positive/negative charge, etc. spin. It is as this absolute that it has meaning but not limitation. Zero point energy and all the other names given it. regards, brodix As soon as space moves ,,,its matter. an eddy in energy is a nutron. This universe turns as it expands. Dark Energy is the inside of the big bang and we are still inside the blast that is pushing the universe out. There are no curves in space but rather an energy gradiant . Gravity is push to less. > As soon as space moves ,,,its matter. > an eddy in energy is a nutron. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > There are no curves in space but rather an energy gradiant . Gravity > is push to less. I agree that space moving is matter. But there's a difference: space eddies/swirls are spining; that's matter - space spinning. Gravity - as space moving is linear. What makes space but the motion of time. And time bends around mass ultimately making a curved space. When you float up its buoyancy not moving water. Gravity is a push to less energy. Time dont change , thats the time energy reacts with energy. The bubble floating up cant speed up. So it moves back and forth against the conductor like a photon conducted in space is an energy rize and fall pushing up against the rate it will react C. > When you float up its buoyancy not moving water. > Gravity is a push to less energy. > Time dont change , thats the time energy reacts with energy. > The bubble floating up cant speed up. So it moves back and forth > against the conductor like a photon conducted in space is an energy rize > and fall pushing up against the rate it will react C. Gravity as the movement of space doesn't move relative to mass for freefall. Matter moves with the "space" movement when falling. You seem to think energy under presure will act like air presure some how ...it dont. Energy has no shape or size . Energy only has more or less . Matter is buoyant in energy . In an energy gradiant matter will allways be displaced to less. matter in motion takes up more space per time unit so less energy is there to expand per time unit because condenced energy don't expand. Then the less is a gain in mass . Air would move in and fill the gap,,but energy has no shape or size and wount move to fill the gap . Its not an acocitive idia that can be thought of as air presure in motion . Its simply the sum of all its values . kenetic energy could not exsist if space moved at C and filled in .. more energy is one one side than the other ( per time frame ) as mass in motion takes up space as it moves. If space moved it would have some resistance but it dont. Time is its only resstance. IF a mass moved at C there would be a black hole behind it and it would fall back into it and slow down . Space and time dont move . The energy rate changes as matter takes up space in motion. The mass of a body is never constant but vairies with the energy of the mass. I believe in gravity as moving space. Moving space moves the matter in freefall. The same movement moves through matter in weight. When space moves relative to matter(weight) then that could be considered kinetic. Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls - > At the risk of inflaming your critics, could you elaborate? > Anyway thanks > Cranks Unite! > (google me and you will find I'm not always that popular around here [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > brodix Brodix, I know I elaborated on my own theory but I think you might have been wondering what I meant about Hawking and his definition of the problem. Hawking says that General Relativity predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities; places where gravity goes infinite. Singularities are where space-time ends in infinite space-time curvature. If the infinities are the problem then wouldn't a finite theory of gravitational strength be the solution? I did not develope my theory to solve Hawking's problem. But it does anyway to my treat. Thanks again Brodix, Mitch Raemsch Mitch, > Brodix, I know I elaborated on my own theory but I think you might have > been wondering what I meant about Hawking and his definition of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I did not develope my theory to solve Hawking's problem. > But it does anyway to my treat. This is why it is only one side of the cycle. Light/radiation being the other side. Matter collapses. Energy expands. regards, brodix > Mitch, > > Could it be that galaxies are a gravitational storm of collapsing mass > and expanding energy, so that the black hole is actually the eye of > the storm and the real activity is what we actually see, leading up to > the edge? No, we can't say that. Since the only known beings who can actually observe galaxies, actually in fact live inside galaxies, rather than outside them where the supposed gravity "storm" is presumably to have started. And a Black Hole can't be anything even apporoximately analogous to the eye of a storm. Since eyes of storms only form because they are the lowest pressure regions in their immediate environments. And Black Holes are according to astrologers the highest pressure regions in their immediate environments. So it would actually violate all known laws of physics, including relativity for a Black Hole to be the eye of a storm. Since what determines the boundary is a heat equation. At what supposedly determines the boundary of a Black Hole is an "event" equation. But the event equation doesn't exist. Since when two blacks collide, there is no event. There is only a larger black hole. > brodix > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Mitch Raemsch -- Light Falls -- A black hole may as well be a big atom. A void in ep or dark energy. you can call it heaven . Its clear matter spinning so fast theres no energy expanding like the rest of the universe. Unlike an atom with its parts orbiting the combined low they cause , a black hole pushes the space from between all the particals and its no longer in a thermal state . Thermal state is a ballance of orbits and intence waves pushing apart wile gravity pushes in caused by the intence low of matter in motion taking up space in time. A black hole is just one big nutron as the gravity rams them together . > A black hole may as well be a big atom. Well, that's the Archimedes Plutonium theory of Black Holes. But, like all things in physics, it's a local effect. It's works, iff the Atom is in Boston, where the whole town is curved in the imaginary direction of [1,i,j,k] Evellyn Woods Speed Reading Homeomorphic Curvature towards the Church of The Latter Day Later Mondays Of The Olympians Of the Pillars of Athens. Called Officially by the Ecclesiastical Reformists Of Chirst -- THE BELTWAY. But, informally called by the Jesuits -- THE BIG DIG. For one reason, that the biggest Atom is so much bigger than hydrogen and helium which presumably make up Black Holes, that even Carl Sagan would: There are Billions and Billions of Black Holes, but there's only one Pi that is not a Pion. > A void in ep or dark energy. > you can call it heaven . But Dark Energy is merely the Einstonians latest and Greastest theory of Virtual Photons and The Null Set, and not a Theory Of Anything Else. So it's not really energy or science. It's simply Feynmann-Kantian DEEP THOUGHT SPIN Philosophy. Dark energy is all the energy inside the big bang thats still expanding. The unverse is pushed out by energy under presure no matter what you call it zz bunker. there are six states of mass/energy . The energy under presure that fill the universe. plazma , solids, liquids, gasses, are all in thermal ballanced states. And then theres the clear state. The clear state is not in thermal equalibream. Theres no holding protrons and nutrons apart with intence waves and orbital motion and the low of the black hole is more than the low of the atom and that eliminates pushing into the low. In the thermal state of matter as the nutron and protron take up space and take up more space per time unit in motion theres less energy expanding per time unit so the low they make is intence and they orbit the low they make preventing them from ever reaching the center . Its in ballance. But in a black hole the low they orbit is no longer te lowest point of energy. What winds up deep in the black hole has nothing to hold them apart yet it takes up space in time in motion as the entire mass of the back hole spins making the low so low the low the proton and nutron obits as an atom is nulled by the over all low of the black hole. ITS NOT Archmeds idia anyway. hes a gravityphysics wanabee. Your entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. > > A black hole may as well be a big atom. > > Well, that's the Archimedes Plutonium theory of Black Holes. [snip crap] HA HA HA! SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf Ok uncle idiot. yer the twitt that thinks a photon can knock out a nutron. You proved 100 times you dont understand quantom physics or even the sizes of its parts. You cant back yer stupid sh.t up. I busted yer a.s in simple physics at least 20 times. Yer a smartass and that has nothing to do with anything. Nothing other than fail to measure ..blaim it on somting out of thier controle. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.