|Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 12:40 pm: |
'Deep Space Science' is a continuation of 'Strange Anomalies in Science', splitting off from this thread here:
Hubble makes 3D dark matter map
Strange times in Science, especially in current Cosmology and Modern Physics, going hand in hand towards the brave new world of a post General-Relativity-Hubble-constant era, to test for whether or not these are true. Is the universe really only a mere 13.7 billion years old? Is it expanding at multiples of light speed at its most distant reaches, not to be called the 'edge' though not infinite either? Strangeness, both in physics and astronomy, needs to be resolved. Is distant space expanding the universe, or is deep space cosmic light redshifting from other causes to give the illusiong of expansion? Is Doppler shift out, or in? Was there a Big Bang??? Deep Space observations might resolove that and more, and soon.
Awesome video (4 mins), a must see: HUBBLE ULTRA DEEP FIELD 3D
|Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 12:45 pm: |
First stars in telescope's sights
BBC Science News
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) catching cosmic light in deeply redshifted wavelengths of infrared:
"It is even possible that when Nasa's new manned vehicle, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) enters use, JWST could be serviced to upgrade it and extend its life.
The mission aims to examine every stage in cosmic history and the science priorities are organised into four main themes:
• the end of the cosmic "Dark Ages"
• the assembly of galaxies
• the birth of the first stars and protoplanetary systems
• planetary systems and the origin of life
"We think we know the initial conditions of the Universe now, at least in a statistical way," said John Mather."
This is the thinking going into this very important piece of equipment to determine more empirically whether or not our theories, mathematical in nature, about the 'early' universe are correct or not. It might also help clarify the 'age' of the universe according to Big Bang theory, (now computed 'statistically' to have happened 13.7 billion years ago), or in fact disprove it entirely. Very interesting prospects for this super-cool (-233C, -388F) space telescope. I suspect they will be very surprised by their findings, when the infrared shows a fully formed universe beyond 13.7 BLYs. If so, welcome to Infinity!
|Posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 - 03:49 am: |
As I have said before, our 13.7 billion light year big bang may only have been a "local phenomena" in the universe. There may have been other bangs. In other words think of the big bang as a universal supernova. Who is to say there haven't been many others trillions of light years away?
Our ability to observe cosmic phenomena beyond the 13.7 billion limit, may only be limited because of the big bang itself (not because that's the universal limit). In other words, the cosmic background radiation/noise caused by the supposed bang may be the very thing which prohibits us from "seeing" beyond that barrier. Perhaps we just don't know how to penetrate it yet. We're sort of like blind moths stuck in a jar, flying around, and making the silly assumption that the world is jar shaped! Duh . . .
|Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:08 am: |
Exotic non-Baryonic Dark Matter considered, the Bullet Cluster.
This came up here: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=907317&postcount=59 where on BAUT forum we are discussing 'duality' of space expansion at great distances (5Mpc), while no such expansion but rather contraction is taking place closer in. This leads to considerations of 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' both of which are playing out their drama on the great distance cosmic stage, but not evident close up. The best evidence 'dark matter' is real is in the "Bullet Cluster" where two galaxies collided and passed through each other: http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/ The author says here, and other posters confirm, that the 'dark matter' cannot be ordinary baryonic matter, but must be of the exotic non-baryonic kind. However, I am not clear in my mind why this is so. The article says:
However, I must admit I am not clear on this issue, as to whether or not the 'dark matter stayed behind' or not.
In the Bullet Cluster, more formally known as 1E 0657-56, we actually find two clusters of galaxies that have (relatively) recently passed right through each other. It turns out that the large majority (about 90%) of ordinary matter in a cluster is not in the galaxies themselves, but in hot X-ray emitting intergalactic gas. As the two clusters passed through each other, the hot gas in each smacked into the gas in the other, while the individual galaxies and the dark matter (presumed to be collisionless) passed right through.
Here's Wiki on Bullet Cluster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster
The animation is here: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/media/bullet.mpg
I'm still not sure I know what it is I am looking at, however...
Also see: Why Dark Matter appears non-baryonic
|Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 07:33 pm: |
Bullet Cluster 'Dark Matter' re-considered, and reversed?
In the above post, I had left it an open question (same as on the BAUT astronomy, ATM forum post: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=908355&postcount=64 ) that I did not truly understand what was happening to the baryonic hot gases and 'dark matter' inside the Bullet Cluster, as per this Wiki description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster and this animation: http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/media/bullet.mpg
The original idea, per Wiki and NASA et al is this:
I think this is wrong.
The third component, the dark matter, was detected indirectly by its gravitational lensing of background objects. In theories without dark matter, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics, the lensing would be expected to follow the baryonic matter, i.e. the X-ray gas. However, the lensing is strongest in two separated regions near the visible galaxies. This provides support for the idea that most of the mass in the cluster pair is in the form of collisionless dark matter.
But this remained on my mind, why I remained 'stumped' since I first learned of this 'dark matter' non-baryonic, non-interacting (except gravitationally) matter in the Bullet Cluster observations. I now have an idea, that perhaps we are looking at the "post merger" of these two galaxies in reverse order from what we should be doing: It is not the 'hot gasses' left behind in this collisionless 'dark matter' collision of galaxies, but the hot gasses created by 'colliding dark matter', post collision, that are left behind.
It appears to me (after watching this merger video over and over again) that the cold dark (baryonic) matter inside both galaxies travel in unison with their respective galaxies, but when they interact during their merger, they leave behind a byproduct of interaction, which are heated (baryonic) gasses, what we are able to see in the Chandra X-ray telescope observations. The (cold dark) baryonic matter that continues on its way past the collision merger point is still the same as now believed, that it is cold and dark matter due to weak gravity lensing, not what was left behind, but in fact is what is leading the direction of both galaxy motions. The 'blue areas' are what is ahead of the collision remnants (hot gasses) after these two galaxies collided and moved ahead. There is nothing at all 'exotic' about this; merely, that 'cold dark' matter is simply higher G matter inside the galaxies (per weak gravity lensing), what exists inside the very vast gaseous spaces between stars, and when this matter interacted through merger, some of it heated up into 'warm dark matter' and it stayed behind. At least, that is how it looks to my eyes, when I look at the video and read text: It was not 'collisionless' at all, but in fact collided to leave behind the hot gasses observed.
In a post Einstein, post Hubble expansion universe, the former interpretation makes better sense; but in a non-Einstein, non-Hubble expansion universe, where G is a variable and very high in deep space, my second interpretation makes better sense. We shall see in due time which is which.
Just in: Dark matter becomes less 'ghostly' - it may not be non-interactive?
|Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 12:39 pm: |
The Murky World of the Sun's Plasma-Physics Dynamics.
We live in the Sun-Earth dynamics as described here:
Our Sun is mostly hot plasma made of hydrogen, which through nuclear fusion is being converted into helium, and traces of other elements. The current theory is that the Sun is a medium sized star with a life span of approximately 10 billion years. It is also believed from theories of stellar evolution, our Sun is now about half way through its life cycle. The energy output of our local star emits both light, an electromagnetic photon energy which takes about 8 minutes to reach us, and the solar wind, which is made up of ionized particles that take about 3 days to reach us. These particles interact with our upper atmosphere and the Earth's magnetic field, which ionizes molecules in the upper atmosphere into what at northern latitudes becomes the Aurora Borealis. Both these interactions of solar wind and planetary magnetic field in the upper atmosphere collide to excite molecules into a light giving state, what we see as the northern lights, a very weak form of plasma. This we seem to understand. What we do not fully understand is what is happening inside the Sun itself, the plasma gases in nuclear fusion there, that generate both electromagnetic energy, what gives us light and heat, and the solar wind, what interacts with out upper atmosphere as the Aurora. What is going on on the Sun?
We rely on the Sun's energy to live on Earth and the aurora relies on the Sun's energy to drive the currents that make the aurora. The Sun is our nearest star. It is, as all stars are, a hot ball of gas made up mostly of Hydrogen. The Sun is so hot that most of the gas is actually plasma, the fourth state of matter.
The Sun's surface heliosphere, the Sun's outer layer, is what hot plasma physics describes, which is a surface region made up of hot hydrogen gases which are over 1 million degrees Celsius, erupting around dark spots just beneath the surface only thousands of degrees hot, which is a mystery. The magnetic fields created by this hot plasma process throws off giant flares, some of which travel millions of miles into space, their powerful electromagnetic radiation having effect even on Earth's electronic instruments, or power grids. But beneath all this visible and measurable activity lies a deep mystery of what is it exactly that is happening inside the Sun, or any star. Present theory has several approaches:
- Equation of State dynamics, which essentially says the gravitational force and energy pressure from nuclear reactions inside the Sun are equally balanced.
- Stars are luminous balls of plasma, which can be hot stars like our Sun, or cool stars like brown dwarfs.
- Interiors of stars undergo a convection process, in which it may take a very long time for photons to migrate from the Sun's interior to the surface.
- Stellar structure is spherically symmetric, with density and luminosity equally balanced into a large spherical star.
These are more or less the knowns to current physics as to what stars are made of, and how they radiate heat energy. However, the dynamics of this process, what lurks beneath the visible surface of stars, remains frustratingly murky. We do not really understand what is it that powers the star's nuclear combustion, if it is in fact that, for billions of years. It is estimated that small white dwarfs, because of the nature of their hydrogen fuel consumption being slow, could last over 100 billion years, or more than 10 times the life of our Sun (and many times longer than the now assumed 'age of the universe' 13.7 billion years), which could lead to a conundrum of old white dwarfs being older than the universe. The plasma physics that powers the Sun's luminosity is something more or less understood, but the 'beneath the surface' physics appears less well understood. However, it is the dynamics beneath the surface that is most important to understanding what makes our Sun what it is. What kind of dynamics lurk there?
From stellar evolution it is now believed stars form from large mega clouds of gas in deep space which condense gravitationally into nuclear combustion. As described here, it says:
However, the internal plasma energy pressures of such large molecular clouds is not counterbalanced sufficiently by gravitational forces, given our current value of Newton's G, to allow such clouds to collapse, which is one more reason to suspect that in the deep cold of intergalactic space, G is much higher than known here on Earth. According to the 'new physics' as formulated by the Axiomatic Equation, far from star radiant heat and electromagnetic energy, G is much higher than here, growing about 1 G per 1 AU, until it reaches a very high ratio in outer space of about 5 orders of magnitude higher than 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, known value (assumed a universal constant, though it appears not), as described by the equations (in link above), which may also explain so called 'Dark Matter' for most of the invisible universe. The paper says:
Stellar evolution begins with a giant molecular cloud (GMC), also known as a stellar nursery. Most of the 'empty' space inside a galaxy actually contains around 0.1 to 1 particle per cm³, but inside a GMC, the typical density is a few million particles per cm³. A GMC contains 100,000 to 10,000,000 times as much mass as our Sun by virtue of its size: 50 to 300 light years across.
As a GMC orbits the galaxy, one of several events might occur to cause its gravitational collapse. GMCs may collide with each other, or pass through dense regions of spiral arms. A nearby supernova explosion can also be a trigger, sending shocked matter into the GMC at very high speeds. Finally, galactic collisions can trigger massive bursts of star formation as the gas clouds in each galaxy are compressed and agitated by the collision.
A collapsing GMC fragments as it collapses, breaking into smaller and smaller chunks. In these fragments, the gas is heated as it collapses due to the release of gravitational potential energy, and the cloud becomes a protostar as it forms into a spherical rotating object.
However, in addition, the Axiomatic Equation also postulates that if all ambient energy lambda cancels on a point, a very great gravity G results, its maximum, which in effect creates a mini-black hole. Such an event may be taking place inside any hot spherical body, such as a planet or star, so there are gravity dynamics at work in that body's center not yet understood, nor even suspected, by present day physics. On a stellar scale, that 'black hole' would be quite strong (all galaxies have such a mega black hole in their center), given all the plasma energy surrounding it, which also results in convective currents, electromagnetic currents, and spin for the whole body; on a planetary scale, being cooler, this effect is minimal, but still present, giving some planets magnetic fields and spin. But on an intergalactic space level, the mega molecular clouds would also experience, if the hydrogen gas is warm plasma, a similar effect, whereby a large enough mass of ambient energy may fuse at some center to cancel all lambda there, and very great gravity results: a star is born. This is not now understood, nor suspected, but present day physics, but it better explains how stars form, and how they continue their lives through the nuclear process. In effect, the real power behind a star's life of luminosity, and spin, is its 'black hole' center, as postulated by the Axiomatic Equation. If that energy is too great, meaning too much heat is being generated, at some point, probably at E = mc^3, the star can no longer hold together gravitationally, and goes nova; while at very low energy outputs, the star falls below its 'cut off' energy level, and radiation is restricted to its polar jets of high energy, X-ray or higher, within a very high gravity, so it has immense spin, viz. a neutron star. But these are as yet unknowns, so presented here for speculation, and for future searches, to see if perhaps our understanding of the inner dynamics of stars is still lacking the gravitational component, of which we at this point are still ignorant, but could be most important.
The interaction within the atom is no more than intense gravity (g=1) modified by energy (the inverse relationship of E/ c^2), so that a charge neutral (or ionized) totality forms, with a small remainder force of gravity to define the whole atom. If it were a complete 'combustion', in a sense, this atom would have no gravitic remainder and matter would all fly apart. It is an indication of how well balanced is our universe that all matter displays some gravity, and thus can form into larger bodies to populate space. By this same reasoning, any star which puts out too much energy cannot hold together, since its g falls off towards a level where it can no longer hold mass together, so one would have to postulate that there is an upper limit as to how much energy a star can produce. Above that range, the atomic mass fails, and the star explodes. The author speculates this upper limit of Energy is: E'" = mc^3, but beyond the scope of this paper.
So this is more or less the state of knowledge today, regarding what powers stars. What do we look for as evidence that something else is going on underneath the visible Heliosphere? Is there any evidence that could support a variable Newton's G in the universe, such as 'Dark Matter'? If the Axiomatic Equation is correct, there should be. Where do we look for it? What experiments can be done in a lab setting to find such? I suspect if we could recreate the postulated 'black hole' in a plasma sphere, perhaps we may be one step closer to understanding the internal dynamics of stars. And if so, we may be on our way to discovering a whole new energy source, a gravitational energy, that is usable in ways we had never suspected. Imagine ships powered by this gravitational energy contained in onboard spheres that can power them with endless accelerative forces, to reach velocities way beyond anything our chemically powered crafts can ever hope for. That alone is worth the search, to understand what powers the Sun's dynamics. If nothing else, it would be another invaluable gift from our local star, that which gives us light and heat, and life: interstellar travel.
|Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 12:12 am: |
Can you explain what current physics says about the gravitational forces involved in atomic structure. For example I have read about the so called early formation of the universe after the theoretical "Big Bang". Apparently the thinking is that energy existed in an unstable plasma form.
My question is, in order to understand the gravity-energy relationship, what has been done to show the role of gravity in the transition from unstable plasma to atomic structure? I suspect that the only way to understand or even postulate what is happening on the stellar level, we must first completely understand the subatomic level.
|Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 12:36 pm: |
Hi Naive, I don't know if I'm qualified to speak for known physics, since I am not a Ph.D. in Physics; my knowledge is rather imperfectly that of a layman.
Here is Wiki on 'Complex plasma', which might be what it is in the very great distances of space between galaxies: "Although the underlying equations governing plasmas are relatively simple, plasma behaviour is extraordinarily varied and subtle: the emergence of unexpected behaviour from a simple model is a typical feature of a complex system. Such systems lie in some sense on the boundary between ordered and disordered behaviour, and cannot typically be described either by simple, smooth, mathematical functions, or by pure randomness. The spontaneous formation of interesting spatial features on a wide range of length scales is one manifestation of plasma complexity. The features are interesting, for example, because they are very sharp, spatially intermittent (the distance between features is much larger than the features themselves), or have a fractal form. Many of these features were first studied in the laboratory, and have subsequently been recognised throughout the universe."
There is also what the magnetic forces are doing on a large macro, or tiny micro, scales. Here's an example, also per Wiki:
"A schematic representation of the Heliospheric current sheet, the largest structure in the Solar System, resulting from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (Solar Wind). It is sometimes informally refered to as the 'Ballerina Skirt' model. "
Can any of these examples explain what happens inside an atom? We don't now have a theory of the formation of the atom using gravitational forces as opposed to electromagnetic energy. Rather, our current model of the atom is more Bohr like, though he did have a second law which used the same energy equation I used in the Axiomatic: E = hc/ W, where h is Planck's constant, c is lightspeed, and W is electromagnetic wavelength, or lambda. But I don't believe Bohr took that beyond this state, except to say that all particles have wavelength; though Prince Louis deBroglie worked with it some more, it is not clear how the original Bohr model progressed beyond the current dual charge particle attraction or repulsion model of what constitutes an atom. We now have an electron shell, negative charge, spinning around a proton nucleus, positive charge, held apart by the 'orbital' energy of electron shell rotation; the only gravitational effect is perhaps between protons and neutrons, though not a strong force. So in this model, there is not much room for a gravity-energy interaction of how is constructed the atom; rather, it is mainly electromagnetic.
What makes the alternative Axiomatic Equation theory of the atom different is that it treats the Strong Force within the atom as being identical to the 'black hole' force at galaxy centers, viz. maximum gravity. This maximum gravity, a super high G, has unique characteristics that are dual charge in nature, and act over a very short distance electromagnetically; all this is happening within the electron shell. The super-G-Strong Force holds the proton to proton and neutron nucleus together, while the dual opposite charge keep the nucleus and electron shell together, but modified by the orbital 'energy' in a quantum state of electron shells; these shells in effect give the atom their structure, what we identify as matter. What this mental image, how I see it in my 'mind's eye', means to the atomic structure is that the super gravity nuclear center interacts in some manner with ambient energy outside the atom, in a quantum manner, to give definition of that atom. In effect, the energy rich, or poor, environment in which the atom exists determines its other characteristics, of whether or not it is a full charge neutral atom, or an imperfectly neutralized charge deficient ionized atom. Given enough ionized atoms, you get plasma gas. So this is the connection between space plasma and the atom, per my mental image, though it does not explain exactly how gravity interacts with energy inside the atom.
I also suspect that what is spat out the axii of galactic black holes, those super G centers, is reprocessed atomic energy into ionized positive charged proto-protons that get thrown out the axis, what will be the seeds of future atoms. Once these settle down and become ionized protons in space, they will gravitationally attract others into mega gas clouds, the material of future star formations. So I see the whole process as a recycling process, after stars die, their materials are thrown off into space seeding planets, future life, and then all get recycled eventually into the galactic black hole to become proto-atoms for future star formations. How cool is that! But seriously, where I think gravity comes in, regarding the atom, is that the modified, hitherto ionized, proto-atom takes in the ambient electromagnetic energy available, from the local star or stars, and 'anchors' it against the atom's positive charged nucleus; the remainder of the dual charged electromagnetic wave is left 'dangling' at the electron shell, what defines for us the outer perimeter of an atom. The remainder of this strange interaction between proto-atom and electromagnetic energy is that it is not a complete absorbtion of energy, but incomplete. How incomplete? By the amount of G left over, what gives this atom its gravitational mass, or per Equivalence, its inertial mass. The next unknown is what happens at the 'cut off' wavelength where electromagnetic energy fails to modify the atom, so only gravity remains: is the atom then without an electron shell, where both positive and negative charge are converged into a neutron, like a 'neutron' star? At this point we still cannot know. So once again, we come full circle:
1. atomic proto-mass is spat out galactic black hole axii; 2. ambient electromagnetic energy latches onto this proto-mass, with both positive and negative charge, to create proto-atoms of hydrogen; 3. this dual charged energy modifies hydrogen atom into mass, per its G remainder, both as gravitational mass and inertial mass; 4. this atomic mass lives out its existence inside stars until converted into more complex molecules, including carbon, which are used to make planets and life; 5. at the end of their natural atomic lives, they all get recycled into the galactic center, to start the process anew. How cool is that!
Now, I've only painted a mental image here of what I think happens inside the atom, from its birth to its death, based upon how works out the Axiomatic. However, without being a Ph.D. in Physics, I am not able to work out the quantitative characteristics of this atomic model, except in general terms, so this must yet be worked out in a lab setting, to test for gravitational-energy interaction characteristics of atoms. I suspect this is doable through a better understanding of plasma physics, rather than through atom smashing physics, and to make plasma behave in ways that mimic what happens in deep space, or have it interact gravitationally through a 'black hole' like process. If I had infinite resources , and time, I am sure I could put together such a lab. But for now, the best I can do is a Gedanken type mental experiment.
But if anyone finds anything that either supports or shoots down this alternative atomic idea, please let us know.
[BTW, 13.7 billion years is but the 'blink of an eye' in such a universe of recycled matter and energy into new atomic mass; it is unlikely that both theories can coexist, so I boot out 13.7 BBT.]
|Posted on Monday, January 29, 2007 - 04:09 am: |
What type of "force" would exist in the "Big Bang" singularity? If it was all gravitation then could all the forms of energy and matter (and their associated forces) simply be states of gravity. Gravity then might be the full spectrum of what is. Hot, cold, excited, entropy, moving, gathered, atomic, the universe is gravity in flux. Maybe we see gravity everyday. We are seeing states of gravity. Even a singularity like a black hole is not "pure" gravitation, but merely a gradation. Perhaps matter is the nature of gravity degraded. It would make sense then that the more matter, the more gravity. This seems common sense of course, but what might it mean for the study of gravity (that is trying to understand matter and energy as degrading or changing forms of gravity). I don't know, maybe this sounds naive , or oversimplified. Would this eliminate the search for gravitons? Would it make the graviton the "purest" particle? What state then would the graviton exist in compared to observable particles? Would this explain why we can't discover gravitons? Does splitting gravity result in positive and negative charge? Is plasma the first energetic result of degrading gravity? Perhaps gravity is not the weak force that we imagine it to be, but rather an all pervading force that drives the atomic engine in ways we cannot visualize? Or perhaps the atomic forces are simply leftover kinetic / excited energy from the disruption of gravity (similar to the way the earth's core is still hot from collisions the planet sustained billions of years ago). Is this what happens on a small scale in black holes; the disruption of gravity producing the raw, excited, precursor to atomic structure? What then is causing the disruption of gravity in the black hole? Is it a miniature version of the cosmic bang where gravity is brought into imbalance and then emits matter (like exhaust) due to too much potential first stage gravity for lack of an existing term, existing in the singularity? If so, then what does that say about the ability of space to hold gravity, stellar body formation, etc.? And how has the nature of this interstellar medium changed due to its expansion if the big bang is correct?
I agree with you Ivan. Gravity can't be constant, especially if it exists in various states. Maybe the interaction between physical bodies (made up of atomic structure) display a constant effect, because they are in the same "atomic" state on the gravitational spectrum. On the other hand, the various possible states of plasma in the interstellar environment may also change the property and effect of gravity on atomic bodies. I think this fits in with your axiomatic idea. Perhaps this is why a unified field theory eludes us. We are trying to understand gravity as a separate force and yet it may encompass every force.
Help me out Ivan. I'm just an amateur. Is there any way to test this out?
|Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 09:46 am: |
Universe is a super Gravity Well? Perhaps so, Naive, but we may be the only two people on the planet who think so.. ...though perhaps not in the whole galaxy!
Energy is energy in any form, whether radiant electromagnetic or kinetic or gravitational potential. It is what we know from experience, what we measure, and what is dominant in our thinking of physics. We are 'energy biased' in a way, because all the instruments we use to peer into physics research use energy, especially light energy for astronomy, or any radiant electromagnetic energy for any scientific studies. Think about it, from television and computers to cell phones, to MRIs and X-ray, all frequency telescopy of the heavens, to atom smashing cyclotrons; all our observations are energy biased, in that we think of energy as something usable, kind of like a new taming of fire. But if the universe is really all made of gravity, that it is some sort of gravity well from which energy is pulled out, in some zero-point-force manner, then we are only looking at the products of some mysterious gravity process manifesting itself into energy, not the real thing. Then we are missing the point, by seeing everything through a biases lens of energy, because what we should be studying is the well of energy itself, the gravity that holds everything together, what is itself a state of existence, a pure state of undifferentiated energy potential. So when you say:
I am tempted to say, naively myself, that this is so. The atom in its proto state as plasma, and later in its more neutral state as atomic matter, is the initial engine of where this gravity state of existence releases its first potential as energy, rather than pure gravity; this atom will now interact gravitationally with other atoms, as well as interact energetically with radiant energy; so the atom is the basic common denominator for both gravity and energy, the only two basic real forces in the universe, though we do not think of it this way. (In new model, nuclear weak force is electromagnetic, while strong force becomes gravitational, unlike model now). Our physics searches for those energy particles that will fit the now accepted Standard Model of the four forces, of which gravity is the smallest force. Conversely, what may actually be happening is that gravity is the greatest of the four forces, but only so much modified by electromagnetic radiant energy, here on the third planet from the Sun, that it appears incredibly weak, masking its real potential as incredibly strong (as it might be in all of intergalactic space, super strong at black hole). So when we are searching for the 'God particle' the Higgs Bosom, we should actually be searching for something that is more akin to a 'graviton', not in its extremely weak form but rather in its maximum strength form. So this 'graviton' is really not a particle or wave that radiates gravity, but rather a state of potential (which might also be dual charged?) that gravitationally shadows each radiant energy wave or particle. However, it if is a state of existence, metaphysically speaking, then gravity cannot be something that travels at the speed of light c, but must of necessity be something that is instantaneously responsive, with infinite velocity.
Would this eliminate the search for gravitons? Would it make the graviton the "purest" particle? What state then would the graviton exist in compared to observable particles? Would this explain why we can't discover gravitons? Does splitting gravity result in positive and negative charge? Is plasma the first energetic result of degrading gravity? Perhaps gravity is not the weak force that we imagine it to be, but rather an all pervading force that drives the atomic engine in ways we cannot visualize?
But now what happens to Einstein's General Relativity, or the Bohr model of the atom, or the four forces of the Standard Model, or our understanding of space expansion from Big Bang Theory, etc? Do all these theories just get wiped away, like cleaning a slate black board in class, with one stroke? There is the real dilemma, if gravity is the main force of universal energy, that we are looking for answers in the wrong place, then we have to rethink everything we had come to accept in modern physics, including Strings theory. All the math now must be redeployed in another direction of inquiry, that perhaps particle physics is not the real answer, and gravity physics is where it's really at.
Was there a Big Bang? Is there a mini-Big-Bang going on continuously inside each galactic black hole? Or BB in each atom? Modern physics is ill equipped to think this way, but gravity physics can. Also, we can now start to think of all radiant energy as something that is wrinkling and twisting gravitational energy, or the gravity-state of space, into the wavelengths observed. Light becomes a function of space, and its inherent gravity locked inside the zero-points of space, what drives it at c. Momentum and inertial mass are now gravity functions combined with energy functions, in this new way of seeing energy. It all becomes interlocking, but at a very different model from what we accept now. The galactic black hole becomes an engine of gravity and energy interactions, and the atom becomes its microcosmic equivalent. Somehow, though this is so early and preliminary as to be truly 'naive' of us to think so, this is actually something that makes sense.
I'll have to think of this deeply some more, since I too am an amateur in this new physics... who isn't? We are redesigning our understanding of the universe from the bottom up, from that bottom state of existence that is all gravity to the upper reaches of existence that is all energy. And that, for now, is still metaphysics!
|Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 06:42 pm: |
I propose a fifth and definitely the first state of matter is gravity itself. What need is there of dark energy or dark matter then? Gradations of gravity is that matter. The real question for physicists is - How is this unseen force/first state of matter (gravity) broken into particles with charge, when no charge or particle has been measured for gravity? Seemingly gravity is like a potential energy membrane containing the electromagnetic components of matter. This is probably why space responds like a "fabric". The question is, how (or at what point) is that fabric disrupted/pierced/exploded into the range of measurable matter that we experience? What could be the possible dimensional or spatial dynamics of this invisible "fabric"? We have measurements of it effects. Some spatial or mathematical savant should be able to unravel gravity's internal workings. I think the answer to this will be found in the plasma emission of black holes, but I also can't help thinking back to the recent article which mentioned the "black hole" like properties of atomic collisions in the relativistic heavy ion collider in New York. The finding that dismantling atoms produces gravitational effect should be no surprise if you consider that atomic properties are just another state of gravitation. If indeed gravity is the most constituent form of matter then another important question is in what state does this matter exist? Is it a hyper excited state, or an equilibrium that produces atomic precurors when disturbed?
Here are some more ramblings:
The pure gravitational force - mass organized by gradations of that force - how/when/why does force become mass? If "Big Bang" is true, Newton's law of conservation seems to imply that gravity is instantaneous because the system started with a fixed amount of energy and all gradations of gravity are the sum total of that energy; on the otherhand "space fabric" isn't necessarily a pure expression of the original force. Rather, it is the force (or amount of force) stretched between mass. The last might be a hint at your variable Gravity. Thus the effect of gravity is instantaneous, but the strength of gravity variable due to the nature of the matter causing the force. Why is it the photon can propagate seemingly forever on/in this "space fabric", and is the speed of the photon a function of the nature of the fabric or a property of the particle itself or both? In order to fit all matter into a small space (singularity), supreme force would be required, supreme force would alter that matter to its base form, supreme force would be all that was left! How does the process work in reverse?!!!!! That black holes form, is an indication that "space fabric" has a mass content limit - a point at which mass and gravity exchange roles (for example Hawking Radiation). What does this limit suggest about the nature of space (or that particular location in space) and how is it related to the size and longevity of the black hole?
My head is beginning to hurt
|Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2007 - 07:29 pm: |
When I was studying the geometry of the Billiard Problem and it took me down the path of the Black Holes I thought that my headaches would never stop.
In my exploration of geometry and the Billiard Problem I glimpsed a relationship to gravity and blackholes. I am still not sure of what it meant. In it I glimpsed the geometry of spacetime and saw a relationship between it and blackholes and the fact that these holes are doorways that one day we will pass through, with the right technology, to realms far different than we can understand in the vast multiuniverse that is all of creation.
As to what it will take to achieve that and move thru these doorways I don't know and leave that to others like Ivan.
Since I was a child I dreamed of working in the space industry on high technology projects. But for the intelligence corps of the military, that used my genius and skills to help build computer systems for war, breaking of agent networks and targeting of thousands with weapons of war I would be working in NASA. The closest I got to NASA was at the Lockhead Martin Facility in Orlando Florida where I was working on an advanced military simulations project called JSIMS. I was the lead trainer for the intelligence module of the program. During that project NASA lauched a space shuttle and as I watched from the Lockhead parking lot I could see it raising on a pillar of fire.
The intelligence community draged me into a war against my will and had me moving around the world from hot spot to hot spot working on computer project after project.
All I wanted was to left out of the war and to work for NASA, the fulfillment of a boyhood dream. Then I ran afoul of the intelligence service, the President and the corruption of involved in this last war. I could not take it anymore and when I was poisoned and left for dead with all my dreams shattered I about gave up on life.
In response I turned to God, the Churches and the founding families of the United States and then went on to challange the men that dragged me into this war and caused me to be damaged from poison and infectious agents and left for dead.
In the end I live in constant pain for my service in defense of civilization locked out of jobs that I have trained and dreamed of for my entire life.
Such is the payment for my services to a nation that I have earned from the current administration.
The pain and bitterness is starting to fade and I work with counselors regarding it.
At times like this when I look up at the stars my eyes mist over from the pain from the wounds both physical and mental I have sustained in defense of my nation. I then rub my eyes and return inside to the love of my family.
Will I ever again work on projects of meaning once again? Only my doctors, counselors, people of the United States and president can answer that question. Until then I work aiding others who do not have the strength to help themselves and count myself lucky to have survived.
|Posted on Saturday, February 03, 2007 - 01:32 am: |
Is variable G a given, per the Boltzmann Constant?
I keep asking myself this question, because as described in this post on Boltzmann's Constant here, the numbers seem to work out (though one order of magnitude apart) to support the variability of Earth's known G from its calculated orbital Energy, per the Axiomatic. This is a perpetual question for me, can it be right? I don't know. There is always the danger of concidental mathematical results, so what appears right may not be. Another danger is the 'preloading' mathematically of values sought for, so that it becomes a self-fulfilling methodology. In the above referenced post, I might have done what is a pre-destined result, by taking Joules for Kelvin for Earth's black-body 255 K (or 2550 K for Boltzmann equivalent), and then reverse engineering it back to a hypothesized variation in Newton's G for Earth due to its black-body Kelvin temperature. So if this is all that was done, nothing was proved, except that 255 K is the same as ~0.15E+16 Joules for Earth's total mass (vs. 1.5E+16 for Axiomatic Energy equivalent). But if the numbers work out for Earth's gravity to be relative to its orbital Energy, viz. 9E+16 Joules, and by raising that energy, in Joules, by 255 K (times 10) equivalent matches the expected variance in Newton's G, from computed 7.24E-11 down to measured 6.67E-11 G, then perhaps the fact that these two separate calculations for 255 K black-body yield the necessary adjustment to G, i.e., minus ~0.57E-11 G, from its orbital computed G, then is there justification to think that perhaps this is not a mere coincidence? Are these numbers close because we still do not have the right temperatures to work with? Is this study even relevant to how Earth's G is modified by its interior heat, perhaps at a higher level than 255 K? That is the question.
I think what the Boltzmann constant did for me was essentially turn something that was a 'guess' into a calculation supporting that guess. I guessed that the reason why Earth's G is less than the computed G, per orbital energy, was because Earth has its own interior energy source, what I assumed to be its black-body temperature, or that energy that radiates from the Earth into space. But I had no way to confirm this guess. What changed once I saw the Boltzmann constant was that now there was a way to calculate Earth's mass-black-body 255 K into a usuable value for Earth's energy in Joules. Once I could make that connection, the 'guess' turned into something mathematically equivalent, that indeed Earth's 255 K is worth the small Energy difference needed to convert orbital energy into gravitational G for Earth. That small difference, worked out both ways, is about (delta) E = 0.15E+16 J, for Boltzmann's, but 1.5E+16 J for Axiomatic. That is what happened here, though both results are still one order of magnitude apart. Does it 'prove' me right, that gravity is a variable G? Not yet. Once again as it had on all past occasions, that it 'anecdotally' only. Until such time that we can actually measure for Newton's G away from Earth's orbital region, far out into the solar system away from the Sun's radiant hot energy, then can we actually know. Until there is empirical proof, I remain unsatisfied, though teasing as it is that it may be right. We still do not know if G is a variable or not.
[Also see how Boltzmann constant times CMB translates into deep space gravity ~G=3.389E-6 N.]
|Posted on Thursday, February 08, 2007 - 10:00 am: |
All bodies with interior heat have spin relative to space heat?
In thinking about this, with Venus as the key candidate for odd spin, and heat neutral bodies with 'neutral' spin, like our own moon facing towards Earth, it seems that all bodies must have internal geothermal heat to drive their spin. Converssely, if this internal heat is also modifying their local on planet gravity G, then we are even further away from understanding what is happening on those bodies in terms of gravity density; think how far off we must be for outer solar system gas giants. This is very interesting, because if G is a variable as hypothecized, it is a very well hidden variable within our prior calculations of heavenly bodies made from a constant Newton's G. How fun! We will have to go and recalculate all the distant bodies in termss of a G that can vary from our own very low value to those of nearly impossible to conceive galactic 'black hole' gravities.
|Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 09:37 am: |
Not all gravity created equal?
This is from New Scientist, "Earth's magnetic field 'boosts gravity'". http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn2814 where it says:
A lower value of G? Why is this a well kept secret?
"Studies of the Sun also support the theory. to make mathematical models of the star's interior tally with experimental data, physicists have to use a lower value of G than is traditionally agreed."
I'm not so sure magnetic fields are directly responsible for G's behavior either at Earth's poles, or inside the Sun, to make it vary. The article does not say by how much it varies, so again in the dark. Does G vary from the surface down to the center, for example, and how much?
A variable G is becoming more and more likely, where even on Earth the small variations may have 'hot spot' relationships, vs. hot-cold orbital energies. The Sun may produce a very low G at its surface, but it may be extreme at its center, for example. I suspect, though for now this is only speculation, that the Sun and any hot body will produce a micro-black-hole at its center; on Sun it might be a few meters across, while on Earth it may be only a few centimeters across; but these micro-b.h.s are so hot with gravitational energy they create body spin, hot interior body convections, magnetic fields, etc. But this is pure conjecture for now. In the same article, it goes on to say what I think is also muddled:
"Mbelek says his calculations predict that electromagnetism would not boost gravity as much at higher temperatures, so you would expect G to be lower inside the Sun."
Frankly, if temperature and electromagnetic energy are inersely proportional to gravity G, without seeing Mbelek's paper or calculations, this makes no sense to me. How would temperature in a galactic black hole max gravity be calculated? Why would electromagnetism 'boost' gravity at all, if electromagnetism is what modifies gravity inside the atom mass? All muddled stuff, because not all gravity is created equal in Newton's G.
|Posted on Friday, February 09, 2007 - 06:55 pm: |
What is the relation between electromagnetic attraction and gravitational attraction? I know, no one knows this answer, so here's another way of looking at it:
In the absence of any large body (that could potentially cancel out the gravitation between small objects), what would be stronger:
The gravitation between two oppositely charged particles or
The electromagnetic attraction between the same two particls?
I suppose all scientists would say the electromagnetic attraction. Does that make electromagnetism a precursor to gravity, and gravity the by product of cummulative electromagnetic/atomic mass? If so, maybe Einstien and others were right: Perhaps gravity is no more than a well caused by mass distortion of space fabric. In essense there is no gravity, just a spatial (warping in all directions) effect that we can't visualize or fathom.
If so . . . how can we empirically study that fabric and not just the observable effects upon that fabric? How does cummulative electromagnetism create an effect on space?
|Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 10:20 am: |
Faux-Mass, not the real thing.
Does that make electromagnetism a precursor to gravity, and gravity the by product of cummulative electromagnetic/atomic mass? If so, maybe Einstien and others were right: Perhaps gravity is no more than a well caused by mass distortion of space fabric. In essense there is no gravity, just a spatial (warping in all directions) effect that we can't visualize or fathom. (my italics)
Interesting point, Naive, that a 'cumulative electromagnetic/atomic mass' would be cause for the 'mass distortion of space' we know as the gravity force. In effect, what is it in that atom electromagnetic mass that drives Einstein's vision of warped spacetime around a mass?
In my way of seeing it, gravity and electromagnetic energy are on opposite sides of the equal sign. This makes them involved in the equation, but with Energy essentially c^2, light dominates the equation, while mass is represented by a unity, one, as the anchor for c^2, when completely balanced; but it's not, so the 'gravitational mass' is a tiny imbalance, or remainder, of this interaction. What makes this somewhat confusing is that we call mass the measured product we know from inertia and gravity, per Einstein's Equivalence Principle, but this may be throwing us off. The 'real' mass is something much greater and stronger, more like the nuclear Strong Force (note: strong force = 1 in physics), or the center of a galactic black-hole, than the piddling weak gravitational-inertial mass equivalence, which may be no more than a tiny remainder of the real thing. Taking this back to the Maxwell electromagnetic forces, they are much greater at a short distance than gravity, but weaken into much smaller than gravity over very great distances. What we do not have in our equations for now is how these two equations of mass and energy combine at anything other than Einstein's (J.J. Thomson's) famous E=mc^2.
I propose that the well caused by mass, that very powerful gravitational well represented by unity of one, m=1, is best worked against the Energy side of the equation as (1-g)c^2. In words: this means 'one' is total mass for energy, which is modified by lightspeed squared, where they 'fight' for dominance, and essentially balance out. However, this is not a pure total equality interaction, so some inequality residue remains, which is "-g" from unity: gravity. That's the piddling weak force driving our ideas of "mass" as inertial or gravitational per equivalence, but it is not the real thing; the real thing is unity of one. So when we measure "mass' with kilograms, we're measuring the faux-mass, not the real thing, which is orders of magnitude greater, but appears weakly in our units of kilograms. Now, if you turn that around in your head and imagine that the little kg's mass is the 'real' mass, but that black-holes and strong force in atom are something 'weird' then you got it all backwards! And that's what we did in physics!!
So how do we straighten it out? I tried using the Planck-de Broglie equations of Energy on the left side, while modifying Thomson-Einstein's famous on the right with little "-g" representing the bonding gravitational force between protons, which is about 5.9E-39, either dimensionless or in volts. That seemed to fit well enough to give me some sort of mass to energy relationship that is inversely proportioanl, i.e., they are counter forces: electromagnetic energy hitting the atomic nuclear strong force combines to form one atomic mass with a tiny remainder of gravity. It was that tiny remainder that we called erroneously "mass", but it's not the real thing. The "war of the universes" is inside that atom, where King Gravity is wrestling with Queen Electra, and their offspring from all this cosmic wrestling, from the balck-hole spitting out proto-protons to hot plasmas drifting throughout infinity, is the little Atomic Mass, what we have come to call "mass" per Equivalence. But it's just a kid in between two giants, and we never knew.
I suspect the next big breakthrough in physics will not be the discovery that gravity ain't a universal constant, but from plasma physics, those strange little atoms floating around all of space stripped of electrons by, perhaps, the very powerful gamma rays kicked off by black-holes eating up stars... But that is another story, and it will someday help us crack the code, on how to use the strong gravity inside the atom as a nearly inexhaustible accelerative force, to take us where no piddling-mass 'earthling' had gone before...
|Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 02:02 pm: |
To me the metaphysics of the GRAVITY question are interesting. For example our brains have the capacity to grasp the mathematics of the physical interactions observable to us. The more advanced our brain workings, the more we understand. So then does it take a being of pure thought to completely understand the mathematical workings of the universe?
I suspect the next big breakthrough will only come, when we learn to condition our minds at earlier and earlier ages to reach their full potential. It is no wonder to me that ancient Hindus with their advanced mind sciences made many advances in mathematics and physics. I also believe that one of the missing elements in the Energy-Gravity equation is THOUGHT itself. But that is subject matter for a different thread . . .
|Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 07:08 pm: |
If big bang is true, can there really be any differentiation between gravity, matter, energy, and space fabric?
If it all existed as one singularity, then perhaps what we are looking for is not a unified field theory at all, rather we are seeking a primal most form of everything. Atomic structure, space fabric, plasma, and their energetic or gravitational interactions, are simply variations of the primal essence. This fascinating essence obviously changes during energetic reactions. So indeed it is more likely that gravity is variable. It makes sense that constant gravity would be seen around large bodies that maintain constant energetic reactions. I believe this is what you have advocated Ivan, and I tend to agree.
If this is the case perhaps, temperature, speed, distance, movement, all of what we study under physics are in reality, responsible for the many gradations of matter-energy-gravity we experience. Who can imagine how truly dynamic the big bang explosion would have been, or indeed how dynamic is the material essence that exploded out of that singularity. This would also indicate that studying Black Holes will only give us a partial understanding of the process, because the energetic reactions of those singularities could not possibly rival those of a universal big bang. On the other hand, Black holes may tell us much about the threshold levels of (local) space fabric and the relation of gravitation and electromagnetic mass.
|Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 - 07:39 pm: |
To your earlier question:
What is it in the atom's electromagnetic mass that drives Einstein's vision of warped spacetime around mass?
(Once again if Big Bang is true) Atomic mass is seemingly a byproduct of supreme energetic reactions (big bang) slowing down. If your axiomatic is true perhaps this is another case of opposites attract. The electromagnetic properties of atomic mass are inversely complemented / reacted to by space fabric and the result is gravity. In essence, as electromagnetic matter occupies space, the energy produced (the reaction of space) is gravity - similar to pulling back on a rubberband, as long as your finger remains pulling it the potential energy is there.
Mostly likely space (fabric) contains a left over energy component which we do not understand. Space probably is the true form of energy conserved from the big bang, and electromagnetic phenomena simply gathered exhaust.
|Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 11:02 am: |
How fast can you spin?
Here's latest from deep space, a 'neutron' star spinning at over 1,120 times per second... !!! Stop and think about it: your day is less than a milli second long!
Here's the Space.com article: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070216_star_spin.html
Don't spend sleepless nights thinking about it, especially if your days are so short, but at what spin does a 'neutron' star start to break apart, given the Standard Model of physics? I should think anything over a 1000 spin per second should be there, but not in this case. Also, while our astrophysical models expect 'neutron' stars, which have incredibly powerful gravity, to spin down over time, they have no credible idea why some spin up instead. Per Wiki, Neutron Star:
So we're back to the 'magnetic fields' affecting spin rotations, which I think is a very tenuous theory at best. But then the oddity:
Over time, neutron stars slow down because their rotating magnetic fields radiate energy; older neutron stars may take several seconds for each revolution.
The rate at which a neutron star slows down its rotation is usually constant and very small: the observed rates are between 10-10 and 10-21 second for each rotation. In other words, for a typical slow down rate of 10-15 seconds per rotation, then a neutron star now rotating in 1 second will rotate in 1.000003 seconds after a century, or 1.03 seconds after 1 million years.
Does this mean the internal fluids are spinning even faster than the exterior 'crust', and if so why the sudden 'coupling'? None of this makes any sense. Better to start with a fresh look at gravity, that so called 'neutron' stars are star like bodies that exist in an intense G gravity field, if their internal radiant energy is not strong enough to support lowering G to what we think of as 'normal' levels, and instead the star exhibits the real gravity of what this universe is all about. Neutron stars, so called, can spin so incredibly fast because they are not necessarily 'neutron' in composition, have powerful magnetic fields uncommon to neutrons, live in regions of space extremely low in radiant energy, will 'steal' radiant energy from any nearby warmer star to slow down spin; in effect, their incredible spin is entirely a very powerful mega-G effect in cold space. But none of that fits the Standard Model either.
Sometimes a neutron star will spin up or undergo a glitch: a rapid and unexpected increase of its rotation speed (of the same, extremely small scale as the constant slowing down). Glitches are thought to be the effect of a sudden coupling between the superfluid interior and the solid crust.
How fast can they spin? Incredibly fast! And when this space is colder, or its radiant energy drops, it bumps up spin, which is certainly a 'glitch' in our thinking about it.
|Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2007 - 12:55 pm: |
In essence, as electromagnetic matter occupies space, the energy produced (the reaction of space) is gravity - similar to pulling back on a rubberband, as long as your finger remains pulling it the potential energy is there. --Naive
It may be just that, a 'reaction of space' to electromagnetic energy that is cause for gravity. But it may also be that radiant electromagnetic energy actually 'modifies' the inherent Strong Force gravity of the nucleus to 'fill out' the atom into what we know as ordinary baryonic matter, with only a tiny residual left over, which is what we know as gravity G (the ratio of interaction between masses, G = 6.67E-11 Nm^2kg^-2), which is what we measure here on Earth, close to Sun's hot energy. But what would it be at Jupiter, or the Kuiper Belt? If my hunch is right, G out there as a ratio of gravitational interaction between masses should be much greater.
So the 'electromagnetic occupation of space' is still nucleus specific, in that only atomic matter responds to this effect, which is what also gives it 'mass', but this effect may not be the same everywhere, something we have yet to find out. How else can we test for it? We know only massive objects exhibit the G ratio, and we calculated mass throughout the universe using a universal constant G, but what if G is different out there? There's the real problem! Also, what if space itself has a G factor to it, how do we find that too? So many questions...
|Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 07:52 pm: |
Quantum Gravity linkage to Quantum Charge?
The coupling between gravity and quantum physics has been elusive for science, so no specific causality can be found for the atom to exhibit gravitational force, which has been a conundrum in trying to unify all the known forces. In the Axiomatic Equation showing a variable gravity G, the linkage is implied to exist in how the atomic nucleus responds to ambient hot radiant energy given off by the nearest star, such as our Sun, to leave a very weak version of the nuclear strong force as what we register as mass related gravitational force. All atoms must exhibit this modified gravitation cum electromagnetic radiant energy individually, which in the aggregate becomes the mass relationship of gravity. Now, in reading a short paper by H. Aspden, there may be such a linkage possible, though he does not directly claim that gravity is a residual force of the atom. In his paper, there is also no mention of any inverse proportionality of hot radiant energy and gravitational force, so perhaps his thesis is incomplete, but it is worth noting that he does show linkage between quantum gravity and electrostatic force, as per this paper: Can Gravity be an Electrostatic Force? (2005) www.aspden.org/arp/2005arp3.pdf (98.3 KB)
In the paper, Aspden states, regarding the gravity G derived from particle physics:
How then do those gravitons feature in the spectrum of particle physics? Research
shows that they mainly comprise the taon - the mystery lepton particle that sits alongside
the muon and the electron in the bottom line of the standard quark picture of the particle
grid. As to that heavier graviton form it is somewhat elusive but has been detected at
around 2.587 GeV in the particle spectrum and is best referred to as the 'Japanese H-quantum'.
. It exists in anti-particle pairs alongside two anti-particle taon pairs, meaning
that there is one such heavy graviton for every two taon-gravitons.
How is all this justified? Simply by derivation of G, the gravitation constant, in
terms of the taon mass.
He achieves this by looking at the atomic radius in the Bohr atom model, to determine the g charge density of space. I.e.,
With r having the value h/4 pi mec we then account for the photon in
terms of spin of a 3x3x3 component of that structured charge array mentioned above. This
gives us the equation: hc/2pi e^2 = 144 pi r/d
where r is the orbital radius of charge motion, h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light
and d is the cubic spacing of those charges. Accordingly:
g = e/d^3
We now know the value of g because we can eliminate h/r and deduce that:
mec^2 = 72 pi e^2/d
me being the rest mass of the electron.
This is a first step, where the radius r of the electron charge in motion is related to d spacing of charge. This reduces further to the pre-Einstein era, J.J. Thomson, relationship: mc^2 = 2e^2/ 3a, where a is the charge radius, as it relates to mass m. So here we have a mass relationship on the left side, with a electron charge relationship on the right between two particles. As he says:
And think this is the crucial key here, that 'uniform pressure' or 'energy density' within the sphere of radius a is charge e dependent. It is this linkage that I think may have to be shown as being different in non Earth orbital space, which is what may lead us to a different value of gravity G. However, at this point, this is still up in the air, because we have no way of measuring this energy density away from Earth's immediate orbital region. So, another thing to look for when we have the capability to test empirically for this effect.
This assumes that the charge e is distributed within the sphere of radius a so as to have uniform pressure or energy density.
I leave this here merely as a thought, also in answer to Naive's proposition that gravity is a space energy effect.: "In essence, as electromagnetic matter occupies space, the energy produced (the reaction of space) is gravity - similar to pulling back on a rubberband, as long as your finger remains pulling it the potential energy is there." Is there such a thing as a 'graviton'? I really don't know, but suspect not, except as a 'shadow' of the gravitation effect of light c.
|Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 08:08 pm: |
I agree. No gravitons.
So how do you measure the gravitational field of an atom . . . especially if the earth's gravity cancels it out? In fact why do we even assume gravity is a field? Perhaps it is the opposite of a field. In essence, as particles flow out as electromagnetic radiation, perhaps gravity is something of a wake response causing an inward tug (an opposite and equal reaction so to speak) of atomic nucluei. Just a thought.
|Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 12:18 pm: |
Sun's Energy is NOT nuclear Fusion?
Here is a short paper by Harold Aspden, 2006, that challenges the conventional wisdom of astrophysics, that solar energy is generated by nuclear fusion. Rather, it may be a quantum effect within the ionized hydrogen molecules comprising the Sun's mass that powers this electromagnetic energy we call light.
The Sun' Energy Source
Note the Compton 'electron wavelength' mentioned in the paper is related to the 'proton wavelength' used in the Axiomatic Equation, where lambda is 1.32E-15 meters for proton mass. The original Planck-de Broglie energy relationship is E = hf, where h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency, which become E = hc/ lambda, where lambda is 2.2E-42 m, a wavelength extremely unrealistic; only by breaking that down into lambda = 1.32E-15 m and proton mass = 1.67E-27 kg do we get meaningful results, such as the Compton proton wavelength of 1.32E-15 m. This seems as an operative wavelength for energy generated by our Sun, also a quantum energy relationship.
Also, if Newton's G is not a constant, but rather is modified inversely by electromagnetic radiant energy, and if this energy is very hot inside the Sun, then this relationship mentioned in the paper, of necessity, must be modified too: GM(4pi/3)pR
This equation is used to determine the Sun's temperature. However, if G is lowered, perhaps by orders of magnitude because of high Kelvin inside the star, the Sun's mass density 'p' must, of necessity, be higher than now estimated, for a given M and R.
Note, the Compton 'proton wavelength' is found here, along with other constants: Physical Constants
Food for thought, but we may not have the 'nuclear fusion' idea for the Sun exactly right, though it fits current theory.
|Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 12:22 pm: |
Getting a Grip on Black Holes
These center of galaxy black holes are becoming common enough to perhaps assume they exist in every galactic center. However, what makes them, how they are formed, or where do they come from remains a complete mystery. Are they 'collapsed massive stars', or are they something else? What are the Einstein predicted 'singularities' for example? In this article, the mystery remains:
This is how I see present understanding of 'black hole' physics, that it leads to infinities and singularities, neither of which may really explain what is happening at the galaxy center, inside its black hole.
“The single biggest mystery is: What is the state of matter at the center of a black hole,” Ghez said. “Our physical description of the universe breaks down at the center of a black hole.”
For example, current black hole theory states that gravitational forces inside a black hole reach infinity. But this almost certainly can’t be correct.
“Any time things go to infinity in physics, we know we haven’t gotten it right,” Ghez said in an e-mail interview.
On prior occasions, I had explored this idea, such as mentioned here, where I say about the 'supermassive blackhole' (SMBH):
The basic Axiomatic Eq. says E = hc/(lambda)(prot m) = (1-g)c^2, with the gravity conversion equation stated above, that if little proton gravity 'constant' g goes to zero, matter cannot hold together gravitationally; but conversely if it goes to maximum g=1, then we have total maximum gravity, where even light cannot escape from it. I think this is the galactic black hole, where all the ambient light converges on a central point to cancel out, so what results is gravity only, maximum gravity, that which holds the galaxy together. ( When E>>zero, g>>1. I do not think SMBH are collapsed supermassive stars, but a natural function of the inverse proportion of hot radiant energy and gravitational mass.) So near hot stars, this gravity is severely restricted by electromagnetic radiant energy, if hot enough, and so gravity is weak; but inside the self-canceling black hole center of the galaxy, gravity is once again, within a very small radius, reasserted as its maximum potential, viz. G = c.**
G^2 = gc^2 , where G is Newton's gravitational 'constant', and little g is proton gravitational 'constant'; so if g goes to its max of g=1, then you get G^2 = (1)c^2, so that G = c (approximately)
What this means, conceptually, is that the ratio of attraction between masses, which is what Newton's G represents (leaving SI units aside for now), is equivalent to the speed of light; if so, then anything inside the SMBH becomes invisible to us. In fact, it is visible only by the radiation all nearby matter and stars give off at their very high velocities, so we see intense radiation of x-ray and radio waves from the galactic center.
I worked out some quick calculations, just for fun, of how big should be the 'event horizon' for our Milky Way Galaxy's black hole, or the Schwarzchild radius: RS = 2GM/c^2. If we assume the SMBH is about a billion times our Sun's mass, here is how the numbers work out:
RS = 2(6.67E-11)(1.98E+30)(1.0E+9)/ 9E+16 , where M = ~2E+39 kg, so that:
RS = ~2.935E+12 m = ~2.935E+9 km, or about 3 billion killometers radius.
Now, that's a 'big mother' of a black hole! In terms of AUs (where 1 AU = 150E+6 km), the Schwarzchild radius is about 20 AU, or the whole diameter of our galactic black hole is around 40 times the distance from Earth to Sun! (Pluto is ~40 AU from the Sun, for example.)
That is really big, too big to 'get a grip' on, all gravity, no light inside, just pure maximum gravity hole. Wow! But gravity inside the black hole singularity does not reach infinity, merely the proton gravity 'constant' reaches unity instead. Still, super Wow!!
Some more reading on "No Escape: the Truth about Black Holes": http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/teacher/sciencebackground.html, which reflect the current acceptable theory on the 'physics' of black holes, on which I have reason to disagree.
[Ps: Incidentally, I also used the Axiomatic to figure what is the Energy content inside that SMBH, since this energy is inversely proportional to gravity; the result for maximum g is a surprisingly low E, where it is about E = 5.4E-22 Joules, or very little; which if divided by Earth's E=9E+16 J, we get about 0.6E-38 or =6E-39, which happens to be about Earth's proton gravitational 'constant' = 5.9E-39... but I have no idea what this means, so won't bore you with the details. ]
**(G=c could mean, though not sure it is so, that the gravitational 'constant', Newton's G, which is a ratio of attraction between masses, is equivalent to the 'ratio' of lightspeed, so light cannot escape this gravitational G.)
|Posted on Saturday, March 03, 2007 - 04:29 pm: |
Gravity Probe- B, update: news.
So we still wait some more, but will see what they discover from this highly refined, and much re-calibrated experiment on Einstein's GR. Will it be validated, or something else again? Maybe it isn't 'frame dragging', but merely a momentum transfer from Earth's spin, just like Mercury's perihelion advance is a momentum transfer from the Sun's spin?
Consequently, we are now planning a two-phase announcement of the GP-B results. Our first announcement will be made at the April APS meeting, as planned for some time now. (For more information about our presentations at this meeting, see this month's GP-B Mission News story below.) In conjunction with this announcement, NASA is planning a press/media event at NASA Headquarters in Washington DC just prior to the APS meeting. The experimental results in this first announcement will have been presented to and vetted by our Science Advisory Committee during SAC meeting #16, which is scheduled for 23-24 March 2007. These will be preliminary results, representing the lowest margin of error obtainable by that date.
|Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 12:10 am: |
Closing in on Pioneer Anomaly, with computer 'collaboration'.
Computer sleuths try to crack Pioneer Anomaly
The painstakingly reconstructed dataset should be ready for analysis around June 2007. It will supply the precise direction in which the anomaly acted and any changes in its strength over time.
If the direction is towards the Earth, it almost certainly indicates the anomaly was caused by faulty technology or an artefact of receiving the data at the ground stations. If, however, the direction is towards the Sun, new gravitational physics may be needed to explain the effect.
They're still lookking. I suspect it will be the latter rather than former, as stated earlier for several reasons, towards the Sun.
|Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 12:14 am: |
Pioneers are where now? Outta this solar system, but slowing...
From above article, but we lost visual and now lost audial, but they're still going...
|Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2007 - 01:00 pm: |
Hidden-Variable theory could be Gravitic in nature?
This once again harks back to the 'wave-particle duality' nature of energy and matter, which shows up as probabilistic theory in quantum physics. We cannot know with certainty at the quantum level, only in probabilities of what will be predicted to be observed. Louis de Broglie suggested that there were hidden-variables led by a 'pilot wave' to determine the outcome, but such determinism has not yet been found. Or as per Wiki on Hidden-Variables:
I propose something better, that this 'hidden pilot wave' proposed by de Broglie is actually an instantaneous force, one that can span space-time of infinite dimensions geometrically, i.e., instantaneously. I think there is only one possible candidate for such force, and that is the 'gravity potential', expressed as U_g = GMm/r, which is infinite in reach. Add this to the 'gravity' potential at the nuclear level resulting from the Strong Force holding protons together, which otherwise would repel, being of like positive charge, and gravity in its extreme form, where proton-proton gravitational 'constant' equals 1 (max); when no electromagnetic forces modify it, lowering it to observable gravities in the universe, and you have an instantaneously 'felt' force out-racing the relatively slow velocity of light energy c. If gravity is not traveling at light c, as Einstein surmised, but rather is felt potentially instantaneously as an a priori force both at the quantum level and cosmic level, then the 'pilot wave' proposed by de Broglie makes sense. We cannot know this force because, as of yet, we have no way to measure it except as a very weakly modified Newton's G for our immediate environment, though it is much stronger through all of intergalactic space. This may be but a local phenomenon for which the universe is not isotropic and homogenous, as postulated by Einstein, but rather anisotropic when it comes to gravity potentials. And rather than homogenous at our level of observation, limited by c, the universe is totally 'felt' within itself gravitationally and instantaneously. Thus cosmic distances and relationships of forces are felt intimately in the atom at the local quantum level, why the 'uncertainty'. Hence, if so, I propose the 'hidden-variable' is actually all of existence pressing in on any one point in space and time, gravitationally. In effect, every atom of existence 'feels' the presence of every other atom of existence, instantly.
A hidden-variable theory which is consistent with quantum mechanics would have to be non-local, maintaining the existence of instantaneous or faster than light causal relations between physically separated entities. The first hidden-variable theory was the pilot wave theory by Louis de Broglie from the late 1920s. The currently best-known hidden-variable theory, the Bohmian mechanics, of the physicist and philosopher David Bohm, created in 1952, is a non-local hidden variable theory.
What Bohm did, based on an idea originally by de Broglie, was to posit both the quantum particle, e.g. an electron, and a hidden 'guiding wave' that governs its motion. Thus, in this theory electrons are quite clearly particles. When you perform a double-slit experiment (see wave-particle duality), they go through one slit rather than the other. However, their choice of slit is not random but is governed by the guiding wave, resulting in the wave pattern that is observed.
That is how the universe 'talks' to itself, at infinite cosmic dimensions, within the atom itself, in the first order, instantaneously. We are only second-order spectators in this.
|Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 03:03 am: |
If I may quote John Milton..
This is a post left behind on the Bad Astronomy/ BAUT forums discussing 'closed mindedness' of the new ATM (against the mainstream) forum rules, which I leave here only for the record: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=949182&postcount=126 (by Ivan -aka 'nutant gene 71')
If I may quote John Milton ___________________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror
I can hear Newton talking to Einstein now: "Sorry Einstein ol' chap, but we've discussed your new GR ideas for 30 days now, so we have to lock your thread, and please don't bring it up again or we'll ban you. You know I'm right anyway....."
Well, the re-strictures of this new ATM policy is something problematic, bordering on 'censorship' of new ideas.
I like to think of any discussion, whether or not the moderators agree with the writers basic premises, as open to non-peer review of the reader, if the idea is 'alternative' enough against the Mainstream to warrant a second opinion. Mostly, lots of new ideas are either not new or silly rubbish. But I for one am of the opinion, though this is not my forum, that the reader decide if a new idea has merrit or not. So Einstein would have been locked out pretty quick with his 'wild' idea of the first postulate, or that the universe is isotropic and homogenous a priori cum his idea of Relativity, and today's Mainstream would have been shut out within a 30 day half-life. It was John Milton, 17th century, in his Areopagitica (1644) argument before the English Parliament against censorship who said:
"And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? ...
But of these sophisms and elenchs of merchandise I skill not. This I know, that errors in a good government and in a bad are equally almost incident; for what magistrate may not be misinformed, and much the sooner, if liberty of printing be reduced into the power of a few? But to redress willingly and speedily what hath been erred, and in highest authority to esteem a plain advertisement more than others have done a sumptuous bride, is a virtue (honoured Lords and Commons) answerable to your highest actions, and whereof none can participate but greatest and wisest men.
I hope good judgment is not used here on this august forum to kill good reason, as it would augur ill for good and wise government. Let the reader beware, or caveat lector, and leave judgment to history.
I don't know how BAUT will resolve this dilemma over its new forum rules, but I may have had enough to say, for now, until hard evidence proves to the contrary.
|Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 09:35 pm: |
Ultimate test for Newton's Law?
This proposed experiment is to show that suspected 'dark matter' is not really necessary, though Newton's 300 year old gravitational 'constant' may be contested.
Experiment sets the ultimate test for Newton's laws:
The discussion on Physics Forums, Astrophysics, also talks about it:
No coincidence, but the third post on a 'modified' MOND for our solar system is mine. Happy Spring!
|Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 09:45 pm: |
Deep Space Gravity may be 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than Newton's G on Earth, or in our solar system?
[Also see: Why MOND is valid]
This is a continuation of the Physics Forum post: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=161315 where MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) like effect may exist in our solar system, but at a much gentler rate. The two results for deep galactic space, per Milgrom's calculations is: a_0 = 1.2E-10 m/s^2, while per my calculations (shown below) in our solar system, it is 6 orders of magnitude lower: a_0s = 1.09E-16 m/s^2. If we find that within out solar system Newton's G is not a constant, but varies at the rather rapid rate of about 1G per 1AU, so that by Pluto's orbit, G is about 40 times what it is on Earth, but still of the order of magnitude 10^-10. However, per earlier work, out in deep space, this G grows (and perhaps levels off at) to a level of about 10^-6, which is about 5-6 orders of magnitude greater than here. But that was a rough 'guesstimate' and it may in fact be more like 6.
For the record, here is what I wrote on the MOND for our solar system, in the Physics Forum mentioned earlier:
"Newton postulated that his gravity ratio between masses is a ‘universal constant’ G, and it had been used as such ever since. However, though we get good orbital results for our solar system, this ran into difficulty when orbital behavior for outer galaxy arms were observed, where they acted as if there was more massive matter there, invisible to us, so dubbed ‘dark matter’. Mordehai Milgrom’s MOND solution was to factor in an acceleration force, F = ma^2/ a_o, which translates using F = GMm/ r^2, into a = (GM a_o/ r^2)^1/2, where Milgrom calculated the value for a_0=1.2×10^-10 m/s^2 empirically. This does not invalidate Newton’s constant G, but it does indicate that over great astronomical distances, force from gravity may have a modifier in it.
Since the discovery of the Pioneer Anomally by Anderson, Nieto, Turyshev et al, there had been independent speculations that perhaps a similar modifier may be at work within our solar system to account for the anomalous acceleration towards the Sun by Pioneers, Galileo, and Ulysses space crafts, though non- gravitational systemic reasons were not fully disqualified. However, if the Pioneer Anomaly is telling us something about our solar system that is gravitational, ‘dark matter’ like, for our solar system (where the computed –a = ~8E^-10 m/s^2 approximates Milgrom’s a_0), then there may be cause to look for a gravitational anomaly within our solar system as well. Such an anomaly, for example, may account for the very large atmospheres of the outer gas giants, or some moons like Titan’s atmosphere, or Pluto’s atmosphere, where the masses of distant bodies calculated using a constant Newton’s G works for orbital dynamics, but may be giving us erroneous readings for planetary mass densities.
One possible indication of this is by using Milgrom’s MOND’s a = (GM a_o/ r^2)^1/2 and modifying it for our solar system, but to drop Newton’s assumption of a constant universal G, and give it a variable value instead. For example, if we ‘assume’ a variable G at the rate of 1G per 1AU with distance from the Sun (at present unsubstantiated empirically), we get an approximation of the Pioneer Anomaly, as follows:
-a = (GM a_o/ r^2)^1/2, which becomes modified with 1G per 1AU as:
-a = [G(AUn)M a_o/ r(AUr)]^1/2, where AUn is the number of AU distance, and AUr is the distance r for one AU, so with numbers, for Earth’s orbital:
-a = [(6.67E-11)(1)(1.98E+30)(1.2E-10) / (1.5E+11)(1.5E+11)]^1/2, gives us a value of:
-a = (15.8479E+9 / 2.25E+22)^1/2 = (70.435E-14)^1/2
-a = 8.3934E-7 m/s^2, which is three orders of magnitude greater than Pioneer’s –a = ~8E-10 m/s^2, too far out of ball park.
The same calculation for any distance in AU will yield the same result, i.e., at Saturn’s 9.5AU, where r = 1.429E+12 m, gets nearly same result, viz. –a = 8.38E-7 m/s^2
However, what Milgrom calculated for the outer galaxy flat rotation curves may not be the same as what is operable within the limits of our solar system, so that a ‘gentler’ MOND effect may be the case here, which can be calculated as follows, solving for a_os within our solar system:
-a = = [G(AUn)M a_o/ r(AUr)]^1/2, and plugging in known values for Pioneer Anomaly:
-8E-10 m/s^2 = [(6.67E-11)(1)(1.98E+30)(a_o) / 2.25E+22]^1/2, and solving for our solar system’s a_os we get:
-8E-10 m/s^2 = [13.2066E+19)(a_os) / 2.25E+22 ]^1/2
a_os = 1.0908E-16 m/s^2, which is a far lower, gentler value for our solar system then what was computed for the outer galaxy curves (viz. a_o = 1.2 E-10 m/s^2.)"
Further readings: What's wrong with gravity? http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=2702#POST2702 and follow the links there.
For 'cut-off' frequency for deep space gravity see: June 3, 2004: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/122.html
|Posted on Friday, March 23, 2007 - 06:28 pm: |
French get a look at nations' UFO files.
This is a post X-files post, from MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17753893
The French page is at: http://www.cnes.fr/
English version of UFO French X-files is at:
(may be hard to open due to extreme traffic)
My friend Tattoo says its no surprise, pas du tous, since the Milky Way has billions of living worlds, and millions of planets with humans on them, some far more advanced than our species here. Universal travel is no big deal for them.
|Posted on Friday, March 30, 2007 - 09:52 am: |
MOND for our solar system discussed on BAUT here:
I started this discussion, spin off from the above post on 'gentler' MOND relative to Pioneer Anomaly. So far, so good, but this discussion can only last 30 days per new ATM rules. Might be interesting to see where this goes before 'lights out'.
|Posted on Thursday, April 05, 2007 - 05:29 pm: |
MOND page 2, for our solar system discussion at BAUT -continued:
Does it work or not work? Is the solar system's MOND (1.09E-16 m/s^2) six orders of magnitude lower than Milgrom's (1.2E-10 m/s^2) at galactic curves? The discussion has twenty five days to go before it gets shut. However, here was a discovery about modeling the Pioneer Anomaly that seems to support the idea of a MOND for or solar system that is variable G related. The abstract says:
To have the PA reverse sign at 1AU and then grow in reverse per R is exactly what the Axiomatic Equation would have expected, as predicted for Pioneers with a variable G, where Newton's gravity is 1 G at 1AU.
Here, the main arguments used to eliminate DM are refuted and then the anomaly is modeled by application of Newton laws to the observed macroscopic properties of DM. Around a central mass M, the modeling predicts a DM distribution that produces the PA at short distances (R smaller than 188 AU) from a star like the Sun, and a flat rotation curve at sufficiently large distances from the center of a galaxy. Below about 188 AU from the Sun, the modeling predicts that the anomaly may be expressed as PA = 8.3E-8 cm/s-2). It shows that the anomaly remains fairly constant down to 5 AU, decreases significantly from 5 AU to 1 AU where it becomes zero and changes sign below a distance of 1 AU, then increases rapidly in magnitude as R decreases in that range. (bold mine)
Let's see what else of interest can surface in the next three weeks. All math aside, will this work? "Only your hairdresser will know for sure."
|Posted on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 11:35 am: |
Antigravics Forum - Pioneer Anomaly
This is another forum discussing the possibility that gravity acts differently with distance from the Sun, starting at about Jupiter's 5 AU. Haven't explored it yet, so just leave it here as a footnote, that others are looking too. Especially interesting in their first post:
Note how actuals vs. theoretical are slightly higher, at first glance about in line with roughly what Pioneers show, though slightly higher as orders of magnitude.
A gravity hump in that area of the Solar System is the cause.... conclusively verified, by the actual orbital velocities (at radial distance) of the outer four 'gas giants' of the Solar System.
Sun Gravity values in m/sec^2
Planet... theoretical.... actual
Jupiter...2.18 X 10-4..... 2.19 X 10-4
Saturn...6.458 X 10-5... 6.481 X 10-5
Uranus...1.608 X 10-5... 1.614 X 10-5
The theoretical value is as per expected by Sir Isacc Newton. This is the value expected by NASA.
The actual values are those that a probe encounters.
It is easily seen that about the distance of Jupiter the value of the sun's gravity increases marginally, enought to be detected by the space probes.......
|Posted on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 12:39 pm: |
Gravity assist maneuvers by ESA/NASA, text and video clip:
Let gravity assist you...
We do understand gravity assist well enough to accomplish incredible feats in space, utilizing the power of gravity in fly bys, but we may still not have it right?
|Posted on Friday, April 06, 2007 - 01:57 pm: |
Mining 'deep space' gravity, a prior post at: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/108.html (scroll to bottom of page)
What it shows is how deep space gravity G must be about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude greater than Earth's known G. Here's is the reprint of the original text (see original for additional links) to review this very interesting phenomenon, also pointing towards why the Pioneers are slowing in the outer solar system:
(Please note this below was derived from the Pound-Rebka Harvard experiment, showing how light redshifts gravitationally.)
By Ivan A. on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 06:10 pm:
LIGHT REDSHIFT DISTANCE TRAVELED AT 1 Z (in intergalactic medium), with implications for deep space gravity.
Question: What is the mass of the deep space "vacuum" at the distance light traveled to redshift 1z; and what is its effective deep space G?
From Answers.com it says one light-year is approximately D_ly = ~9.46E+15 meters. Though the spacevacuum is not entirely empty, let's assume light travels at c = 3E+8 m/s. How far would this light have to have traveled before it redshifted to 1 z? We know 1 + z = ~1 + (v/c) in non-relativistic terms (for v << c).
(1) Question of distance: If 1 z (where light is at 1% of lightspeed) is approximately 129.2 million light-years(*), then what is the distance traveled to reach delta 1 z? Can we multiply 129.2E+6 light years by the distance of one light-year? If so, then the distance is:
129.2E+6 l.y. * 9.46E+15 meters = 1222.2E+21 meters, or D_1z = 1.222E+24 meters.
This is quite a range of distance for light to travel in space to redshift 1 z. I do not know for sure if this is right or not (not sure how correct EvC Forum number is, and hard to find elsewhere), but it may be a useful number to figure something out, where light traveled 1.222E+24 meters at delta 1 z, where light has redshifted to only one percent of lightspeed c. If this is to be measured in AUs, where 1 AU = 1.5E+11 m, dividing gives us a distance for 1z of ~8.15E+12 AU, which is a lot! To put it into billions, it's roughtly 8,000 billion AUs, or 8,000 giga AUs, get redshift = 1 z.
(2) Next question, number of atoms: How much space dust and gas, let's say primarily hydrogen, is there per one cubic centimeter stretched over that distance of D_1z = 1.222E+24 meters? Let's say that it is the conventional one atom per cubic centimeter (though it could be ten times that), of which 99% is gas (of which 92% is hydrogen gas), and convert this to 100 atoms per meter (one centimeter cube, one meter long). Now that meter distance for 1 z is 1.222E+24 m long, so the total volume of that long meter is 1.222E+26 atoms of (mostly) hydrogen per the distance of light traveling delta 1 z. Okay, so what does it mean?
(3) Question, mass of deep space atoms: If we have a reading on Earth (in Earth's 1 G gravity) of light "gravitational redshift" as D l/l = gh/c^2 = 1.136E-16 per kg (2.5E-15 divided by 22 meters)**, what would this same "gravitational redshift" be for space, where the volume density of the distance of 1 z is approximately 1.222E+26 hydrogen atoms?
We know hydrogen mass is m_h = 1.67E-27 kg, so multiply this by the interstellar volume of hydrogen, and you get the total mass per 1 z:
1.67E-27 kg * 1.222E+26 * = 2.04E-1 kg, which multiplied by gravitational-lightshift z, 1.136E-16 kg^-1 is:
2.04E-1 kg * 1.136E-16 kg^-1 = 2.318E-17
and we know gravity's G is 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. Now dividing, the interstellar volume of hydrogen mass times z, by the known G, and what do you get?
2.318E-17 / (6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^2. (This is the G for the gross mass of that one cubic centimeter of interstellar medium, over distance of 1 z)
G-deep space, is the "gravitational G" for hydrogen gas over the distance of 1z. In effect, this is the amount of gravitational G needed to make light redshift delta 1 z.
The answer is: G-deep space = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 (or it could be ten times that)
vs. 3.4E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 calculated using Boltzmann's constant.
Note: I had previously separately figured out a "cut-off" gravity in deep space as about 1.3E-6 N.., but this above is the new instellar G to accommodate this cosmic redshift 1 z. (The prior was figured out, where G is about 1.3E-6 N.., which coincided with with "cut-off" wavelength of light, l = ~3.97E-7 m (orange light) as the photo-electric effect for sodium metal. These calculations above, if they are right, seem to fall pretty close in line, where the original, with less than one order of magnitude difference: 0.347E-6 N... vs. 1.3E-6 N., where the difference may be accounted for other factors in space. (See: Axiomatic Equation (above on this thread), posts June 19, 2005; Mar. 30, 2005; and June 3, 2004, for how derived originally.) There may be additional e.m. radiant energy in space to account for the difference, or perhaps greater density of space atoms than assumed, which would mean G would be slightly higher per 1z... but don't know this.
(5) Taking this one step further, the "interstellar hydrogen" mass (per equivalence), is 1z_M = (1.67E-27 kg) * (0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = ~0.58E-33 m^3 s^-2, and divided by Earth's G (to convert back to Earth based units): (0.58E-33 m^3 s^-2) / (6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = 0.087E-22 kg, or interstellar m_h = 0.87E-21 kg, which is the interstellar mass equivalent, approximately, for hydrogen in interstellar space (over five orders of magnitude greater than here on Earth). No wonder hydrogen gas clouds, when there is enough volume, fuse together under great pressure to ignite stars!
These are merely rough estimates, but it gives us the idea of how much gravity G is needed in deep space to redshift light to z = 1, and what the hydrogen mass is, per equivalence, for all that interstellar medium, which makes up 99.99% of our universal space "vacuum". If it is found to be so with future observations, or close to it, then Doppler "expansion of space" in our universe becomes irrelevant, if light redshifts naturally due to a very high level of gravity per mass of the intergalactic gases of space. Is this "dark matter"?
(*) [Note: this distance in light-years was derived from EvC Forum, where it says "a delta z (red shift) of about 0.024% (72 km/s or 3.1 million light years) that has been confirmed time and time again..", which if multiplied by the inverse of 0.024 (41.666) we get 129.2 million light years. I thus presume that if I multiply this distance of 129.2 million years by 100 x100 (reciprocal of 1% for z?), I should get the limits of the universe where light "greys out", which should be at about 12.9 billions years, hence the "estimated" beginning, or Big Bang's birthdate? If so, then the number given by VeC is more or less correct. See Wiki's Age of the Universe.]
(**) As derived from Gravitational Redshift, from Wiki.
THE EQUATIONS FOR DEEP SPACE GRAVITY AND MASS:
1) Equation for G value in deep intergalactic space:
[(delta z)* (1z_D * Nh* Mp)] / G-earth = G-space
[(1.136E-16 kg^-1) * (2.04E-1 kg) * (1.67E-27 kg)/ (6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
In words: "Distance light travels in 1z, times number of atoms (per cubic centimeter) in one linear meter of space, times proton mass on Earth, times redshift on Earth for one meter, all divided by Earth's G, equals gravity G for deep space."
[Note (this is new): I say atoms per meter and "per kilogram" because we are converting distance meters into kilograms equivalent of space-mass per meter, as it applies to gravitational lightshift per meter. So per a linear meter of mass, the gravitational lightshift z is also per the kilograms in that linear meter. If we multiply this linear meter cum kilograms by the basic gravitational lightshift measured (in Earth's 1 G), per meter, we get: delta G-z = 1.136E-16 kg^-1.]
2) Equation for deep intergalactic space Mass of hydrogen molecules:
(h mass * G-space)/ G-earth = proton Mass-space
[(1.67E-27 kg) * (0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2)] / (6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) = 0.087E-22 kg , or h_M = 0.87E-21 kg in deep space.
In words: "Earth's proton mass times (deep space) gravity G-space, divided by Earth's G, equals deep space Mass for proton, or hydrogen atoms."
Also see: Gaia clocks speedy cosmic expansion - at 73 km/second for 'early' universe (2016)
What if Gravitational Constant, G
, is not constant?
The Dark-stuff is only hypotethical things to explain the observed problems, when G is assumed to be constant. According to Occam's razor; Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. And if we assume that G is not constant, we remove quite a lot of assumptions.
|Posted on Saturday, April 07, 2007 - 12:02 pm: |
Post Script - on deep space gravity having Newton's G 5 or 6 orders of magnitude higher than in our solar system - some thoughts on the immense implications.
This is a follow up note on the earlier post, http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=3497#POST3497 , which shows how Milgrom's Mond a_0 value is 6 orders of magnitude greater at the galaxy edge than within our solar system. The post here above shows a similarity, where deep space gravity calculated as 'gravitational redshift' of cosmic light reaching Earth likewise comes up with a similar order of magnitude. What can this mean?
The implications of this are actually immense. First of all, the fact that Newton's gravity as modified by Einstein's General Relativity should NOT be a universal constant is already damaging to much of current astrophysical theory, both in deep space and for our solar system. Second, the fact that the Pioneer Anomaly approximates the Hubble constant is telling us something more fundamental about how we figured out cosmic light redshift using GR as a model for Doppler space expansion. Einstein's GR may have skewed our thinking that 'space-time' is curved to create a gravitational effect. Or as Wiki on Gravitomagnetism says: "This approximate reformulation of gravitation as described by general relativity makes a "fictitious force" appear in a frame of reference different from a moving, gravitating body." Such a 'fictitious' force is made present by the curvature of space-time into the accelerative effect we know as gravity. But this may be a false model, or at best a parallel model, of what is actually happening in the presence of atomic mass, and instead it may be inherent in the atom's structure (as postulated by the Axiomatic Equation) that the gravity felt is a 'remainder' force of the interaction of electromagnetic (hot) energy and the atom's strong force coupled nucleus; the remainder is a very weak force of gravity; so that farther from such a hot energy, the force remainder is greater. On Earth, close to our hot star, this remainder is exceptionally weak, Newton's G = 6.67E-11, while in deep space it may be a 'constant' about 5-6 orders of magnitude higher. This was also figured out at approximately the same using the 'cut off' wavelength of about 400 nm, similar to photoelectric effect - see: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/108.html (June 3, 2004) for how it was worked out at E = 1*c, dimensions adjusted. So something coincidental is happening here, that using three separate methods of examining gravity far from the Sun's hot energy, where energy wavelength is very low, where gravitational redshift for light is very high, and where Milgrom's Modified Newton Dynamics (MOND) shows up at the same proportion, that perhaps Einstein's modeling of a 'fictitious force' due to tension between curvature of space-time and matter is not a correct evaluation.*
The fact that Hubble's constant for 'expanding' space shows up at a level that fits the model of Relativity is another coincidence, but one that might have thrown us off the track about why distant cosmic light redshifts. it may not be due to space expansion, but merely an artifact of how using light to measure all distances, limited by light velocity c, gives us readings that approximate Einstein's relativistic modifier, or Lorentz 'relativistic' equation, where the square root (1-v^2/c^2) to adjust for the light speed c limitation gives an 'observational' reading, but not an actual reading of what is being observed only. Light will redshift (or blueshift) observationally in a relativistic manner, but it is not indicative necessarily of Doppler motion, but can be gravitational in nature. If so, the Hubble constant is a 'gravitational' artifact of light passing through the very great distances of space where gravity is 6 orders of magnitude greater than on Earth, and at some point it essentially 'disappears' observationally with visible light, viz. at about 13.7 billion light years. So the coincidence gives us a reading that approximates Hubble and the extrapolations of GR into a Big Bang origin, the BBT, but it does not have to mean that. If light redshifts naturally through the very great gravity of deep space, then Newton's assumption, and Einstein's collaboration, of a universally constant gravity G becomes a monumental error. All models that then come of this error, including BBT, are simply a mistake in our thinking, and it does not reflect upon what is really happening far out there in intergalactic space.
On a closer home front, our solar system, this effect is then much less pronounced than in deep space, but it does seem to show up very weakly in the Pioneer Anomaly. A variable G for gravity inside our solar system may in fact account for this anomalous acceleration towards the Sun, where the Pioneer 10 and 11, both crafts on exit paths out of our solar system in opposite directions are both experiencing nearly identical effects, both slowing at about 5000 miles per year from their expected Newtonian paths. How so? If gravitational-inertial mass, per Equivalence, is growing at a steady rate away from the Sun, per the paper at about 1G per 1AU (still a very weak gravity even at Pluto's 40AU), then this higher gravitational-inertial mass is being pulled towards the Sun at the same increasing steady rate. By the time it reaches 6 orders of magnitude AU, it flattens out to what is G throughout most of intergalactic space, or what is evident at the galaxy edge, into what then redshifts light gravitationally into the Hubble constant. These are all interrelated, but by modeling them with Einstein's GR, we got a false, but workable, reading of what is actually going on. Of course, the BBT is then patently false, if so. And if this is true, then the Axiomatic Equation showing how atomic mass is affected by electromagnetic energy, where less energy means a 'less fully filled' atom, one less filled with EM but exhibiting more of G, then it all begins to make sense, that gravity becomes stronger per atom the farther away we are from a hot energy source. Close to a hot EM source, the G is very low, but in the cold of deep space, it is very high. This whole event takes place at about the Hubble constant, so an illusion was formed when that constant was interpreted as Doppler expansion of space. No such expansion is needed, neither is 'dark matter' or 'dark energy', both as artifacts of this illusionary error in GR's interpretation of what is gravity. It is not a universal constant, but a variable contingent upon the de Broglie-Planck Quantum equation, E = hf, matched with the J.J. Thomson-De Pretto-Einstein equation, E = mc^2, as shown in the Axiomatic Equation first postulated here. And if so, the ramifications are immense.
How did this happen? When Einstein used the Lorentzian equation for his Special Relativity, he did something that was a mistake. Surprisingly, this mistake was called but not taken seriously, and virtually ignored when the Hubble constant was found: what is observed from one reference frame cannot be applied to what is happening in another reference frame. In effect, there IS a preference (the observer's), and his first postulate in SR, that there are no preferential reference frames, is false. There lies the error, and one hundred years later we are discovering, first with the Pioneer Anomaly and later with perhaps other observational anomalies, such as where are the comets far out in the solar system, or why the gas giants have their very large atmospheres, are all telling us something. We did not understand gravity well enough. So in the next hundred years, that is what we need to do. Throw out GR and establish a real gravity theory, or RG, in its place. I suspect this will happen, perhaps soon. Once we understand that gravity is EM related, then by manipulating electromagnetic energy in the ways it affects atomic mass gravity, we will be on a new physics path where gravity will be used as a force. And if so, the implications for this are immense.
*(Also see re-confirmation of deep space intergalactic gravity G at 5 orders of magnitudes greater than on Earth using the Boltzmann constant: Test of the Big Bang: CMB per NASA, and also this post: Cosmological constant, Hubble constant, Doppler redshift, MOND, Pioneer Anomaly - Are they all the same?)
|Posted on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 10:21 am: |
Venus's atmosphere, by the numbers?
In the Space.com article: "Venus' Atmosphere More Chaotic Than Thought", http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070410_venus_express.html , it says atmospheric winds can reach up to 400 km per hour.
How can this be, for a planet that barely turns on its axis generate winds of such intense magnitude? On Earth, where our planet spins every 24 hours, the prevailing jetstream winds spin likewise, predominantly in the direction of the planet's spin. But no such spin exists on Venus, so how can there be such high jetstream type winds?
The chaotic atmosphere of Venus has long baffled scientists. Winds speeds are so high that clouds can be ferried around the entire planet in only four Earth-days in what scientists call a "super-rotation." Yet Venus, a rocky world, takes 243 Earth-days to make one complete rotation around its axis.
Some quick 'back of napkin' calculations yielded some interesting numbers:
- Sun's mass: 1.98E+30 kg
- Sun's surface spin velocity: 7174 km/hr
- Distance Sun to Venus: 108.476E+6 km (1.0848E+11 m)
Now, let's do some quick math here. Divide Suns mass by surface velocity:
19.8E+29 kg/ 7.174+6 m/hr = 2.76E+23 kg/m/hr (kilograms per velocity)
Per inverse square law, distance squared from Sun to Venus is:
(1.084E+11 m)^2 = 1.175E+22 m^2
Now, divide kg/m/hr by distance squared:
2.76E+23 kg/m/hr / 1.175E+22 m^2 = 23.49 kg m/hr (ratio of solar mass velocity transfer to Venus)
What does this represent? This is the ratio of solar surface momentum to Venus surface moment, i.e., the Sun's surface velocity is 23.49 times the surface 'velocity' on Venus. In effect, 7174 km/hr divided by 23.49 = 305 km/hr, which is the 'transfer' of momentum from the Sun's spin, per inverse square law, to Venus's surface, about ball park of Venus's atmospheric wind velocity.
Remember Venus has nearly no spin, which makes it anomalous in our solar system. (I had worked on this in the Jaszz spin for the planets, see "Spin Ratios": March 2, 2005: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/145.html ) So that, if Venus is in a solar region where its spin is virtually zero, the planet's winds cannot be powered by its rotational velocity. But it may be powered by the simple transfer of velocity momentum from the Sun, where the free moving atmosphere is 'dragged' by the Sun's surface spin, such as it is felt at that distance (per inverse square law) on its surface, to move at an atmospheric surface velocity of about ~300 km/hr., in the ball park.
By the numbers, it appears that Venus's high velocity atmosphere is a transfer of momentum energy from the Sun's spin to its free flowing surface. The next question, is this a 'vortex' transfer, where the atmosphere spins in the same vortex direction as the Sun's spin, west to east? Or is it a simple transfer to Venus's nearest side, so the atmosphere spins east to west? I don't know yet, but interesting, because the answer to that reveals another clue to how momentum energy is transfered from the Sun to its planets.
[See more here below, on which way the wind blows on Venus.
Also: Strange wind-vortex on Venus, per this Space.com article, where Venus has about 3.8º inclination from the Sun's equator, so a wind-vortex with similar angle to planet's pole would make sense. ]
|Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2007 - 09:46 am: |
Parting the Shroud of Earth's Mysterious Twin -- Venus - Washington Post - article
New studies reveal more mysteries on Venus, our retrograte planetary neighbor closer to the Sun. In fact, the winds on Venus are retrograde also, easterly as opposed to Earth's westerly overall, so the momentum transfer (posted above) makes sense as a direct transfer to the face of Venus towards the Sun, where spin of one affects the other. Here's from the article, since these things are still unknown:
Why indeed? The ratio of solar energy density to interior heat is nearly equal, so no interior micro black hole planet rotation occurs, per Jaszz. However, the fluid and thick atmosphere of Venus is affected, with the high velocity retrograde winds.
Another puzzle that has mystified scientists for decades is Venus's winds, which are negligible on the surface but reach speeds of 220 mph in the upper atmosphere, much faster than the planet rotates. Venus, the slowest-spinning planet in the solar system, has a "day" that is the equivalent of about 224 Earth days.
"There is no reason for the wind," Svedhem, Venus Express's lead scientist, said. The spacecraft will measure wind speeds at various altitudes and correlate them with temperatures. The spacecraft will also gather data on the whirlpool-like atmospheric vortices at Venus's poles, another phenomenon that has no explanation.
"It's really embarrassing how little we know," Bougher said. "The cloud top winds are so strong on a planet that rotates so slowly. Why?"
More on Venus:
Strange wind-vortex on Venus, per this Space.com article.
Venus has about 3.8º inclination from the Sun's equator, so a wind-vortex with similar angle to planet's pole would make sense.
|Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 05:58 pm: |
Gravity Probe-B update, preliminary results.
This is a follow up of this earlier post on GP-B. They seem to have found some results that approximate Einstein's Geodetic predictions, but not yet final: BBC Science news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6561391.stm , with further updates to be posted here: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl.html on the Stanford-Einstein page.
Not final proof, nor that what they think they are measuring is the cause and effect of warped spacetime, but it is interesting. There are some questions about the gyroscopes's 'polhode' wobble motion, something to do with electrostatic patches, but not fully understandable to me. More to come in December 2007, when Frame-dragging to be announced, two orders of magnitude finer than Geodetic effect. Stay tuned.
|Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 11:09 pm: |
First cause-effect of new galaxy formations?
Once upon a time I wrote the Axiomatic Equation which said, in effect, that if all ambient electromagnetic energy cancels on a point, a very large and powerful gravity resuts. Well, here is an example of where this may be happening in space some 300 million lys away. An enormous cloud of plasma gas, some 6 million lys across, is being held together by what appears to be a seminal 'black hole'. In fact, this is the gravity super point where all the ambient energy from the hot plasma is focussed, so that a point of very high gravity results. I dare venture a guess here, that this is where a new galaxy is in the process of being born. In time, that very large cloud of hot plasma held together by the 'black hole' gravity will churn itself into billions of hot stars. What a great birth of a galaxy it will be!
See Space.com: Black Holes Exhale Enormous Gas Cloud
They got it wrong, of course, since there is no 'exhale' involved here. This is merely the natural cause and effect of a large ambient cloud of hot plasma with a mathematical center, where the lambda of e.m. energy cancels into what is the 'black hole' center. But this is not yet currently understood in astro-sciences.
|Posted on Saturday, April 28, 2007 - 11:54 pm: |
If I shine two flashlights at each other the light doesn't cancel. Why should I assume all light cancels at the center of a bunch of plasma?
|Posted on Sunday, April 29, 2007 - 12:14 am: |
The electromagnetic waves pass thru each other in two lights shining at each other. All the ambient energy from total spread source will have one natural center where all the electromagnetic energy will converge on a point. Do they cancel there? That is an assumption, don't know. But if they do, something interesting happens, like what happens in every spiral galaxy center.
|Posted on Sunday, April 29, 2007 - 10:30 am: |
PS to Anonymous:
Think of light not as sine waves but percussion, P-waves. Light shining out of a flashlight is P-waves, which when interacting with other P-waves coming in the opposite direction from another flash will do what waves do when they pass through each other, just like ripples in a pond. What makes 'canceling' of lambda on a point different is that the P-waves are all coming together, like in concentric circles of ambient light sources, so when they do reach a point where all these concentric P-waves come together, they cancel on that point. At the center of a 'bunch of plasma', there should be a 'theoretical' center where all these P-waves of e.m. energy converge on a point. When that happens, and the lambda cancels, something big happens.
If I shine two flashlights at each other the light doesn't cancel. Why should I assume all light cancels at the center of a bunch of plasma?
|Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 12:19 am: |
Hmm...I don't think that really answered my question. Let me put it this way. How could I perform an experiment with two or more flashlights to see light cancel on a point?
|Posted on Wednesday, May 02, 2007 - 10:48 am: |
With flashlight? I don't know how that can be done, since to recreate the galactic condition you'd have to have a circle of inward shining flashlights pointing into a perfect center. The galaxy does this with spin and gravity, so all ambient light on a galactic plane is held equidistant to its center, where light lambda cancels and very large G gravity reasserts.
About the only way I can envision this is to have light points around a sphere, where the light is inshining, but spin may also be involved. Or perhaps a semi-mirrored glass sphere allowing light to enter and then bounce inside the mirrored glass ball, so a natural center results. I suspect the most likely to succeed would be to have an inert glowing gas inside a sphere at high spin, since that most closely resembles the conditions of the galaxy. The plasma like glowing gas provides the light 'infalling' into a center made equidistant by the spin, where a micro-black-hole should result in the center of the glass sphere. I've never known this experiment to have been performed, nor anything resembling this though not intended to recreated a gravitic condition, but it would be interesting to try. If only I had a lab... Any thoughts on how to do this?
|Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 01:46 am: |
If only I had a lab... Rotating Plasma simulator had been done!
Here is a brief on Japanese scientists re-creating the singular black hole conditions in a laboratory, very similar to what I expected, including the high energy jets and gravity instability:
Go Japan! We're on our way to 'gravity in a bottle'! Step aside Einstein!
More on Ryoji MATSUMOTO: http://act.jst.go.jp/content/h10-s/ter_cosm/T06/PageRepresentative_e.html
This may be the first hints of utilizing plasma spin to simulate black hole conditions, inculding gravity effect of canceled lambda, as predicted by Axiomatic Equation.
|Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 05:56 am: |
I will make a "little" suggestion here just becouse while reading the above posts something reminded me this :
I've seen guys making plasma at home with microwaves . You can see it -> http://youtube.com/watch?v=M0qr6v9icmQ
So I am thinking that if we start rotating the microwave at a "nice" speed and when we decide that the spin is enough for our experiment )))
we can turn it on and thats it...
I am pretty sure that this experiment was already done in the federal labs and even in space...
|Posted on Friday, May 04, 2007 - 10:24 pm: |
Well, that is somethin' all right, for a simple kitchen experiment. Looks like the resulting flame in the chimney resembles a torus, but hard to tell for real from the short take. What was he cookin' anyway? Hungry, I want some.
I've seen guys making plasma at home with microwaves . You can see it -> http://youtube.com/watch?v=M0qr6v9icmQ
|Posted on Friday, May 18, 2007 - 09:17 pm: |
"Beam me up, Scotty"
Ashes launched into space found in New Mexico mountains
Well, if I'd have my druthers, I'd have stayed too, though I also like the mountains of New Mexico... tough choice!
The rocket containing some of Doohan's ashes was the first to be successfully launched from the Spaceport America site in New Mexico.
The capsule containing the ashes spent some four minutes at the edge of space before coming back to earth.
Wende Doohan, James Doohan's widow, told the Associated Press news agency her late husband "probably wished he could have stayed".
|Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 07:50 pm: |
Brown stars have material jets? Wow.
A Brown Dwarf Joins the jet-Set
Brown dwarf stars may be nearly rightly balanced between high G gravity and their e.m. energy output, so they exhibit both characteristics, part hot star and part neutron star. How come? And what are those material jets out the axis all about? Here is another discussion on this issue, at BAUT: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=59260 Perhaps this is an electric, electro-magnetic, phenomenon, where c = 1/(UoEo)^1/2, is always equal to one, and c is always same, but the other functions are interactive in ways we still do not understand? Maybe they are reciprocals, if unity is maintained? Ditto for gravity G and e.m. hot energy, reciprocals, if unity is maintained?
|Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 09:38 pm: |
On the Maxwellian: c = 1/(UoEo)^1/2, a note to myself.
If the above is true, and the Axiomatic Equation's conversion formula for Newton's G from proton-proton gravitational 'constant' (g) is true, then something interesting happens:
Substituting the Axiomatic 'Gravity equation': G^2 = gc^2pi^2 with Maxwell's, c = (1/(UoEo)^1/2
we get: G^2 = g[1/(UoEo)] pi^2, or which is, taking square root for G:
G = (g)^1/2 (1/(UoEo)^1/2 pi, which can be further written as:
G(UoEo)^1/2 = (g)^1/2(pi)
In words: "Newton's G times the square root of permittivity and permeability of space equals the square root of the proton gravitational 'constant' times pi."
Does it mean c remains constant, but permittivity and permeability of space are inversely variables? Or do both G and g in some way respond to permittivity and permeability of space? How? How would this apply to planetary or star magnetic fields, for example? Or to the brown dwarfs?
Now, I have no idea what this means, but it looks interesting, so filing away for some future use, if and when it ever becomes meaningful. Just a note to myself.
|Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 07:13 pm: |
Super Massive Black Holes (SMBH) merging, splitting apart?
Is this so? See Space.com: Mystery of Runaway Black Holes Solved
I'd have a big question mark on this one. Science is left with a perpetual puzzle on the SMBH phenomena, while it keeps trying to understand it with a constant universal Newton's G. Rather, it is more easily explainable with how the Axiomatic Equation treats it, as per this earlier SMBH post, where all canceled ambient e.m. energy from the galaxy converges on its center, canceling all hot energy there, to reinstate pure gravity, maximum G. This is the most likely explanation, where the accretion disks surrounding gravity 'black holes' of billions of solar masses may or may not merge together, or split apart, but no gravity waves of any sort result from this. A SMBH is a phenomenon unto itself, a gravity artifact resulting from the inverse proportionality of Energy and Gravity, where if no e.m. energy is evident (as at the self canceling galactic center), full gravity takes over, where G = c, and no light can shine forth. However, as long gravity as constant G remains a mystery, none of this can ever be understood. The two are mutually self canceling, opposite forces, much like the duality of electric charge. In fact, there are theories that at some zero point energy scale, space itself is dipolar. It may be true, but still remains to be seen.
|Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 07:11 pm: |
Once in a 'Blue Moon'... Where, when?
Those of us in the Americas get to see it tonight, others continents tomorrow, not really blue, go figure.
But for those living in Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, that same full Moon occurs after midnight, on the calendar date of June 1. So in these regions of world, this will not be second of two full Moons in May, but the first of two full Moons in June. So, if (for example) you live London, you'll have to wait until June 30 to declare that the Moon is "officially" blue.
Have a great Summer to all.
|Posted on Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 03:25 pm: |
Earth's Inner Core, seismic shear waves tomography: Note to myself.
What's down below? For a simple illustration, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core
Mapping the interior of the Earth with earthquake waves - Wiki
The inner core is believed to be about 1210 km thick, or 2420 km in diameter. When you consider Earth's total diameter is about 12,756 km, the solid inner core portion represents about 19% of the total diameter. The outer core is about 3770 km radius, or 7540 km diameter, which is about 59% of total Earth. This leaves the outer core at about 40%.
Wiki's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth , says the inner structure of the Earth is taken from seismic shear waves, and at this time the figures for depths and size of inner core are 1210 km radius, and outer core is 2560 km thick (though this latter number may be inexact), which together give us a boundary of about 3770 km radius.
The reason I bring this up is that the inner core, from seismic wave shear refractions, remains a mystery. Why should the inner core show such incredible density? Why do seismic waves not penetrate it? It might be explainable in another way, that the micro-black hole at Earth's center acts 'as if' it were immense gravity. Let me illustrate an example, though this is rough and may not really explain it.
Using the Schwarzchild equation for a black hole event horizon, for Earth's mass:
G=6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
c^2=9E+16 m^2 s^-2
R_s=G2M/c^2 = 8.85E-3 meters*
(note, this idea was also discussed briefly at BAUT: http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=1008669&postcount=21)
This could mean, not definitive, that Earth has a tiny micro-black hole at its center (per Axiomatic Equation, where when all energy lambda cancels, E=(1-g)c^2, so g=1 when E=0, and converting to Newton's G, where G^2= (g)(c^2)pi^2, so G=c if pi drops out), which may account for the inner core's strangeness.
If G equals its (hypothetical) maximum potential, G= 3E+8 (m^3 kg^-1 s^2), where G=c at its maximum (per Axiomatic), then if taking R_s and multiplying by this, 8.85E-3 times 3E+8 = 26.55E+5, or 2.655E+6 meters, which is the same as 2.655E+3 km, or 2655 kilometers. (This is about 40+% of Earth diameter.) So by this number, 2655 km radius is larger by a factor of about 2+ than the inner core radius of 1210 km, what had been measured from seismic tomography. (This inner core effect being about half -of 2655 km- makes sense if one considers that the G=c effect is volume based, as diameter, while R_s is radius based, so cutting G=c in half makes it radial. This means by this reasoning, the inner core should be about 1327 km radius, or about 117 km larger than as measured seismically.)
What can this represent? It might be the radial distance effect of what a tiny micro-black hole at Earth's center does to the inner and outer core. This distance (cut in half as per above) is about double the radius of the (solid, Fe at 4300 C?) inner core, now believed to be either some compacted nickel-iron alloy, or even a "single crystal iron", http://www.psc.edu/science/Cohen_Stix/cohen_stix.html , due to its extreme density. However, what this above may represent is that rather than super density we are witnessing is "super gravity" (G=c type) extending over a certain distance, where it behaves as if it were super density. If so, this strange micro-black hole may also account for why seismic waves cannot penetrate it, since it's probably creating a swirl of dense plasma energy around the tiny micro-black hole which extends out to the inner core boundary. (The inner core may also be oblate, as posted on last BAUT, as well as anisotropic per this model, which makes sense per the above. Could this 'anisotropic' interior be cause for 'wandering' magnetic pole?)
Somewhere inside the hot outer core, just above the inner core boundary, this super-gravity effect cancels out, if inner core center is super gravity max of G=c. It only 'appears' to be made of super dense solid nickel-iron, while it may be no more than a pure gravitic effect, though as shown here it is not exact. Though the inner core is only 19% of Earth's diameter, it represents about 35% of Earth's density. Gravitic effect, or solid iron core? Good question, for now.
*[BTW, this Schwarzchild event horizon for the Sun is about 3 kilometers radius, and for our Milky Way galaxy is about 20 AU, distance from Sun to Uranus.]
|Posted on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 11:59 pm: |
Note 2: the Sun's 'inner core' boundary, it's outside the Sun.
I made a silly error, which someone had corrected for me on BAUT discussion, that the Sun's Schwarzchild radius (hypothetical) is not 3 meters (as first stated) but in fact 3 kilometers. This suddenly made me recalculate where is the (hypothetical) boundary for an 'inner core' inside the Sun. Here're the numbers, as per above:
R_s = 3E+3 m, times G=c value of 3E+8 (G units)* gives us:
=9E+11 m, which is volumetric diameter, so divided by two makes it radial, which for Sun is R_sS = 4.5E+11 m.
If 1 AU = 1.5E+11 m, then this distance is about 3 AU. !!! How can that be, since it's outside the Sun's radius?! What's at 3 AU? Pretty much nothing, since it's about half way from Mars to Jupiter. Well, not nothing really, since this is region of the Asteroid belt.
Now, I'm really puzzled!
*[G units times meters can be broken down into:
m^4 kg^-1 s^-2 = (m s^-2)(m^3 kg^-1), or acceleration times volumetric mass.]
PS: Is there a "Schwartzchild limit", similar to Roche limit, for Saturn's and Jupiter's rings?
I did a quick calculation for the same R_s for Saturn, at M = 5.68E+26 kg, and got 8.41E-1 meters, or 0.84 meters. Odd result, I thought, but then Saturn has rings, so wondered where this fit in. So taking half of this 'volumetric diameter', R_s(G=c)/2 = (0.42 m)(3E+8) = 1.26E+8 m. That works out to be 126,000 km. When I checked it against the rings of Saturn, they are about 250,000 in diameter, or half that radial, like here! Wow, again. (Furthermore, the 'Roche limit' may also fall within this parameter, though I don't have that number, and other than the equation for it, d = R(2PM/Pm)^1/3, I really don't know why it works as a tidal force in some instances but not others.)
I then did the same 'back of envelope' calculation for Jupiter, where at M = 1.9E+27 kg, so R_s = 2.816 m, and times 1/2 of 3E+8, we get 4.224E+8 meters, which is 422,400 km. Where are Jupiter's rings? Much closer in, about 129,000 km, but closer to main rings to gossamer ring margin, it seems (see page linked for illustrations); while Jupiter's Roche limit is about twice this above value, at range from 890,700 km for solid bodies, to twice that for liquid bodies, more like beyond gossamer rings? Is there also a Schwartzchild limit which may be related to Roche limit somewhat, and which manifests as loose bodies orbiting the main planet, or sun? Maybe this is not so puzzling after all! (posted 7/18/07)
Pps: If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that the idea of micro-black holes in hot bodies, including planets, as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation, will in time be understood to cause gravity 'limits' which manifest as belts of loose rocks and ice, unable to form into solid bodies. Further, there may also be relationships that define why there are gaps in planetary rings, such as at Saturn, based upon mass bands of rock, atmosphere strata, and ultimately the whole planet, so that these will be explainable with the Schwarzchild 'limits' as per above. But this is only a rough guess for now, and much work will need to be done empirically to prove all this. Gravity is not what we had thought, not merely some representation of warped space-time, but a real phenomenon endemic to how atomic mass is modified by electromagnetic energy. There is much to be discovered and understood, when gravity is no longer believed a 'universal constant'. -- Ivan
|Posted on Sunday, June 24, 2007 - 04:11 pm: |
Matsumoto's 'rotating plasma' simulation (pict is interactive), Note 3:
Regrettably, this illustration has no paper attached to better explain what it is we see, or the physics behind it. However, I post it here as a follow up to my earlier post, where I wondered if we could recreate a micro-black hole artificially. Given that the two above posts on Schwarzchhild radius for Earth and Sun may lead to 'gravity boundary' instabilities, possibly, it's something to think about. The real prize here is not a better understanding of gravity physics, but the harnessing of gravity-type energy for real applications. Now, that would be something!
Ps: on the Pioneer Anomaly, the laws of physics may explain it if the "Equivalence Principle" is broken, as I mention in discussion at BAUT: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=1014426#post1014426 Link to NewScientist article is: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12070-.html All of the above, micro-BH and Pioneers are all related, if Newton's G is variable, per Axiomatic Eq.
|Posted on Monday, June 25, 2007 - 11:26 pm: |
On Gravity: Connecting all the dots, tying all the threads, Note 4.
What have we got for all our labors to date? Let's take inventory, and see if a picture emerges.
- Starting with 'bread crumbs' trail, October 2001, a model of mass is introduced, as m=1 minus some small gravity remainder.
- The implication is that the atomic mass, valued at m=1 kg/kg, is countered by a proton-to-proton gravitational value (dimensionless, though it is also in Volts in gravity equation), which when that g value reaches g=1 (the Strong force), it means e.m. Energy in which the atom exists is reduced to zero, and Newton's G is maximum (for the atom).
- The resulting equation using the Quantum de Broglie-Planck value E=hf, and the relativistic E=mc^2, when brought together gives us the Axiomatic Equation, where in its simples form (units must be further adjusted for variable Equivalence), gives us an expression where atomic mass, electromagnetic wavelength, and the small gravitational remainder are all interrelated: E = hc/ l*proton_m = (1-g)c^2, where m = 1-g and is E dependent.
- The more energy figures into an orbital system, by its proximity to its home star, as a product its gravitationally induced orbital velocity and radiant energy received, the resulting E will plot on a chart as a parabolic curve.
- The resulting values for proton mass, and related g remainder, when converted into Newton's G via the equation, G^2 = gc^2pi^2, the resulting G will plot on a straight line, growing at approximately the rate of 1G per 1 AU.
- This now variable, predictably constant increase in Newton's G (unconfirmed empirically as of yet), will yield an approximation of what is being experienced by the Pioneer Anomaly, where inertial mass (as square root) grows in direct proportion to G increase with distance from the Sun.
- Anecdotal evidence comes in from large (larger G) atmospheres of the outer solar gas giants (higher G 'clumping' of gas molecules), Milgrom's MOND for deep space gravity (outer rims of galaxies), and possible orbital anomalies of elliptical comets (breaking Equivalence with higher G does not affect planet orbits), as well as anomalous Earth spin at perihelion (slower), and Allais Effect as a gravitational artefact.
- Planetary spin ratios show an energy (solar) to black-body heat relationship, effecting spin (except Pluto is anomalous, off the solar plane?).
- Variable G flattens out in deep space some 5 to 6 orders of magnitude higher (than Earth's Newton G), which leads to a perfect match for gravitational redshift of cosmic light at Hubble constant, given space vacuum hydrogen and dust density. (There is no expansion, nor was there a Big Bang, if so.)
- Axiomatic Eqn. predicts a 'black hole' effect within any hot body, whether planet or star, or galaxy, so Earth may have a micro-BH (8.85 mm radius), the Sun a mini-BH (3 km radius), and our Milky Way (20 AU radius, mega-BH), so these are natural formations of how all Energy cancels on a point.
- Earth's micro-BH has a natural inner core boundary (~1300 km + 100 km radius, if G=c at center), while the Sun's natural 'inner core' is outside it at the Asteroid belt, per Schwarzchild radius times 1/2 G=c.
- Gravity is not a universal 'constant' as Newton (and Einstein et al) assumed, but a variable which is inversely proportional to the energy received from the local hot star, which makes General Relativity questionable as real cause and effect determinants, other than mathematical formalisms.
- Special Relativity is falsely based on an isotropic light constant c, and on there being no preferred reference frames (while the observational aspects of SR are observer preferred), and not indicative of how the universe works (light c may be anisotropic -PDF).
- A variable Newton's G better fits observational data, from deep space cosmic light redshift to outer solar gas giants, to anomalous Earth's spin (at perihelion), to Mercury's precession (at perihelion, where Sun's angular momentum is transferred as observed), to planetary spin determinants (they all have micro-BHs except for Venus, which has nearly equal black body to solar energy), and large outer solar system atmospheres for planets and moons; to galaxy flat rotation curves, where 'dark matter' is merely dark higher-G-baryonic matter.
- Highly elliptical comets compact in higher G in our solar system, and release (gas out) in lower G inner solar system.
- Atomic shells have a harmonic ratio comparable to Pythagorean scale, so the whole universe is musically harmonic down to the atom.
- Mass in kilograms is an 'Earth based' measure that must be adjusted for higher or lower G, per Equivalence Principle, where Earth's G is not universal (Equivalence broken).
- Our universe is not what we had made it out to be, over past 100 years, and we need to rethink the whole thing from scratch, if G is NOT a universal constant.
- The extra dividend from this new understanding of cosmology and physics is a new 'gravity based' energy source usable in our future motors and space crafts, with virtually 'free' energy (not perpetual motion) that is both continuously accelerative and inexhaustible, at a very low energy budget expense.
That's where we are now. All these can be found in the linked 'bread crumbs' trail above, or in the newer threads of the Forums, such as Deep Space Science (this page). Work in progress for future is a better understanding of 'electrical-magnetic' aspect of Energy, per Axiomatic, where E = Em*c = Bm*c^2, to be continued, and more evidence of a variable Newton's G. But that's where we are at present. The universe is a lot simpler than we made it out to be, and it's time to measure what G really is outside 1 AU, with dedicated controlled experiments. If we can recreate this in a lab, we're there. In the past 6 years, this is what we got... nice work guys! Let's get more.
[There is more on these above points, and how derived, on the Table of Contents Astrophysics page: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/294/294.html#POST3939 ]
Ps: Is gravity but an aggregate of vortices, as per below? 'free vortex' gravity pi, note7.
Wasn't it Leibniz who thought so, that gravity had vortices, but Newton beat him out? How's that for cosmic justice, poetic payback?
|Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 08:54 pm: |
Most distant stars yet, at 13 billion light years.
Astronomers claim galaxy record, IOK-1
This may be an artefact of large blue stars being the only light able to make it through 13 BLY of space dust and deep gravity, at light redshift near z=7, so we are getting a skewed sample of what we see. We simply can't see the other stars there. When they get to z=8 or higher, they will find more stars already formed, and perhaps galaxies. We are seeing only the 'appearance' of expanding universe, as if, but not really. What we see in this redshift is merely light stretched gravitationally by the very great deep space gravity, which incidentally levels off at a photoelectric wavelength conversion equivalence (see post June 3, 2004), or about 6 orders of magnitude higher than Earth's G. These are records to be broken, and likely broken beyond the 13.7 BLY theorized Big Bang origins of the universe. BBT is beginning to make less and less sense the deeper we observe.
|Posted on Saturday, July 14, 2007 - 08:06 pm: |
Why pi^2 in the Newston's G conversion equation?
I've been thinking about this for some time, and still have no clear idea. I wrote in the Variable G paper:
A.3 : Computing Newton's G 'constant' from the Proton gravitational coupling 'constant': Multiplying out the above equation, we can see that mass is defined as (1-g) times the energy value of c^2, so that of necessity the proton gravitational constant, as a function of energy, becomes gc^2. However, this will be found as incomplete without pi^2. So the gravitational function G should now become:
f(G)m = gc^2 (m) pi^2, to yield an approximation of G = 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
There is an immediately obvious pi^2 relationship to Newton's G, as per: G^2/ pi^2 = g(m)c^2, where m=1. So if Newton's G has a pi divider, what does it mean? Yet, the equation seems to work, with the unexpected result showing G grows in our solar system at the rate of about 1G per 1 AU, which coincides handily close to Pioneer Anomaly. But the reason for pi in this equation is something I almost understand, but it still eludes me.
Some thoughts: If r=c, then G^2/ pi^2 = gc^2 acts 'as if' = gr^2. However, this converts lightspeed into radial distance, which does not make sense. Or, if circumference of a circle is considered, then square root of G^2/ pi^2 = gc^2 gives us G/ pi = (g)^1/2*c, which means G = (g)^1/2*c*pi, which is another way of saying (g)^1/2*c = diameter of a circle, which times pi equals G. But that makes no sense either. G is merely a ratio of force, not a circle. So this leaves me off where I started, nowhere! Ah well, I'll have to sleep on this some more... Anything out there with pi^2? None I know of, except perhaps the Reimann zeta-function. , which looks somewhat like the Energy curve for the planets in the Axiomatic Equation. This is a brain tease, maybe something to do with harmonic series? Or perhaps it involves Kepler's third law function, which is P^2/a^3 = (2pi)^2/G(M+m), but this means what? I had thought of this also in terms of Maxwellian equation, as mentioned here: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=3905#POST3905 But what does that mean?
This is so much fun! But it means nothing to me.
|Posted on Friday, July 20, 2007 - 09:02 pm: |
Gravity pi, continued - as possible 'free vortex'.
This may be nothing more than curiosity, but I thought to myself: What if mass on a point, a kind of 'zero point', were equal in kilograms to light, so that M = 3E+8 kg, or slightly more, so that from that point, no light could escape? This led me to think of the Schwarzchild radius equation, which is: R_s = G2M/c^2. What would the radius work out to be? How would pi be involved? Obviously the radius would be larger than a 'zero point', but the idea is the same.
So I plugged in some numbers.
M = >3E+8 kg
G = 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
c^2 = 9E+16 m^2 s^-2
R_s = [(6.67E-11)(2)(>3E+8)] / 9E+16 = >20.01E-3/ 9E+16 = >4.446E-19
So this would be the Schwarzchild radius for that mass. However, the number is meaningless, unless I multiply it by 2 to give me not radius but diameter, so that in the Newton's G conversion equation: G = (g)^1/2 pi c, the function (g)^1/2 is actually a 'diameter' function, such as pi*d makes the circumference of a circle, which in this case is G. Odd, but when this diameter (2R) is multiplied by pi in the above, we get:
R_s = >4.446E-19)(2)(3.14159) = >27.935E-19, or >2.79357E-20 meters
So, why is this odd number significant? Because it approximates (though not exactly) the square root (g)^1/2 for the value 5.9E-39, which is about 7.68E-20, which is part of the G = (g)^1/2*pi*c equation for converting proton-mass gravitational constant into Newton's G, as per Axiomatic. Remember the > sign tells us that the arbitrarily selected M is in fact insufficient, but the idea is close enough. There appears, curiously, to be a mass to gravity relationship on a point which, per Schwarzchild 'black hole' radius, the end product approximates what is the (square root) proton-mass gravitational constant, when pi is included (for Newton's G of 6.67E-11, times 2x M of >3E8 kg, as one function relative to each other, viz. G2M reciprocal as one unit, per Equivalence, regardless of what is G). However, of greater significance is that this use of Schwarzchild's equation yields an approximation of the proton-mass gravitational 'constant' when used with Newton's G. It is 'as if' (g)^1/2 were in fact a radius function. So pi has some meaning per this, though inexact as presented here. Roughly speaking, this weird geometry yields 'circles' for both Schwarzchild's converted into (g)^1/2, and for Newton's G as a function of the same. Weird, but about all I could think of is the equation for a free vortex, which has a cirmcumference function in it.
So does this make gravity? An aggregate of vortices? If so, where does that leave GR?
Is this a confirmation, however inexact, by using an independent equation for a 'black hole' mass on a point, where light is as 'heavy' in mass so it cannot escape? At this point, I would say it is too inexact to call, except that if M was a little bit larger, the numbers would work out. Why should they? In part, because the 'zero point' mass of 3E+8 kg has a radius larger than zero. So it kind of makes sense, but the only part of this that is of interest, really, is that another equation involving gravity, Schwartzchild's 'black hole' radius, yields something of interest regarding the conversion equation for Newton's G (independently!), including its pi component. In fact, because R_s is >0, the M must be >3E+8 kg. That's all for now.
(See Note 4 for 19 points development of 'variable gravity' in the above.)
|Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2007 - 02:21 pm: |
new 'Dark matter' and 'inflaton' mythology for Modern Physics.
Dark matter and inflation - one and the same? - NewScientistSpace article, 14 Sept. 2007
It just gets better and better, as to how fantastic a simple misunderstanding of gravity can get. Now the astrophysics mythmakers are inventing newer bigger particles for the Big Bang, which never happened anyway. This is most amusing.
Liddle's theory hinges on the notion suggested by other cosmologists that inflation is caused by a hypothetical particle, aptly named the inflaton. "The inflaton has weird pressure properties that we don't see in everyday particles," explains Liddle. For instance, as they are created in the early universe, they push space apart, forcing it to expand.
Mind, these are grown men with Ph.D.s coming up with this stuff. Inflatons decay only when they encounter other inflatons? It's all in their heads.
|Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 10:45 pm: |
Space, or Outer Space, and the Standard Model.
Imagined colony inside a torus in space (interactive)
In mathematics, Space is a set, usually three dimensional space with coordinates, but it can also be a zero point, or a line two dimensional space, which then can be finite of infinite, even vectors. Philosophers have similar speculations on the absoluteness of space. But in physics and astronomy, space as a structure took on an whole new dimension, literally. It became space-time, and it was no longer an absolute static set of three coordinate dimensions, but it involved time and a dynamic expansion. This gave us Outer Space.
The universe is what we think of as spanning outer space, perhaps to infinity. However, by giving space a fourth dimension of time, we then managed to enclose it spacially into the constraints of a universe originating some 13.7 billion years ago in the phenomenal expansion of space from an origin Big Bang. This was not an explosion, per this theory, as we understand chemical explosions, but rather the actual creation of energy and time itself, which expanded space within mili-seconds into a universe populated with energy and matter as the primordial expansion cooled. This, of course, is extrapolated from observations that light, or any electromagnetic energy, from very distant space will redshift depending upon distance traveled at approximately the Hubble constant. So space became a region of the universe that is not empty, nor static, but something expanding still today, translated as a Dopper effect of stretching space, which in turn stretches light wavelength into redshift. This is the more less acceptable astrophysical theory of space today. But is this reality?
Much of the structure of our understanding of space is in fact philosophical in nature. We are assuming that our mathematical models of space-time and Doppler like expansion, rolling out of the primordial Big Bang, are somehow representative of what actually happened. We even have theories explaining how the known Standard Model of four forces of nature, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, nuclear strong force, and gravity, were all united in those initial moments of creation, but had since become separated, with gravity stubbornly resisting incorporation into the other three. And this is the catch: if our extrapolations from observed distant cosmic light redshift is not from space expansion, since there is no such proof locally of any such expansion taking place anywhere within our solar system or galaxy, and if gravity which is refusing to play along is actually not the weak force we know on Earth but an exponentially stronger force in most of intergalactic space, then the whole built up structure of our current cosmology, including General Relativity's cosmological constant, begins to give way. And then, space, that mysterious quality of the universe allowing us to use geometry in measuring distance and time, is not expanding as now assumed, or theorized, but is merely a function of distance, and time. It may be curved, hypothetically and mathematically, same as straight lines drawn on a globe are curved, but this may not be a real description of how is space in intergalactic distances, nor is it becoming stretched with time. Some have even hypothesized that it is this stretching of space that causes gravity to manifest around mass, but that is pure conjecture. And if, on the other hand, gravity is greatly more powerful in space than here on Earth, and light redshifts for that reason, perhaps in ways not yet fully understood, then outer space becomes nothing more or less, neither full of energy nor empty of it, than what philosophers always assumed it to be, an absolute. We know empty space is not empty, since even far from any physical body it has molecules of hydrogen and dust particles throughout, but the volume of such mass is so small that it is considered essentially empty. Except, and this is the catch that could undo much of today's theorization about the universe, if the molecules in deep space act as if they had great gravity, in a dark matter like fashion, then all to do with a time based origin of creation, the Big Bang so called, becomes meaningless. Light travels through it geometrically, which is what we use as the standard ruler to observe all in outer space, but is not redshifted because space is expanding, but because the 'missing' gravity of the Standard Model is at work there, in the natural light-energy-gravity interaction.
In a way, this is the trap door through which we must pass to understand what is really space, and specifically outer space. Is it flat, or curved, filled with zero point energy, or neutral and not at all anything we expected it to be? But it may be full of the gravity potential that gives immense mass to any atomic matter there, and it may also be responsible for redshifting all distant light coming through it, not because it is expanding, but because of the nature of its gravitational reality. It may even be that with this great gravity in outer space, the four forces relate most complimentarily: two forces are gravitational, the strong force at one extreme and weak gravity at the other, both quantum functions of the atom; and two forces are electromagnetic, hot energy and the weak nuclear; so the universe is balanced between these two opposing events. Where there is little electromagnetic energy there is much gravity, and vice versa, where there is much electromagnetic energy, there is little gravity. On a micro scale this already happens in a limited way in the energy levels of quantum shells of electrons covering the very strong positive charge nucleus. But for now, we do not relate charge to gravity, such as may be the strong force broken up by electrons, nor do we relate energy generated by stars to modifying gravity. But if... If that trap door opens for us, we will no doubt revolutionize understanding of space, a three dimensional reality of very low volume and very high gravitational potential energy, including revolutionizing theories of the atom's basic particles of the Standard Model. And if this proves true, we have a new energy source to work with. That would be most exciting of all, because then that fanciful image of space colonies for humans can actually become reality.
|Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 11:13 pm: |
Where Do Shooting Stars Come From? = U-Tube short clip
Very educational, forwarded by my friend Mark R.
|Posted on Monday, November 19, 2007 - 09:27 pm: |
Is our Universe aging 'gracefully'?
Space.com: Nature vs. nurture in the Cosmos
About 7 million light years; about 33 million light years; about 62 million light years.
Notice an interesting development, of galaxy 'evolution' as the article states:
The 'younger' galaxies (more blue stars) are closer in, meaning less time had elapsed, while 'older' mature galaxies are further out, meaning more time had elapsed. But what does that really mean?
Scientists have long thought that young galaxies grow up into old ones, referred to as blue and red galaxies, respectively. The color indicates how actively the galaxy is churning out new stars. Younger stars shine in ultraviolet or blue light, and so galaxies bustling with star-making activity appear blue. Older stars emit infrared or red light. In aging galaxies, their "stellar reproductive" capacity has begun to shut down and so the remaining stars are just hanging out for the remainder of their lives.
About half of all galaxies are blue and half are red. It had been postulated that the two are linked, with the blue young'uns running out of star-making material and maturing into passive red galaxies.
There are two possibilities: 1) the 'blue band' of light from very distant galaxies gets lost; or 2) there really is a time progression (with distance) that supports the theory the universe is expanding from an original Big Bang creation.
Now, if #1 is true, then the evidence found is 'inconclusive' since blue light becomes less visible with distance; but if #2 is true, then there must be no such evidence of blue light galaxies beyond a certain point. This latter (2) would mean that we can only find such blue star galaxies close to us, and if any are found beyond some distant cut-off range, then the anomaly is unexplainable, since they should not be visible so far back in time. But if the prior (1) is true, then finding blue stars galaxies beyond a certain point is impossible, because they are invisible to us. So which is it? The answer is inconclusive, because we are unable to know, especially if blue stars are invisible beyond a certain distance. So in the end, this article's claim that they had found an 'evolution' of galaxies, related to distance and time, must itself remain inconclusive. Though, this statement may be true nevertheless:
However, what does it really mean? Is the same process universal, regardless of distance, or not?
"Our data confirm that all galaxies begin life forming stars," Martin said. "Then through a combination of mergers, fuel exhaustion and perhaps suppression by black holes, the galaxies eventually stop producing stars."
Only one possibility can really be true: That if the universe is NOT expanding (there was no Big Bang), then it means either that blue stars are 'invisible' to our instruments beyond a certain distance, or it means that if such blue stars are found beyond that distance, then the time sequence shown above is meaningless. Which will it be? Stay tuned for further evidence (using ultraviolet light or other means), but there is as of now no evidence the universe is 'aging' as these findings seem to imply. There may just not be enough information here to know. For example, how about the distribution of blue stars galaxies billions of light years away? Can we see them? And if not, why not?
Also, last but not least, notice how in the above 'progression' the star formation period is pretty much over within about 50 to 60 million years. Is that right? That's all, just a few decamillion years, and it's over? That somehow does not sit right, because what about all the other galaxies? Do they all fall within this 60 million year frame? How about our own, right here at only a few thousand light years? I think star formation goes on for much more time elapse than this. Something about this idea seems terribly flawed.
[Ps: Actually, I think I answered my own question: There's only one possible explanation! The further back we look in time, if Big Bang is real (I don't think so), the MORE star formations we should be seeing, not less. (This puts a real brake on the BBT, if so.) But it does lend credence to the idea that we simply can't see blue stars farther away in space. Therefore, the only possible explanation is that the further we look back in time, and distance, the less we are able to observe blue stars, new star formation.]
However... Just incase, I did ask this question on BAUT: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/67247-galaxies-age-gracefully-we-misled.html. Let's see what they think about this, smart crowd over there.
|Posted on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 12:06 pm: |
Galaxies fully formed in 'earliest' universe?
From 'big bang' to the present, what's wrong with this picture?
Isn't it strange that going all the way back to where the universe was supposedly first come into creation, that fully formed galaxies already exist? In the article: "Why do Galaxies in the Young Universe Appear so Mature?" it says:
Something is not right with this picture, that both 'metalicity' and the 'redshift-desert region' is already fully populated? The further we look back towards the origin of the 'Big Bang' the more surprised we are to find fully mature galaxies. What's wrong with this picture?
What is arguably the dominant galactic evolution theory postulates that the population of galaxies at this early stage should have been dominated by evolutionary building blocks. Aptly called the Hierarchical Model, it predicts that normal to large galaxies, like those studied in this work, would not yet exist and would instead be forming from local beehives of activity where big galaxies grew. The GDDS reveals that this might not be the case.
The spectra from this survey were also used to determine the pollution of the interstellar gas by heavy elements (called "metals") produced by stars. This is a key indicator of the history of stellar evolution in galaxies. Sandra Savaglio (Johns Hopkins University), who studied this aspect of the research said, "Our interpretation of the Universe is strongly affected by the way we observe it. Because the GDDS observed very faint galaxies, we could detect the interstellar gas even if partly obscured by the presence of dust. Studying the chemical composition of the interstellar gas, we discovered that the galaxies in our survey are more metal-rich than expected."
There are more questions on this page: Why are some galaxies brighter than others? The Hierarchical Theory may be a wrong hypothesis.
|Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 11:08 pm: |
How planetary moons form - my idea.
(interactive) Giant impact theory for our Moon
There's some speculation on how Earth's moon was 'blown' off from the planet's surface when a Mars sized planetoid struck it early in the solar nebulae's fromation into planetary and moon bodies. The idea now presented is that from the accretion of loose elements circling the Sun, these materials coalesced into these bodies from the solar disk. However, I have a different idea, if Newton's G is a variable. It has to do with spin.
In my earlier calculations for planetary spin, where I solved the spin ratios as a function of interior heat and background space temperatures (see: Sept. 25, 2004; Feb. 11, 2005; Mar. 17 & Mar. 22, 2005, in link, all archived), that the more heat there is from the planet in the coldness of space, the more spin will accumulate. (Mercury is unique, which is so close to the Sun that its inner and outer temperatures actually match up at perihelion, where Mercury's spin temporarily stops, but then resumes with greater distance towards aphelion. This is in addition to the fact that Mercury's orbital velocity accelerates at perihelion and slows at aphelion.) So all hot bodies, if there is greater interior heat than exterior space temperature, will eventually exhibit spin.
The moons, and by this I mean all the moons of all the planets, if they are not merely captured Kuiper belt objects, then may be either their own accreted bodies from the solar nebulae within their respective orbits, or, and this is the big difference, they are spun off from the main planetary body around which they revolve. This is then a very big difference. I suspect our Moon is the latter.
The idea behind this latter is that when planetoids accrete, they are not perfectly spherical, but may develop one or more lumps. As the body continues to accrete it gathers heat from the impacted matter with increasing temperatures as the body grows in size and gravitational pull, and internal gravitational pressures to create heat. This accumulation of matter and heat, especially as the body gets large, is that eventually the interior heat is high enough to cause internal molten matter to form; this internal heat is also now driving the 'spin engine' per the Axiomatic Equation, that when all ambient energy lambda cancels on a point, the gravity micro-black hole begins to drive the whole body into spin. As spin accumulates, and the planetary body has grown 'soft' from its molten interior, the circumference should now align itself more with a perfect sphere. But this may not always happen! And if there is either a bulge anywhere on the planet, or within its interior mass, then eventually the spin will be high enough to centrifugally launch the irregularity away from the main body, into orbit. That could be triggered by an asteroid collision much smaller than a "Mars sized" object as speculated in the article above. In fact, it needs only to 'trigger' the already built up instability to release the moon. This may have happened numerous times on other planets, such as Mars and beyond, but it apparently only happened on Earth once, and on Venus or Mercury not at all. I suspect the large cavity that is now filled in by the Pacific ocean is in fact our Moon billions of years ago. This could be proven with finding any Lunar evidence of exceptionally early Earth life, mainly bacteria, to date the event. The same might be found on Mars, if that world ever had or has microbial life, and possibly (though at this point we're not able to study them easily) on the Jovian moons as well.
(interactive) Our solar system today, what a wonder!
It could have been that simple.
|Posted on Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 09:36 pm: |
Iapetus might have had a similar fate?
'Flying Saucers' Around Saturn Explained
However, this explanation falls short of the better, in my opinion, that Atlas and Pan gathered up material from Saturn's rings to form the mid rift bulge. I suspect these are extreme cases of what the other Saturn moon Iapetus might have experienced in its evolution as well.
Observations by NASA's Cassini spacecraft revealed the Saturnian moons Atlas and Pan, each roughly 12 miles (20 kilometers) from pole to pole, have massive ridges bulging from their equators some 3.7 to 6.5 miles (6 to 10.5 kilometers) high, giving them the flying-saucer appearance.
In principle, fast rates of spin might have stretched Atlas and Pan out into such unusual shapes, just as tossing a disk of pizza dough flattens it out. But neither moon whirls very quickly, each taking about 14 hours to complete a rotation. Earth, far bigger, rotates in 24 hours, of course.
|Posted on Saturday, December 22, 2007 - 02:46 am: |
Iapetus moon and asteroid control, with paint and mirrors.
Asteroid Apophis Earth contact, 2036 in Pacific Ocean?
I has written something on Iapetus Sept. 14th above, which showed "the warmest side is the leading side of its direction of motion faces towards the planet Saturn is dark, while its trailing side is white with ice, or so it appears; with about 30 C degrees difference between the cold white side and black warm side." This is most curious, because a new idea to control 'out of control' asteroids, especially ones heading for Earth, is to paint one side light colored, with the other side dark. Here's a source:
Small asteroids can pack a mighty punch
Another article says it too: NASA analysis of asteroid risk deeply flawed
That focus on extreme risks tilted the scales toward deflection techniques that use nuclear explosions – either on the asteroids themselves or nearby to push them away from Earth. The study's approach was that "the bigger the bang is better", says Schweickart.
But he says explosions are not as precise as the gentler techniques because they would scatter the asteroids or resulting debris into new orbits around the Sun that could take them through points called "keyholes", narrow zones where the slight changes in the balance of forces could put them on a collision course with the Earth. "If you just shove it out there to miss the Earth, you can't tell that you haven't put it into another return keyhole," Schweickart told New Scientist.
So if nuclear explosions in space is not the answer, what is? How about Iapetus like painting one side of the asteroid black, and the other side white? Will that move it away from the 'keyhole' collision course with Earth?
Not too far fetched idea really, here's more: Are mirrors the best way to deflect asteroids?
Asteroids larger than 5 kilometres across – such as the one that killed off the dinosaurs – hit Earth about once every 6 million years. But smaller space rocks spanning about 140 metres strike more often, about once every 5000, and they can cause significant damage.
Now, researchers led by Massimiliano Vasile of the University of Glasgow in Scotland have compared nine of the many methods proposed to ward off such objects, including blasting them with nuclear explosions.
This is not the first time scientists have proposed using mirrors to deflect an asteroid. In 1993, Jay Melosh of the University of Arizona in Tucson, US, proposed using one very large mirror deployed by a single spacecraft for this purpose.
Vasile's team presented their findings recently at the Jodrell Bank Observatory in Macclesfield, UK, as part of celebrations for the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik.
The other options considered in the study include:
• Kinetic impactor: Ramming the asteroid at high speed with a spacecraft
• Mass driver: Digging up and spewing pieces of the asteroid into space, pushing the asteroid in the opposite direction
• Propulsion: Pushing the asteroid using a thruster attached to the surface (high-thrust and low-thrust versions)
• Yarkovsky effect: Painting the asteroid to enhance the Yarkovsky effect, in which the asteroid's uneven heat radiation preferentially pushes it in a particular direction.
It's the last one, the Yarkovsky effect, that I think may be the simplest and most economical solution to potential Earth impact asteroids, of any size. Just paint them up like Iapetus, and watch them drift gently off into space.
Iapetus, Saturn moon
|Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 06:59 pm: |
The Universe is a vast infinite Brain?
Filaments of galaxies in space
This is a follow up on the missing matter post earlier on the Universe in G-flat thread. I had once speculated that the universe as an infinite interrelationship acts on defining everyone of its parts in terms of its 'infinite totality', whatever that is. Now we find Precursor of Life Molecules around another star, so the idea of life molecules being universal is not strange anymore. Meaning, if we are a product of how the universe defines itself phsyically, that all life, even us, is a product of this infinite interrelated totality, then it should not be at all strange that life is universal. However, an even stranger thing occurred, again thinking of how the interrelated whole redefines all of its internal parts (as mentioned in Habeas Mentem, Ch. 3), so what exists as a macro 'totality image' should find replication in its micro products. So it may not be strange to find that Our Universe: Dark and Messy is made up of cosmic webs stretching from galaxy filaments and tendrils millions or billions of light-years long. So if those filaments look like nerve and brain neurons, what's the big deal?
The real puzzle is "Ibata explained that the cosmic web filaments are held together by dark matter, unseen stuff that makes up 85 percent of all mass in the universe." - ibid. That 'puzzle' is not puzzle at all if Newton's G ratio is so much greater in all that cold deep intergalactic space so that it acts 'as if' it were heavy enough to make up the other 85% missing... But that's still another story, not ready for these humans evolved on this tiny globe in the vast interrelated life filled universe, only now beginning its evolution into a greater consciousness of universal Being, etc... the rest can wait.
|Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 12:50 am: |
Messenger coming in a bit 'high'.
Messenger Spacecraft swings past Mercury, 13 January 2007
A minor point, but of note, that the first flyby gravity assist is coming in 'a bit high':
This had been discussed in the past on BAUT forums (Mars: Hard to hit, or are Probes hitting too hard?) where inner planets tend to come in a bit 'higher' than expected, and outer planets come in 'lower' or faster than expected, especially on Mars probes coming in low and fast. However, this is only the first pass, so watch for what happens next time. If it comes in high again, could be a pattern, especially if done repeatedly. Regardess, great job NASA/APL !!
Messenger flew roughly along the equator and at a slightly higher altitude than originally planned, but the change had no negative effects, Paul said.
|Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 06:51 pm: |
MESSENGER's First Look at Mercury's Previously Unseen Side
(click to enlarge)
In another article it shows greater details: Detailed Close-up of Mercury’s Previously Unseen Surface, where it looks much like our Moon. (Click on the image in article to enlarge.) More links on Messenger's pictures here.
|Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 11:16 pm: |
GP-B frame dragging Einstein experiment may be proving him wrong?
This is the latest on GP-B per this post in above, and also updated on here as to results from Gravity Probe-B.
From BAUT forums: Space Exploration, Gravity Probe B one of the posters asks: Has Gravity Probe B been a Big Flop?
Quote from article:
"Although the Wikipedia article on the geodetic effect states that it has been confirmed to the 1% level, there is evidence that the best value that they obtained are not in agreement with Einstein's GR!" There are links in the originals for further reading, including this one: Gravity Probe G slides (see #36, 'RNS vs RWE Algebraic 4-Gyro Joint Estimates'), which help explain what they were looking for, and what they found... Alas, Einstein's 'frame dragging' experiment seems to have yielded null results, or 'inconclusive' at best.
Then again, if 'frame dragging' is just a transfer of angular momentum, like the Sun's spin transfer to Mercury at perihelion... also here... what's the big deal?
|Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 10:44 am: |
I am a thinker and observer and a backyard astronomer and it is my preception that everybody is making a mountian out of a mole hill. In space there extream cold and extream heat from googleplexs of stars. Given the varables it is my opinion that a galaxy is nothing more than a space storm and the " Blackhole " is the " vortex " or the eye of the huricane or an eddy or whirlpool. It's observable and if the mathameticians would crunch the numbers as with a tornato or hurricane but on a galactic scale I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion.
|Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - 09:36 pm: |
Deep space gets curiouser.
Space.com: Farthest Galaxy Found, Perhaps
Furthest galaxy found at 13 billion-light years away
The young galaxy, called A1689-zD1, was born about 700 million years after the Big Bang that scientists think created the universe. For most of its early life, the universe languished in "dark ages" when matter in the expanding universe cooled and formed clouds of hydrogen. Eventually matter began to clump into stars and galaxies that radiated light, heating up the universe and clearing the fog.
Scientists think this newly discovered galaxy may have been one of the first to form and help end the dark ages.
In the hierarchy of the universe (from the alleged Big Bang) this early galaxy is merely 700 million years old. But does it not take time to form stars, have them collapse into a galaxy, all within the short time of the 'dark ages' of the early universe? How much time ellapsed to form such a galaxy? When did this galaxy formation begin? Are they all young stars, and if so how do we know? So many questions, it gets curiouser and curiouser the further back we look. What if we use infrared to look further back? What will we see then? And what if they're fully formed galaxies once again? Could Big Bang be pushed further back, perhaps?
Welcome Donald, and interesting perspective, in yours:
In space there extream cold and extream heat from googleplexs of stars. Given the varables it is my opinion that a galaxy is nothing more than a space storm and the " Blackhole " is the " vortex " or the eye of the huricane or an eddy or whirlpool.
If galaxies form from purely gravitational summation of their star component masses, so the conglomeration of stars goes into a natural formation around a common gravity center, why does this center go into spin? Your suggestion is pure and simple, that the vortex of the galaxy is merely a sum of all the mass of stars held together by their total gravity interaction. Is that so? If so, then it may be that the gravity 'black hole' now theorized for spiral galaxy centers is nothing more than a sum total of all that mass. However, the puzzle is that the stars in immediate region of the galaxy center are put into a very fast spin, which is observed I believe, for all fully formed spiral galaxies. What causes the spin, if it is not a powerful gravity driven vortex, i.e., black hole? Curious idea... Would you have this idea better developed perhaps? If so, post it here, and thanks!
Here's more on galaxy central black-hole fast spin: 'Periodic table' organises zoo of black hole orbits
Also consider this, just in (2014):
Most Ancient Star Lurks on our Cosmic Doorstep
MSS J031300.36-670839.3, however, has no detectable sign of iron. Even within the margins for error, and astronomers assume an upper limit on the quantity of iron it contains, the star is still dated 13.6 billion years old. Previous “oldest star” record breakers have been dated to 13.2 billion years old.
Let there be light: Cosmologists reconsider epoch of reionization
In a paper published Thursday in Nature, researchers are challenging one long-held conception about how quickly the universe began warming during this transition period. …
According to scientists, the reionization period began several hundred million years after the big bang, when neutral hydrogen and helium particles began to condense into clouds…
The period ended about 1 billion years after the big bang.
How do we rectify both these two reputed dates? Earliest star near us is only two hundred million years after BB, but 'reonization' took a billion years? How far back in time is the Big Bang?… Or was it never was.
|Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 - 07:48 pm: |
A New Spin on Earth's Rotation
The graph tracks the change in the length of day and atmospheric angular momentum over the years 2000 and 2001. Both of these quantities increase during the Northern Hemisphere's winter. Credit: David Salstein.
From the article:
We all know that money makes the world go round, but what causes it to change speed ever so slightly? The Earth is known to constantly slow down and speed up, which imperceptibly alters the length of our days.
"We are taught that the day is 24 hours, or 86,400 seconds. That is true, but there are irregularities on the millisecond level," said David Salstein, an atmospheric scientist at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.
Notice how the Earth's spin slows a millisecond during Winter, and speeds up a millisecond during Summer, for a full variation of 2 milliseconds from trough to peak. In the earlier posted on planetary spin (Mar. 2, 2005) there was found a relationship between perihelion, where spin slows, to aphelion, where it speeds up, as a function of internal planetary heat and background space temperature. (Closer to Sun means warmer 'background' so spin slows.) All planets exhibit a distance to internal heat versus background space temperature spin ratios.
Earth is closer to the Sun during Winter (northern hemisphere). This is not insignificant, given the regularity shown in graph above. Please note this is most marked by Mercury's spin (Sept. 12, 2006), which slows at perihelion where it temporarily 'stands still' for a few days. This is more than mere coincidence?
|Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2008 - 11:59 am: |
Saturn satellite reveals first moon rings
(click to enlarge)
Rhea shows off ring skirt
The ring idea appears to be the only one that fits the observations. Although charged atoms and molecules, called ions, could scatter electrons away from Rhea, Cassini did not find them in sufficient abundance to explain the dips, and calculations show that observed levels of gas and dust could not explain them either, the team says.
They believe a disc of larger particles, probably from millimetre to metre scale, soaked up the electrons. Orbital evolution studies show such particles would form a stable disc around Rhea's equator.
It might make sense to have 'moon rings' at very high G, such as Saturn's orbital region of ~10 G?
|Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 11:29 pm: |
Japanese Moon robot shows "Earthrise" in HD.
(interactive - click to view video)
Earthrise over the Moon
Other videos in link also show Moon's surface in HD. Enjoy your flight.
Ivan/full moon lunacy
|Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 11:20 am: |
Full Moon lunacy explained?
Strange Things Happen at Full Moon - Space.com
Could this be why many people witness erratic and strange behaviors at full moon?
It also may be why there is 'negative' behavior on Earth, like bad driving, hyperactivity in mental patients, or bleeding during surgery, or perhaps even erratic stock markets on the full moon. We are all interconnected with the cosmos, and each other, in ways we still do not understand, enough to cause for legends.
Full moons are said to be behind many strange things, but here's one you didn't know about: At full moon, our favorite satellite is whipped by Earth's magnetotail, causing lunar dust storms and discharges of static electricity.
Our entire planet is enveloped in a bubble of magnetism generated by the rotating core. The solar wind, a stream of charged particles, pushes the bubble away from the sun and creates a long tail of magnetized material downstream
At full moon, the moon passes through a huge "plasma sheet" — hot charged particles trapped in the tail. The lightest and most mobile of these particles, electrons, pepper the moon's surface and give the moon a negative charge, the researchers explained.
Oh BTW, today April 20, 2008, is full moon.
|Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - 09:47 pm: |
Why is Mars magnetic field so small?
The answer to why the Red Planet's magnetic field is as small as Mercury's, over 1000 weaker than Earth's, is because it is the 'red planet'. Because the planet is per Wiki: "Much of the surface is deeply covered by a fine iron(III) oxide dust that has the consistency of talcum powder", this iron rich planet acts as a great Faraday box. Why would that make Mars magnetic field so weak?
Mars seen by Hubble Space Telescope, red planet (interactive)
The idea here is not the conventional 'magnetic dynamo' theory driving planetary magnetic fields, which is a weak argument for why stars also have magnetic fields. (Our Sun has about 1-2 guauss magnetic field overall, more inside sunspots; it may also have a mini-black hole at center to account for this.) Rather, the real reason is that all hot spherical bodies will generate at their center a micro-black hole which simulates the gravitational black hole at galactic centers. Such galactic black hole jets had now been observed. This phenomenon had also been recreated in the lab with Matsumoto's rotating plasma simulation, where a micro-black hole forms with magnetic fields at polar energy jets, as a natural byproduct. Also, per the Axiomatic Equation, when all lambda cancels on a point, as happens at the center of any hot energy planetary or stellar body, it will recreate maximum gravity (where G=c magnitude so no light can escape), exhibiting characteristics of a black-hole. So there appears that any hot planet would generate, from its interior micro-black hole, a magnetic field. The 'dynamo' theory is a weak idea, and the energy jets generating magnetic fields is the stronger argument.
Galactic black hole polar jets of magnetic energy, where the spinning magnetic field is wound so tight it acts almost as if a 'monopole' without characteristic bending back on itself.
However, where Venus has no appreciable magnetic field, nor does it have much spin; in fact Venus has a slight retrograde spin; both Mercury and Mars have very slight magnetic fields, but where Mercury's spin is very slow, Mars has spin close to Earth's. We know Earth has a strong magnetic field (~0.3 gauss), though far weaker than Jupiter's (~4.3 gauss) very fast spin magnetic field. So spin alone does not explain the phenomenon entirely, though current trend is to think Mars's interior is solid so no dynamo effect. I disagree (Mars may even have volcanism). Mars has an equivalent of a 'dynamo' interior, but it like the other planets is driven by the micro-black hole dynamics. The reason for its spin, if taking internal and external temperature relationships (see Jaszz spin on these forums showing spin relationships for the planets), is that Mars resides in a colder region of the solar system, so its internal heat and external space heat are divergent enough to give a good spin. Mercury's spin is so slow because the internal and external are more evenly matched; while Venus is so well matched, though a 'hot' planet, that is has almost no spin, and not enough of a micro-black hole to generate either spin or magnetic fields. Jupiter and Saturn are hot planets in very cold regions, so their spin is very fast, with very high magnetic fields, which means also a very strong micro-black hole at their centers. So in this respect, by this (non-dynamo theory) reasoning, Mars stands out as being anomalous, since it should have a fairly good micro-black hole due to high spin, but the associated magnetic field is not present, more like Mercury's than Earth's.
One way to explain this is the Faraday cage effect, where the high level of iron in Mars's geological makeup acts as if it were a magnetic box trapping the magnetic energy inside and neutralizing it. So Mars at its interior should be generating a fairly strong magnetic field, but at its surface or above the planet it is largely missing, because the iron of the planet neutralized it. By implication, if Earth did not have a iron-nickel composition at its core, our magnetic field would actually be stronger, but I diverge. The main point is that Mars should have a strong magnetic field, per Jaszz (see March 17, 2005, posted), but it does not, and the reason is because it is a 'red iron oxide' rich planet.
[CAVEAT TO STUDENTS: Do NOT use this in your school work, it is not yet accepted science, and your teacher will fail you if you do.]
|Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 03:30 pm: |
Mars 'living' corpuscles revisited?
Moving sands on Mars, image by Robert van de Walle (click image for original)
This image goes with this Space.com article (2004): Private Detectives Investigate Mars
Puzzling... Is this 'life on Mars', little seeds of bacterial colonies hiding in caves and scattered by the wind?
Ivan/Dune of Mars
|Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 - 08:56 pm: |
Dunes on Mars are ten times Earth's... why?
'Bouncing' sand grains explain Martian dust storms - NewScientist article
Sand dunes on Mars are monsters – around 10 times as big as the largest on Earth. That’s because low gravity gives Martian sand grains a lot more bounce.
Not just gravity. It's the old kg'/kg problem again, which is what happens when Mars's orbital G is 1.5 times that of Earth's. Here is the simple answer:
We know Mars's mass, having figured it with a universal 'constant' Newton's G, but if it is one and a half times that of Earth's, then so is its inertial mass, per Equivalence; which means both sand grains and atmospheric molecules carry more 'punch'; but in Mars's 0.37 gravitational pull of Earth's gravity, they fly higher and farther; however, they also have greater 'stickiness' per their greater inertial mass, so they can gather up higher into larger sand dunes.
Nothing too mysterious about this, and in fact it's surprisingly simple, another example of G being higher further from the Sun, per the Axiomatic variable G. So it won't pose much of a problem for humans to land on Mars, but at near 9.5 G on Titan, this will be more tricky. It could be done, but tiring to do so, and might have effects on Earthling's internal biologicals if G is that much higher. Out in deep space, it becomes nearly impossible, unless there is some way to compensate for it... But that is all still far into the future.
Also read more at Space.com: Marching Sand Dunes Create Mars Mystery
Mars sand dunes change faster than thought - Space.com
Or Google Mars
Also see: Curiosity Mars Rover, incredible panorama scan (interactive)
|Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 - 06:59 pm: |
How big is Big? Here's a fun page:
The Milky Way Galaxy - Zoom in or out
Did you know a "parsec" is equal to 3.26 light years? Click on text in each page zoomed to learn more!
|Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 02:15 pm: |
Martian Skies -Boston.com - great images
Mars sunset; dust-devils dancing across Martian landscape
Can anybody explain how Mars and Venus have nearly same atmospheric composition, at about 95% CO2, but be so radically different? Mars atmosphere is extremely thin and cold, while Venus is boiling hot and extremely dense! Why isn't green house effect working on Mars?
Of course, this may be a variation on "variable G"... like the Titan atmosphere thickness? I at this time cannot, nor mentally able to, offer an answer. Perhaps someday... or not. I always liked this Martian composite image of blowing sands.
Also see: Mars Rover Curiosity photo - interactive panorama