|Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 04:19 pm: |
The Modern Universe in G -flat- or is it curved?
I find it amusing to read modern cosmology because it is as inventive as anything one could hope for. As this American Scientist article says, "Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?", there are more theories than observations.
The current Big Bang paradigm has it that the cosmos is expanding out of an initially dense state and that by looking outward into space, one can, thanks to the finite speed of light, look back to much earlier epochs. This understanding owes much to two accidents: astronomers' discovery of redshifts in the spectra of distant nebulae and the fortuitous detection of an omnipresent background of microwave noise, which is believed to be the remnant of radiation from a hot and distant past. Set in the theoretical framework of Einstein's general theory of relativity, such observations lead to a model that makes predictions and can thus be tested. ...
It is true that the modern study of cosmology has taken a turn for the better, if only because astronomers can now build relevant instruments rather than waiting for serendipitous evidence to turn up. On the other hand, to explain some surprising observations, theoreticians have had to create heroic and yet insubstantial notions such as "dark matter" and "dark energy," which supposedly overwhelm, by a hundred to one, the stuff of the universe we can directly detect. Outsiders are bound to ask whether they should be more impressed by the new observations or more dismayed by the theoretical jinnis that have been conjured up to account for them.
My limited aim here is to discuss this dilemma by looking at the development of cosmology over the past century and to compare the growing number of independent relevant observations with the number of (also growing) separate hypotheses or "free parameters" that have had to be introduced to explain them. Without having to understand the complex astrophysics, one can still ask, at an epistemological level, whether the number of relevant independent measurements has overtaken and comfortably surpassed the number of free parameters needed to fit them—as one would expect of a maturing science. This approach should be appealing to nonspecialists, who otherwise would have little option but to believe experts who may be far too committed to supply objective advice. What one finds, in my view, is that modern cosmology has at best very flimsy observational support.
When I read these reports, I always wonder how did we get so far afield, to create fantasms, some of which are mathematically supported, to explain a very far away universe. It was Newton's fault, I think, that he postulated a universal constant for gravity, Newton's G, and thus we have tried to fit our view of the universe entirely within this flat G. But this may be wrong, because Newton had no way of knowing, nor testing, for G anywhere else but here on Earth. What if G was variable instead? This is how the Axiomatic Equation treats G vis a vis the Pioneer Anomaly, that there seems to be reason to believe that Newton's G increases with distance from our main star, the Sun, at the fabulous rate (though G is 10^-11 force, still very weak) of about 1G per 1AU. Then the universe is not made up of a universal constant G, but may be made up of much higher levels throughout intergalactic space. My estimate is that out there it is about 50,000 times greater than within our solar system, and it flattens out for reasons not entirely clear. So strange astronomical phenomena such as galactic black holes, or neutron stars, or 'dark matter' so called, may not be anything more exotic than very high G where they are located. This would be accountable to a lack of electromagnetic energy generated in the region, or inversely inside the black holes, where all electromagnetic energy cancels within the Schwarzchild radius from all ambient energy of the galaxy, so G is total, G=c. This universe makes much more sense to me, explaining everything from very large atmospheres of our solar system gas giants to why distant cosmic light redshifts at the Hubble constant. In fact, it's elementary!
I had calculated such a redshift, given an approximate space matter density of one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter, and the results, at G being 50,000 times greater on average for intergalactic space, worked out pretty well. The common rebuttal to this is that "light blue shifts into the gravity well, but red shifts out", which is true. But this is a calculation "in line of sight" so all the gravity must be summed from the light's original source to here, which includes all the higher G it encounters in intergalactic space. From 'there to here' is a long path of high gravity, that which redshifts light down to the Hubble constant. Why should this be so strange? But if true, it explains a lot more of what is observed, which today is so 'puzzling' and requiring ever more fantastic parameters to fit observation to theory. In fact, theory should require no parameters, but fit exactly.
Here are some examples, where I read them and stare in disbelief:
'Swiss cheese' universe challenges dark energy
There is no 'dark energy', nor space expansion, if greater intergalactic G is redshifting light at Hubble constant. Is this not a better explanation? The fact that some areas of space are devoid of matter may be no more than either it is, or what is there is so balanced with G that it neither coalesces into stars nor is too G massive to be deemed 'dark matter'. Wavelengths are stretched passing through this region, but not because of space expansion.
Or like this:
Supersonic 'rain' pelts planet-forming disc
Why not 'disc instability' to explain how matter coalesces into planetary bodies? Sensible, but there is a missing factor: why? If we look at gravity as being variable, then outer planets are better equipped to coalesce than inner planets, hence their greater size. Why did the Asteroid Belt fail to coalesce? A variable G can explain, as I did in this post.
Most astronomers believe planets form according to a model known as "core accretion", in which small particles snowball into larger and larger objects over millions of years.
A competing idea, called "disc instability", is that turbulence in the disc can cause matter to collapse into planets extremely quickly, producing gas giants such as Jupiter in just a few thousand years.
This older article also explains 'disc instability':
Meshed theories could explain planet formation
There's one ingredient missing to make it work: higher G regions.
Or how about this:
Warped space-time helps pin down neutron star size
Space is space, there is nothing 'warped' about it. It is not curved, not expanding, nor is it filled with some mysterious 'dark energy'. Space is simply space. All that is different is that when star generated electromagnetic light is weak, the space environment allows for greater G, that's all! All molecules there, ordinary matter, then acts as if it is gravitationally very heavy. So neutron stars are just that, nothing else. Isn't that better, and more simple explanation, than the fantastic stories being told? Einstein's creativity math did us a great disservice, if so.
However, I must agree with this:
Hot gas in space mimics life
The universe is homogenous, at its own level (not ours), and if there are patterns that mimic life in deep space, especially energetic gases, then this should be no surprise. Plasma is energy rich, as is life, and if there is double helix in either, it is no surprise. Though, at this point of our understanding, we still cannot make the interconnections necessary to explain one from the other. But if they are similar, that is the first clue. We are the products of electromagnetic interactions with gravity, that's what all existence is all about. We are lucky to be on planet close to a star that can sustain life, because in our proximity gravity G is weak. Had we evolved on a more distant planet, our bone density would have had to be immense.
So is space-time 'curved' ala Einstein? Maybe, as a mathematical formalism that allows us to fit a flat G into an 'isotropic and homogenous' universe, per his Special Relativity morphed into General Relativity. But if Newton's G, contrary to his assumption, is not a 'universal constant', then all this other stuff is fluff, and not really an explanation of what our cosmology is all about. That is the point.
BTW, there was a unique and not to be repeated meteor shower last night, the Augirid meteor shower, which was visible from our west coast at about 4:30 AM, if sky was clear. The bright overhead moon did not detract from viewing it, and I did see three really good ones, plus many tiny ones, within the 20 minutes I spent outside about that time. Most were seen just left Orion and Pleiades in the northeastern sky. The sand to pebble size grains entering the atmosphere are tail remnants of Comet Kiess which had visited twice in last two thousand years, the last tail was 83 BC. We won't see it again in this lifetime, so it was nice to catch a little of it, since it was a pleasant warm night to lean back a cup of coffee just before daybreak.
Watch this space for the beginnings of evidence coming in from real observations that Newton's G is NOT a universal constant. This is already beginning here: "Investigation of the Gravitational Potential Dependence of the Fine-Structure Constant Using Atomic Dysprosium" (2007), Ferrel, Congoz, Lapierre, Mguyen, et al. (1 MB -PDF) Before long, there should be more studies like this, where a variable G is invoked. I expect it, because it better explains the universe than a flat G.
|Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 07:11 am: |
Vibrations on the Sun may 'shake' the Earth
20:14 21 August 2007
NewScientist.com news service
I have viewed the material on this site and have noted the discussion on the link between integration of solar data from the SOHO feed, and subsequent fluxuations in the earth's magnetic field and other effects to earthquake prediction as it relates to a discussion of gravity.
One question I have is if this may indicate that this link between cause and event may extend to the quantumn level. If so how would we design an experiment or collect evidence that this may be in fact true?
|Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 02:22 pm: |
Very interesting article about the Sun's inner generated waves. Thanks Anon.
The above articles says:
Then, assuming the g-modes and p-modes could get off the Sun's surface, many scientists say such regular disturbances would be wiped out by the chaotic solar wind long before they could be observed on Earth. Thomson, however, claims that recent computer simulations have shown that the vibrations can indeed survive the turbulent solar wind.
I think these g-modes and p-modes may be the closest things we will find to approximate so called 'gravity waves'. They may be a form of mass momentum transfer which can reach all the way here, and perhaps affect our seismology on the planet. We know the electromagnetic storms can knock out our electronics, but this is new, that it may also affect crust tensions to give us seismological readings. Possibly, the Sun may actually affect our earthquakes with these g-modes? It is worth watching for.
|Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 02:53 pm: |
Anon, there were two moderate earthquakes in Southern California over the past 24 hours. One was at Lake Elsinore, 4.7, Sunday 10:30 am local time, only 50 miles from L.A. The other one later at Yorba Linda, 3.5, Monday 8:30 am local, only 29 miles from L.A. Might solar g-modes activity coincide with this time period? I might add that this area is now undergoing an extreme heat wave, has been near 100F in L.A. past three days, which some 'local lore' says is when earthquakes happen. Who knows?
|Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 01:03 pm: |
In your view, why are the outer planets the least dense bodies in the solar system?
|Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 08:45 pm: |
Anon, that's a wonderful question!
In your view, why are the outer planets the least dense bodies in the solar system?
I've puzzled over this as well, since the inner planets are progressively more dense. Look at Mercury's density, almost all metal, or Venutian atmospheric density, much greater than Earth's; then compare that with Pluto's density, nearly all water ice. How can this be? If G were progressively greater moving away from the Sun, shouldn't it be the other way around?
Reason it out. Let's imagine that some 5 billion years ago when then Sun first forms there is a remainder disk of molecular matter stretching out to Pluto and beyond. Let's also assume that the molecular element distribution is more or less equal throughout this disk. If there is low Newton's G in some part of the disk, but higher G in the other, what should happen? Think of molecular gravitational attraction as being a kind of sponge, so that in lower G, Mercury's orbit, which molecules are more likely to bind gravitationally? Hydrogen or metals? Now go out to higher G regions, which are more likely to bind, the lighter molecules or the heavier ones? If the planets act as gravitational 'magnets' for elements, then as they sweep in their orbits, they will attract those molecules most likely to bind. So in Mercury's orbit, and it has almost no atmosphere, the lighter molecules fail, but heavier ones bind; in the gas giant regions, lighter molecules manage to bind, hence the very large hydrogen atmospheres, but heavier molecules will bind too. However, now it's a matter of ratios, where in the low G inner planets, there is a larger proportion of heavier elements binding, while in the outer planets there is a larger proportion of lighter elements binding. (This is all gravitational binding, not molecular binding we're considering here, for argument's sake.) The net result shows up in matter density. The proportions of heavier elements to lighter ones is greater for the inner planets, while conversely the proportion of lighter elements to heavier ones is greater for the outer planets. Does this make sense? In effect, the net result is heavier density for inner rocky planets, and lighter density for outer gaseous planets. Pluto is a kind of odd ball, not even in the solar planetary plane with other planets, so may be a captured body, though its density appears fairly light, perhaps like that of the comets. But the gas giants fit this evolutionary scenario to a tee.
We don't know about the possible rocky core planets for gas giants, though radar observations of Jupiter give it a rocky core about two to three times Earth's. But at this time this is still inconclusive. For such a small rocky core to attract such a massive atmosphere as Jupiter has (where its G is about 5 times Earth's) would require that the small rocky core exhibit gravitational density of about 10-15 times Earth's mass, which would fit rather well. In fact, this gravitational mass is estimated as such. However, planetary density is still mostly a guess, and until we drill down and check it out, like on Mars or Titan, to see what they are really made of, we can only hypothesize. However, I hope in my above I explained why this counter-intuitive phenomenon takes place. The outer planets in higher G attract more lighter elements, so density is less; vice-versa for inner planets. But thanks for asking this extremely important question. I had to puzzle over it for some time to make sense of it.
|Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 08:05 am: |
My estimate is that out there it is about 50,000 times greater than within our solar system, and it flattens out for reasons not entirely clear.
Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 04:19 pm: Ivan/G-flat
However, now it's a matter of ratios, where in the low G inner planets, there is a larger proportion of heavier elements binding, while in the outer planets there is a larger proportion of lighter elements binding.
Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2007 - 08:45 pm: Ivan
See some connection, Ivan? While creating a vacuum, we extract atoms from the closed space. Consider the pressure as a function of time. How does the pressure vary? Does it not approach the exponential decay flattening out as time increases?
In the atomic world, there is no atom smaller than hydrogen. Thus if your calculations give 50,000 G for hydrogen only atmosphere, it must be the limit.
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 01:06 am: |
"Consider the pressure as a function of time. How does the pressure vary?"
Interesting concept, Mohideen, I had not thought of it this way. I wonder if we could work with this?
I had worked out 'deep space gravity' as about 50,000 Earth's G back sometime ago, and possibly higher, as seen here: March 30, 2005: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/108.html , where I then said: "So G_s = ~ 1.3E-6 Nm^2 kg^2, as the approximate 'cut off' equivalent of deep space gravity, where it begins to 'flatten out' as a constant. I would guess it more a constant there because of all the ambient radiant energy of galaxies combined with the ambient plasma energy in deep space, such as found in 'dark matter' galaxies." This then coincided fairly closely to figuring light redshift over cosmic distances, as figured here: July 10, 2005: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/108.html , where the calculations come out to be about 0.34E-6 Nm^2 kg^2. So somewhere in this range may be what deep intergalactic space comes out to be, though a very broad latitude, depending upon the energy levels present there. The original idea was an approximation of the photoelectric effect light wave length 'cut off', roughly about 400 nanometers, why I called it 'gravity cut off.' Let's see if we can make some sense here, taking pressure as an idea.
Looking in on Wiki's Pressure for starters, we get the equation: p = F/A. Mathematically this is a simple formulaic way of saying that "pressure is equal to force divided by area". More formally, the Ideal Gas Law refines this further to: pV = nRT, so now both temperature Kelvin and a gas constant come into play. However, what does this really tell us, besides the obvious, that if you add heat to a gas it expands?
I think what you are proposing is the opposite, that if you take gas out of a volume to bring it back to space vacuum, or as close as possible, heat is lost. We know this from laboratory experiments, or if you release CO2 from a cartridge, it becomes very cold. But how can this be understood in terms of gravity G? There may be an overlooked clue here, something we never considered because we always believed in G-flat. Let's see if we can work it out:
Let's take the following scenario, that when gas is contained in a given volume, it exerts a certain pressure on the container walls. This is the old p=F/A case. Now take it to the next step, as per Mohideen's: "While creating a vacuum, we extract atoms from the closed space." By taking atoms from a closed space, the temperature drops, so heat energy is lost. This could be compared to the lack of heat energy in deep space vacuum, where it is very cold, and where there are very few atoms, about one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter. So where heat energy is low, per the above 'deep space gravity G', the level of G is very great. Does this exist in any way on Earth, something we could experience here?
One way to look at this is to say that within a given volume, given an energy temperature, atoms of gas will have random Brownian motion which activates the atoms. Given more energy, this motion becomes greater; and vice versa, lower energy means lower motion, fewer collision, and less pressure. But what if the pressure is not contained within a specific volume, but is allowed to expand? What happens to these random collisions? They become less constrained. An example is a hot air balloon, where the heated gas expands. But then what happens to gravity G? In our Earth's atmosphere, the expanded volume of gas becomes gravitationally 'lighter' and thus the balloon rises. More heat energy means the same mass of gas, now expanded, acts 'as if' it were gravitationally lighter. This is true for all flotation, though the normal explanation is that the greater pressure of heavier gas or liquid 'pushes' up the lighter one. Here, the explanation is more metaphysical, in that the greater energy temperature related atomic Brownian activity is due to 'lower G' for each energy heated atom, so they are less drawn together. Less drawn together then means they are further pushed apart, expanding the gas, and therefore creating a buoyant condition. So the net effect is 'lighter than air' balloons float, not merely because they are being pushed from below by heavier atmosphere, but because in their increased gaseous molecular activity they represent a lower G for each atom.
This is a very unconventional way to look at buoyancy, since no such buoyancy occurs if the volume is constrained, so no amount of heating will change a thing. But if, and this is getting back to Mohideen's comment, the space vacuum is increased, because between molecules there is now more space as the volume expands, then by corollary the G for each atom is likewise decreasing as it is heated. However, because we are constrained by Earth's atmospheric conditions, and Earth's G, the net result is that as gas expands, it cools, so the temperature or amount of energy is reduced; and this natural reduction of temperature likewise keeps G constant, as it should on Earth. To overcome this constant G in a hot air balloon, the pilot fires up the burners, so the temperature stays constant to keep balloon expanded and aloft. In the end, gravity G is not violated and stays constant within the atmospheric conditions, and the result is expanded volume and rising balloon, or lighter than air buoyancy. This is a condition of where we are on the planetary plane, where Newton's G = 1G always, so all must eventually come back to that, on Earth.
All around, this is all to do with 'pressure equals force divided by area', but when temperature is introduced, there is a net gravity G effect, of sorts, where the gas molecules fly apart and expand the pressure, which when expanded by volume, makes the gas lighter in relation to the atmosphere. Were there no surrounding atmosphere, therefore, the net result would be only to see volume expand, which then cools it, so temperature drops. In the vacuum of space it is very cold, but also the volume is very great, and unconstrained, so gas can expand indefinitely until constrained by gravity G. And that is the limit, where G grows to some 50,000 (or greater) value than on Earth, at which point it begins to act as a 'volume' constraint on hydrogen gas. Fascinating!
So in a way, Mohideen's point is correct, if understood by this method, where the connections between energy and density have this gravity G relationship. The outer planets have higher G, but lower density, being in a colder part of the solar system, think expanded space; conversely, the inner planets have lower G but higher temperatures constrained within Sun's gravity, think constrained space, so density goes up. To conclude, this can be said as follows: "Because space has no volume constraints except very high G, the volume limit of hydrogen gas where it ceases to expand in vacuo is G some 50,000 times or greater than on Earth." This would mean, therefore, that over time, a 50,000 hydrogen atom density per cubic centimeter on Earth, in the hot region of the Sun, is equivalent to 50,000 cubic centimeters of space vacuum, in the low density of cold intergalactic space. Interesting, uncommon way to look at it, but it may work. Of course, this could not happen in a flat-G universe, only in a variable-G universe.
Very intuitive Mohideen, a bit unusual, but I like it! I think I can see the connections.
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 08:20 am: |
Interesting take on the formation of the solar systen but I was thinking more of what we see now. The gas giants are all about the same density but your claim is that gravity is much stronger further from the sun? Shouldn't they be denser than can be accounted for by our current phyics? This is not seen. Also you would think the gas giants should become increasingly dense the further out we look. But we don't see this either. What's worse is that with the masses you propose for the planets they actually become significantly less dense the further out they go which is the exact opposite of what you would expect. And then there is Pluto which would have an impossibly low density based on the mass you list for it. Finally there are the Kuiper Belt objects...
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 09:36 am: |
Planetary density looks like this, Anon: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-02/981594661.As.r.html
A glance at a table (such as below) listing planetary densities reveals
two major divisions. The inner or Terrestrial planets have a higher
average density than the outer or Jovian planets.
Terrestrial Planets Specific Gravity or --- Radius in
Density in (grams/cm^3) --- millions of km
Mercury 5.43 --- 2.43
Venus 5.25 --- 6.06
Earth 5.52 --- 6.37
Mars 3.95 --- 3.37
Jupiter 1.33 --- 69.9
Saturn 0.69 --- 58.5
Uranus 1.29 --- 23.3
Neptune 1.64 --- 22.1
Pluto 2.03 --- 1.5
As you can see, there is not direct gradation of density, except that outer planets have generally lower density than inner planets. However, there are other factors at work to be considered, such as size and chemical composition of each body.
You might also take a look at Saturn's rings, where density graduates from more dense and muddy inner rings to more ice water outer rings. Saturn is a 'hot' planet (fast spin)*, so the rings structure would fall under the same scenario described above, where there would be a relatively lighter G for inner rings, while relatively higher G for outer rings, all within parameters of what is Saturn's orbit G.
Outer solar system, like Kuiper Belt objects should also show relatively lighter density, depending upon size and chemistry. However, the comets are hybrid, in that they are relatively more dense while their orbits are far from the Sun, higher G, where they are more compacted, and as they approach the Sun, that density is released to throw off some particles, forming a gasing out tail.
All this has other variables, but the idea of greater density in lower G from the primordial disk, and lower density from higher G far out in solar disk, is a trend indicating why this could happen, but not definitive in itself as to each body's density. Finally, our estimates for distant body density may also be off. Note also how density drops down at Saturn but increases outwards. This may be due to composition of primordial solar disk, and how increasing G in outer solar system binds the matter. It would require much more analysis to give a thourough conclusion, beyond our ability here I fear.
Hope this answers something of yours.
*(Planetary spin as function of interior heat can be found here: March 2, 2005: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/145.html )
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 12:29 pm: |
Please see this one... You will see what the "universe" is showing us...
I wrote some things but deleted them and decided to see your comments becouse I am thinking on this one for one month till now... :!)
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 01:12 pm: |
Isn't it more about honestly evaluating you're proposals here than answering my questions? There seems to be an obvious flaw with what you're saying. You're saying gravity is many times greater than we think in the outer solar system but at the same time saying the density of these objects gets much lower. You say your theory explains the gas giants but they are actually a big problem for it! Pluto is another big problem because it has a moon so we can see it interacting gravitationally. In order for you to be right Pluto and Charon would have to be less dense than pretty much any solid object even though you say gravity is so many times greater there than it is here! How can you say a variable G works better than a constant one for the solar system??
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 06:22 pm: |
Misunderstanding of variable G?
In order for you to be right Pluto and Charon would have to be less dense than pretty much any solid object even though you say gravity is so many times greater there than it is here! How can you say a variable G works better than a constant one for the solar system??
Anon, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. It's the RATIOs of lighter versus heavier elements that will determine density, and it is higher G, which is only a ratio of gravitational attraction (not greater gravity), that attracts more ligher elements, like hydrogen for Jovian planets. I don't think you understood this. The 'gravity' we measured for these planets (using a flat-G) had not changed, only how G affects molecular clumping together way back when the solar disk was still dust. Sorry if you misunderstood, but it was great question. Comets are 'hybrids' because they are unique in being able with their highly eccentric orbits to traverse from high to low, and back again to high G in their travels; which may account for their adding material out there, but releasing it inner here.
That said, I am puzzled that planet density seems to rise after Saturn, which may be a factor of higher G dominating beyond that point? Don't know, though it is still much lower than for inner planets.
Also see: Surprisingly high atmosphere at Pluto
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 06:36 pm: |
RE Video, regrets Aladim, but it doesn't seem to work on my system, must be missing something. Anywhere else it can be seen? Thanks.
|Posted on Thursday, September 06, 2007 - 09:45 pm: |
Jupiter and Saturn's planetary spins, a gross simplification.
This is a follow up on what was found for ratios of spin for all the planets, as worked out per:
Planetary spin as function of interior heat can be found here: March 2, 2005: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/145.html
(Regrettably, the above referenced page is -sometimes- infected with a mild 'drive cleaner' promotion, so if it shows up, immediately backspace and clean caches. It is harmless, just annoying. We can't get rid of it, since it's permanently 'archived' in stone!)
The ratios for spin show a fairly close approximation of 'black body' heat for each body vs. it's 1G/ 1AU relationship, so that if taking G per AU as the degree of background space 'coldness', there seems to be a relationship whereby the greater the internal heat, the greater the spin. Jupiter and Saturn stand out as the fastest spin planets (for their size, Earth is little blue dot next to Saturn in pict above), both of which have relatively high heat. When I checked for their estimated interior heat in Kelvin, I discovered Jupiter's is about 20,000 Kelvin, and Saturn's is about 12,000 K. Both are very large planets for such high spin, of about 10 Earth hours per day, which is significant. But are they really proportional in relation to each other?
If we take the following as a basis for spin, let's see what we get:
1. Jupiter: 20,000 K interior, 5.2 AU, spin ~10 hours
2. Saturn: 12,000 K interior, 9.54 AU, spin ~10 hours
Note, both planets radiate about twice as much heat from their interior then they receive from the Sun, so these can be called 'hot planets', which is why they are of interest here. If we estimate G growing at the rate of 7.4E-11 per AU (slightly higher than Earth's 6.67E-11) as calculated per the Axiomatic Equation, we get for Jupiter's background 'coldness' 38.48E-11; for Saturn 70.6E-11. Then, let us do a ratio of interior heat to background space 'coldness' product:
Jupiter: 20,000K x 38.48E-11 = 769,600E-11 K
Saturn: 12,000K x 70.6E-11 = 847,200E-11 K
Which taken as a ratio of Jupiter/Saturn gives us 90.85%
Now, let us compare this to their respective spins (from table in referenced page at top):
Jupiter: 0.415 Earth days
Saturn: 0.445 Earth days
These Jupiter/Saturn daily spin ratios are: 93.26%
As you can see, there is a fairly close correlation between the interior heat vs. background space coldness, as measured by increased G, and their level of spin. Isn't that interesting? At least it shows in a simplified way what I worked out with those complicated spin ratios in my original. In fact, latest data shows Saturn spins 15 minutes faster per day, so they are even closer now, though interior temps are only estimates at best. See Space.com article: Length of Saturn's Day Revised. A note, these above figures could be coincidental, so it must remain inconclusive at present.
|Posted on Sunday, September 09, 2007 - 09:02 pm: |
Galactic 'Black Holes' mystery, how could they be?
Gravitational lensing around a 'black hole', artist rendering (interactive)
The 'black holes' at galactic centers, and it now appears all galaxies have them, is perhaps the most puzzling of astronomical phenomena. Their immense masses, sometimes in millions of our Sun's solar mass, seem out of proportion to anything else gravity has to deliver us. In a recent article at Space.com, "Most Distant Black Hole Discovered", this mystery deepens further, in that at the supposed origin of the universe, some 13.7 billion years ago, there were already formed within a relatively short time of less than a billion years fully mature black holes. This is still being explained in the current thinking that black holes are collapsed stars, where perhaps the very massive black holes are due to mergers of many black holes into one. How can this be, so early in the universe, if it takes time to form stars and have them burn out and collapse into black holes, and still take more time to merge these diverse black holes into super massive ones? At less than a billion years, from the supposed origin of the Big Bang universe, there simply is not enough time!
In my earlier writings about black holes (see: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=6&post=546#POST546 , SMBH) I had hypothesized that when all ambient electromagnetic energy cancels, where Energy = 0, the result is the little gravitational constant 'g' = 1, which brings the Axiomatic Equation to zero, at which point Newton's gravity G goes to its maximum, where G = c. So by this reasoning, a massive black hole at the center of any galaxy is merely a function of the amount of energy that is being cancelled at some center, where the greater the amount of energy cancelled, the greater the size of the black hole. (Schwarzchild would be proud.) If so, it has nothing to do with collapsed solar masses merging into super massive black holes, but rather this is a natural phenomenon of how gravity is manifest in the universe, if, and only if, Newton's gravity G is not a constant, but a variable instead.
What all this means, in effect, is that in the old fashioned flat-G universe, these black holes of some 13 billion years ago cannot be, while in a variable-G universe, they should occur naturally. However, if Newton's G is a variable, and much greater in deep cold space than on Earth, it also means that light is being redshifted gravitationally rather than from space expansion, as now believed; which in turn means there was no need for a Big Bang origin of space-time to morph into today's universe, a very highly unlikely scenario to begin with. Rather, if all ambient energy creates a black hole contingent upon the amount of energy received, then all hot bodies should have micro-mini black holes from planets to stars (see above post on Jovian spins), and consequently all the way up to mega-black holes for galaxies (see Getting a grip on black holes). And if this is true, then it should be possible to recreate conditions in the laboratory to simulate micro-black holes (see notes on interior black holes simulation), which may be also what was found when gold was bombarded at RHIC (see image below) at quantum level. Now, this new way of seeing gravity in a variable-G scenario is beginning to make more sense of what it is we are observing astronomically, even 13 billion years ago. And if so, so called 'rural' galaxies in the empty voids of space should not be as surprising as this article would suggest, "Loner Black Holes Lurk in Cosmic Voids'. Rather the other way around, it should be normal to see lone galaxies developing varying sized black holes, all contingent upon their energy output.
First artificially produced gold microscopic 'black hole' in particle accelerator RHIC (interactive)
The mystery of black holes evaporates rather quickly when seen as a natural phenomenon, and the fantasy of some primordial universe 'big bang' age limit also evaporates with it. In fact, there are some calculations that show some stars may be much older, more like 15 billion years old, and some white dwarfs in theory could be older still, like 100 billion years old. None of this makes sense in a flat-G universe, whereas it can make perfect rational sense in a variable-G universe. But myths die hard, including the myth of 'primordial micro-black holes' wandering the universe, so do not expect a sudden sea change in how astronomers and astrophysics thinks about this. We will be talking 'puzzling' fantasies for a long time still, when it comes to super massive galactic black holes. Let the evidence come in and speak for itself when we measure for Newton's G in the outer solar system.
[More readings, articles on SMBH: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1177/1741.html#POST5341]
This just in: First ever Black Hole image released
|Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 01:42 pm: |
I'm not misunderstanding, or at least I don't think so. Your saying G at Pluto for example is about 40x greater than it is here. But you also agree Pluto's gravity is the same as calculated using current physics. Is this right? If so Pluto's mass must br 40x less than we think in order for everything to look like what we expect. That all works fine. BUT if Pluto's real mass were 40x less than what we think it's density would be 40x lower as well since its volume didn't change. That would make Pluto's density about.05 g/cm3 which is less than any solid I can think of. How is this possible? The other outer planets cause the same problem for you as they would all be much less dense than seemingly possible. Also the planets get less dense the further out you go even though you say gravity is getting more powerful which is the opposite of what you'd expect. Do you know what I mean now?
|Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 07:22 pm: |
Anon, in yours: "our saying G at Pluto for example is about 40x greater than it is here. But you also agree Pluto's gravity is the same as calculated using current physics. Is this right? If so Pluto's mass must br 40x less than we think in order for everything to look like what we expect."
No, not quite right. Pluto's mass is still the same as we calculated it with a constant G, so density is not as low as you suggest.
We don't actually know Pluto's density at this point, though we think we know its diameter, but only as a rough estimate. We also do not know how close to Pluto is Charon or its other moon. Out at 40 AU, there's a lot of guess work, estimates based on what we know here, but not necessarily what is out there. If Newton's G is 40X at Pluto (and remember 40X 10^-11 is still very little), lower density would act 'as if' it had a higher density. We now think Pluto is largely water ice with some rock. This may be true, but how dense is water ice? And how much rock? All guesstimates, for now.
See Wiki's on Pluto to see how much uncertainty we have on the composition of this tiny 'planet'. In effect, Pluto could be a fluffy snowball with some dust and rock, but it would act, at 40G, as if it were more solid water ice and rock. Can you see that?
Also see: Pluto's density?...
|Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 08:04 pm: |
Ah maybe I have misunderstood. I guess then you are saying that Pluto's gravity is much stronger than we think. That might make for an interesting flyby for Pluto Express! But I do wonder how G could be so much higher there and we still have Pluto's mass right since G is used to figure out the mass of the planets. Do you think we have the masses of the other planets right too even though G is different? What about Neptune? Its easy to figure out the mass of Neptune because of its moons. What do you think the mass of Neptune is?
|Posted on Monday, September 10, 2007 - 09:47 pm: |
Yep, it should be interesting when Pluto Express flies by. I think the mass of planets is not the real issue, since the planet is what it is, and how we measure this mass, whether in kilograms or stones, or any other Earth based unit, does not make a difference to what the mass is. Mass is what it is. Of greater concern is the Equivalence Principle, since if G is different elsewhere from Earth's it means it must be 'broken'. The only way to not break Equivalence is to change the units of measure, but that's another story, since it would mean adjusting our kilograms for local conditions to maintain Equivalence.
The mass of Neptune, or any other planet, configured from Newton dynamics of its moons is contingent upon knowing the mass of its moons and their orbital behavior. How do we know their masses? By orbital dynamics! So it's circular in a way. If these masses are configured using a flat-G then we have a pretty good estimate, though the moon densities may be in question, like Pluto's. For that matter, any density of planet or atmosphere anywhere outside Earth is thrown if G is different. This is part of what we must find out in exploring the outer solar system, as well as nearer the Sun. It's the densities that would be different, not the masses.
Back to gravity, Pluto's "gravity for its density" is most likely greater than we think, but we won't know until we have a way of cross-checking its density versus its mass. When Pluto Express flies by Pluto I hope it has instruments to better gage its size and density. Pretty tricky all around, which is why Newton never had reason to doubt gravity G is a constant, nor did we in the next three centuries. That clever gravity stayed hidden from us all this time. Only real way to break this spell is to gage it out there far from Earth's know 1 G.
Hope this helps, not to challenge what you are saying, but to clarify what is in fact a very tricky question about gravity G.
Ps: One more interesting note: Pluto has a small atmosphere, which for a body with about 2/3 mass of our Moon seems highly unlikely, unless one factors in higher G. At 40G atmospheric molecules can hold together on that small body, whereas if constant G it could not, no matter how cold it is. Also, when Pluto Express gets there, watch for slight deviations from expected trajectory. I say 'slight' because Pluto's mass dominates, and that is a known, while the spacecraft's gravitational mass may increase (like for Pioneer 10 & 11's acceleration towards the Sun), but against Pluto's dominance it may only make slight deviations. When does it get there, 2012? Should be fun.
|Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 04:33 pm: |
Hang on a second! I have to seriously disagree with some things you have said here!
Yep, it should be interesting when Pluto Express flies by. I think the mass of planets is not the real issue, since the planet is what it is, and how we measure this mass, whether in kilograms or stones, or any other Earth based unit, does not make a difference to what the mass is. Mass is what it is.
I agree that the units used doesn’t matter. But mass is very important! Its necessary to figure out almost everything we see or do in space!
The mass of Neptune, or any other planet, configured from Newton dynamics of its moons is contingent upon knowing the mass of its moons and their orbital behavior. How do we know their masses? By orbital dynamics! So it's circular in a way.
This I have to strongly disagree with! We DON’T need to know the masses of Neptune’s moons to figure out Neptune’s mass! It’s enough to know they are much less massive than Neptune. It’s not circular at all. If it was we wouldn’t even know the mass of the earth or anything else for sure and we wouldn’t be able to send probes throughout the solar system! And we know it works because we had estimated Neptune’s mass well enough for when Voyager 2 went by.
If these masses are configured using a flat-G then we have a pretty good estimate, though the moon densities may be in question, like Pluto's. For that matter, any density of planet or atmosphere anywhere outside Earth is thrown if G is different. This is part of what we must find out in exploring the outer solar system, as well as nearer the Sun. It's the densities that would be different, not the masses.
This is the part I don’t really understand. If G is used in figuring out the masses of planets and we have G wrong how can we have the mass right?? I guess thats my main question. I looked around your site to see if I can answer this question myself but I don’t see much mention of the masses of the planets or how you would figure them out if G were different. Maybe as an example you can show me how you would figure out the mass of Saturn with your G? Maybe thats a better example than Neptune since we have sent a probe to orbit Saturn. I also have other questions about some stuff you wrote but maybe if you explain this one to me the other stuff will make more sense to me.
|Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 09:23 pm: |
Anon, I agree that Neptune's moons are not necessary to figure out Neptune's mass. What I meant is we estimated the moons's mass by their orbital behavior. Sorry, my lack of command of the English language perhaps?
I think of it as this: imagine a fluffy snowball that you know should be light in your hand, but when you pick it up, it weighs like a rock. Two things could be at work here: either there is a rock inside, or the fluffly stuff is actually 'heavier' because of greater G than we expected it to be. This is why I said "mass is mass" and once you figured it, it doesn't matter how figured as long as it is consistent. But the G that went into making up that mass, like 'fluffy Pluto', is what determines the gravitational density of it. The odd thing is that lighter density, in higher G, acts as if it were more dense. Ever wonder why there is such a sharp edge to Saturn's or any gas giant's atmophere? Think about it.
This is the part I don’t really understand. If G is used in figuring out the masses of planets and we have G wrong how can we have the mass right?? I guess thats my main question.
Cheers, thanks for thinking on this, very interesting to me too!
ps: once upon a time, years ago, I had written that our misunderstanding of a variable G may be giving us wrong mass numbers for outer planets, but I now take that back; in fact we got the mass numbers right, given how we measured it, but our estimates of density may be way off; in higher G low density acts 'as if' it were greater, per this reasoning.
|Posted on Friday, September 14, 2007 - 07:58 pm: |
Iapetus is the strangest Saturn moon.
It has a very light density, 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. The icy part is pockmarked with Dalmatian like black holes. The equator has a mountainous ridge stretching over a thousand kilometers, giving this moon a walnut shape. And it has evidence of major meteoric strikes, one of which looks like a 'bulls eye'. There is virtually no evidence of atmosphere, it being only about 736 km in radius. But tinier Enceladus much closer in to Saturn does have an atmosphere. Strange sisters. What strange history shaped this very small moon?
Furthermore, it is off the normal plane of Saturnian moons.
Orbital plane (interactive) per Wiki
This is the strangest moon. Most recent discovery is it 'dalmatian' like surface, as per this article; "Bizarre Saturn moon mottled like Dalmatian". Yet, there is something about it that makes sense.
If this moon was struck hard at some distant past, then its being off the plane makes sense; but that would contradict its synchronous rotation. If it had been struck on the dark side, then why was ice never recovered there over the eons? And since the dark side is warmer, with lower albedo, this is not surprising, except the great distance from the Sun, at 9.5 AU, makes it an unlikely candidate for solar heating. I suspect Saturn, as a warm planet, may have more to do with this than old Sol. Iapetus may be heated by Saturn's warm glow.
The pock marks are likely smaller meteor strikes into the snowy surface, on the cold side, while the dark side, the leading side, gets the brunt of the big ones, as craters show. Also, if Iaepetus's interior temperature is well balanced within Saturn's outer heat at its orbit, then the spin being synchronous makes sense, like Earth's moon. This would mean no internal plate tektonics or volcanic activity, which makes the long equatorial ridge more a mystery. Perhaps the past strikes, especially the big ones, may have shaped it the way it looks today, with a resulting ridge; or perhaps in Iapetus's sordid history in once upon a time brushed with Saturn's rings... I'm guessing, because in fact I have no idea what this moon is about, except that as a fluffy low density orb with snow on one side, it looks like a dirty snowball. Or the ridge may be a function of gravitational stress from Saturn's large pull, where the uneven chemical structure of the moon manifest as a long bump along the equator. But this is no more than a bad guess.
Why does this moon annoyingly remind me a kind of reverse Crookes' radiometer? ... I give up.
|Posted on Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 06:34 pm: |
Thar she blows! the Black Hole!
Gamma-ray burst (NewScientist) from neutron stars, not exactly same thing?
Extragalactic radio burst puzzles astronomers
A collapsed 'black hole' makes sense. If the ambient energy is thrown off center, per the Axiomatic Equation, the raison d'etre for the concentrated all energy lambda on a point, which causes maximum gravity on a point within Shwarzchild radius, is then broken, and black hole collapses. Should this happen, a sudden release of energy, GRBs, measuring about the sum energy concentrated on black hole should be momentarily detected. This may have been found to be the case in the 2001 archives of Parkes radio telescope, Australia, by Narkevic. However, whether or not this confirms Einstein's theory on black holes, or merging neutron stars, is another matter. The best test would be to seek out any disturbance in the surrounding ambient energy prior to BH collapse, and see. If such a disturbance, collapsed stars or invading massive energies are found, then it would better confirm how BH forms in the first place, in hindsight.
|Posted on Friday, September 28, 2007 - 09:59 pm: |
Gamma-Ray Bursts (Wiki), continued...
Example of irregular galaxy (interactive) NGC1427A
This image is what I imagined when I said in my above "best test would be to seek out any disturbance in the surrounding ambient energy prior to BH collapse", where here is an 'irregular' galaxy showing a high level of gas and low metallicity, and found to be good sources of GRB emissions. In the Wiki describing these, it says:
"Evidence for the collapsar view Note how current interpretations for GRB sources are 'collapsed' massive stars, those short lived, but absence of 'hydrogen absorbtion lines' makes that suspect, and then to compound the error with 'black hole swallows' the exploding envelope, makes all this highly irregular, nor likely. Then when no 'neutron star' resulted from the supernova, that made it still more suspicious, that they got the theories wrong.
This consensus is based largely on two lines of evidence. First, long gamma-ray bursts are found without exception in systems with abundant recent star formation, such as in irregular galaxies and in the arms of spiral galaxies. This is strong evidence of a link to massive stars, which evolve and die within a few hundred million years and are never found in regions where star formation has long ceased. This does not necessarily prove the collapsar model (other models also predict an association with star formation) but does provide significant support.
Second, there are now several observed cases where a supernova has immediately followed a gamma-ray burst. While most GRBs occur too far away for current instruments to have any chance of detecting the relatively faint emission from a supernova at that distance, for lower-redshift systems there are several well-documented cases where a GRB was followed within a few days by the appearance of a supernova. All such supernovae that have been successfully classified have been of type Ib/c, a rare class of supernovae that are due to core collapse but lack hydrogen absorption lines, consistent with the theoretical prediction of association with stars that have lost their hydrogen envelope. The GRBs with the most obvious supernova signatures include GRB 060218 (SN 2006aj), GRB 030329 (SN 2003dh), and GRB 980425 (SN 1998bw), and a handful of more distant GRBs show supernova "bumps" in their afterglow light curves at late times.
Possible exceptions to this theory were recently discovered   when two nearby long gamma-ray bursts lacked a signature of any type of supernova: both GRB060614 and GRB 060505 defied predictions that a supernova would emerge despite intense scrutiny from ground-based telescopes. Both events were, however, associated with actively star-forming stellar populations. One possible implication is that it now appears that a supernova can fail utterly during the core collapse of a massive star, perhaps when the black hole swallows the entire star before the supernova blast can reach the surface."
I think the better explanation (as proposed above) is that 'black holes' collapse are responsible for GRBs. An irregular galaxy means a dominant mega-black hole (MBH) had not yet formed, so competing minor-black holes formed in pockets of concentrated ambient light energy, where lambda cancels, to recreate maximum gravity (in variable G, max is G=c, a natural occurence) in those 'black' pockets. But these will prove unstable until the massive-black hole forms at its natural center, such as all elliptical galaxies have. (Such pockets may also form in stable elliptical galaxies, more likely far from central MBH, but they should be rare.) When these minor-black holes collapse, which means the energy feeding them is not longer ambiently symmetrical, then a GRB occurs, anywhere from miliseconds to days in duration, depending upon the shape and size of these minor-black holes. This in itself would explain both why no neutron star is formed in the aftermath (of what they mistakenly call 'supernova'), nor why the spectral lines fail to show evidence of collapsed stars. The 'reverse shocks' mentioned in the article, and optical flash, is better explained from a collapsed black hole than supernovae, which would be expected when a black hole collapses. And the same for resulting jets of energy, which are endemic to black holes. No stars are involved, only black-hole regions coming into being and then collapsing into GRBs.
This would also explain why GRBs would be common to newly forming star systems rather than mature ones, since mature galaxies will have less likelihood of unstable black holes. But this can happen only in a variable G universe. Until this is hypothesized and confirmed, all explanations for GRBs will remain spurious. Degenerate binary systems may have little or nothing to do with this. And a collapsed MBH would only happen if there was a very serious destruction of the galactic stable structure, most unlikely. But if it did happen, the GRB could be devastating to all life within millions of light years distance.
|Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2007 - 09:48 pm: |
Dark Matter leaves us in the dark.
X-ray image of Bullet Cluster galaxies (interactive)
Invisible Matter Won't Disappear Anytime Soon, Space.com, where it says:
Of course, that's how they see it now. But if Axiomatic Equation is correct, the it's the other way around, that as 'radiant energy is absorbed by dark matter' it would slowly decay, which means it would slowly lose it's higher G to become more like normal baryonic matter in energy rich regions of the solar system. But that's still far off into the future, and the current theories won't disappear anytime soon.
If dark matter can slowly decay, it can also emit radiation, albeit at nearly undetectable levels. The proposed ultra-wimpy signal might help explain why it's practically invisible to our scientific instruments.
|Posted on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 - 09:43 pm: |
The KeV value of the space vacuum?
(from BAUT on Relativity+ discussion: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/65487-relativity.html#post1086475 )
According to Hyperphsycis, the gravitational coupling between an electron and proton is:
Fgravity/ Felectric = 4.4 x10^-40
So if per (yours, in) the Relativity+ paper, you say:
then we might have an equation.
A 511KeV photon causes the same degree of gravitational attraction as an electron.
Take this electron gravitational attraction on both sides, whereby:
511KeV = 4.4 x10^-40, remembering that the right side is merely a dimensionless ratio, then:
The Space Vacuum would be this ratio times one, or:
511KeV/ 4.4 x10^-40 = 1 x space-vacuum energy, so that it's value should be:
116.136 x10^+40 KeV = space-vacuum energy
Now, that's one hell of a vacuum energy!
Wouldn't it be nice to tap into that space-vacuum energy, even just a little?
Ivan - aka N.G. 71
BTW, when this E_sv = 116.1E+40 KeV is converted into Joules, per ratio of 1 KeV=1.6022E-16 Joule, it works out as: E_sv = 186E+24 Joules. I do not know if this is a significant number or not, but it looks slightly over (~2pi) E=mc^3, (e.g., E=27E+24) which I thought was the maximum level of Energy possible before gravity fails and matter cannot hold. See http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/108.html (see posts: November 6, 2004 - 12:36 pm and April 11, 2005 - 09:38 pm) for detail, which may be what happens in the hottest part of solar corona, and whence comes the solar wind. In theory, this would be where the space-vacuum gravitic energy is totally overpowered by electromagnetic maximum energy, except not quite, because protons and electrons still exist. If the e.m. energy went over the space-vacuum energy limit, they would cease to exist. In my opinion this is only a possibility, not confirmed by any known science, nor part of any standard model of physics. Could this be what happens inside a galactic 'black hole', where the known physics cancels out?
Leaving it at that, merely FYI speculations. The discussion at BAUT continues here: Farsight's total Energy budget? regarding Relativity+.
|Posted on Friday, October 26, 2007 - 11:00 pm: |
Edging close to galactic 'black holes' mystery.
Space.com article, Hundreds of 'Missing' Black Holes Found seems to be edging closer to what the Axiomatic Equation says, that 'black holes' form naturally where all ambient light converges on a point and lambda cancels there. Their version is not as succinct, but there is hope, someday.
The newfound quasars confirm what scientists have suspected for years now: that supermassive black holes play a major role in star formation in massive galaxies. The observations suggest massive galaxies steadily build up their stars and black holes simultaneously until they get too big and the black holes suppress star formation.
We're still far from understanding this phenomenon of supergravity centers at galaxy centers, and why they were already present within a billion years of the (fictional) Big Bang. The answer is much simpler and cleaner, it's what happens naturally when a large cloud of stars congregates, they form a center of super high gravity at the point where all their light converges. Simple.
(See post Feb.25,2007: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=3343#POST3343, "Getting a Grip on Black Holes", for more on SMBH.)
|Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 03:35 am: |
Help me understand Ivan. Explain why the point where light converges (galactic center) is the point of highest gravity. Is it because of cancellation of converging waves, or the density of the concentration of waves. Help me see what you mean, as my knowledge of physics goes little beyond high school.
|Posted on Sunday, October 28, 2007 - 12:52 pm: |
Black hole co-evolution theory, maybe?
Hi Naive, it's a very valid and straight shooting question. How can convergence of energy become gravity? Isn't that the real question, which goes against everything we understand about mass and gravity?
Hot gas cloud and 'dark matter'
In the Space.com article "The New History of Black Holes: 'Co-evolution' Dramatically Alters Dark Reputation" which talks about how rather than galactic black holes being an end product of galaxy formation (through the merging of massive collapsed stars), it seems there was co-existence of black holes as stars combined together into galactic mass. The first clue was that there seems to be a fairly clear relationship between the central galactic energy output and the size of the supermassive black hole (SMBH), so some sort of relationship between energy and black hole is involved. The second clue was that looking back 13 billion years into deep space (they believe the universe started in a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago) was showing fully formed galaxies with black holes centers. The above article says:
This is odd, that in such a short time massive stars formed and collapsed, and then merged into black holes (per the old theory) to make fully formed galaxies, all in less than a billion years, which seems unlikely. The third clue (from my perspective) is the Pioneer Anomaly, which may be interpreted as a function of decreasing solar energy (with distance from Sun) causing gravitational-inertial mass to increase, hence slowing down the Pioneer space probes (10 & 11 going in opposite directions from the Sun) by equivalence. This last clue is what the Axiomatic Equation supports, a Quantum equation (see PPs below) if the math is right, based on the conversion equation for gravity. This G conversion equation is: G^2=gc^2*pi^2, where G is Newton's gravity 'constant' and 'g' is the proton-proton gravity 'constant', which the Axiomatic says increases with less radiant energy (or decreases with higher solar radiant energy), which means distance from hot radiant energy increases gravity per mass. This relationship between radiant energy and distance from the Sun, as it applies to Pioneers being 'accelerated' towards the Sun with distance, is discussed here in my earlier post on Variable G: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/23.html#POST300
Though stretched and distorted by the technique used to spot them (an intervening galaxy cluster was used as a "gravitational lens"), the newfound galaxies, Windhorst's team assures us, resemble our own Milky Way. They are seen as they existed more than 13 billion years ago, within 1 billion years of the Big Bang.
So, putting it all together, the idea that a total elimination of hot radiant energy (which is counter intuitive for a galaxy center) would lead to increased gravity to its maximum becomes possible. Hence, if 'g' rises to a value of =1, per the Axiomatic when E=0, then G^2=gc^2 pi^2 is same as G^2= 1*c^2 pi^2 which taking square root give us G=c*pi. (I assumed pi drops out on a point, but not necessarily so.) So now if all radiant energy is nixed out, G becomes as high if not higher than its radiant light-energy equivalent, and thus light cannot escape it. And therefore, it now makes sense that the surround radiant energy around a galactic black hole would coincide with the size of this black hole, since they are relative to each other.
The above article further says:
The significance of this is that as stars form from the collapse of large hydrogen gas clouds (which cannot happen unless they are cold enough, per Axiomatic, to be in a very high G 'dark matter' region), they generate radiant energy which will find a natural center where all these waves of electromagnetic hot energy converge on a point. (See my earlier post on SMBH: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=4033#POST4033 ) What forms from all their mass and energy combined, per Schwarzchild's equation: R_s=G2M/c^2, is a supermassive black hole around which will be swirling all the hot energy of stars radiating there. This black hole is then directly related in power (gravitational) to the amount of energy around it. (See Schwarzchild link above for how this translates into the Earth's hot core dimensions, and also next post below for why Asteroid Belt is there.) This is the hot energy cancelled on a point, per Schwarzchild's, that is large enough to maintain in formation around it the stars radiating, which determines the size and shape of the galaxy. So these two are interdependent on each other, and in effect they balance out.
Among co-evolution's significant impacts is its ability to render mostly moot a longstanding chicken-and-egg question in astronomy: Which came first, the galaxy or the black hole?
"How about both?" Windhorst asks. "You could actually have the galaxy form simultaneously around a growing black hole."
How, there's the problem: We think of everything in terms of electromagnetic energy, and that gravity is some constant unaffected by this energy. So when we think of galactic mass of stars around its center, we do not equate the energy output with the size of the massive gravitational center. Would it not make more sense, per current understanding, that the stars' collective mass congregates around a common center to hold the galaxy together, not because of a black hole with super gravity, but because of their collective mass? (This is how the gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn are now understood, that their collective gaseous mass holds them together, which I think is wrong.) But this is not what happens, there is simply insufficient mass to hold them together into a galaxy. Therefore, the super high gravity black hole became necessary, which is now observed to be what quasars are all about, shooting out jets of intense energy out their axis. Without having a theory showing an interrelationship between electromagnetic radiant energy and, inversely, gravitational intensity, we are left guessing on puzzles of why galaxies of stars converge around a black hole center, and why this happened likely in a co-evolving manner where the two came into existence simultaneously (not from collapsed massive stars) right from the start. Also from above article, it says:
This is a primary clue, that the size of the black hole buried inside the galaxy is proportional to the central bulge of stars. But why would that be so?
Central bulges of stars in many galaxies, such as our Milky Way, are directly related to the masses of the black holes buried inside, as detailed in June of 2000. A galaxy's dimensions seem tied to its black hole's dietary habits.
Here is an example of out-radiating energy P-wave, graphically illustrated as two dimensional:
Now imagine this in reverse, where these waves are in-radiating towards a center. (I did a 'kitchen experiment' with a bowl of water and vibrator held against the rim, where all waves generated converged on the center and canceled out.)* So when these waves of electromagnetic hot star energy converge on this center, they eliminate each other completely, and the more energy, the greater the elimination involved. This then goes back to G^2=gc^2 pi^2, where when E=0, g=1, and then G=c. So now we can see that, at least in part, that the convergence of energy on a point cancels out, which then establishes the maximum gravity G, where light ceases to function (I suspect all laws of physics are suspended there also), and the galactic black hole forms naturally in proportion to the energy surrounding it. Why? I'm not sure of the answer to this, but it may have something to do with the swirling hot energy around the black hole, which keeps feeding it radiant energy from equidistance on all sides. This is the beauty of a vortex, since its center is defined by its spinning perimeter. The greater the spin (of more star energy), the stronger the vortex, for example, so black hole is also stronger.
I hope this lengthy explanation makes some sense out of a still counter-intuitive idea, that more radiant hot energy means less G, and conversely zero radiant energy means maximum G. We on Earth live close to a hot star, so our G is very low, G=6.67E-11, but out by Saturn it should already be about 9.5 times as high as here, and further out in deep space (at about Oort Cloud) it rises to high dimensions of about 5-6 orders of magnitude higher than here. But that is because intergalactic space still has radiant hot energy in it. But if this all cancels out completely on a center of ambient star hot energy, then G goes max. That's how a super massive black hole forms inside the galaxy center. And even if the galaxy is irregular, where there may be a number of smaller black holes, they will eventually align themselves and merge into one SMBH, such a this one:
Galaxy Centaurus A.
So we are still left with a puzzle, per the article:
And that is a very good question! How could this happen, especially in the 'early' universe without 'co-evolution' of galaxy and black hole? The only explanation that makes sense is that they are interrelated and co-existent always. But now, per force, we must change our thinking. We must no longer think of radiant energy as divorced from gravitational energy, if the two are interdependent. All of our Energy equations in physics, with the exception of gravity physics, are radiant electromagnetic dependent. Work energy, for example, is only a function of transferred force, which is largely either electromagnetic or gravitational. However, we do not have Energy equations that work strictly from the gravity side, which might explain inertia, except through the Equivalence Principle. Our equations in Quantum Physics are all electromagnetic; and the same for all equations dealing with understanding zero-point energy. But I suspect we are looking at only one side of the duality of interaction between radiant energy and gravitational energy, which together form Energy. (I had to wrestle with this in a recent post on zero-point 'space vacuum' energy, posted above, where I try to explain gravity energy in equivalence to e.m. energy.) And I too am working with high school math, mostly algebra, to understand this stuff. So I hope it is easily understood by anyone with a basic education, since I'm not that smart. Like you, I'm only a student!
Very compact but bright objects called quasars, which can outshine a thousand normal galaxies, were abundant when the universe was less than 10 percent of its present age. Quasars are powered by black holes weighing more than a billion suns. How did they get so big so fast?
Anyway, Naive, as always my answer gets long winded, but I am trying to explain, and understand, something for which we had not yet developed a simple math to show the interaction of radiant electromagnetic energy and inertial-mass gravitational energy. Regardless, I hope I showed how such hot energy canceling on a point results in maximum gravity energy, or what becomes a galactic super massive black hole. So in the first image above, which shows hot gas cloud, if temperature is low enough, it should exhibit higher G, which should collapse it eventually into a combustible star, which in turn will be the star's mass but with a lower G once radiant energy kicks in. Put a billion of these together, and a natural black hole will result in the ambient energy center, and then a galaxy will form. Maybe? And if so, doesn't that open a whole new chapter in physics?
Well, I hope the three clues above, and lengthy dialogue following, helps you understand better yours Naive:
Explain why the point where light converges (galactic center) is the point of highest gravity. Is it because of cancellation of converging waves, or the density of the concentration of waves.
Ps: of course, to make all this work we must find evidence of a variable G, away from Earth's known 1G; we should find it growing at the constant rate of 1G per 1 AU, but we're just not there yet.
PPs: BTW, electromagnetic Energy, per Axiomatic Eq., the short form, where Quantum e.m. is on left side, and gravitational is on right, looks like this:
E_em = hc/ (lambda*proton mass) = (1-g)c^2
where h = Planck's constant (6.626E-34 m^2 kg/s)
c = light speed (3E+8 m/s)
lambda = e.m. wavelength (~1.32E-15 m)
proton mass = variable vs. E_em (on Earth =1.67E-27 kg)
g = proton-proton gravitational constant (~5.9E-39 as dimensionless, or Volts, variable)
E_em = for Earth is approx. E=9E+16 J
1 = mass constant (one in kg/kg)
the conversion equation for Newton's G is this:
G^2 = gc^2 pi^2
When E_em collapses to zero, either lambda is zero, or e.m. E is zero, then Axiomatic's (1-g) function goes to zero, when g=1, and G=c, which is max.
[Of course, none of this could be discussed on ATM threads like: Are Black Holes Galaxy Factories? - aka 'nutant gene 71']
*(This is almost like the "kitchen experiment" described earlier for a 'self-canceling" waves of a theoretical Black Hole: Kitchen sink experiment simulates exotic white holes - NewScientist)
Ivan/no dark matter?
|Posted on Monday, October 29, 2007 - 09:47 pm: |
'Dark Matter' does not exist? Edging closer to the dark side...
Scientists Say Dark Matter Doesn't Exist
In this linked Space.com article it says:
They seem to be edging away from the old theory of 'exotic' heavy particles causing dark matter, and are closing in on something readers of these pages are well familiar with, that so-called "dark matter" is really a modification of Newton's G in the cold deep of space, where G is much higher than here. They also say:
Now John Moffat, an astronomer at the University of Waterloo in Canada, and Joel Brownstein, his graduate student, say those announcements were premature.
In a study detailed in the Nov. 21 issue of the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the pair says their Modified Gravity (MOG) theory can explain the Bullet Cluster observation. MOG differs from other modified gravity theories in its details, but is similar in that it predict that the force of gravity changes with distance.
"MOG gravity is stronger if you go out from the center of the galaxy than it is in Newtonian gravity," Moffat explained. "The stronger gravity mimics what dark matter does. With dark matter, you take Einstein and Newtonian gravity and you shovel in more dark matter. If there's more matter, you get more gravity. Whereas for me, I say dark matter doesn't exist. It's the gravity that's changed." (bold mine)
That is getting closer to the dark side of deep intergalactic space, including the gravity G effects of space within the galaxies, where in the absence of hot radiant energy, Newton's G climbs. Now, if only we could confirm it here within Earth's near orbit...
Some months ago (Feb. 3, 2007) I had worked out the Boltzmann constant relationship for Earth's black-body temperature, as well as hot interior temperature, with a fairly good fit as to why Earth's Newton's G, at G=6.67E-11, is some 0.57E-11 less here than what the Axiomatic calculates for our orbit, viz. G=7.24E-11. In fact, the calculations work out 'as if' Earth's interior temperature is some 2500 degrees Kelvin. I wrote then:
This should be testable. For example, if it were possible to test for Newton's G 'constant' on a Trojan asteroid not too far from Earth, or at some La Grangian point near Earth's orbit, the resulting Newton's G should be closer to 7.24E-11 than what we measure on Earth. Also, deep inside the planet, closer to interior heat, this number should come out smaller than the known 6.67E-11 G. Therefore, there is a test, perhaps, available to us here on Earth, though it may be difficult. (The orbital test away from Earth is better, in my opinion, since there may be a 'micro-black hole' factor to be considered inside the planet, or other factors, that could skew results.) Getting back to 'dark matter', however.
I suspect these are all 'ball park' numbers, but not close enough to call it. The Boltzmann calculation above is 1/10th this value for (delta) E, which implies an interior Earth temperature (what modifies G) as 10 times 255K, but this is still an unknown for now. Can Earth's interior be 2550 K? (Earth's geothermal temperature is estimated at over 5000 K at the planet's core, progressively lower towards the mantle, only 255 K at the surface, so we till don't know what is the average inner planet temperature.) We don't really know.
If ordinary space dust and gases far away from a hot radiant star should exhibit a higher G, it would act as if it were 'dark matter', by which it would interact only gravitationally if non-luminent. This is something that could instantly explain a great many factors of space, anything from so-called heavy gravity fast spin 'neutron stars', to gravitational lensing from dark matter galaxies, or the cold regions of space on the edge of galaxies with their anomalous spin, as if 'dark matter' was there. It just makes more sense. Even MOND makes more sense now, as a possible solution to the Pioneers. It's all edging closer to the 'dark side', where in deep space Newton's G flattens out at about 10X^-6 (vs. 10X^-11 here), where it begins to approximate F = GM/r in the very large distances of space. Out there, this illusive 'dark matter' on the edge of intergalactic space, had left our understanding of gravity in the dark.
Pioneers 10 & 11, leaving our solar system
So Earth's inner temperature, Pioneers Anomaly, cold 'dark matter', MOND... they're all related if, and only if, Newton's G is variable.
Also see: Why Dark Matter 'appears' non-baryonic
Mass of the Universe
Ps: On the Pioneer Anomaly, I had an entry in the 'discussion' at Wikepedia: 'Anomaly 2, another alternative idea', FYI.
PPs: Another possible clue to variable G is (Hubble constant) cosmic light redshift 'as if' gravity in deep intergalactic space, for all gases there, is at 5 to 6 orders of magnitudes higher than on Earth, as per this post: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/185.html#POST3594
PPPs: Yet another clue to variable G is MOND for inside the solar system, which is about 6 orders of magnitude lower in our solar system than for intergalactic space: http://www.humancafe.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=88&post=3497#POST3497
PPPPs: Still another clue is the very high gas giants atmospheres, especially Titan's which is ten times taller than Earth's for a moon much smaller than Earth, though both atmospheres are largely nitrogen: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/17.html#POST450
Not 'dark matter' but 'dark (and invisible for us so far) variable gravity G'.
|Posted on Thursday, November 01, 2007 - 09:13 pm: |
Collapsing clouds into stars, not spinning out of control.
New Spin on How Stars are Born
This Space.com article finds it puzzling that rather than spin up, as would be expected from a collapsing dust cloud under gravitation, the spin is actually stabilized. Here's text:
New stars form from enormous clouds of gas and dust collapse under their own gravity into dense spheres. The packed cores are ignited by thermonuclear reactions. As they collapse, the clouds rotate, and like an ice skater pulling in his arms while spinning, rotation speed increases as the collapsing cloud gets smaller.
Some of this rotation energy, called angular momentum, must be dissipated before the star can contract completely. How this happens, though, is unknown. (bold mine)
There's a rather simple answer to this puzzling phenomenon: Heat.
As a star bursts into nuclear combustion, its heat rises dramatically, as expected. What is not expected, given today's understanding of gravity, is that simultaneously the gravitational 'constant' Newton's G drops down, so no increased spin results. This is not currently understood, given that Newton's G is deemed a universal constant, but it makes imminent sense when G is a variable inversely proportional to hot star radiant energy. However, until a variable G is confirmed, this phenomenon remains but one more clue for why angular momentum is not conserved when the dust cloud collapsing into a star is not spinning up. The magnetic fields explanation is incidental, though significant. The real reason may be variable G.
|Posted on Saturday, November 03, 2007 - 11:14 pm: |
I see something of Newton in your axiomatic.
Is space a medium that causes gravity, or is it a medium because the stream or variable energy that travels from point to point causes a "fabric" to be formed? In other words, if we travel through space is a wake created in the medium of space, or is the wake created in the stream of energy that radiates through space, or is it both?
I don't know if I'm looking at it the wrong way, or from a different point of view. It seems the answer is intuitively on the tip of my brain's tongue so to speak, but the answer is clouded by my everyday exposure to the physics of this world. Thus I am just trying to bounce ideas around to get a greater understanding.
|Posted on Sunday, November 04, 2007 - 01:35 am: |
What is the 'spacevacuum'?
I've puzzled over this over and over again, Naive, and I still can't put my finger on it either. In yours:
Can it be both? Possibly. Does a photon of energy slow down, or speed up, or stays the same in higher G space, for example? I'm assuming it stays the same. Only redsift is affected, as light comes out of the 'gravity well' traveling through millions and billions of light years. But I don't really know that. This may be the Hubble constant...
Is space a medium that causes gravity, or is it a medium because the stream or variable energy that travels from point to point causes a "fabric" to be formed? In other words, if we travel through space is a wake created in the medium of space, or is the wake created in the stream of energy that radiates through space, or is it both?
What are Pioneers telling us, while traveling away from the solar system? They're slowing. Is that because of accelerated light speed, so the signals sent there and back are faster, or are they really slowing? In a constant light speed scenario, they are slowing, but again we really don't know. Is the space-vacuum density a factor? If it increases gravity inertial mass, then yes. But if increasing light speed, then no. How far are those galaxies really? We don't know. Perhaps the Pluto space probe will give us a better reading, if it gets there at the right time? So many questions...
Variable G space is still such a novel idea that we just don't know yet. Perhaps taking baby steps to first test for this phenomenon, and then reason out what it really means is all we can do for now. I suspect we should know within a decade, but then the whole paradigm of space physics, Einstein et al included, will have to change. Is time really a variable? I suspect not, only G is variable. But what does that do to space?... That reminds me, I must set the clocks back!
I think the surprising answer will be: Space is gravity. Now, how to explain that? What happens to the atom in space?
[Ps: I slept on this, and the answer to 'space is gravity' seems to be 'the atom is the messenger'. Weird answer, but thinking about it, what Axiomatic seems to be saying is in low e.m. hot energy the atom 'picks up' more of space-vacuum energy, which is gravitational, so exhibits higher G; conversely, in hight e.m. energy, the atom picks up more light energy to suppress the space-vacuum, hence lower G. So 'space' is merely a state-of-being which is all gravity, and when all e.m. energy is suppressed (like in galaxy black hole where all e.m. lambda cancels out) then ALL gravity takes over, and that's immense. The reason this is impossible anywhere else in space is because there is always background 'noise' of e.m. energy flying around, so even if G is very great, it never goes to max except in black hole conditions (which may also be true inside all massive hot bodies). But in this intepretation, space has no waves, gravity has no waves, since it is merely a state of being; what has waves is its duality opposite, hot radiant energy, which then modifies how the atom messengers perform to exhibit either more or less gravity. Neutron stars are an important clue to how much gravity exists in free space away from hot stars... Keeping thinking, but the real evidence is out there. The brass ring goes to the first one who finds real evidence of a variable G, away from Earth's known 1G. Once that happens, everything changes, even the energy used in our future engines, whch will tap into the space-vacuum gravity potentials.]
|Posted on Tuesday, November 06, 2007 - 10:52 pm: |
Super gassing out, Comet 17B/Holmes is 'taking it home'.
Space.Newscientist: Dazzling comet outburst continues to mystify.
"Comet 17P/Holmes recently brightened by a factor of a million in about 36 hours."
Why is that? This is a periodic comet ranging from about 2AU to 5+AU and had not gassed out like this for 115 years, when suddenly it bursts into a large gaseous coma. This happened about 5 months after passing perihelion, when it was closest to the Sun, so speculations have it that it was perhaps struck by another body, such as a meteor. The ejecta appears to be largely water ice, with some trace elements. As it says in article:
I suspect the "we don't know" is largely due to not really understanding why comets 'display' as they come in closer to the Sun. Standard theory says it just gets too hot, so gasses get released, but this would mean after so many revolutions, comets would have totally gassed out. In the case of 17B, however, this is a periodic comet staying fairly close to the Sun, so it should have gassed out completely. The other explanation, which of course involves variable G, is more likely, though at present this is a total unknown, and speculative.
"The fact that it's brightened by a factor of a million is just incredible," says David Jewitt at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, US. "What's special about this one? We don't know."
What may be happening is that at 5+AU, space water molecules gather up on the comet, for two reasons: 1. water stops sublimating at about 3AU, so any loose water molecules out there will attract to the mass and hang on; 2. if G is at about 5+ Earth's G at aphelion, then the greater attraction makes whatever molecules there hang on. So, if this is reasonable and true, the comet with each revolution around the Sun picks up another micro-layer of molecules, mostly water but also other trace elements, and thus builds up, so at 2AU, still beyond Mars, these molecules get shed somewhat, but the glaciation continues, much like polar ice caps, so they do not melt away entirely. After many such revolutions, the ice mass is now large enough to start to 'calve' just like our glaciers, so that periodically, over a hundred years, this accumulated layers of ice blow off into space. The higher G at 5+AU gathers up, but lower G at 2AU releases. However, if this mechanism combined with solar heat is insufficient to 'melt' all the accumulated layers of ice, the end result is finally it is too much and blows off in one spectacular ejecta coma. But that is not how now understood. Rather, for now it remains a puzzle.
So in a flat-G universe, the explanations for this phenomenon of cometary tail displays remains ephemeral, but in a universe of variable-G, where it grows in our solar system at about 1G per 1AU, the light show becomes more understandable. Is this the real reason? We can't know until we test for G out there, away from Earth's known Newton's G. Is this cometary ice from it nucleus? Not necessarily. But the puzzle remains as to why 5 months beyond its perihelion? Possibly it takes that long for energy to accumulate from its closest pass to the Sun? Check back in about 100 years...
Ps: I posted a 'reply' on this idea here in comments, but expect no results.
Also see: Rosetta's Comet Target 'Releases' Plentiful Water - NASA on Rosetta comet 67 P
Just in: Rosetta's comet throws out big jet
|Posted on Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 04:11 pm: |
Something weird about the Sun's radius... strangeness in G.
"Sun may be smaller than thought"... on second thought...
I took the Schwartzchild radius and applied it against the Sun's radius (695,700 km), in an odd sort of way, whereby I made the Sun's total size the Schwartzchild radius, as if that boundary of the Sun's outer layer were the 'black hole' equivalent. Why? Because I wanted to calculate what would be the gravity equivalent G in such a case. Weird, but something came up, here's how:
What if we used the Sun's radius for Schwartzchild's, R_s=G2M/c^2, what would G be?
By the numbers:
c^2 = 9E+16 m^2 s^-2
G = ?
Plugging in: R_s=G2M/c^2
6.957E+8 m = 2G(1.98E+30)/ 9E+16 , which is:
31.3065E+24 m^3 s^-2 = G(1.98E+30 kg)
...I stopped here because of a coincidence, that the left side approximate E=mc^3, (e.g., E=~27E+24 J), which I had previously hypothesized* is the highest possible energy before gravity fails to hold together. However, the units are wrong, since Joules should be m^2 kg s^-2, unless we break out from m^3 s^-2 the m^3 to represent m^2 kg, which means volume and mass are a combined factor. (I had explored this idea on prior post: Funny Things about Mass III). The s^-2 unit fits okay, as both acceleration and energy. But this was not what I wanted to see. My curiosity went beyond the coincidence of E=mc^3, since I wanted to see G in this case...
So plugging away some more:
G = 15.8114E-6, or G = 1.58E-5 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
Why is this curious? Because per past estimates, I had worked out that deep space gravity G should be within range of 1.36E-6. Obviously this number is higher, but within range. On another occasion, I had worked out that deep space gravity, per Hubble Redshift, that Newton's G should be about 0.347E-6 in intergalactic space, again within range. Something similar came up with MOND.
So why is this curious? (BTW, this was unexpected!) Because it may confirm that our region of 'deep space' in which the Sun resides with all its planets has a 'background' Newton's G which approximates the deep space G, same as it should be in all intergalactic space. What this would mean, in effect, is that solar energy, that which approximates E=mc^3, modifies Newton's G down to the level we know on Earth, but more importantly, it actually determines, for the Sun's total kilogram mass, what should be its overall dimensions! If we know mass, we can know radius using Schwartzy's equation, or conversely if we know radius, we can estimate mass by same. Now, that's significant, if not utterly curious. What else can we find out with Schwartzy's radius? Would every star in the galaxy fit this constraint as to size? Or, could we now measure any star's mass by its size, if we use this formula, using the background deep space gravity G of about 10X^-6? Well, only if E=mc^3 is the upper limit of energy. But what if a star is 'failed' so it does not meet that limit, like (so called) neutron stars, or white dwarfs, where their G is much higher? So many questions... Now if we could just find evidence of a variable G, it all fits, I suppose.
*[RE maximum energy E=mc^3, I had worked on this before: Dark Energy cum Mass, also KeV of spacevacuum, and at: Sun's Plasma-Physics, and also mentioned on zero-point gravity, incase anyone wonders where E=mc^3 came from.]
[Ps: Schwartzchild's, R_s=G2M/c^2, was also used to calculate Earth's inner core radius, with max variable-G.]
|Posted on Friday, November 23, 2007 - 09:11 am: |
Oh BTW, this means there's a new equation:
E = 1/2 Rc^2 = GM
from the above on Sun's radius R, solar mass M, and where G is not Newton's universal constant but the universal 'deep space' gravity constant, when we pin it down... maybe. But this works only if E = mc^3, for a hot star.
Thanks Schwartzy! What shall we call the new universal G flat constant?
What this equation really means is that the Sun's total radius, as a function of its mass (in Earth based kilograms) follows the perimeter (of what it can be in size) within the background of 'deep space' G constant, so that its surface matches the interaction between deep space G and the hot energy produced by the nuclear fusion of hydrogen in the solar mass. This essentially means that solar mass and size are inherent in each other within the high G environment of our end of the galaxy. This could be true for our Sun, but can it mean these interactions are different in other regions of space? Possibly, eg., where near the galaxy center there are more star hot radiation concentrations, so background deep space G may be lower (per inverse relationship of E and G as theorized by Axiomatic Equation), but configurations of solar mass may show, for example (lower space G), more mass with a larger radius for given hydrogen volume, hence the star is less dense. Or conversely, if a star energy output is below the E=mc^3 limit, and background deep space G is constant, the R shrinks, and the star's GM function remains unaffected, except that Earth based kilograms no longer apply for M. In fact, in local terms, the equation holds, but in Earth terms, the mass goes up dramatically, and hence per the small R, the density increases astronomically as well. These are complicating factors, because Earth's, and the Sun's, local conditions may not apply to distant solar bodies if the kg function varies with G, whereby in low G, kg is lower (than on Earth), and in high G, kg is higher, per Equivalence principle (i.e., in 10 G, one Earth kg is equivalent to 10 kg). But lacking such empirical evidence, we don't know this yet. Imagine a neutron star (so called) where G is 5 orders of magnitude greater than on Earth. It's kg is equivalent to 100,000 Earth's kg!
So E = 1/2Rc^2 = GM becomes an equation (E= same as) which applies in all instances where E=mc^3 dominates the solar energy density output, which forms its outer boundaries, hence its solar radius, which is contingent upon background deep space G and solar mass density of hydrogen. These interactions should be readily measurable, with adjustments for the fact that we use Earth based gravity and kilograms to figure these. Neutron stars and white or brown dwarfs, if failed stars producing energy under the E= <mc^3 limit, should show smaller radii given the high G of deep space where they reside, and exhibit much higher G gravity for their small bodies. But again, we cannot know this until the Schwartzchild solar radius in high G is applied. Both cases should approximate what the Axiomatic Equation predicts, that the more hot radiant energy present, the lower the G, and vice versa, within the upper most E=mc^3 parameters, where m=1 always, as a function of kg/kg. In a (Earth's) G-flat universe, all these conditions are met on our local star only, but in far off stars which either reside in a different background deep space G, or have lower energy outputs, then everything changes, and our local conditions no longer apply. Only empirical evidence can determine what those conditions will be, per this hypothesis. Therefore, this equation, E = 1/2Rc^2 = GM, can only apply to our local Sun, given using local G and kilograms, and may not equally apply to all solar bodies, unless they are adjusted for local G conditions. Complicated! But the bottom line is higher energy density output means lower solar density; and vice versa, lower energy output means higher solar density. Each star may be a special case, even if only an ordinary hot star, which would need to be understood under local G conditions. Our Sun may be unique, if so. But this above does illustrate a point, that there is a natural balance between size, density, mass, and dimensions for all stars, based upon their G environment and Energy output. This means, no matter what modern physicists may tell you (and they have some pretty outlandishly fantastic theories!), we should be looking for evidence of a variable G.
[Ps: Notice how similar is the above equation to Newton's orbital equation, which was discussed (Mar. 8, 2005) at: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/166.html, where I then said:
What Schwartzchild did was very clever, he replace v^2 with c^2, and there you have it: R_s = G2M/c^2, which translates into solar mass/radius relationship (at E=mc^3) into: E = 1/2Rc^2 = GM, as per above.]
E' = 1/2 Rv^2 x solar irradiance.
This is an illusration, as per paper on Atomic Mass above:
This was derived in the following manner:
GM = Rv^2 , per Newton's orbital equation
GMm/ R = mv^2 , per above with m included
1/2 GMm/R = 1/2 mv^2 , per above with 1/2 included, where:
1/2 mv^2 = KE , kinetic energy
removing the m, putting R back (on right)
1/2 GM = 1/2 Rv^2
as a variation of Newton's orbital, including 'solar irradiance' in Watts/m^2, the equation becomes as used in Atomic Mass paper above:
E' = solar irradiance x 1/2 Rv^2 = J/s/m
where R is planet distance from Sun, v^2 is planet's velocity squared (both in kilometers), times solar irradiance.
|Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:49 pm: |
Missing 'matter' found?
In this Space.com article, they found what may be the 'missing' matter and energy in the universe:
Missing Matter Caught in Tangled Cosmic Webs
It has to do with 'filaments' which store most of the universe's mass.
Dark matter is the term used to describe the invisible stuff that's holding galaxies together. Some 25 percent of the universe is dark matter, and it's all missing in action. The rest is even more mysterious, a sort of anti-gravity force called dark energy.
While scientists have no clue when they'll actually find dark matter, they'd really like to square the cosmic ledger a bit by tallying up all the regular matter that theory holds should exist. Only about 40 percent of it is in the books yet.
The rest, according to the new simulation, is gas that's caught in a tangled web of cosmic filaments that are hundreds of millions of light-years long. The filaments connect clusters of galaxies, and the gas within the filaments is hidden by huge gas clouds.
This conclusion is based on a new computer model that took nearly 10 years to make. It models a region of space equal to 2.5 percent of the visible universe and showed how matter collapsed due to gravity and became dense enough to form the cosmic filaments, galaxy structures and the clouds that hide the filaments.
Add to that the higher G of deep intergalactic space, some five orders of magnitude higher than Earth's Newton's G, and you have filled in most if not all of the 'missing' matter and energy, mostly plasma, of the universe. But we're not there yet.
Also see: Mass of the Universe
|Posted on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 05:35 pm: |
Howd we get the mass of the planets right if we used the wrong G to measure the mass? If we have the mass right how do we have the density wrong?
|Posted on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 09:29 pm: |
Hi Anon, is this about same question you had Sept. 4th, above?
RE ur: "If we have the mass right how do we have the density wrong?"
-the answer was (Sept. 6th) above:
"Anon, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. It's the RATIOs of lighter versus heavier elements that will determine density, and it is higher G, which is only a ratio of gravitational attraction (not greater gravity), that attracts more ligher elements, like hydrogen for Jovian planets."
RE ur: "Howd we get the mass of the planets right if we used the wrong G to measure the mass?"
-the answer back then was:
"The 'gravity' we measured for these planets (using a flat-G) had not changed, only how G affects molecular clumping together way back when the solar disk was still dust."
So "wrong G" is right for "right mass" if all is consistent, which means we used Earth's (known) G to measure (via orbital mechanics) distant body masses; but a different G (away from Earth's known) does not in anyway change the distant body mass, except that if 'local' kilograms are used for a different G (per Equivalence Principle) our kilos would not work right, breaking Equivalence. Small problem generated by using one planet's orbit's G in a system where G changes with distance from the Sun (where it gets 'heavier' further out).
Once you figured out mass of a distant body, regardless of local G, its mass does not change, viz. same body, same mass. But its density may be fluffy light (in heavy G) and it appears to act as a normal density, so ratio of matter to density is less than in Earth's G equivalent. Fewer molecules act as if they were more molecules; also, in heavier G atmospheres molecules of gas will clump 'heavier' together, and become taller.
BTW, this has implications for 'dark matter' in deep space, far from energy of stars: 'fewer molecules' act as if they were more molecules, which can become conceptually: fewer gas and dust molecules act as if they were very 'heavy' and made up of some exotic matter. In fact, I suspect, until we have empirical proof, that so called 'dark matter' is just ordinary non-luminous baryonic matter in very high G deep space environment, so it is both dark and 'exotic' with immense gravity G. Imagine clumping together molecules in G some 100,000 times greater than Earth's known G! That could be all that it is, dark-high-G matter, or 'dark matter'.
|Posted on Friday, December 21, 2007 - 02:13 pm: |
Haha you remember me. In your explanation you lost me with 'local' kilograms. Maybe an example would make this more understandable for me. Given Triton's well known orbit can you show me how you can get Neptune's mass with your theory?
|Posted on Friday, December 21, 2007 - 07:18 pm: |
Hi Anon, you might want to read up some of the posts (by nutant gene 71) on the BAUT forums regarding Titan's atmosphere: http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/35380-titans-atmosphere-10-times-den sity-earths-split.html
There are other threads that discuss this at length, especially a lengthy one discussing a 'hypothetical variable mass' for variable G, as it affects (Earth based) kilograms, but can't get into the discussion at the moment. So here's that page: http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/19206-hypothetical-variable-mass-hypo-v ariable-g.html
Hope this helps. But until we find evidence of variable G, this is all conversation.
|Posted on Monday, December 24, 2007 - 12:02 pm: |
The question then remains, that if this one "kilogram" of apples were accelerated at 98 m/s^2 (where Earth's G' is tenfold), would it still be the same "kilogram"? No, the "weight" would change to 98 kg m/s^2, but the mass is still the same (1 kg) basket of apples, but now they weight 10 kgs.
Ah I think I see the problem. I think you're confusing weight and mass like some people said in those threads. Like in the quote above you say the basket of apples 'weigh 10 kgs' but they don't. Actually it's a really confusing sentence because first you say they weigh 98 newtons which is right but then at the end you say they weigh 10 kgs which is wrong. It's like taking a 6kg object to the moon. It will weigh about 60 newtons on earth but only about 10 newtons on the moon. But we don't say that it 'weighs 1 kg on the moon'. Well people do I guess but it's not right because kgs are for mass and newtons are for weight. Anyway you don't say that the kilogram has changed when we take stuff to the moon. Its not like 1 'earth kilogram' = 6 'moon kilograms'. Just the weight of stuff changed. Haha...actually its also like saying something weightless in orbit around earth is '0 kgs'. It weighs nothing but that doesn't mean it doesn't mean it is now 0 kgs. I don't see how this helps anyway because if you change all the values we measure in kilograms and say '1 kilogram = 10 local kilograms' then everything is going to work out the same anyway. It's like changing from kilograms to pounds. Anyway I think you could see this if you figured Neptune's mass like in the example I asked for. Maybe do that so we can see.
Ivan/kgs vs sausages
|Posted on Monday, December 24, 2007 - 08:14 pm: |
Cucumbers to sausages, in 'kilos' to Newtons?
Yeah, I can see what you're saying Anon, that using Newtons to measure weight is a better and more consistent unit of force.
Actually it's a really confusing sentence because first you say they weigh 98 newtons which is right but then at the end you say they weigh 10 kgs which is wrong. It's like taking a 6kg object to the moon. It will weigh about 60 newtons on earth but only about 10 newtons on the moon. But we don't say that it 'weighs 1 kg on the moon'.
There's the rub, that we can use Newtons to figure kilograms, so the kilograms drop out when measuring weight, but are we consistent when measuring mass, which is not (as you point out) the same as weight. I don't recall the whole thread's argument (would have to go back and reread it) but it was something along the lines of comparing kilograms derived on Earth with 'kilograms' derived on another world with a different G. (Did I use the example of a world with different G where they thought their 'kilograms' were correct, but ours wrong? Might have been different argument...) But the end result is always the same: How were kilograms worked out to be kilograms, if we're not to compare cucumbers to sausages?
When old Albert did the elevator trick to figure out the force to gravity equivalence, his mass was calculated from pure acceleration inside the elevator. But what if this experiment were carried out on another world where G were different? Different G would imply different inertial mass, per Equivalence, so the results would be different for same kilograms used. I suspect this is what would be expected, to be confirmed experimentally (on Mars and beyond), that the inertial mass would behave differently in a different G environment, since the gravitational constant would be inconsistantly incontinent.
Anyway, Anon, perhaps you can appreciate the dilemma here, that if G is different at other orbits around the Sun, whereby it grows (per Axiomatic Eq.) at about the rate of the Pioneer Anomaly, or about 1G per 1 AU, how do you figure what is a Newton, or kilogram, when G is different? Isn't a Newton N = m kg s^-2? So even the Newton force unit has 'kilogram' in it. How was that derived? We know how to derive kg on Earth, but how on Jupiter or Saturn? Can you see the problem of weighing sausages on Saturn with same kg? Will they be the same as weighing cucumbers on Mars?
|Posted on Friday, January 04, 2008 - 04:01 pm: |
But kgs aren't derived at all they are a base unit. Newtons are derived from kgs and meters and seconds. That's the problem with the Xian story I read in one of those links. They could use either kilogram and as long as they use it consistently everything will work either way so they're both right. Its the same as using pounds or kilograms. They both work.
|Posted on Friday, January 04, 2008 - 06:54 pm: |
They could use either kilogram and as long as they use it consistently everything will work either way so they're both right. Its the same as using pounds or kilograms. They both work.
Yeah, that's the story, the one about the Xians arguing that their kg, units defined within the parameters of their G, are the correct ones. Here's the link: http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/19206-hypothetical-variable-mass-hypo-v ariable-g.html#post432552 to the story.
But how did the Xians know their kg is correct? For that matter, how are kg derived in the first place? Is it from measurements of acceleration of mass? How is the mass calculated? Is it from gravitational displacement, or volumetric displacement, or back to acceleration again? So? How was 'kilograms' derived? And if derived on Planet X where G is different, how would inertial mass behave? Can you see the problem?
The answer, Anon, will come when you can define how 'kilograms' are defined. How are they measured to be the units they are?
|Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 - 04:56 pm: |
You have a really bad misunderstanding here. Kilograms or whatever unit of mass you want to use aren't derived! You can define them to be whatever you want which is why pounds or kilograms work just as well and why it doesn't matter if you use Xinian kg or earth kg or invent your own unit for mass. They will all work!
|Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 - 06:15 pm: |
One 'Kilo of Gold' is what?
Okay, Anon, we're not communicating here. Let's pose a puzzle for you:
If I took 1 kg of gold and moved it over to a place where G is ten times higher, what is now the kilo of gold?
Same mass, same kilo volume of gold, same number of gold molecules, but G is different, in this case X 10, and same
Equivalence principle that made Einstein famous.
So what happens to 1 kg of gold if Earth's G suddenly shifted (not real possibility, but for sake of illustration only) to be instead of 1 G (Newton's G on another planet where G is ten times) to 10 G?
Is it the same kilogram as before?
|Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 11:43 am: |
Yes it would still be a kilogram because its mass didn't change as you point out but now it weighs more.
|Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 06:40 pm: |
Yes Anon, the same kilo of gold 'weighs' more because the 'same' Earth mass planet is stronger gravitationally, so 1 kg of gold now weighs (in Newtons) 10 kgs of gold. But remember the Equivalence principle: F=ma, so that to accelerate that same kilo of gold will take more force on 10G planet than 1G planet, if the gold's inertia is proportional (equivalent) to G on 10G world. Same planet, same kilo of gold, but different G means different inertial response to force needed for same acceleration. For this reason (and we will not know for sure until we go and measure inertia equivalence in higher or lower G regions of space) empirically, the hypothesis is that 'kilograms' are not equally the same for the same mass if measured in a different G region. Newton's G is just a ratio of attraction between masses, but it also is propotional per Equivalence to the ratio of inertial mass.
Do the math:
F=ma ... for 1G
10F=10ma ... for 10G
Is m now 10 kg same as 1 kg? Or is kg 'different' on 10G planet (Earth in 10G space) if inertial mass is ten times greater per 10G? Same acceleration a but different kgs. So in higher G, at 10G, 1 kilo of gold acts 'as if' it's 10 kgs of gold!
As illustration, imagine taking 1 kg of Earth gold to Saturn (assume it's 10 G on Saturn), and it will act 'as if' it's 10 kgs of gold. Another, imagine taking a small snowball from Earth to Saturn and throw it. Is it harder to throw, or does it hurt more if hit by it? Or, take the Xian's 1 kg snowball to Earth, conversely, and throw it. Does it act like a regular 1 kg snowball, or is it more like a very light and powdery fluff ball, only 1/10th Earth's equivalent? Can you see the problem with different G? Not that it really matters, since we never found evidence that G is different in outer solar system, but if we did, there are ramifications... like why comets 'compact' deep out in space but 'fluff out' and eject mass when closer in. Just suppose...
Same mass ... your turn.
|Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 05:05 pm: |
"Do the math:
F=ma ... for 1G
10F=10ma ... for 10G"
hehe...ok I did the math. you just multiplied both sides by 10 so the math is the same. 10F=10ma is the same as 100F=100ma is the same as F=ma...
|Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 09:42 pm: |
Colossal Black Hole Shatters the Scales
Black Holes warp space and time
The most massive black hole in the universe tips the cosmic scales at 18 billion times more massive than the sun, astronomers suggest today at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society.
Even though researchers suggested black holes up to this mass might exist in quasars, this is the first direct confirmation of such a behemoth.
The hefty gravity well is six times more massive than the previous record and is orbited by a smaller black hole, which allowed the measurement of the giant's mass.
There is absolutely NO WAY such a massive galactic 'black hole' can grow to such mass of 18 billion times the mass of our Sun through mergers. This is one more anecdotal piece of evidence for ambient surrounding star energy of a galaxy feeding BH with its electromagnetic radiation at its center, where all energy lambda cancels, and maximum G takes over. Hence, it shows immense mass, something impossible to understand in a universe of flat-G, and it makes sense only in a variable G universe, as suggested by the Axiomatic Equation. ... But we're still looking...
Another anecdotal evidence of Newton's G not being same everywhere is in the discovery of 'Cosmic blue blobs' far from galaxies, which exhibit higher mass than expected for the matter there. This could be a function of lower electromagnetic hot energy environments of deep space, so the G factor is higher, but still too early to tell. Still looking...
|Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 09:48 am: |
...ok I did the math. you just multiplied both sides by 10 so the math is the same. 10F=10ma is the same as 100F=100ma is the same as F=ma...
Exactly right Anon, and this is why we all had missed it, from Newton who had no reason to assume anything other than a constant G, to Einstein. It was too simple to contemplate and not noticed until something was wrong with Pioneer Anomaly. But as more evidence is coming in from deep space, things don't fit as well, and now a variable G becomes possible.
10^6F=10^6ma is as valid as F=ma, and hence why gas and dust in deep intergalactic space acts 'as if' it is dark matter more massive than ordinary baryonic matter, by orders of magnitude. But we still need proof...
|Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 11:36 am: |
I don't see that your answer makes any sense. If theres no difference between your F=ma and the normal one then...what's the difference??? And varying G has been thought of before long ago. You should look at brans-dicke theory. But we kind of got away from my original questions about density and how you can say your theory is right and we got G wrong but we still got the masses of the planets right. You never explained that. I think you should just show how that works and I don't see any examples of how that would work on your site here :-(
|Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 06:16 pm: |
But we kind of got away from my original questions about density and how you can say your theory is right and we got G wrong but we still got the masses of the planets right. You never explained that.
Connect the dots:
- Equivalence means F=ma works like gravitational acceleration
- Newton's G is 'ratio' of gravitational acceleration between masses
- mass is measured in kilograms derived in Earth's G
- density is a function of volume and mass
- higher G makes for higher mass value in lower density
- lower G, i.e. Earth's, makes for lower mass in higher density
- Mercury has high density in low G; Pluto has low density in high G
- 'dark matter' is very high G ordinary gas and dust in deep space
- G varies per distance from star, in ours about 1G per 1 AU
- We live at 1 AU, so at 1 G
After that, dear Anon, you have to do your own homework. All we could do here is point out an observation, that deep space anomalies may be explainable, like Pioneers, by this variable G, including density anomalies for distant worlds like the gas giants (ever wonder why the gas giants atmospheres are so crisp sharp on the surface) and how molecules bind in a higher or lower G scenario (bind more in higher G, so low mass molecules hang in there, but bind less in lower G, so mostly high mass molecues remain), etc... The bottom line, if there is to be found proof of inertial mass variations in our solar system, the proof we need to make variable G mainstream, is that atoms are a product of very high max G at the nucleus, modified by e.m. energy to counter, so all that remains gravitationally of the atomic shell is very little gravity G, like Newton's G, such as we know it. Obviously, if this is to be true, in low e.m. energy regions, like intergalactic space, the atom retains a much higher remainder of max G, so its G component is higher... voila 'dark matter'! The kilogram issue is semantics, but what we call kilograms on Earth may not be the same if G is different elsewhere. Be consistent, use same G and same kg, and you can work it out... but it fooled you.
All conversation, but connect the dots, and then look for the proof, that 'inertial mass' at Saturn is nearly 10 times that on Earth, for same 'mass body'. Elementary, but this will not be mainstream until we have the proof. All talk for now, that's all.
Oh yeah, here's a nice article, which kind of dovetails: Even Thin Galaxies Pack Hefty Black Holes. How could that be? Axiomatic Eq says it must be!.. max G at center of all that e.m. energy disk.
Another resource, though still formative and inconclusive, is Wiki's Alternatives to General Relativity, as a good place to see where we're at; the Brans-Dicke theory is mentioned.
Ivan/deep space G
|Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 12:19 pm: |
One more thing, on 'deep space' gravity.
In an earlier post (April 6, 2007), on "Mining 'deep space' gravity", I had posited that intergalactic G works out to be about 5 or 6 orders of magnitudes greater than Newton's G on Earth. This then leads to the possibility, a very strong possibility, that what we observe as distant light 'redshift' is really nothing other than light coming 'out of the well' for line of sight effect, so it appears to be redshifted, as this light had to climb out of the whole line of sight 'dark matter' in deep space.
The advantage of this hypothesis is that it eliminates the need for 'dark energy' since the reason distant light redshifts in the universe is because of this 'dark matter' gravitational effect of very high G in deep space, and not due to space 'expansion', as there may be none; distant cosmic light redshifts 'gravitationally' at high G, if so. Of course, this then necessitates elimination of the Big Bang scenario, meaning the universe is not 13.7 billion years old; and that General Relativity's parameters will have to be adjusted, in a Brans-Dicke fashion with adjustable parameters, to reflect an "isotropic and homogenous" value of deep space G as being some 5 or 6 orders of magnitudes greater than our Earth's G. If such a hypothesis is acceptable on other grounds, such as MOND and Pioneer Anomaly, then a whole new revision is necessary for what we now understand as astrophysics, from why white dwarfs and neutron stars have such extreme gravity, in very high G, to why every confluence of stars radiating hot e.m. energy will form a central gravitational 'black hole' which in turn generates a radial galaxy, most often resulting in a spiral galaxy. This is how a variable G would work, though to date no such hypothesis exists, such as posited by the Axiomatic Equation. Perhaps a new field of research in physics is called for here? Intergalactic deep space may be a very different place from what we know here on the third planet from our Sun!
Doesn't a variable G change absolutely everything we now understand about astrophysics and astronomy, from comets to the structure of the universe?
|Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 12:43 am: |
I think you should just show how that works and I don't see any examples of how that would work on your site here :-(
Can you see it now, Anon? Or is it in your mind forever 'wrong' so no matter what is said, it will never make sense?
Just curious, if you can see it, or not.
|Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 09:23 pm: |
Planetary 'gotcha' with wrong (orbital) G but right mass.
This is a continuation of the above "...we got G wrong but we still got the masses of the planets right" problem, as posited by Anon. How can this be? If the above 'connect the dots' didn't explain it yet, here is one more try. Let's see it as thus:
1. Newtonian orbital mechanics are used to determine planetary mass, as in F=GMm/r^2.
2. GM factor is a constant, where G is Newton's 'ratio' and M is solar mass, as per U=GMm/r, gravity potential, where little m is planetary mass.
3. In GM, neither G nor M are variables, since they represent the Sun's influence on smaller planetary bodies m.
4. But... if little m planet is residing in different G, then its equivalence mass must be adjusted inversely, so that if gravitation is 2G, its equivalence mass is 1/2m, whereby for same acceleration in 2G we get 1/2F=1/2ma, viz. a=F/m.
5. Thus, if 1kg is taken from 2G region and flown to Earth's 1G, it will act 'as if' it is only 1/2 kg on Earth; conversely, if taking Earth's 1 kg to 2G region, it will act 'as if' it were 2 kg. (example: U=2GM*0.5m/r at planetoid's 2 AU orbit)
6. Yet, and this is the real thing where the planets got us, the orbital behavior of GM was never affected, because what we assumed to have 'measured' as little m for the planet body was determined by Newton's orbital mechanics which 'assumed' G to be constant in GM; and it was! Only little m is affected by variable G, since the Sun's mass and gravity remains constant.
7. Therefore, in F=GMm/r^2, no matter what the local G for little m, the big G for the Sun is always the same, so is M, and only difference is little m which is adjusted for local G variance; but this never shows up in the calculations because the net result is always the same, that G and little m are inversely proportional.
So in the end, it does not matter, and the planet's internal density adjusts for variable G, so at Mercury density is very high in lower G, and on Mars density is actually lower for higher G, but little m mass as a function of Sun's G is always the same. In effect, this is a planetary version of "gotcha"! Lovely, but we got fooled.
How can we know this is true? Go to Mars and scoop up what we think is 1 kg and bring it back to Earth. On Earth, it should be equivalent to 2/3 kg of mass. Or on Mercury, scoop up 1kg, and on Earth is should be equivalent to 2.5 kg. Go on, try it. The results will surprise you!
|Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 12:02 am: |
Mysterious Mercury gets a pass.
BBC Science News: Nasa spacecraft in Mercury pass
Odd little planet with water-ice at the pole, very tenuous atmosphere, hot Sun scalding surface, high metallic density, very deep cliff-hanger canyons, surprising magnetic field, and highly eccentril elliptical orbit (~0.4 AU), and precesses precipitously. Otherwise, it's just another rocky body planet of the inner solar system. What intrigues me is why for such low spin, high solar irradiance on one side but space cooling on the other, this planet can have a fast spinning iron core to generate a magnetic field? In the hypothesis that every hot planet has a micro-black hole core center surround by hot fluid mantle, which spins fast at the core but loses angular momentum at core radius, it might make sense that Mercury has a slow overall spin but fast micro-interior spinning micro-black hole generating what super Black Holes generate, lots of magnetic energy. But this is pure guess work, don't know about micro-black hole core centers, since off the charts in science, and look forward to 2011 when real data comes in from Messenger in orbit at Mercury.
For now it's just 'making a pass.'
NASA/APL real time Mercury cam Flyby 1
|Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 12:24 am: |
Greetings Ivan, Forum Participants,
Not sure this post should be in this section of the Forum, but it does not seem there is an active forum whereas it would be more appropriate; therefore, Ivan … if you think it is out of place here, please post it wherever you deem suitable.
After a several year absence due to other affairs in need of tending, the decision made to again visit old friends on the Internet, whose continued encouragement pushed me to do, instead of merely talking about doing. Thereof, I developed a methodology of proving a systematic Axiom presentation methinks could possibly be … irrefutable. However I am not that full of myself whereas, only other people of similar interests will honestly do the verification necessary to validate the systematic proofs required before publication of the paper, which is presently in the outline process.
This has not been a simplistic endeavor, and has been ongoing since before 1993, with a single saved proof first published sometime during the year 2000 with a time stamp then of Thursday, October 19, 2000, 4:35:44 PM.
The link to that paper is … http://www.whitesnet.com/Life.html.
My original concept was to establish the system, I must first prove an Axiom that could, and would withstand every argument a human being could devise. That Axiom is:
The beginning has no end
The end has no beginning
From that single axiom the system was very slow to formulate, with several thousands of honest attempts to remove Science from mathematical equations into the realm of honest study based on an undeniable fact: The Universe does not function in Digital fashion. It is absolutely analogous in Function, methodology, means, order; and delivers events that seem to be unexplainable, and with no apparent cause or purpose.
From those thoughts what I believe is the ultimate axiom resulted, which follows:
There is no beginning
There is no ending
Logical argument: If there is no beginning, and no ending … the conclusion is obvious; everything, it, entity, act, event, cause, effect, reason, purpose, need, proves only that as is known as:
Everything that is … is a Continuum
Prove to me, a beginning
Prove to me, an ending
Do either here on this forum, and I will logically prove your … error of logic … using Perfect Logic, which is not based on numerical iterations, calculations, but is based on the system I patented, trademarked, copyrighted, and will eventually publish for use by people everywhere.
|Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 10:10 am: |
My original concept was to establish the system, I must first prove an Axiom that could, and would withstand every argument a human being could devise. That Axiom is:
The beginning has no end
The end has no beginning
Welcome Jim, it's been years. Nice to hear from you again with this interesting concept. I will repost it again under another thread, Concepts, misconceptions, and Principles of Belief, so it can also be discussed there, as this Axiom is both a scientific idea as well as philosophical, in principle.
|Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 07:28 pm: |
Oh the problem here is your wrong in #2 because you don't know how the mass of the planets is figured out. That is the cause of the confusion I think. You'll probably say that's not true so you should just show how to calculate the mass of a planet using Newton and then how you do it with your idea like i've been asking and then we will see the problem.
|Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 10:31 pm: |
You'll probably say that's not true so you should just show how to calculate the mass of a planet using Newton and then how you do it with your idea like i've been asking and then we will see the problem.
In answer, Anon, see the above link (Lunatik, an alias, my old post on BAUT), and then follow links from there. Then show where the GM is wrong, if you would kindly. Thanks.
|Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 11:41 am: |
I think the equasion is the right one but I think in #2 you are using it wrong. I went to the link and read most of the posts but I didn't see anything about figuring out the masses of the planets but maybe you can point out the posts you mean. Also I don't know what you mean by 'show where the GM is wrong' but what's funny is that's kind of my point about mass and density . I mean I think GM is right either way so if your saying G is higher then we think then to me M is lower then we think which was my point. Its OK to be wrong about stuff but you should just show how you think mass is figured for the planets and then we can see and it will save us lots of typing ha ha.
|Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 06:56 pm: |
I mean I think GM is right either way so if your saying G is higher then we think then to me M is lower then we think which was my point.
That's right, if, and I mean "if" G is wrong, then kg has to be adjusted for this reason, exactly for this reason, GM.
In the end, it all comes down to G. What is it at other orbitals? The rest is elementary. Mass is mass, it all depends upon what kg you are using to measure it, but the mass does not change, even if G is different for each orbit, because GM rules.
But if this is true, of necessity, kg must be adjusted. Can you see that?
|Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 08:28 pm: |
Hypothetical conundrum in G and kg.
Okay Anon, I think I may have a solution to our problem here, since we seem to be walking in circles, and one of us is lost.
Imagine this conundrum: You take a bucket of ice and snow from Earth to Saturn's orbit, say to its moon Titan, and when it gets there, at about 10 G equivalence, it acts 'as if' it were a bucket of rock and sand, so it takes ten times force to move its inertial mass. But when you bring back that same bucket of ice and snow to Earth, it's back again to being the same mass kg it started out with. No loss of mass, same mass, same bucket of snow and ice, but its inertial mass, or physical weight if you wish, had changed at 10 G. So here's the problem: when on Titan, what kg were you using to describe this bucket's 'same' mass?
Can you see the conundrum in this hypothetical, if G is different? What kg do you use? If you measure the bucket 'as if' it were rock and sand, it now weighs about 10 kg... but... it's the same mass! Can you see the problem? How would you resolve it??
Mind, btw, Titan's atmosphere is largely nitrogen, like Earth's, and though Titan is smaller than Earth, and much colder, its atmosphere is some ten times as tall as Earths. In a variable G, it might make sense, and also why the gas giants have such large atmospheres, etc. F=ma and GM are still operative, but at what kg?
Anyway, what kg would we use on Titan for that bucket of ice and snow, if it acts at 10 G 'as if' it were a bucket of rock and sand?
|Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 09:46 pm: |
Invisible Matter Mapped in Space
This is dark matter confirmed, gravitationally, but not confirmed anywhere near here... but..
Ivan/dark matter G
|Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 10:30 am: |
'Dark matter' is structure of the universe?
Thanks Igno for reference to this article. We're closing in on gravity of 'dark matter' effect. From article:
"Hubble Space Telescope map shows the four clumps of dark matter"
It's all these gravitational effects, from something that can't be seen, that indicates dark matter exists.
"The dark matter halos are what allow the galaxies to form in the first place. The dark matter is the underlying skeleton of the universe," said Meghan Gray of the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom, who was part of the map-making team. "Most of the universe is dark matter. Galaxies are just froth on this ocean of dark matter."
So is it really some exotic matter that is 'dark matter', or is it simply non-luminous higher G, much higher G, ordinary matter in low radiant energy space, cold space? The scientific jury is still out. ... But I've got my hunches... "Galaxies are just froth on this ocean of dark matter," is just simply hot radiant energy rich (lower G) galaxies in a sea of cold (high G) dark matter.... Any takers on this?
Here is latest take on finding intergalactic 'dark matter': Giant Dark Matter Bridge Between Galaxy Clusters Discovered - Space.com, July 2012
Also see: Why Dark Matter 'appears' non-baryonic
|Posted on Saturday, January 19, 2008 - 01:10 pm: |
Titan QUIZ trick question for Anon: If, per above hypothetical...
... What would happen if you took a bucket of rock and sand from Titan and moved it over to Earth? What's its density?
Anyway, what kg would we use on Titan for that bucket of ice and snow, if it acts at 10 G 'as if' it were a bucket of rock and sand?
Also see Titan: "The rocks you can see in the picture are solid water."
Hint... think snow. Or better, think comets 'gassing out'.
|Posted on Monday, January 21, 2008 - 10:11 pm: |
"That's right, if, and I mean "if" G is wrong, then kg has to be adjusted for this reason, exactly for this reason, GM."
Ummmm...no if G is wrong then since G is used to compute M the M is wrong also. So if G is 10x higher then we think that makes an M we computed 10x lower then we thought. Its pretty simple actually so I don't know why you want or think you need to mess with the units.
|Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 09:50 am: |
Anon, see Axiomatic Eq. treatment of variable-G and hypo-variable kg in the paper here: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/166.html
(see if lambda shows in Greek, l, if not try using Netscape navigator, or it's hard to read equation)
and then you'll understand that G is not wrong for GM, since it is the 1G at 1AU we used to calculate ALL the mass in our solar system, galaxy, universe, etc. But that is where we are now, and in the future, when we test for G as a function of hot solar radiance with distance from the star we will discover that G is not a straight arrow of universal constant, but more like a straight arrow of climbing constant at the rate of about 1G per 1AU. Nothing special about that, just go out there and measure it! What's the inertial mass at 10 AU? Easy. Pioneers are already giving us a nice clue, out there.
Cheers, nice to chat. Ivan
|Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 12:11 pm: |
I think there are some problems with your theory like with the density of the planets and not being able use your theory to compute the masses of the planets and other things that we didn't get to. I hoped to get some answers to my questions but I guess not. oh well good luck but I don't think you will get very far if you don't want to answer questions from people who are interested. I think maybe your just trying to confuse people if you don't know the answers but I think you should try to learn more about things like how to calculate masses using newton and then you can make your theory better.
|Posted on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 - 06:19 pm: |
I think there are some problems with your theory like with the density of the planets and not being able use your theory to compute the masses of the planets and other things that we didn't get to. I hoped to get some answers to my questions but I guess not.
Thanks Anon for your interest. I hope I made myself clear that until we go and measure G away from Earth's 1 AU, we are only speculating on possibilities. Measuring mass using GM gave us workable numbers, but is that the whole story? Then why are some planetary densities so weird, especially gas giants' atmospheres? However, you remain unconvinced, and perhaps 'unconvinceable', so really can't say anything else to help you here.
Have you tried exploring this idea of a variable G and mass density on some other forums, such as BAUT or some physics forums? It might be interesting to see what happens.
All the best, Ivan
|Posted on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 - 11:46 pm: |
Pluto's density is....?
We now have Pluto's density calculated as 1750 kg/m^3, which is a function D=M/V, or density equals mass divided by volume, which is a fairly simple thing to derive. In his Astronomy Notes, Nick Strobel, has a chapter called "Determining Planet Properties", which shows the formulations and reference table on the planets by NASA. All pretty straightforward, so with a calculation for planet's volume, V=4/3*pi*R^3, and knowing the planet's mass M per GM of the Sun, and planet's velocity, there should be no difficulty in calculating the planet's density D. All this had been done, and why there are tables showing it.
The whole issue of density however had been something of a mystery, since density of the gas giant atmospheres, or Saturn moon Titan's atmosphere, or high metallic density of Mercury, all offer something of a mystery. In a non-variable G, where Newton's G is a universal constant, the mystery remains what it always had been, and in fact not at all a mystery, since we assumed everything from mass to density was calculated correctly. And it was, for those conditions of a non-variable G. The difficulty of working with a variable version of G, if such is to be found true in other orbits around the Sun, is that some of these mysterious factors may be ascribed to such variability, as opposed to some mysterious factors of those distant bodies. In effect, a variable G may handily explain why these odd planets and moons, and perhaps comets, are the way they are.
So what is Pluto's density, if Newton's G were to be found to be about 40X the level of Earth's known G? Numerically, or at least nominally, it would still be the same, viz. 1750 kg/m^3, and why wouldn't it? It is simply a numerical relationship of D=M/V, which is approx. M=1.25E+22 kg and V=0.715E+10 km^3, so it all works out. However, and this is the trouble with having a variable G, the actual density acts 'as if' it were different from the numbers arrived. In Pluto's case, the density would then act 'as if' the large dirty snowball of Pluto were of higher 'density' than it reads. So though Pluto's density is about 1/3 of Earth's, and the planetoid is about 0.002 mass of Earth, it would act gravitationally as if it were a more massive body locally, so that though of extremely small mass it can still manage to attract and hold an atmosphere. The only way to understand this, unless the atmosphere is made of some unknown and exceptionally heavy gas, given that Pluto's mass, M=0.0125E+24 kg, is about 1/5th of our local Moon's, m=0.073E+24 kg, it is 'as if' the molecular 'weight' gravitationally in a higher G, ~40X, better holds together out there than here. And that is a 'density' issue for the atmosphere, and by extension, also for the physical body itself, which may be made up of snow and ice, but acts 'as if' it were made up of ice and rock, or such. Though, the numbers work out the same!
It's not the numerical, or nominal, density ratio, as mass and volume, that is what is at issue at Pluto, and all planets, but how that 'density' acts 'as if' in the variable G scenario. Sure, all the numbers work out the same... THEY HAVE TO... though the 'local' derived kilograms would give us a different story, of necessity. But the EFFECTS of those numbers are NOT the same, because G is not the same. So if G is 5 or 10 times greater on Jupiter and Saturn, and greater still on Uranus and Neptune, it acts 'as if' the density of the planets rocky core, if there is one, and its surrounding gaseous atmosphere, were much 'heavier' than the numbers show. Hence, Jupiter with a rocky core about three times the size of Earth can hold an atmosphere 'as if' it were made up of a rocky core 15X times the size of Earth. The small rocky planets till Mars have very small atmospheres, while the gas giants have great atmospheres, and that is how the density issue manifests itself. The calculations for density remain unaffected. What is affected is how those density numbers play out in the planetary formations, especially their atmospheres. So Pluto can have an atmosphere, and Titan's 10X as tall as Earth's, but none of this makes sense, or can make sense, unless if, and only if, the Newton's G is a variable, growing with distance from the Sun. The Pioneers spaceprobes leaving our solar system acted 'as if' they were being dragged back by a growing inertial mass of about 1G per 1 AU, or slightly less. That is what is significant, not how we calculated 'density', which is just a numerical ratio of mass and volume. The hypothesis of a variable G, and not a universal constant, has much anecdotal evidence in the universe, from comets gassing out close in, to flattening galaxy rotation curves far out. But this is something we must not ignore because it does not fit our current understanding of gravitational physics. Einstein and Lorenzian transformations aside, we have much good physics and future explorations to be done.
BTW, here is an image of Mercury's 'metallicity' in how the ancient bombardments left their imprints on the planet. Note how these look more like 'bullets' hitting lead than what we see on our Moon. We once had an old pickup truck with bullet holes in it, back when we lived in New Mexico (I won't go into how they go there), and the ones that didn't penetrate through the Ford Tough metal plate looked a lot like those 'craters' on Mercury.
Mercury's ridges and cliffs, and 'bullet hole' craters
|Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 09:48 am: |
Gyros spin up, spin down, at AUs as a test for Newton's G.
In thinking about this some more, I think the best way to test for variable G at different AUs is to watch for gyroscope spin ups and spin downs. We may already have some evidence from the Huygens Mars probes. But it may be a good idea to design a specific test for this phenomenon, where the force, F=ma per gravitional Equivalence, is calculated for gyro spin ups and downs, where the experiment is designated for this phenomenon, perhaps at LaGrange points to eliminate other gravitational factors while in orbit at varying AUs. It's just a thought... on how to test for variable G in our solar system.
|Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 01:50 pm: |
“and knowing the planet's mass M per GM of the Sun, and planet's velocity”
Ivan this is wrong! The GM of the sun is not used to figure out the mass of the planets and this is what I was talking about when I said you didn’t know the right way to figure out a planet’s mass! The big M in the equation your using is the planets mass not the suns which is why I guessed that you were using it wrong and I was right! Whats weird is that the article in the link you posted explains this so I don’t know why you posted a link to an article you didn’t read but you should read it and learn something!! Anyway because you don’t understand the right way to figure out the masses is why you aren’t able to do it and why you won’t post how to do it just like I thought…haha. You should read that article and learn the right way to do it and then post the results here so you can see what I’ve been trying to tell you for so long.
|Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 06:09 pm: |
Your turn, Anon, on how to calculate planet's mass. ha ha
Anyway because you don’t understand the right way to figure out the masses is why you aren’t able to do it and why you won’t post how to do it just like I thought…haha.
Please educate me with an example. Thanks.
Oh, btw, I know GM's M is not the Sun's (I may have said it wrong above?) when computing planet's orbits. But do show how, if you will.
|Posted on Thursday, January 24, 2008 - 06:26 pm: |
Comets more like asteroids?
(click to enlarge)
Comet Wild 2 image from Stardust spacecraft
in the article "Comet samples are surpisingly asteroid-like", it says that aside from some apparent contamination in samples collected by NASA Stardust mission, there appears to be comet material more akin to the inner solar system then the Kuiper Belt and beyond. This makes this comet more 'asteroid' like, though it did 'gas out' when closer into the Sun. As it says:
I agree with Ishii's first hypothesis, that Wild 2 was made up of stuff that drifted from the inner solar system carried by solar wind, and that at the far reaches away from the Sun, where gravity G may be higher than here, this stuff 'stuck' to the drifting comet body. When it reaches closer in again, at lower G, it then 'un-sticks' this stuff, so it shows up as a cometary coma. All very neat and clean, which kind of makes widely elliptical comets act like 'dust collectors' vacuum cleaners of our solar system, to then empty out near the Sun, and start the journey out all over again.
The picture that emerges is that Wild 2 appears to be "kind of an asteroid-like comet", Ishii told New Scientist. Wild 2 may have formed in the outer solar system from material that had drifted there from the inner solar system, she says. Alternatively, the object itself could have formed closer to the Sun and then migrated outwards later, she says.
Wild 2 should still be considered a comet, she adds, because it is throwing off gas and dust as ice on its surface evaporates in sunlight. But she says the new findings bolster the view that there is no sharp dividing line between comets and asteroids. "This is a good indication that there is a continuum between asteroids and comets," she says.
I think comets with wide ellipticals should be studied in great depth, in particular as to how true they are to their Newtonian orbits at aphelion. We know where they are closer in to perihelion, but do we really know where they are out there in Pioneer Anomaly land? That would be a worthy study, to know for sure where they are... out there.
|Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 12:01 pm: |
You said 'I know GM's M is not the Sun's (I may have said it wrong above?) when computing planet's orbits.' but you DO use the sun's GM to compute planets orbits! You DON'T use the sun's GM when figuring out a planets MASS which is why you haven't been able to figure it out before when asked you to work it out. You should go back and read that article and get all the stuff straight and then you can figure out the masses right and see the density problem I was talking about.
|Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 06:06 pm: |
No no, Anon, not a answer. YOU show how to get planet's mass, and then we go to next step.
|Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 09:30 pm: |
Why do I have to show examples and you don't even though I asked over and over for an example and you never showed one? Besides its your theory so you should be showing me how it works. But I will show you how to figure out the masses of the planets if you admit you were doing it wrong.
|Posted on Friday, January 25, 2008 - 11:42 pm: |
Put up or shut up. Either you have something to offer, or stop playing games, it's immature. Really, what is your point?
But I will show you how to figure out the masses of the planets if you admit you were doing it wrong.
Did anything make sense to you here, or are you spinning our wheels? I asked you a question you failed to answer above, and explained how density works for Pluto, again above, and all you can do is come back with some silly drivel about 'who is wrong'? That's stupidity at its best, and stop it. And answer the question:
"Anyway, what kg would we use on Titan for that bucket of ice and snow, if it acts at 10 G 'as if' it were a bucket of rock and sand?"
What is your answer, please.
|Posted on Saturday, January 26, 2008 - 12:44 am: |
Ps: To Anon, I repeat, since you are not helping with any useful information here:
Have you tried exploring this idea of a variable G and mass density on some other forums, such as BAUT or some physics forums? It might be interesting to see what happens.
Thanks for your interest, but either answer the above question, which requires not calculations but simple logic, or get yourself over to another discussion group. I do not tolerate fools easily!
So... besides telling us that my "theory" is wrong, what else have you contributed to the thought process on this discussion about variable G? Have you added anything else of value to disprove my "hypothesis" in all the above posts? It is only a hypothesis, and not a theory, as I stated earlier until such time that we measure for Newton's G away from Earth's 1 AU. And that is the simple truth, and until we do this all the 'anecdotal' evidence which happens to approximate the hypothesis of a variable G is up for inerpretation as best we understand modern physics and the universe. But add a meaningful idea to this, not mere criticism, and perhaps you can add something of value. So... either answer the question posed to you, or contribute elsewhere with your 'I dont like it' messages.
So, Anon (aka ?), either add something of value or desist.
|Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 12:52 am: |
Mass must be adjusted: Back to Sept. 4th, 2007, post: Jupiter's mass.
In the above I wrote:
We don't know about the possible rocky core planets for gas giants, though radar observations of Jupiter give it a rocky core about two to three times Earth's. But at this time this is still inconclusive. For such a small rocky core to attract such a massive atmosphere as Jupiter has (where its G is about 5 times Earth's) would require that the small rocky core exhibit gravitational density of about 10-15 times Earth's mass, which would fit rather well. In fact, this gravitational mass is estimated as such.
For argument's sake, let's call Jupiter's rocky core about 3 Earth masses, and let's call G at 5.2 AU, as 5G. (This is a hypothetical exercise, not proving my "theory", and trying to understand how things would work in a non-universally-constant Newton's G.) So if one kilogram of mass on Earth is taken to Jupiter, it would now become equivalent to 5 kg, but in the larger body at 3X Earth's, it then acts as if the atmospshere is being held down by 15 kg equivalent; hence Jupiter has a vast atmosphere, whereas Earth has a very thin atmosphere. Now, if at 5G, per Einstein's Equivalence principle (which had been very well tested), is the Earth's total molecular mass (summing all the molecules on Earth), equivalent to 1/3 rd total molecular mass on Jupiter? Yes, if Jupiter's core is 3X Earth's rocky planet. So counting summation of all of Jupiter's molecules, they should be about 3X Earth's summation of molecules. But that is not how it works out, since Jupiter's rocky mass is about 15 times Earths! So it can only mean that for 3X Earth's molecular summation (assuming molecular composition for rocky planet core are similar), the Jupiter equivalent is now 15X !!!
What does this mean? If we are comparing mass to mass, the only difference should be that one is three times larger; but if we are comparing mass to gravitational equivalence, and Jupiter's is not three times but 15 times, then there can be only one possible condition to satisfy this, that Jupiter is in a 5G region of our solar system, so 3 times 5 gives an Earth equivalent mass of 15 Earths. This is the only possible way it could work. Now comes a new problem. Those 3X Earth equivalent molecules on Jupiter, are they measured with Earth's kilograms? But the result is off by a factor of 5, so it cannot be Earth's kilograms, unless we magically accept that what was mass on Earth now is 5 times greater on Jupiter. But why would it? Same mass, just three times larger. (This is the old bucket of snow and ice trick, where on Saturn it is more like a bucket of rock and sand, but it's the same mass!) So how to measure, if Earth's mass is 5 times itself on Jupiter? And what if one takes the '5 times' and Jupiter and brings it back to Earth? It's 'one time' again. So simple divisional equivalence is (for any math challenged people, this should still be easy) means that if you take 1 kg on Jupiter, its equivalent on Earth is only 1/5th kg. So what?... So they're different!!!!
Either you accept that in a different (non-Newton-universal) G scenario the mass at higher G is greater, so using same kilograms you must now calculate higher mass as multiples in kg (though it is the SAME mass), or you must accept that if it is the same kg mass calculated in a higher G, then the kilograms must be adjusted for the difference. Maybe this is a 'mind bender' because we are not used to thinking this way, but it is a condition that MUST be resolved one way or the other. But whose mass do you use? That depends upon where kilograms are taken from.
The actual calculation of mass of Jupiter and other planets had been well done, there are tables showing these masses in relation to Earth's mass, so calculating it again (as Anon wants to do) is immaterial. WE KNOW WHAT THOSE MASSES ARE. What is material is how to treat their masses respective to their variable G (hypothetically) if it is found by evidence empirically that in fact G is different elsewhere. That is the whole issue, and not whether or not we got masses right. Of course we did, for Earth's 1 kg equivalent. And on Jupiter, the (rocky core) mass is about 15 times Earth's. But how can that be if Jupiter's gravitational rocky core is only about 2 or 3 Earth masses? And how could such a small amount of rocky core hold such a massive atmosphere? Well... at 5G, it makes sense.
[I only posted this as an explanation, not to 'prove' a hypothesis, but to explain how a variable G would work. However, until we test for Newton's G and measure it outside 1G at 1 AU, we cannot know any of this if true or false. The 'proof' of this hypothesis will only be falsifiable if we empirically TEST for G outside 1 AU.]
|Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2008 - 12:45 pm: |
Jupiter's core is still an open question: http://www.astrobio.net/news/print.php?sid=127
Jupiter (interactive) link
Figuring mass and volume, and density of the planets in solar system:
[Please note: Jupiter's TOTAL mass is some 318 times Earth's mass, while its rocky core is only some 15 times (though only about 3 Earth sizes, see below), yet it retains so huge an atmosphere that the atmosphere takes on an additional effect where it holds itself gravitationally.]
Here is link to 'how to figure Jupiter's mass' with Kepler's equations relating to Sun, moon around Jupiter, and periodicity: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/questions-finding-Jupiter-Mass.htm#b (where the problem is worked out for you)
Another more formal page is here: http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~tss/ASTR410/Kelley04/jupmass.html (which talks about orbital period and radius of satellite moon)
Jupiter's rocky core is about 15 Earth masses: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec19.html
At the very center of Jupiter is a small (15 Earth masses) rocky core, leftover from the icy dust particles that originally collected in the early solar nebula.
Size of Jupiter's rocky core (from radar study) shows it is about 2-3 Earths: http://www.solstation.com/stars/jupiter.htm
According to astronomer Geoffrey W. Marcy (Astronomy, October 2006), The planet appears to have a rocky core of around three Earth-masses.
[Note, all these ASSUME a Newton's G at Earth's 1 AU to be UNIVERSAL, so all figures for mass are based on this assumption. Changing the local G at different AU does not change the calculations for mass, except in local G terms, where it must be expressed with a different local 'kilogram' as explained above. But mass is mass regardless of how expressed, it remains the same body, so same mass.]
Here is a Science magazine article (2001) about how large planets like Jupiter likely formed: Birth of a Giant: How Did Jupiter Get So Big? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/jupiter_origins_010517-1.html
Another puzzling article (2005) on Jupiter's formation: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_050307.html
One problem is that data from the spacecraft Galileo seem to imply that the solid core of Jupiter is less than three Earth masses. Accretion models require a core of at least 10 Earth masses, Boss said.
Juno's mission to Jupiter, 2011: http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3783 (may resolve some Jupiter controversies)
|Posted on Thursday, January 31, 2008 - 01:57 pm: |
Ok so here's an example. The equation to use is M = rv2 / G where r is the orbital radius of a moon and v is the orbital velocity of that moon (which you can figure out by knowing it’s orbital period and radius). So knowing that Titan has an orbital radius of about 1.22 x 109 and has an orbital velocity of about 5580 m/s and knowing G is 6.67 x 10-11 using Newton then you can plug in the values and figure out Saturn’s mass which is M.
M = 1.22 x 109 x 3.11 x 107 / 6.67 x 10-11 = 5.70 x 1026kg
Ok so now you have your example so how would this work with your hypothesis?
|Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 12:01 am: |
Exactly why kg must be adjusted for G.
Thanks Anon for the illustration, with numbers, so we can see it in action at Saturn's 'equivalence' mass. Sorry I snapped earlier, really hate to lose my cool, but you ignored my request to answer the question.
"Anyway, what kg would we use on Titan for that bucket of ice and snow, if it acts at 10 G 'as if' it were a bucket of rock and sand?"
The answer is straighforward, as your illustration will show. In yours above:
Ok so here's an example. The equation to use is M = rv2 / G where r is the orbital radius of a moon and v is the orbital velocity of that moon (which you can figure out by knowing it’s orbital period and radius). So knowing that Titan has an orbital radius of about 1.22 x 109 and has an orbital velocity of about 5580 m/s and knowing G is 6.67 x 10-11 using Newton then you can plug in the values and figure out Saturn’s mass which is M.
M = 1.22 x 109 x 3.11 x 107 / 6.67 x 10-11 = 5.70 x 1026kg
Ok so now you have your example so how would this work with your hypothesis?
In the original calculations for variable G affecting variable mass, I arrived at Saturn's at 9.5 AU (see #2.6 in paper) as having G=~68.5E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. This is roughly ~10.27X Earth's G=6.67E-11, so let's call it 10 G for brevity. So on Titan, as per your example, where velocity and orbital radius are known, the M for Saturn works out as known, M_saturn = 5.69E+26 kg. This is very close to the Saturn fact sheet's M=568.46E+24 kg, or ~M=5.685E+26 kg. So what happens if G is 10.27X at Saturn's orbit versus Earth's orbit? Here are the numbers, and why that question I asked you is so important, because it is more than anecdotal.
M = rv^2/G, so that at Saturn's (and Titan's) 10X G' we have M = (1.22E+9*3.11E+7)/ 68.5E-11, which works out to be: M'= 5.54E+25 kg. But is this not an order of magnitude lower than the known mass? Yes, of course it is, when using Earth's kg. So you must use Saturn's kg', which is in this case x10.27 Earth's kg in order to arrive at the correct mass. Multiply 5.54E+25 by 10.27, and you get M=5.69E+26 kg., as a 'local kg' adjusted mass within a 10X G orbit or Saturn and its moons.
What does this mean? It means just as the above 'question' suggests, and as anecdotal evidence from Huygens landing on Titan suggests: that ice and snow on Earth acts 'as if' it is made of sand and rock on Titan. (I don't have exact reference, but scientists were 'puzzled' to find what appeared as granular ice on Titan act upon impact as if it were sand and rock.) This is naturally puzzling in a flat-G universe, but it makes great sense in a variable G universe. The calculations we arrived at using Earth's derived kg and a flat-G for mass of distant bodies works out fine, but only in Earth's derived kg; when measured in local kg' based upon equivalent G, the results must be then refigured in local terms to arrive at same mass for same body.
So taking a bucket of ice and snow from Earth to Titan will make it act 'as if' (at 10X G equivalence) its mass is ten times, more like sand and rock, but it is not ten times when figured in Titan's equivalence kg', since it cannot be a different mass... it's the same mass! And that means only one thing is possible here: Titan's 'kilogram' equivalence at 10 G is 1/10th of Earth's, which means on Titan it is 10X times Earth's kg. And that further means, of necessity, that if you take a 1 Titan-kg bucket of 'sand and rock' from Titan's region, where it appears 'as if' it is granular ice, when it comes back into Earth's 1G region, it is once again a bucket of ice and snow, which in Earth's 1/10th G equivalence, it is once again 1 kilogram, but only in Earth-kg. It's the same mass.
Now, nobody needs to agree with this, and I am not making these illustrations to convince anyone that my 'theory' is right. I honestly don't know, and can't know until such time we go and measure for Newton's G gravitational value at orbital regions outside Earth's. But if we do find it to be so, that G is different elsewhere, then we must learn to adjust kilograms if the nature of our discoveries on distant worlds are to make any kind of sense. Which also means that if we are to preserve Equivalence of gravity and acceleration, as proven by Einstein et al empirically, that mass and gravity are related, then the measure of mass must be adjusted for variable G; otherwise, if the mass actually increased in higher G, such as the bucket of ice example, then obviously Equivalence is then broken. We don't know as yet, and the proof of this argument is not in my measuring Saturn's mass but in actually measuring G at Titan's orbital location, or other orbits. What are Newton's G at all planetary orbits?
BTW, does this satisfy Anon's request for showing how it works? Only Anon can answer that, and also the question posed to him earlier:
What's your answer, Anon?
"Anyway, what kg would we use on Titan for that bucket of ice and snow, if it acts at 10 G 'as if' it were a bucket of rock and sand?"
|Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 11:54 am: |
I don't really understand the question since I would use the same kilogram where ever I went. You keep saying the kg is 'derived on Earth' but it isn't derived because it is a base unit so someone just picked it to be what it is just like the meter and it doesn't depend on G or anything else any more then the meter does. But anyway I don't think you will be convinced by that so the question I really want to ask now is what do you figure the surface gravity for Saturn is? That is figured using Newton by the equation g = GM / r2 with r being the radius of Saturn and M being the mass of Saturn and G being well G whatever that is…haha. Can you show what you get for that?
|Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 06:02 pm: |
Nope, Anon. You answer me first, before we engage in more discussions on surface gravity, etc. It's all the same, same mass, same gravity. And if you don't understand, then I will accept that.
Wiki's definition of mass, as a unit of 'inertial' property first, weight second.
So what happens to 'inertial mass' under variable G conditions? Third request, to please answer my question.
The kilogram is a unit of mass, the measurement of which corresponds to the general, everyday notion of how “heavy” something is. However, mass is actually an inertial property; that is, the tendency of an object to remain at constant velocity unless acted upon by an outside force. An object with a mass of one kilogram will accelerate at one meter per second squared (about one-tenth the acceleration due to Earth’s gravity) when acted upon by a force of one newton (symbol: N).
While the weight of matter is entirely dependent upon the strength of local gravity, the mass of matter is constant (assuming it is not traveling at a relativistic speed with respect to an observer). Accordingly, for astronauts in microgravity, no effort is required to hold objects off the cabin floor; they are “weightless.” However, since objects in microgravity still retain their mass, an astronaut must exert ten times as much force to accelerate a 10-kilogram object at the same rate as a 1-kilogram object.
Think about it, and when you found clarity, get back.
|Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 07:12 pm: |
You would say that inertial mass varies with G if that's the question you mean. Now can you show me what you figure Saturn's surface gravity to be?
|Posted on Friday, February 01, 2008 - 10:20 pm: |
Now can you show me what you figure Saturn's surface gravity to be?
Anon, this is my fourth request:
Answer my question... or you are BANNED.
|Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 09:00 am: |
If its not the one I answered then I really don't know what question you mean but if you tell me I will answer it if I can.
|Posted on Saturday, February 02, 2008 - 12:46 pm: |
In Principia Gravitas - why kilograms must be adjusted for G, why light redshifts at 1 z, and why Boltzmann constant is important in Earth's 1G at 1 AU, etc.
I added a sub-section to the Table of Contents in "Some Questions on Cosmology and Modern Physics" to show the progression, in descending order, of how the 'variable G' was derived, in brief. Please clink link above and scroll down. Additional links are in the text.
|Posted on Friday, February 15, 2008 - 10:13 am: |
Matsumoto's 'rotating plasma' simulation - continued from "Deep Space Science" (June 24,2007) post.
From original paper:
We developed a three-dimensional global simulator of astrophysical rotational plasma which strongly interact with magnetic fields. The simulator consists of modules plugged-in to a platform of parallelized magneto-hydrodynamical code. High vector-parallel performance has been achieved for modules incorporating magnetic diffusion, thermal conduction, and self-gravity.
By applying the simulator to astrophysical disks, we showed that magnetic turbulence generated inside the torus efficiently transports angular momentum outward and enables accretion of the disk plasma. Furthermore, we successfully reproduced the 1/f noise-like X-ray time variability characteristic of black hole candidates, and well-collimated, bipolar jets.
Here is are follow up papers by Toshihiro Kawaguchi, Ryoji Matsumoto et al:
Global Simulations of Differentially Rotating Magnetized Disks: Formation of Low-B Filaments and Structured Coronae
Temporal 1/f^\alpha Fluctuations from Fractal Magnetic Fields in Black Hole Accretion Flow
They seem to have re-created conditions in the laboratory simulating 'black hole' conditions with polar energy jets and magnetic flux instabilities such as found on the surface of the Sun. Further implications of 'self gravity' would indicate that solar bodies may have central mini-black-hole conditions, as predicted by the Axiomatic Equation. All still little understood, however.
Also see: Why UFOs glow with plasma
|Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2008 - 01:49 pm: |
NASA Baffled by Unexplained Force Acting on Space Probes
Oops! Somethin's not right in space.
Mysteriously, five spacecraft that flew past the Earth have each displayed unexpected anomalies in their motions.
These newfound enigmas join the so-called "Pioneer anomaly" as hints that unexplained forces may appear to act on spacecraft.
A decade ago, after rigorous analyses, anomalies were seen with the identical Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft as they hurtled out of the solar system. Both seemed to experience a tiny but unexplained constant acceleration toward the sun.
A host of explanations have been bandied about for the Pioneer anomaly. At times these are rooted in conventional science — perhaps leaks from the spacecraft have affected their trajectories. At times these are rooted in more speculative physics — maybe the law of gravity itself needs to be modified.
Now Jet Propulsion Laboratory astronomer John Anderson and his colleagues — who originally helped uncover the Pioneer anomaly — have discovered that five spacecraft each raced either a tiny bit faster or slower than expected when they flew past the Earth en route to other parts of the solar system.
The researchers looked at six deep-space probes — Galileo I and II to Jupiter, the NEAR mission to the asteroid Eros, the Rosetta probe to a comet, Cassini to Saturn, and the MESSENGER craft to Mercury. Each spacecraft flew past the our planet to either gain or lose orbital energy in their quests to reach their eventual targets.
In five of the six flybys, the scientists have confirmed anomalies.
"I am feeling both humble and perplexed by this," said Anderson, who is now working as a retiree. "There is something very strange going on with spacecraft motions. We have no convincing explanation for either the Pioneer anomaly or the flyby anomaly."
"We should continue to monitor spacecraft during Earth flybys. We should look carefully at newly recovered Pioneer data for more evidence of the Pioneer anomaly," Anderson added. "We should think about launching a dedicated mission on an escape trajectory from the solar system, just to look for anomalies in its motion."
Montana State University physicist Ronald Hellings, who did not participate in this study, said, "There's definitely something going on. Whether that's because of new physics or some problem with the model we have is yet to be worked out, as far as I know. A lot of people are trying to look into this."
Something is not quite right with 'gravitational' physics out there. But then readers on these forums have a fairly good clue as to why. Still, it is merely anecdotal evidence, not yet the real thing... stay tuned.
|Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2008 - 11:54 pm: |
Anisotropy of kg/kg mass.
Why must kg be adjusted for G? This was covered to some extent in this post above, Feb. 1, 2008, where I said:
There I showed how at a hypothetical mass in ~10 G, such as at Saturn's orbit at 9.5 AU, there must be an adjustment for local kilograms if the Equivalence Principle is to be preserved. But there may be a much simpler way to see this, and to created a mass kg/kg adjustment table for any Earth probe coming from a 1kg region of space going into a non-1 AU region of space, where G is non-1G.
In the original calculations for variable G affecting variable mass, I arrived at Saturn's at 9.5 AU (see #2.6 in paper) as having G=~68.5E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. This is roughly ~10.27X Earth's G=6.67E-11, so let's call it 10 G for brevity. So on Titan, as per your example, where velocity and orbital radius are known, the M for Saturn works out as known, M_saturn = 5.69E+26 kg. This is very close to the Saturn fact sheet's M=568.46E+24 kg, or ~M=5.685E+26 kg. So what happens if G is 10.27X at Saturn's orbit versus Earth's orbit? Here are the numbers, and why that question I asked you is so important, because it is more than anecdotal.
For example: If we look at the tables of a variable G, as per "A Variable Mass per Variable G Hypothesis" of the Pioneer Anomaly, something interesting shows up. The Energy levels for each planetary orbit goes from very high closer into the Sun to very low on a declining curve for the outer solar system. Here is how the numbers worked out, per paper referenced:
E = solar irradiance x 1/2 Rv^2, where
E = total energy received from the Sun
(Solar irradiation is in ‘Watts per meter squared’)
1/2 Rv^2 is KE = 1/2 mv^2, where m = 1 (kg/kg) times distance R.*
Whereby we have Energy results as:
|planet|| Energy |
|MERCURY|| 60.55E+16 J |
|VENUS|| 17.33E+16 J |
|EARTH|| 9.0E+16 J |
|MARS|| 3.66E+16 J |
|JUPITER|| 0.335E+16 J |
|SATURN|| 0.1004E+16J |
|URANUS|| 0.0247E+16J |
|NEPTUNE|| 0.01E+16 J |
|PLUTO|| 0.006E+16 J|
These Energy levels were derived from the application of solar energy received at each planetary orbit times the gravitational Energy resulting in orbital velocity, as per:
(Note, this is slightly higher than E=9E+16 J, but there is a reason for it, as discussed in Variable G per Boltzmann constant, but off topic here.)
2.1: Earth as sample, to arrive at E = 90 petajoules:
We know per Einstein’s famous equation: E = mc^2 = 9E+16 Joules, or 90 petajoules.
This same value can be arrived at as a ‘template’ for Earth’s solar Energy:
Solar irradiance: 1367.6 W/m^2
Mean distance from Sun: 149.6E+9 meters
Mean orbital velocity: v = 29.78 km/s
(1367.6) (149.6E+9) = 204592.96E+9 = 2.046E+14 W/m = solar radiance energy, and
KE = (1/2) (1) (29.78)^2 = (1/2)(1)(886.85) = 443.4 m^2.kg.s^-2 (Joules) = gravitationally induced kinetic energy:
KE * W/m = ( 443.4 J) (2.046E+14 W/m) = 9.07e16 Joules = Earth's total orbital Energy. (Please note m = 1 kg/kg is a net function of planet mass already in orbital motion.)
Therefore, Earth’s solar Energy resulting value is: E = ~9.07E+16 J
The resulting proton mass for each orbital region then becomes adjusted, as per original paper sited, but that is not what is of importance here. What is important is that there must be an adjustment to the right side of the Axiomatic Equation, for it to balance on both sides (something ignored in the original, handled with including of (f)E on the right side for E=9E+16 J), so we have the following relationship of kg/kg on the right side. If we call the adjusted kg upper kg' and lower (Earth's kg) kg, then we have:
|planet|| Energy|| kg'/kg |
|MERCURY|| 60.55E+16 J|| 6.72/1 |
|VENUS|| 17.33E+16 J|| 1.93/1 |
|EARTH|| 9.0E+16 J|| 1/1 |
|MARS|| 3.66E+16 J|| 0.407/1 |
|JUPITER|| 0.335E+16 J|| 0.037/1 |
|SATURN|| 0.1004E+16J|| 0.0112/1 (*) |
|URANUS|| 0.0247E+16J|| 0.003/1 |
|NEPTUNE|| 0.01E+16 J|| 0.001/1 |
|PLUTO|| 0.006E+16 J|| 0.0007/1|
These are approximations, but they serve to illustrate how the right side of the Axiomatic now balances with the left side, except for the very small variable (proton-proton gravitational) value g.
In the conversion equation from proton g to Newton's G, the inverse applied, where 1/6.72 brings Earths's g (5.9E-39) down to Mercury's g=8.76E-40, as per this equation:
g * kg/kg' = 5.9E-39 * 0.149 = ~0.878E-39 = ~8.78E-40, same as found in the original table for Mercury. The others will work out in similar fashion. The purpose for this is to show how it applies directly to the Newton G conversion equation:
Now the little g for each orbital region is figured directly from the inverse relationship of kg'/kg. Viz.:
G^2 * m = g c^2 pi^2, where g is the proton gravitational constant, and m =1
|planet|| Energy|| kg'/kg|| Proton mass|| Proton gravity g' |
|MERCURY|| 60.55E+16 J|| 6.72/1|| 2.48E-28 kg|| 8.76E-40 |
|VENUS|| 17.33E+16 J|| 1.93/1|| 8.67E-28 kg|| 3.06E-39 |
|EARTH|| 9.0E+16 J|| 1/1|| 1.67E-27 kg|| 5.9E-39 |
|MARS|| 3.66E+16 J|| 0.407/1|| 3.86E-27 kg|| 1.36E-38 |
|JUPITER|| 0.335E+16 J|| 0.037/1|| 4.49E-26 kg|| 1.586E-37 |
|SATURN|| 0.1004E+16J|| 0.0112/1|| 1.498E-25 kg|| 5.29E-37 |
|URANUS|| 0.0247E+16J|| 0.003/1|| 6.1E-25 kg|| 2.153E-36 |
|NEPTUNE|| 0.01E+16 J|| 0.001/1|| 1.5E-24 kg|| 5.3E-36 |
|PLUTO|| 0.006E+16 J|| 0.0007/1|| 2.58E-24 kg|| 9.11E-36|
Why is this important? It is because when space probes are sent out beyond Earth's known 1 G regions, at 1 AU, they will have their inertial mass adjusted by this variable G in like manner. Converting these numbers into Newton's G then gives is the steady rate of progression where G grows at the rate of about 1G per 1 AU, lower for the inner planets Mercury and Venus, but higher for the outer planets starting with Mars and beyond to the gas giants. In effect, their relative kg adjusted mass will exhibit slight variations depending upon their distance from the hot energy of our Sun. And for this reason they will show slight variations in their orbital behaviors.
Of course, the Sun's gravity dominates our solar system with its immense mass, so small variations to kg'/kg of the tiny probes will not show large variations from expected orbital dynamics, but they should come in high for the inner planets, where the kg mass is adjusted downwards, and slighter low (and faster) for the outer planets, where the probe's inertial mass is higher. Not a total surprise this happens, as per the article noted above, NASA Baffled, which at this time has not yet elicited a variable G scenario, but I suspect this will be the natural outcome in time.
This above may be the most natural way to see how the Axiomatic Equation translates into a variable mass, of kg'/kg, for all the orbital regions of our solar system, approximating the level of change in inertial mass measured from the Pioneer Anomaly, and now found to be evident, however slightly, in probes closer to home, as they use Earth for their slingshot space maneuvers. If they use gravity to assist trajectory and velocity, such a variation in kg'/kg adjusted mass is normal. If G is a variable, the outcome for the Axiomatic Equation is only natural. A better more direct writing it then becomes:
Axiomatic Equation: E' = hc/ (l)(proton m) = [1(kg'/kg) - (g')pi^2] c^2
[Please note, these computed values for E and kg'/kg translate into slight variations from original, though this is a numerical artifact of using powers rather than pure numbers, though in principle they are the same.]
In conclusion, all the relationships of a variable planet Energy and variable inertial mass G are preserved when kg/kg is adjusted, as per above. The results for Newton's G growing at approximately 1G per 1 AU is conserved, where Earth's kg'/kg=1. The converse is, of necessity, that Earth's kg is a fraction of itself at the outer planets, while it is a multiple of itself for the inner planets, where both sides of the Axiomatic Equation balance. Or, in totto, if a kilogram of mass is taken from Earth to Mercury, it will act 'as if' its volume would be 1/6.72 times (0.149) the mass on Earth; while at Mars, it would act 'as if' it were merely 1/0.407 times (2.46) the mass on Earth. (Of course, the inverse is true if 1kg of mass is taken the other way.) Space probes must be adjusted for this variable kg/kg mass, if they are to be true on target for the other planets. Once we have measured Newton's G relative to distance from the Sun we can then draw up a table of values for kg'/kg for all orbital regions. However, first we must measure for G out there away from Earth's known 1G at 1 AU.
*(Taking SATURN's E=0.1004E+16J
m=0.1004E16J/9e16=0.0112 kg (vs Earth's 1 kg)
where 1/ 0.0112=89.3 (sqr root 9.45) ratio of Saturn to Earth kilograms.)
Thinking about it, the old Newton F=GMm/r^2, if modified for gravity G growing at the rate of ~1G per 1 AU, we end up with F'=GM(r)m/r^2, which becomes F'=GMm/r. So this means, rearranging the equation: G=F'r/Mm, where the F' is the variable with distance from the Sun at 1G per 1AU. What this all means is that with a variable G we get what is in effect gravity potential U, though we measured distant 'mass' as if it were obeying the inverse square law, while all along, given that G is different, it defaults to gravity potential U. This becomes interesting because it means, per force, that the units for mass must be adjusted, kg'/kg to satisfy F', which also means that though our mass for distant bodies is correct (per gravity inverse square law), the 'density' of those bodies must defer to kg'/kg in order to satisfy F'=GMm/r. This, therefore, means that 'water ice' in the outer planets acts 'as if' it were rocky for the inner planets; so Pluto could be all water ice that 'looks like' stone, for our Earth based kg.
Also see: Why inner planets rocky, and outer planets gaseous
Protoplanetary disk regularity
|Posted on Friday, March 07, 2008 - 10:18 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?
From question by Anonymous, April 28, 2007, in Deep Space Science thread.
Sorry it took nearly a year to give a good answer, but here it appears in Space.com science article, "Black Hole Effect Created in Lab", where conditions of a black hole appear inside glass filament when they fired "a continous beam of infrared light down the optical fiber," which were "overtaken by the laser flow, resembling how light waves are overcome by the gravitational pull just past an event horizon." I always though this could be duplicated with precision high energy lasers, but never knew how. My idea was more simple, something like Ryoji Matsumoto's rotating plasma experiment (Feb. 15,2008), where at the center a self-gravitating black hole results.
Ivan/10 yrs cosmology
|Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 12:35 pm: |
Ten years of Cosmology 'proofs' may be thrown in doubt?
This was posted on the "Ten Years that changed the World discussion, "Ten Years that changed Cosmology".
In the past ten years, Cosmology may have changed more than we know from science to philosophy, if so.
|Posted on Friday, March 21, 2008 - 06:30 pm: |
"Once we have measured Newton's G relative to distance from the Sun we can then draw up a table of values for kg'/kg for all orbital regions. However, first we must measure for G out there away from Earth's known 1G at 1 AU."
It makes sense. If we are at 1 AU, and gravity G is here 1G, then if it grows at 1G per 1AU it MUST be 1G here at 1AU. It cannot be any other way! Then adjust kg as needed.
|Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 12:53 pm: |
Just for fun: Baby Einstein wanted for new physics?
Wanted: Einstein Jr. - article in the Economist
"Something's not right with the laws of physics. Spacecraft are not behaving in the way that they should..."
Thirty years later, no explanation for this has been found. Each year the Pioneers fall a further 5,000km behind their projected paths. Hundreds of scientific papers have been written on the Pioneer anomalies, many of them trying to find explanations beyond the current laws of gravity.
Dr Anderson himself points out that several features of the Pioneer anomalies and the slingshot anomalies suggest they may have a common explanation. Both, for example, involve small objects. By contrast, the data on which Newton and Einstein built their theories were from stars, planets and moons. In addition, the spacecraft in question are all travelling in types of orbit not usually seen in natural systems. Not for them the closed ellipses of Mercury and the other planets; at the whim of their masters in Pasadena they are following much more unusual hyperbolic curves.
There is a good chance that modern physics is in a similar situation. It would be nice, therefore, to believe that somewhere, the contemporary equivalent of a bored patent clerk is thinking about the problem, and that when he has thought hard enough, a new reality will emerge.
It will be fun to see what the new baby-Albert laws of physics will bring.
|Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2008 - 01:16 pm: |
Hi anon, kg'/kg must involve the greater mass of main body M1 and much smaller mass of m2, if G1 grows per 1 AU, as shown. Here's an example:
F1=F2=(GM1*m2)/r^2 linked to BAUT discussion.
If the Pioneer probe's mass m2 is some 28 orders of magnitude smaller than the Sun's mass M1, there is no contest, and the Sun wins even if Pioneer's tiny inertial mass is increasing with distance from the Sun. It shows up as the Pioneer Anomaly of -a=8E-8cm/s^2. So when the spaceprobe flybys in planet slingshot maneuvers are showing tiny anomalies, it would be normal in a variable G scenario, I would think.
|Posted on Tuesday, March 25, 2008 - 11:42 pm: |
Bm magnetism revisited
Long ago on the Axiomatic Equation (New Physics) page, posted September 16, 2003 I wrote the full equation:
Em * c = hc/l = h/l(eomo)^1/2 = (1 - g)c^2= (Bm)c^2 = Eenergy
which says in words: "Electric field times lightspeed equals Planck's constant times lighspeed divided by lambda, which equals Planck's divided by lambda times the square root of electric permitivity times magnetic permeability, which equals mass of one (kg/kg) minus the proton gravitational 'constant' times lightspeed squared, which equals magnetic field times lightspeed squared, all of which equals Energy."
Later I modified the second part where E=hc/l(proton mass), which led to developing the variable G idea, and adjusted on the right side E=(1-g)c^2 for kg'/kg where kg' is non-Earth value per Equivalence of variable G, and kg is Earth's. This is what finally resulted in the Variable G paper showing how to convert proton gravity constant into Newton's G, which then works out as variable at the rate of growth per distance from the Sun of 1G per 1 AU, approximately (other factors such as planetary interior heat give different readings, see In Principia Gravitas for Boltzmann constant effect). On the same page as equation above, May 26, 2004, I also worked out how Volts convert into m^2/s using SI units for Newtons and Amperes, which leads me to think there is a simpler way to understand Maxwell's equations if they are all converted into SI units. On same page, April 11, 2005, I sort of entertained the idea of deep space gravity being responsible for redshift, but did not follow up at that time.But this has not yet been worked out.... it may take years of floundering still!
There was one effect of this equation that left me puzzled all these years, and that is "why does Bm magnetic field work out to be = 1? (see posts November 25, & December 9, 2003) The units for magnetic field, per Axiomatic, then works out in kg per second, which is not how Maxwell understood it (and I would not contradict him), but it remained a 'curiosity' for me all this time. In the Wiki page on Maxwell's Equations, and Gauss's law for magnetism, the magnetic field always equals zero. This is how Maxwell's equations reduce to in non-dispersive, isotropic media: divergence times magnetic field equals zero. It is also how Einstein used magnetic field in his General Relativity equations, if I understand this, so the common usage of magnetic field set to zero is standard physics. But in the Axiomatic the magnetic field works out to =1. This is something I hope to keep after, since one is the 'infinite inverse' of zero!
So I leave this now for future thoughts, should they come up, as an example of 'work in progress' to go beyond the idea of variable G, should this be found to be in effect empirically, and into the functions of electromagnetism, such as Maxwell's and Lorentzian, to see if they have some relationships in common. I mean this in addition to the 'electrostatic and gravity' relationships now assumed to have this in common, where G is (somehow?) equivalent to 1/4pieo, which are similar but may not be truly relevant. Why Bm set to zero, or to one? That is the question.
Ivan/ in G sharp
|Posted on Sunday, April 06, 2008 - 09:22 pm: |
Gravity edging closer to the truth at edge of galaxy?
Dwarf galaxies, BBC News (interactive)
It seems we are slowly edging to the truth that Newton's gravity G 'constant' is not a universal constant after all. Why should it be? Neither Newton nor Einstein had any reason to believe it was, except as a postulate. Now we are seeing growing evidence it is not.
Does this validate the variable G idea as expressed by the quantum equation here called the Axiomatic Equation? Probably not, except that there seems to be something of a match between the Pioneer Anomaly and the resulting Newton's G growing at the 'shocking' rate of 1G per 1 AU, approximately. Other factors such as planetary heat, or heat inside the Pioneer plutonium furnace, also have an effect. MOND is a good approximation for where gravity G levels out, some 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than in our solar system, but is only an approximation. In time empirical tests of G away from Earth's 1 AU orbital region will reveal the real truth about gravity. Except for noted anomalies in Pioneers or planetary flybys and landings, this effect had gone unnoticed. Several reasons for this, one of which is the probes are tiny in comparison to the larger planet; the second is we had calculated all planetary mass with a constant, which even if it is not a constant, does not change the end result of what 'mass' is at any AU figured, since what we figured is what it is per G constant, but differs only locally per local G in terms of the units to calculate mass, and how density behaves. At the galaxy level, mass and G variability is not as easy to fudge. Hence, so called 'dark matter' does not exist, only a much higher G per Equivalence. The dwarf galaxy clusters beyond our Milky Way reside in higher G space, so their behaviors reflect this, as if they were surrounded by 'dark matter'.
Ivan/how test kg'/kg
|Posted on Wednesday, April 09, 2008 - 10:34 am: |
The importance of being kg'/kg.
Pioneer 10, puzzling force anomaly (interactive, see Discussion)
This was covered in an earlier post above on kg'/kg, as to why there is an anisotropic value of mass within a variable G scenario, where in order to balance the Axiomatic Equation one must use kg'/kg to adjust our kilograms for a different G. However, there is a more compelling reason closer to home to do the same thing, if G varies at the rate of growth within our solar system of 1G per 1AU with distance from the Sun.
A few weeks back on BAUT forum I was asked a question by a couple of participants, korjik and Tassel, and earlier here, to which I did not have a ready answer: if there is a variable G of 1G per 1AU, why do we not see it in Earth's orbit which has an eccentricity of about 3%? This is a very good question, and at the time I did not have an answer except to speculate that Earth acts as 'one body' within its eccentric orbit, so no such marked difference is evident. However, upon further thought (and in the middle of the night) I came up with a better answer (though that discussion on ATM is now closed, per 30 day rule, so cannot add it there). The answer to this is quite simple, once it is understood.
This may be an intractable problem with measuring for G using a standard Cavendish experiment method, in that we are using 'local' kilograms to do so. If our kg is itself 'adjusting' for G in Earth's 3% eccentric orbit, then we would not know the difference whether we are measuring for Newton's G at perihelion or aphelion, since the measures would come out to be the same. Only if kilograms are adjusted for kg'/kg would there be a difference, but this is not the way it is done now, so Earth acts as one body regardless of orbital distance from the Sun. The same effect would occur on Mars, or Saturn, in that the different G would be measured in local kg so no such apparent difference would be evident in a Cavendish style test for gravity per the Equivalence Principle. This creates a necessary conundrum, of how to measure for Newton's G in a variable G universe? The Huygens and Cassini spacecrafts behaviors, as mentioned by Tensor, were not a 'dedicated test' for this variable G anomaly.
The only clues offered thus far have been Pioneer Anomaly, possibly hard or soft planetary landings, anomalous flybys in gravitational assist maneuvers, and also possibly spin ups and spin downs in spaceprobe gyroscopes. So the way to test for a variable G away from Earth's known 1G orbital region is to find a non-Cavendish type experiment. Perhaps the test suggested by ESA , as described by Turyshev, Anderson, Nieto et al, is to have an inertial mass separate from the main probe observed for spin anomalies, and perhaps this will give a more accurate reading of what is Newton's G out there. It would be expected to show per rates of spin acceleration, or deceleration, as to the inertial mass equivalence of G. And when that is done, per the Axiomatic Equation, it should come up as a kg'/kg adjustment. The mystery is that spaceprobes operating in a different G orbital environment do not show this effect in a more pronounced manner, which may be a function of in flight adjustments and the fact that the probes' mass is so many orders of magnitude smaller than the main planetary body, or the Sun, so as to be almost negligible, but not quite. Hence, we have flyby anomalies, landing anomalies, and spin anomalies all in addition to the main clue, which is the Pioneer Anomaly. Newton's G in a variable G universe needs a 'dedicated test' if we are to understand how kilograms work away from Earth's 1G.
Ivan/G on a curve?
|Posted on Monday, April 21, 2008 - 12:48 am: |
Inching towards a variable G 'constant'.
It may be that the Newton's G 'constant' is actually on a curve, and not flat G as now supposed. It is still early to tell, but as more evidence comes in we may better nail it down. What will the 'curve' look like? At this point we still do not know, though hypothetically it can be worked out. The Axiomatic Equations works out to it grows about 1G per 1 AU with distance from the Sun, which approximates the Pioneer Anomaly.
See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064v5 for a good description of Pioneer Anomaly (Anderson, Nieto et al, 2002)
A good discussion on this is at BAUT's "From Kepler to Newton" thread, where a couple of possible equations are offered, how G would grow 'on a curve', only hypothetically, though this is not an endorsement. But for now, until we measure for a variable G away from Earth's known 1G at 1 AU, it is all conjecture. Though, that said, there appears to be reason to doubt a flat G... This gravity constant may be on a curve.
Deviation from Einstein's General Relativity?
The full trail on this variable G idea on Humancafe forums can be found here with more links: Some Questions on Cosmology and Modern Physics.
Here is one more paper: Experimental Tests of General Relativity: Recent Progress and Future Directions by Slava G. Turyshev.
Today physics stands at the threshold of ma jor discoveries. Growing observational evidence points to the need for new physics. As a result, efforts to discover new fundamental symmetries, investigations of the limits of established symmetries, tests of the general theory of relativity, searches for gravitational waves, and attempts to understand the nature of dark matter and dark energy are among the main research topics in fundamental physics today [6, 343]. The remarkable recent progress in observational cosmology has sub jected the general theory of relativity to increased scrutiny by suggesting a non-Einsteinian scenario of the Universe’s evolution. From a theoretical standpoint, the challenge is even stronger—if gravity is to be quantized, general relativity must be modified.
The search is on.
|Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2008 - 06:40 pm: |
The 'expanding universe' paradox.
I've always found it quaint that arguments for the space-expanding universe, in a Doppler like fashion to explain the red shift distant light observed, there is absolutely no evidence of this locally. The usual explanation is that there is no space expansion within our solar system. Then is there any evidence at the galaxy level? No, not there either, and the usual explanation is that gravity dominates over space-expansion. Then is there any evidence of such space expansion at the galactic cluster scale? Well, no, not there either because gravity balances it out. Okay, so where is the evidence of space-expansion? The usual explanation is that it is at the inter galaxy cluster level, since gravity there is weaker than the 'dark energy' causing space to expand, or the space metric to expand. So is there evidence at the galaxy cluster level for anything other than the imputed red shift in line-of-sight evidence? Well, no there isn't, since we cannot measure any space expansion laterally. So where does this leave this 'theory' of an expanding universe? It's all 'proven' by General Relativity. End of argument.
This is unacceptable to me, because if Occam's razor is to apply, there are too many 'exceptions' to the rule, since space-expansion is not observable by any independently verifiable means, except line of sight which is supported by light red shift, which is supported by space-time metric expansion of GR, but not by anything else. So when images like these from Hubble space telescope come in, I have to shake my head and put it in my hand. What in the world is going on?
From Space.com: Hubble Photographs Dozens of Colliding Galaxies
Gallery of 59 interacting galaxies, Hubble images
The NewScientist article: Zoo of galaxy mergers says:
So what are we looking at? Mergers of galaxies? But how, if space is expanding?
When galaxies wandering through the universe collide, a spectacular display unfolds. The galaxies' stars are too spread out to actually hit each other. But the galaxies pull strongly on one another via gravity, distorting their shapes and ripping stars and gas clouds off each other to form so-called tidal tails. View a slideshow of 15 of the galaxies.
Mind, some of these images are hundreds of millions years old, so in the billions of years since alleged first space expansion, they should have moved sufficiently away from one another to make it impossible to merge. Yet, these images shows clearly they do merge. How can that be? I think Occam's razor's gone rusty here, bad ideas. It is far cleaner and saner to understand distant space light red shift as a function of higher deep space gravity, so it is gravitationally red shifted in line of sight coming out of that deep gravity well. In fact, red shift for distant light is an illusion, and there is no 'space expansion' of any kind. This is merely another 'relativity' inspired paradox, and nonsensical.
I find it ironic that the space telescope named after the astronomer who gave us the Doppler space expansion constant should prove in the end that it is merely an illusion. It may be compared to a Three Bears analogy, where the porridge found on the table was neither too hot nor too cold. So we have a fantasy scenario that the universe’s expansion is neither too hot, which means a future of perpetual expansion leaving our night sky totally black, nor too cold, which means in some distant future it will all collapse on itself into a billiard ball. But instead it is ‘just right’ so the Big Bang fantasy is what we see. It could all be cosmological fairy tale, however, if the Hubble constant expansion is an optical illusion of distant light passing through very high G in cosmic space, where it is gravitationally redshifted (line of sight), which mimics Doppler expansion, but in reality nothing happens.
Also see: When Galaxies Collide: Photos of Great Galactic Crashes
|Posted on Sunday, May 04, 2008 - 12:29 pm: |
Huygens descent to Titan, the videos.
A View from Huygens - Jan. 14, 2005 - click to view video of descent to Titan (15.4 MB, 5 minutes).
From article: NASA and Partners Release New Movies of Titan May 4, 2006 (Source: ESA/NASA/JPL/University of Arizona)
This is space science at its best. Another short video showing how images were brought together is also fascinating: Titan Descent Data Movie with Bells and Whistles (11.1 MB, 4 minutes).
New views of the most distant touchdown ever made by a spacecraft are being released today by NASA, the European Space Agency and the University of Arizona. The movies show the dramatic descent of the Huygens probe to the surface of Saturn's moon Titan on Jan. 14, 2005.
The data were analyzed for months after the landing and represent the best visual product obtained from the Huygens mission. It is the most realistic way yet to experience the Huygens probe landing. The movie "View from Huygens on Jan. 14, 2005," provides in 4 minutes and 40 seconds of what the probe actually "saw" during the 2.5 hours of the descent and touchdown....
BBC News article on Huygens landing: Image shows Huygens landing site
The surface apparently shows "boulders" probably made of ice - BBC News
The area where Huygens landed appears to have a thin crust overlying a material with more uniform consistency something like mud.
Scientists have hypothesised that recent flooding of the site could be responsible for this.
To me at least, it all makes sense at Saturn's orbit 9.5G, that Titan's surface 'water ice' boulders and liquid hydrocarbon 'lakes' should act as if made of Earth's equivalent of rocky sand and water ice. Regardless of when they finally measure for Newton's G out there, these are great videos!
|Posted on Thursday, May 08, 2008 - 09:34 pm: |
Neutrinos are at femtometer wavelength?
Neutrino hitting proton in bubble chamber
This came up in private conversation, but what is the lambda for a neutrino?
It seems there are other factors involved, as per Wiki's description of the Neutrino, though no lamda is mentioned there. However, checking on another paper: "Nonuniform Neutron- Rich Matter and Coherent Neutrino Scattering" by Horowitcz et al, I discovered it comes in femtometers in the range of one fermi = 1.0E-15 meters, so interesting. This is significant because I long puzzled over the Axiomatic Equation's lambda in E=hc/l*(proton mass) on the left side, where one kilogram of mass equals 90 petajoules, which makes l = 1.32E-15 m, at the output of our Sun (to give us proton mass of 1.67E-27 kg), which then translates into the proton-proton gravitational constant g = 5.9E-39 on the right side's E=(1-g)c^2; which itself translates into Newton's G, as per this paper: Variable G. So it all fits, except that Newton's G on Earth is only 6.67E-11, while per the Axiomatic calculations it should be 7.24E-11, but this was later found to be accounted for Earth's internal energy, using the Bolzmann constant, where Earth's interior works out to be about 2500K, probably close to its mean interior temperature.
So what have got here? That the neutrino is what controls mass? Interesting... I always knew this lambda was above gamma ray, but didn't know by how much? Now we know. It's at the fermi level of the neutrino! Therefore, the neutrino may play an important role in determining the resulting atomic mass (per Equivalence) at any given G, where Newton's G is on a curve (now estimated at about 1G per 1 AU for our solar system), in the local units of kg (whereby kg'/kg balances out local units for kg). And that's potentially significant, because lambda=1.32E-15 m actually means something.
One more thing of interest regarding femtometers. The Atomic Nucleus happens to be just slightly larger than lamda (lambda=1.32E-15 m) of the Axiomatic Equation:
So it 'fits' as a wavelength inside the proton nucleus, just. In another paper, Monochromatic Neutrinos from Massive Fourth Generation Neutrino Annihilation" by Belotsky et al, it says:
The nucleus of an atom is the very small dense region of an atom, in its center consisting of nucleons (protons and neutrons). The size (diameter) of the nucleus is in the range of 1.6 fm (10-15 m) (for a proton in light hydrogen) to about 15 fm (for the heaviest atoms, such as uranium).
So again we find our neutrinos in the femtometer range.
The wavelength of neutrino with the mass 50 GeV and the velocities 300 ÷ 1416 km/s are correspondingly l = (3.9 ÷ 0.84) 10^-13 cm. That is comparable with nucleus sizes.
Though none of this is conclusive, it may have a part in understanding why the femtometer is an important unit of measure in how both the Neutrino and Axiomatic Equation interact at the level of atomic nucleus, and how that proton nucleus is 'modified' into the gravity it displays as a function of electromagnetic (neutrino?) energy received. Is the neutrino the link between quantum energy and gravity? It seems to fit... But not as we think, where some imagine neutrinos being akin to graviton... Rather the reverse.
Also see: Where have all neutrinos gone?
|Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 - 09:02 pm: |
The Atom, what is it exactly?
The Bohr Model for single Hydrogen atom, per Wikipedia
The Bohr model for the atom is no longer truly fitting, since we now know there are states of energy around the atomic nucleus, not orbits, that are more like electron 'clouds' or electron shells in each state. However, the traditional description of atomic structure, such as represented by the Elements Periodic Table, is still the model used essentially, where there is a positive charged nucleus of protons, balanced by neutrons, all surrounded by negatively charged electron shells.
At present the only force given for the nucleus is the nucleonic Strong force, which operates only within the 10^-15 m diameter range; though there is also a radioactive decay Weak force involved with the neutron's half life. But this does not go further into the proton, nor explain why it is a positively charged particle. The neutron, which does not exist without the proton's association except as a decaying particle, is charge neutral, but it is held together with the proton through the strong force, which by tradition is a force equal to 1. Why is this so? Does it have any relationship to gravity? Not at this point in time, since gravity is considered a separate force, and many orders of magnitude weaker than the strong force. The nucleus made up of balanced protons and neutrons is most stable, but if unbalanced radioactive decay will bring them back into stability. That is the state of knowledge in nuclear physics as it is now, given the proton and neutron nucleus, and a model which has proved rather stable in its own right. (I will not delve into CERN and LHC physics here, which may explain other aspects of 'smashed' atoms, but is not conducive to understanding the atom as a composite form, rather than a disassembled form.)
But what is the atom, exactly? In the above regarding neutrinos, there seems to be a relationship at the femtometer level (lambda = 10^-15 m) of where neutrino wavelength is just slightly under that of the proton diameter. This leaves room to consider something different may be happening inside the proton, though perhaps not exactly the same for the neutron: the electromagnetic energy at femtometer scale may be 'modifying' the proton's strong force, where rather than being F=1, it is modified to a very low inertial mass, so that the proton-to-proton 'gravitational force' is -39 orders of magnitude weaker than the strong force. This is how it is treated in the Axiomatic Equation, as derived, where g is the proton-proton gravitational relationship:
E = hc/(lambda*protonmass) = (1-g)c^2, where h is Planck's constant, c is light speed in a vacuum, lambda is femtometer energy wavelength, proton mass is as calculated for E=mc^2 at one kilogram of mass, whereby E=9E+16 Joules (kg'/kg adjusted for Earth kilograms).
This model essentially defines what we call 'mass' as the residual 'inertial mass' per Equivalence Principle for what is the resulting Newton's G, which can be calculated from proton-proton g per the equation: G^2=gc^2 pi^2 (within parameters of Earth's G). See Variable G for full explanation. But what does it mean to have 'inertial mass' equivalent to its gravitational constant?
[Note: In effect, the mass function on the right is constant, m=1 kg/kg, whereby lambda always remains at femtometers scale, while the g function is proportional to proton mass on the left, so that for increasingly higher Energy proton mass decreases, as does g, while kg/kg remains constant; conversely, as Energy decreases, g grows in proportion to proton mass, until it reaches its maximum value at g=1, which happens when E=0, that there is no e.m. energy present, so the atom returns to its proto-proton state. (At g=1, G=c in value.) Therefore, in effect, gravitational mass, cum inertial mass, is a function of proton mass on the left, not m=1 kg/kg on the right, except in how it impacts the value of g, which translates into G. Therefore, except for the kilogram mass (which is a function of Earth based kg/kg measure for our equations), the real mass of the atom is a function of its g and commensurate G.]
Here we need to backtrack a bit, to what happens at the galaxy super massive black hole (SMBH) polar jets, where positively charged particles are jettisoned into space at near light velocity. The speculation is that those positive charged particle escaping via polar jets are proto-atoms, or proto-protons (positive charge), while they are flung far from the SMBH. There is some supporting evidence for this idea from the Matsumoto simulation, where such jets are observed in a laboratory. However, the clue here is the positive charge of particles escaping the SMBH, which may lead one to speculate that these proto-protons are the primordial versions of hydrogen atoms. But to get there from proto-protons these atoms must be 'modified' into the recognizable hydrogen protons we know here, where m=1.67E-27 kg. If the neutrino scenario (above) is invoked, then as these proto-protons (positive charge) come within vicinity of hot stars generating strong electromagnetic (e.m.) energy, at femtometer scale, this energy gets 'locked' inside the proto-proton and 'modifies' the strong force into the recognizable nucleus we model at present, where it is positively charged and of very low mass, 10^-27 kg. If so, then the proto-proton mass coming out of the SMBH must be very high, perhaps near 27 orders of magnitude greater than what we measure as mass, or more specifically 'inertial mass' here on Earth. (It makes sense if the SMBH is at maximum gravity, some 39 orders of magnitude greater than proton-proton gravity.) Then, per this low inertial mass we can relate this, per Equivalence, to the Newton's G measured on Earth, which is a mere 10^-11 force as the 'remainder' force inside the nucleus. And if so, then this gives a new model of the atom, though all other factors being equal, the positively charged nucleus now 'captures' electromagnetic photon energy, per its quantized levels, to create electron shells, into what approximates the Bohr model of the atom, or some equivalent.*
Helium atom of two proton and two neutrons
So the proton remains positively charged, but captured e.m. energy remains negatively charged, or in effect, anchored to its positively charged proton. The neutron is a type of hybrid particle, since it incorporates both positive and negative charge, which is why it remains 'neutral' but cannot exist on its own without the proton's presence for long, due to radioactive decay. Thus, the atom is a special type of 'captured' energy, first from the SMBH generated proto-proton, and later by the e.m. energy modifying it into the low inertial mass, cum low gravitational mass, of the atom we observe. This of necessity, if so, means that protons and atoms very far from hot e.m. energy sources must have higher inertial mass, and consequently higher gravitational mass. And the key may be the neutrino, which is just big enough to enter the proton's diameter, at femtometer wavelength.
If so, then the inertial mass we ascribe to the hydrogen atom's proton is an Earth specific measure, and not what exists out in deep intergalactic space, where it may be many orders of magnitude greater than here. This may account, in a roundabout way for the now hypothesized 'dark matter' beyond the galaxy, but this is still inconclusive. My calculations show this (so called) 'dark matter' may be no more than G being some five orders of magnitude greater than Newton's G (on Earth) for the rarified intergalactic gas and dust, which may account for the Hubble redshift observed. (See Mining Deep Space Gravity post, April 6, 2007.) Therefore, what we ascribe as 1 kilogram on Earth is only the 'remainder' of strong force after it was modified by the high solar e.m. energy of at Earth's near orbit to our Sun, which translates into the inertial mass per Equivalence here. The atom is filled with this e.m. energy to the maximum it can hold, with a small gravitational remainder, measured first as proton-proton gravitational 'constant' of g=5.9E-39 (which may be in Volts), and converted into Newton's G (times c^2) per equation shown above. The converse of this, if it is true, is that in an e.m. poor region, the g value increases, which increases Newton's G, which increases gravitational mass, which per Equivalence increase inertial mass. So the femtometer energy received by the atom, if so, determines what will be its inertial mass.
In retrospect, it is not as some assume (alternatively) that neutrinos determine gravitational mass, whereby the more neutrinos the greater the gravitons (never shown to exist), and the greater the mass. Quite the opposite effect may be operable here, where the less energy received at femtometer wavelength, the greater the gravitational mass. In effect, the atom is made from its proto-proton ejected from the SMBH jets, but is then modified into what is measured by the e.m. energy received. And if this is so, then there is a clear relationship, inversely proportional, to hot star energy and mass, which lends a new meaning to white dwarfs and 'neutron stars', so called. We may in fact be observing low energy stars with very high inertial mass, and therefore very high gravity associated with them. The atom, therefore, is the key to understanding much of what we observe at cosmological scales, including the Hubble constant redshift. And a proper understanding of this atomic structure, beyond the positive nucleus and negative electron shells, the now Bohr model, may bring us one step closer to understanding gravity. At the quantum level, they are related.
The next question of interest is: Do SMBHs create more atoms than they capture from recycled stars absorbed by their very great gravity? I suspect not, but that is an open question at this time. Second question: are we able to measure all neutrinos if they are 'absorbed' by atomic mass, what modifies the atom into its inertial mass? Perhaps we are missing something here, and the few neutrinos we observe are but a tiny fraction of what exists, coming from all directions of space, but especially from the hot nuclear furnace of our Sun. If and when we actually understand this, Einstein's GR may become no more than an interesting by-line of modern physics.
*(This also makes sense at the quantum level, where more energy applied raises the electron quantum shells; in effect, more e.m. energy 'weakens' the Strong force, thus allowing electron to 'gravitate' at higher levels, while lower e.m. energy 'strengthens' the Strong force so electron 'gravitates' to a lower level; the remainder of this interaction is what is left over as Gravity, which itself stays 'constant' after energy shell level adjustments balance out - 'constant' at any orbital distance from the Sun, per Axiomatic Eq., gravity as variable G - which is why no lab experiment on Earth can validate variable G.)
Also see: Proton as a micro-Planck scale 'black hole'?
Is the Standard Model deviant?
Also see: Nuclear positive modified by e.m. energy
|Posted on Monday, May 19, 2008 - 09:33 pm: |
Why are Super Massive Black Holes (billions solar masses) at Galactic centers such a mystery?
Mystery deepens over origin of biggest black holes, New Scientist article (click on image for text)
Why should this be such a 'puzzling' event? If there was not Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, then it's not an issue. But the real cause for galactic central super massive black holes is a whole other story, if the Axiomatic Equation holds 'water'. It's totally natural.
Ivan/Titan's air 2
|Posted on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 09:48 pm: |
Is Titan's atmosphere 10X taller than Earth's because it's less than 1/10th its mass?
Planetary Fact Sheet - NASA
I know this sounds crazy, but there is merit to it. According to the Axiomatic Equation, if Newton's G rises at the rate of about 1G per AU, its commensurate mass is its square, if taking the proton mass equivalence. For example:
EARTH: (@ E=9.0E+16 J) proton mass= 1.67E-27 kg, for G=6.67E-11
SATURN: (@ E=0.1004E+16J) proton mass= 1.498E-25kg, for G'=68.5E-11
Earth's mass is 5.97E+24 kg
Titan's mass is 1.35E+23 kg
These are both in Earth kilograms, but the Saturn mass (roughly 10 AU, so 10 G equivalent to Earth's) is about 100 times equivalent mass for proton, for that orbital region (though Titan is so much smaller mass). Now look at Titan (moon), with an atmosphere similar to Earth's, largely nitrogen, the atmosphere is nearly 10 times taller than here. But the mass of Titan is less than 1/10th of Earth's! In fact, it is less than the total mass of Mars (all figured in Earth's kg at 1G). How can that be?
The only possible answer is that, same as for the proton mass equivalence, the 'effective' atmospheric mass at 10 G for a body 1/10th of Earth is 10X Earth's, if proton mass is 100X here. Then it makes sense, since the smaller body of Titan can support an atmosphere so much larger than Earth's. The extreme cold is another factor, but that should condense the atmosphere into a smaller volume, if the ideal gas law is to be considered (per this article it's four times more dense than Earth's). So the fact that at Saturn's orbit G is an order of magnitude greater than on Earth, and its proton-mass equivalent is two orders of magnitude greater than here, for a body one order of magnitude smaller than Earth, the atmospheric mass equivalent is one order of magnitude greater than Earth's. Now, is that something to consider? Does this also explain why all the gas giants from Jupiter to Neptune sport such large atmospheres?... Somehow it fits.
Also see: Why gas giants' atmospheres...
|Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2008 - 07:08 pm: |
Phoenix Polar Mars Mission due tomorrow, Sunday ~6PM EDT, May 25th.
- Video of Phoenix landing simulation: Mars probe set for risky landing- BBC
It will release a parachute, use pulsed thrusters to slow to a fast walking speed, then come to a halt on three legs.
If all goes to plan, the Phoenix lander will reach the surface of Mars at 0053 BST (1953 EDT) on 26 May.
Nasa controllers will know in about 15 minutes whether the attempt has been successful.
If all goes as planned, fingers crossed, there should be live coverage on NASA VIDEO-TV.
Read more at Space.com: Phoenix Mars Lander: Step-by-Step Martian Landing Guide
|Posted on Monday, May 26, 2008 - 11:09 am: |
Phoenix has landed, a spectacularly successful EDL on Mars.
(nteractive -BBC article)
NASA image of Mars polar plain where Phoenix settled down
Space.com: Phoenix Spacecraft Beams Home First Images of Martian Arctic
The first image Phoenix was instructed to take was of its solar arrays so that engineers could make sure the craft was getting power. The batteries Phoenix flew in on have only enough power to last about 30 hours, which would have significantly hampered the lander's abilities to perform its planned three-month mission.
"Phoenix has spread her wings. Is that a pretty sight or what," exclaimed one engineer when looking at the solar array images in a mission support room at Lockheed Martin Space Systems, which built the spacecraft in Denver, Colo. "We can toss away the contingency plans now," cried out another.
Applause broke out at Lockheed when the first image of the deployed solar arrays - and the fact they were latched in position - were relayed home from Mars.
In fact it was a heartpounding moment (while watching live on NASA TV) through the last seven minutes of entry, descent, and landing. Very well done NASA/JPL et al. Bravo!
Perhaps they'll see this on Mars? Not likely, but this is a fun image, see post April 27, 2008 for pict.
Also see: Curiosity Mars Rover photo -interactive image of Martian surface
|Posted on Sunday, June 01, 2008 - 12:48 pm: |
Newton's Third Law, revisited, and possibly revised.
Newton's First and Second laws, in Latin, from the original 1687 edition of the Principia Mathematica
In Newton's Third Law he said, per Wiki:
The Wikipedia article says further:
Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
In other words "For every force there is an equal, but opposite, force".
A more direct translation is:
LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. — Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other. If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, as the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in the next scholium. In the above, as usual, motion is Newton's name for momentum, hence his careful distinction between motion and velocity.
"For every action there is always opposed an equal reaction." This is the essence of Newton's Third Law.
Let's think about that a moment. It had been accepted as true until the advent of Quantum Mechanics, where the angular momentum of Newton's Third Law was broken. Today we interpret this differently, as Conservation Law:
In modern physics, the laws of conservation of momentum, energy, and angular momentum are of more general validity than Newton's laws, since they apply to both light and matter, and to both classical and non-classical physics.
This can be stated simply, "[Momentum, energy, angular momentum, matter] cannot be created or destroyed."
But is this strictly true when gravity is involved? When I wrote about balloon buoyancy earlier (Sept. 6, 2007) I considered how adding heat increases a balloon's gas Brownian motion, as a function of lowered Newton's G inside the envelope. I wrote then:
So another 'conservation law' is involved here, that of maintaining Newton's G at 1G for Earth's 1 AU location. But this still does not answer the question of Why? Why should there be a 'conservation of anything' in Newton's Third Law?
This is a very unconventional way to look at buoyancy, since no such buoyancy occurs if the volume is constrained, so no amount of heating will change a thing. But if, and this is getting back (to Mohideen's comment), the space vacuum is increased, because between molecules there is now more space as the volume expands, then by corollary the G for each atom is likewise decreasing as it is heated. However, because we are constrained by Earth's atmospheric conditions, and Earth's G, the net result is that as gas expands, it cools, so the temperature or amount of energy is reduced; and this natural reduction of temperature likewise keeps G constant, as it should on Earth. To overcome this constant G in a hot air balloon, the pilot fires up the burners, so the temperature stays constant to keep balloon expanded and aloft. In the end, gravity G is not violated and stays constant within the atmospheric conditions, and the result is expanded volume and rising balloon, or lighter than air buoyancy. This is a condition of where we are on the planetary plane, where Newton's G = 1G always, so all must eventually come back to that, on Earth.
We know from common experience that this Law works: If I stand in a row boat and walk forward, the whole boat moves backwards. But what would happen if I were a 'gravity center' moving forwards? Would the boat still go backwards? In other words, if every point of space surrounding me was drawn towards my rear, per Third Law, then all points aft (beyond the boat's end, sort of speak) would be drawn towards that point while my body's mass moved fore, so the stern would be drawn by those points aft more than the motion of my inertial reference point. Would this invalidate the Third Law of conservation? Perhaps, but not in the way now understood. What may happen is the motion is not equalized by 'conservation' but increases in relation to the mass moved. (The only way this could work is with one additional factor, see below.) This would be a very significant departure from Newton's Law, and in fact it would overturn it, since conservation is violated. Can such a thing ever be witnessed, where the Third Law is violated by adding kinetic energy to the vessel, with increased momentum (in direction of motion)? Everything must eventually return to 1G (on Earth), and my sense is that this is 'conserved' by increasing momentum, making the motion faster when self-gravity is applied.
There is only one possibility to do so, but it would require an 'engine' capable of creating gravity on a point, in effect, to become an inertial 'gravity center'. The 'conservation law' in this case demands that the point of reference is an arbitrary point in space located in me, per the above example. But if my 'gravity center' was increased, it would no longer be in me, vis-a-vis the whole boat, but located somewhere outside of me, if the Third Law was to apply. In this case, as I move forward, the 'gravity center' falls farther behind than my motion, so the boat would go back faster, which is a violation.
This would be analogous to the above mentioned balloon example (or the partial vacuum over an aerodynamic wing), where rather than staying still when its total volume expanded, for same mass, the balloon moves away from its gravitational reference point, which is the Earth's mass, towards a 'gravity center' above the Earth's. Here, per this violation of the Third, the boat would likewise move forward, when the mass at the rear was increased (I walk from fore to aft), for same volume, where the front of the boat has more of the 'gravity center' than rear. So if an engine was designed to create a 'gravity center' it could be used to move mass, not in the direction of mass for the mass moved, but in excess of that mass in the opposite direction. This would necessitate moving the gravity center's inertial reference point forward of its original center, which increases the forward velocity for the mass moved backwards.
One example, though only in simulation, was Matsumoto's 'self-gravity' created in his laboratory experiment. However, this application was not tried as described above (as far as I know), though the micro-black-hole created might offer a clue. Now, if this inertial 'gravity center' was inside a vessel, and a fluid mass was used to shift from fore to aft, the vessel should move forward, which is not a violation of Newton's Third Law, unless there is increased kinetic energy in that motion forward. But this moving forward of the whole inertial mass can happen if, and only if, the inertial mass (of the whole outer structure) is reduced, so motion is then in 'excess' of the mass shifted, which itself is a violation. Therefore, for Matsumoto's simulation to work, to move forward the gravitational reference point of the vessel, the whole apparatus must lower the vessel's inertial mass by the amount of increase in 'self-gravity' reference center. What do the polar axis jets do to the whole apparatus, for example? Do they affect inertial mass of the structure? If a self-gravity occurs, to balance it out and conserve the energy-gravity relationship, the inertial mass of the body must be reduced! In order to lower the inertial mass of the whole body (lower G) more energy must flow into the outer shell. I think it should glow with bright energy if so, totally enveloped in glowing plasma.
Space Shuttle Orbiter Discovery
Since we have never had experience with creating a 'gravity center' there is no present way to test this hypothesis. But if it proved true, then a whole new set of physics would be involved, whereby Newton's Third Law has a new definition: For every action there is a corresponding opposite action 'in excess' of the action with increased momentum, when self-gravity is applied. However, at this time, this is unknown. On Earth only one gravity reference applies, that of the planet's mass, so all reference is defined by Earth's gravity. All other gravity reference points, such as Sun and Moon, are already operative in the Earth's orbital mechanics, so no other reference point is possible for us. Hence, Newton's Third Law works the way it does, and energy is conserved, because both inertial gravity and energy are balanced. But this 'conservation' is in violation if, and only if, the inertial mass of the vehicle is reduced. This of necessity means the 'conservation' is not between inertial mass and energy, such as we know momentum is conserved, but between increased self-gravity and reduced inertial mass, which happens only through self-gravity's imbalance of increased central gravity but lighter inertia for the outer shell of the structure (lower G). Then conservation is at another level, where they are conserved together, both as higher self-gravity and lighter overall inertial mass, which is unknown at present.
The only possible example we have of this, at present without having a self-gravity engine, is the hot air balloon, which moves in the opposite direction of Earth's reference point, since its 'inertial gravity center' is moved up off the planet. This phenomenon is the closest we have to testing this hypothesis, but it requires a different way to look at it. Buoyancy is not due to volumetric pressure, e.g. density, but due to a violation of the Third Law, if so, where the lowered G producing increased Brownian motion raises the balloon's inertial center of gravity upwards. To conserve the 'gravity to energy' relationship, the balloon must move upwards to equalize Earth's mandatory 1G. The Axiomatic Equation shows, in essence, how mass changes with the 'conservation' of energy and gravity is a total system (with gravity and electromagnetic energy inversely proportional), whereby if a 'gravity center' is increased on a point, its surrounding inertial mass (lower G) is decreased. Then transferred kinetic energy for motion (according to Newton's Third Law) is in excess of the mass involved. This violates the 'energy conservation' law, but not the total 'energy-gravity' conservation law, where it is conserved as a totality. (An example of this is surrounding a galactic black hole, where the very high gravity - created from all the ambient energy focussed on a point - releases very high G there, but very light G for stars and gas surrounding it, which goes into extremely high spin around it.) Though this is complicated, and not as now understood, it can be recreated in a laboratory for future testing.
The next logical question is: Can this apparatus be used to reduce inertia in rocket propelled space flight? A different principle is at work, where the kinetic energy of very high Brownian motion (inside the rocket chamber) is transferred to the spaceship's kinetic energy, why it goes forward. In principle, it may work, if the rocket fuel combustion is not affected by the 'inertial mass cum gravity center' conservation, but is outside it. Then, as per above, the motion forward would be 'in excess' of the fuel burned. But first we must create a 'self-gravity' center to make this a possibility. In the end, Newton's Third Law is conserved, but at another level (of higher and lower G, higher and lower inertial mass) when self-gravity is applied. Does the outer shell in Matsumoto's simulation glow with additional energy (conserved from the 'self-gravity' center) to lower inertial mass? We do not know, and cannot until we perform the simulation experiments. My hunch is that since everything must come back to 1G (on Earth), then in higher G regions this effect of increased momentum would be greater. In effect, for the outer solar system our velocity would be increased dramatically. And in deep space where G is orders of magnitude greater than here, velocity is exponential! ... But this is still but a guess, though if found to be true, it would take 'self-gravity' induced space travel to a whole new level. And Newton's Third Law, revised, would apply in a whole new way, taking us not to the outer planets but the stars.
|Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2008 - 06:58 pm: |
'Sticky' soil on Mars?
(interactive- text in image)
Phoenix scooped up Martian dirt - NewScientist article
It may only be anecdotal, but there is something wrong with Martian soil. It's too sticky. The usual explanations, which are totally valid, is the soil particles are held together by either water moisture or dissolved salts, which may explain why after being loaded on the TEGA of Phoenix, and shaken for a couple of days, the soil finally fell through the mesh into the small oven laboratory. It makes sense if water ice sublimated, given Martian very dry atmosphere, and this allowed the soil to become brittle enough to break apart. However, it does not explain it very well if it were salt crystals holding the soil together, since they are not likely to release so easily with shaking it. So this is still a mystery to be resolved. 'Cooking' the soil first time around gave no clue, since no water was detected.
There is another possibility, however remote, that there is one more reason why Mars soil is so 'sticky', which has to do with a variable G scenario. Though this will not, and cannot, be considered at this time since no variable G had yet been confirmed, it may be explored on a hypothetical basis:
At 1.5 AU distance of Mars could mean that Newton's G, which is 1 G on Earth, may be 1.5 G on Mars, which then means the soil particles in one and a half gravity may be more sticky, though Martian gravity overall is lower than Earth's. This is the sticky wicket, that soil particles are being 'held' together by a slightly higher G than on Earth, so it tends to 'stick' together slightly more. Shaken enough times, and perhaps with the additional sublimation of water ice, it will in time break apart and act like normal soil. The above article, "How to make a Martian mud pie", talks about how to make up a 'mock soil' on Earth to simulate Mars soil conditions. But if the 1.5 G is also a factor, we can never really get it right. They say:
Water is used to make soils clumpy on Earth, but on Mars, salts – left behind by the evaporation of water – may hold the soil together. Such disparities make simulations difficult and introduce unexpected effects, like the difficulty in getting soil into the screen's small openings.
But there may be more to Mars soil than merely salt and water ice. It might also be sticky because the gravity G on Mars is just slightly higher than Earth's. Something to consider, if variable G is ever found to be true, same as it must be considered when looking at Titan's atmosphere, which is 10X Earth's thick. It's all >G sticky perhaps?
|Posted on Friday, June 20, 2008 - 10:01 am: |
Water ice on Mars, it is.
Mars Scientists: It Must Be Ice
"It must be ice," said Phoenix principal investigator Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson. "These little clumps completely disappearing over the course of a few days, that is perfect evidence that it's ice. There had been some question whether the bright material was salt. Salt can't do that."
That, some salt, and a touch of extra G.
Ivan/Cosmo constant & variable G
|Posted on Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - 12:23 am: |
Cosmological constant, Hubble constant, Doppler redshift, MOND, Pioneer Anomaly - Are they all the same? Coincidence?
Electromagnetic energy separated and distorted lambda (interactive -Wiki)
It's been a puzzle that never seems to be far from solved, and yet we really don't know what to do with it. But there are similarities between the Hubble redshift of distant cosmic light and Einstein's cosmological constant Lambda; and there is also some similarity between the Pioneer Anomaly and Hubble constant; so these may be related in some way, perhaps coincidental to MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) as well. The current model of the universe, which is the Standard Model combined with a cosmology built up around an expanding universe, spawned of an original 'Big Bang' sudden inflation, to resemble the observable universe we see today, one expanding from the effects of 'dark energy' and modified Newtonian physics with 'dark matter', all of which come together in Quantum physics, which is the Standard Model. But there is something amiss in this complete theory, namely that if there is 'dark energy' pushing the universe apart, why should their be 'dark matter' holding it together, especially if this dark matter is gravitationally interactive with distant cosmic light to redshift at the Hubble/Cosmological constant? There has to be a better answer.
When I worked out distant light redshift in Mining deep space gravity, it came out to show that deep space gravity as expressed by Newton's G 'constant' would need to be about 5 orders of magnitude greater than on Earth (where G is about 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2) to have it redshift at 1z. In the BAUT forum discussion, NASA baffled by unexplained forces, there is reason to suspect that the Pioneer Anomaly mimics the Hubble constant, which is similar to Einstein's Cosmological constant, which explains the Doppler-like expansion of the universe after the Big Bang's ~13.7 billion year origin, all of which seems to bring together the idea that all these cosmological effects are from the same cause: something to do with gravity. When I worked out the Axiomatic Equation (independently of any of the above mentioned effects), I realized later that it too mimicked the Pioneer Anomaly, though only as an Equivalence related 'square root of distance', whereby Newton's G grows at the rate of 1G per 1 AU in our solar system, and the acceleration towards the Sun is a square root of that. Then when further researching this effect, it occurred that Milgrom's MOND is also related to the age of the universe, 13.7 billion years, as the time it would take for a particle to accelerate to lightspeed c, which is another interesting coincidence.(*) But is there not a very simple way to understand all these 'coincidences' with the simplest common denominator they all share? Gravity! What if all these effects from the Hubble to Einstein's to Pioneer are all but different phases of the same effect? Gravity is a variable, so deep in space it redshifts light at the Hubble/Cosmological constant, while within our solar system it changes the inertial mass of (exit velocity) space probes at the Hubble-like constant, as per Garth A. Barber: "Self Creation Cosmology An Alternative Gravitational Theory", where alternative ideas are explored. Garth's post on Physics Forum gives more insight into this phenomenon: 6. Furthermore note that Hubble's constant in similar units (1/(Hubble Time) expressed in seconds).
In the end, a variable G idea is what makes the most sense, since all these effects are easily explained together, from MOND to Hubble and Einstein, to Pioneers. It all fits so easily as one complete thesis when seen as a Variable G. Or is it mere coincidence?
(*) From MOND page at Wiki:
The equation v=(GMa0)1/4 allows one to calculate a0 from the observed v and M. Milgrom found a0=1.2×10-10 ms-2. Milgrom has noted that this value is also
"... the acceleration you get by dividing the speed of light by the lifetime of the universe. If you start from zero velocity, with this acceleration you will reach the speed of light roughly in the lifetime of the universe."
Ps: This just in PDF "Cosmology and Astrophysics without
Dark Energy and Dark Matter" by Shlomo Barak and Elia M Leibowitz (14 Sept. 2009) -- more than mere coincidence?
Also see: GR spinning out of control?
Why Dark Matter appears non-baryonic
|Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 11:10 am: |
Mars 'round midnight.
(click image for more Phoenix images)
Hmm, I wonder what time is Mars 'midnight'? And what is that hovering over the horizon? Earth? Sun?
For daylight panorama (interactive scan) image of Mars, see:
Curiosity Mars Rover, incredible panorama
|Posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 09:53 am: |
MARS HAS WATER, and it's fresh.
Phoenix Mars lander 'tastes' first sample of water ice
How TEGA works, animation link in image
Phoenix touched down in May on the northern plains of Mars and samples of the ice were seen vapourising away in photographs taken by the lander's instruments in June.
Boynton said that water was positively identified after the lander's robotic arm delivered a soil sample on Wednesday to the TEGA instrument. The sample, initially thought to be mostly dry, was collected to test new sample delivery techniques after previous attempts to drop icy soil into TEGA had failed due to the stickiness of the soil.
The Martian ice sample melted at zero degrees, per this poster. More science needs to be done, however, since conditions on Mars are not same as on Earth, and the 'sticky' soil is still an issue.
Nice job NASA.
|Posted on Sunday, August 03, 2008 - 09:58 am: |
MARS H20, fresh pix from Nasa, for sure!
... with just a dash of lemon, please.
|Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2008 - 06:40 pm: |
Clumpy Dark Matter, no surprise here at Humancafe.
Two false-color images compare the distribution of normal matter (red, left) with dark matter (blue, right) in the universe
In the linked article, under Comments, I wrote:
“Dark matter, which scientists can only detect by noting its gravitational effect, is thought to make up about 85 percent of the matter in the universe. Its composition remains a mystery, though some scientists think it's made up of hypothetical particles called WIMPs”…
How about another observation? We know ‘cold dark matter’ is invisible, non-luminous, e.m. energy poor thus cold; and we know it interacts gravitationally. So why not simplify things and accept these conditions, where ‘gravitation rich’ dark matter inter galactic space, meaning we can’t see it but it’s there as dust and gas, could be simply higher G matter than anything we can find on Earth? Per Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, this higher G matter would exhibit more mass so it appears as if it were more massive in the clumps where such dust and gas exist. Then there is no reason to look for WIMPs, but look for evidence where Newton’s G is NOT a universal constant, but higher in deep space than here in Earth’s vicinity. That would greatly simplify cosmology, including MOND and possible the Pioneer Anomaly, without disturbing the gravitational effect of CDM, what makes up 85% of matter in the universe. The only problem with this idea is that there is at present no justification of such a model based on General Relativity or the Standard Model, so no theoretical basis for it. But… it sure would simplify things, if it were so! Of course, if GLAST finds WIMPs, the matter is moot.
Of course it's "clumpy" out there, if it's just dust and gas in higher G, naturally, just clumps of uneven distribution. But will they ever think to look? Not if the current models don't give reason to. And that's the problem with CDM and current Cosmology, including Hubble redshift, high gas atmospheres, all to do with higher G. Problem remains 'unresolved' of course, in a flat-G universe.
Also see: Cosmological constants - the same?
Ivan/Kg in G
|Posted on Friday, August 08, 2008 - 08:28 pm: |
Clumpy Kg in G, resolved.
Clumpy soil on Mars - Phoenix diary: Mission to Mars
I don't know why it took me so long to understand this, but if 1 kg in 10 G (at 10 AU, per Axiomatic Eq.) is 10 kg, then it makes sense that 10 kg in 10 G is 100 kg.
So on Earth if 1 kg is on Mars, which is 1.5 AU the same as 1.5 kg Earth's, then 1.5 kg would be equivalent on Mars of 2.25 Earth's kg. And this explains rather handily why the soil inside the Mars Phoenix robot arm was 'sticky'. It acted as if it were in a gravity that was over two times that of Earth's, so particles of shaved dirt and ice tended to stick together by the 'gravitational' effect not ever experienced on Earth. And on Titan? On this Saturn moon it must be immense, at 100 Earth's equivalent kg, for 10 kg here, where water ice is like rock!
Planetary Society, Sol 72, delivery to TEGA of 'sticky' soil.
It's beginning to make more sense, how clumpy is kg in G.
Of course, this further supports the Pioneer Anomaly per variable G where its -a is growing at a rate squared of its distance traveled, in centimeters, as delta G grows at the rate of 1G per 1 AU. Not proof, but just one more point of evidence, that we must check for Newton's G... out there.
Ivan/CDM 10/1 ratio
|Posted on Friday, August 29, 2008 - 09:38 pm: |
The 'Ten for One' solution: of the galaxy's 'cold dark matter' to ordinary matter ratio.
(interactive - ScienceDaily)
Distribution of newly discovered dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way
Also Minimum Mass for Galaxies Discovered: Breakthrough -ScienceDaily
In NewScientist article, Do galaxies have a minimum mass? there seems to be some sort of 'inverse' relationship between galaxy luminosity and amount of 'cold dark matter', so that a ratio of light to dark matter shows up as a more or less constant. For example, our Milky Way has about a ten for one ratio, where there is about ten times as much dark matter as ordinary baryonic matter. But in the smaller 22 dwarf galaxies that orbit the Milky Way, the measured ratio varies inversely with the amount of light visible, so that a 'minimum mass' for those galaxies works out at about 10,000,000 solar masses, as a base ratio. So per the article:
By extension, if the dimmest galaxies have so much more dark matter than visible matter, 10,000 times as much dark matter than ordinary matter; and by the basic ratio of these smaller galaxies have about 10 million solar masses, and by the ten for one ratio of a hot galaxy like ours, where there is only 10 times as much dark matter as ordinary matter; then it appears that there is a base ratio relationship that is energy dependent on the amount of hot energy, or luminosity, present in that galaxy.
They measured the velocities of hundreds of stars in orbit around the galaxies' centres, which allowed them to calculate the mass of the galaxies' cores.
Surprisingly, the team found that the galaxies all weigh the same â€“ roughly 10 million times the mass of the Sun. Most of this mass seems to be dark matter, and the dimmest galaxies appear to contain 10,000 times more dark matter than visible matter.
Therefore, if such an inverse ratio of CDM to light energy exists, it is not beyond the pale that the inverse relationship of hot energy to gravity G, where they even out to some constant ratio, to be how the galaxies work. And if so, then cold dark matter is merely the 'missing' matter created by, per Equivalence, ordinary matter that is non-luminous and of higher G. In the case of the smaller galaxy which has 10,000 times the dark to ordinary matter, it is a cold one but heavy one, by example, and does not violate what the Axiomatic Equation seems to indicate: that there is a variable G 'constant' (which grows at the rate of 1G per 1 AU) that far out in space that G 'constant' is very high indeed, when far away from a hot energy source like galaxy stars.
This same phenomenon is also mentioned in Space.com: Galaxy Surprise Sheds Light on Dark Matter, where it says:
"What we found was astonishing, which was that they all had the same mass," said researcher James Bullock, a UC-Irvine astrophysicist. "It's not what we were expecting â€” we were really taken off guard."
Despite their wide-ranging brightnesses, all of the 23 satellite galaxies around the Milky Way seem to have a central mass of 10 million times that of the sun. And what's more, almost all of that mass seems to be made up of dark matter, with just the tiniest smidgen of visible matter producing stars.
Bullet Cluster, Wiki page (interactive)
There is more on Dark matter and normal matter 'divorce' in cosmic clash, where is mentioned the second such find, after the Bullet Cluster galaxies, where CDM is separated from luminous ordinary matter. Somehow, these are all related to how CDM behaves separately from baryonic ordinary matter, even when two galaxies collide, where one push through while the other lingers behind. A variable G can account for that, because the velocity for the 'hot' gas clouds, which will have a lower G inertial mass, will slow down vis-a-vis the 'heavier' inertial mass of the CDM, which carries more momentum. Weird, but that's how a variable G universe seems to work.
Ivan/more CDM stuff
|Posted on Saturday, September 13, 2008 - 12:40 pm: |
Are electrically charged WIMPs really CHAMPs?
NewScientist article: Is dark matter a wimp or a champ?
The galaxy's magnetic field lines appear to be horizontal, lying in the same plane as the galactic disc (shown, edge on). That could keep electrically charged dark matter particles outside of the disc, and beyond detection by Earth-based experiments (Image: 2MASS/J Carpenter/T Jarret/R Hurt)
If dark matter is electrically charged, it would be more likely to collide with normal matter. That's because it could couple with ordinary matter through its magnetic fields. Normal matter might also bounce off its electrostatic fields like a billiard ball.
But this is only half interesting. The real item that catches one's eye, given that per Axiomatic Equation the level of interstellar gravity G is some five or six orders of magnitudes greater than here on Earth, which means the hypothetical mass in deep space is about 100,000+ times greater per atomic mass than here.
So when we see this:
The researchers are currently studying what properties CHAMPs would need to explain dark matter observations.
For example, CHAMPs must bump into normal matter fairly rarely in order to create cosmic displays like the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025. In these collisions of galaxy clusters, ordinary matter gets jumbled up in the crash but dark matter continues on unimpeded.
Finding CHAMPs may prove tricky. The proposed particles would weigh at least 100,000 times the mass of the proton, too heavy to be created by the world's most powerful particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, which is set to start up on Wednesday.
Note how the "proposed particles would weigh at least 100,000 times the mass of the proton", which is five orders of magnitude in "weight" vs. the proton in Earth's G. (See: March 22, 2007: Deep Space Gravity may be 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than Newton's G on Earth, or in our solar system?)
That is interesting indeed! We're edging slightly closer to the truth, that Newton's G is not a universal constant but variable, though the electrically charged part of it does not invalidate it, and may in fact be true.
|Posted on Saturday, September 20, 2008 - 12:26 pm: |
Missing piece of the puzzle on Variable G.
Note how the "proposed particles would weigh at least 100,000 times the mass of the proton", which is five orders of magnitude in "weight" vs. the proton in Earth's G. (See: March 22, 2007: Deep Space Gravity may be 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than Newton's G on Earth, or in our solar system?)
What is puzzling is that if Newton's G varies at the rate of approximately 1G per 1 AU with distance from the hot radiant energy of our local star the Sun, and per the Equivalence Principle where higher G translates into higher "weight" proton mass, as per Anisotropy of kg/kg mass; and per the Pioneer Anomaly the acceleration towards the Sun approximates the square root of 1/distance traveled, while proton mass works out to be squared of Newton's G per AU (example: at Saturn's 9.5 AU, the G is about one order of magnitude greater than Earth's, 10x, but proton mass is two orders of magnitude greater, 100x); then if the limit for variable G in interstellar and intergalactic space works out to be about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than on Earth (per above link); and if the calculated Hubble redshift, if taken as gravitational redshift, calculates out to be what it is at about 100,000 G, then:
How could the proton be 100,000 times the mass (~five orders of magnitude), if for 100,000 AU the mass is exponentially greater as its squared (~ten orders of magnitude), which would gravitationally redshift distant cosmic light at a greater rate than Hubble's?
That is the problem I see as the "missing link" for how operates a variable G in the universe, that something is wrong. The "proton mass" should be more than 100,000 by five orders of magnitude, unless...
The most probable solution I can think of at present is that either: 1. the level of hot radiant energy in deep space is higher than expected, from hot plasma and other hot star sources, so the level of Newton's G is lower; or 2. there is a lot less gas and dust in space to gravitationally redshift distant light at the Hubble constant, as observed. Interesting puzzle, but at this time, though all the pieces fit rather nicely, including how Earth's G at 6.67E-11 is lower than the Axiomatic Equation's calculated 7.24E-11 by about the equivalence of the Boltzmann constant (Earth's hot interior ~2500K), this one last item still needs to be resolved: Is there less density of molecules in deep space, or is the hot energy level higher to modify the gravity G for the molecules there? In effect, is cold dark matter less dense gravitationally because there is more hot energy to modify the molecular gravity of dark matter, or is there less density for the invisible matter because there is less than we think? Or there is a third possibility: 3. gravitational redshift is simply a factor of G, regardless of the higher proton mass per G, which may be the best Occam answer. Interesting puzzle!
Of course, this study has dire consequences for modern day cosmology. It is obvious that if distant cosmic light redshifts gravitationally at the Hubble constant from deep space high gravity, then there is no need for Doppler space expansion, and also obviously there was no Big Bang origin of the universe. If there is a variable G very high in deep interstellar and intergalactic space, Einstein's mathematically derived G-flat parallel universe is dead.
|Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008 - 08:42 am: |
I bumped into a mention of RELATIVITY+ on this thread. Might I offer some information on mass and G and the relationship between space and energy?
And since this message has to be a minimum length:
I have no issues with the big bang. Assuming for a moment that the big bang did occur, space is not homogeneous because it has expanded between the galaxies but not within. The crucial point is this: inhomogeneous space is what gravity is.
John Duffield, author of RELATIVITY+
|Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008 - 11:08 am: |
Thanks John, for bringing your paper on RELATIVITY+ (original paper PDF) to our attention.
We had 'talked' I remember on BAUT, about a year ago, on the ATM discussion: RELATIVITY+ (I'm "nute' who wrote there, gave you thumbs up). Here's an image you posted:
You then wrote regarding my query on whether light c and gravity violate the inverse square law in the MOND/Pioneer Anomaly observations:
The c is always locally measured to be constant, but see page 5 re Einstein and page 19 re time dilation. Also look at figure 33 on page 35. See the right hand edge of the curve? Imagine it tapering off more than I've drawn it. That's where gravity is going linear. It's still diminishing with distance, but not according to the inverse square rule. Yes, there is some energy density to consider. The energy density of the space out there is less than that of the space here. Note that the Pioneers are not necessarily being accelerated towards the sun. What they actually measured was an anomalous doppler frequency drift which is increasing in a linear fashion. This might be due to a little more time dilation.
We had an interesting discussion then, well worth a revisit. I'm still not sure about the 'variable rulers' though. More recently I posted at ATM on the 'variable kg' idea and got little response, though didn't really expect different in a flat-G universe. But if G proves variable, then...?
I also made some observations on post Space vacuum may give clues in same thread. Well worth re-reading it again.
[BTW, these forums will go into 'read only' archives end of the year, but please feel free to add anything you would like on the matter. Thanks.]
|Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 - 01:08 pm: |
E=mc^3 may be the Total Energy budget maximum?
I wrote this a year ago on BAUT discussion: Farsight's total Energy budget?, where I posited that maximum E and maximum G are perhaps inverses of each other within a Total Energy budget. I had then said:
As it pertains to total Energy, can there be something akin to 'relativistic mass' for Energy, a kind of 'relativistic energy'? The value I had worked out earlier for a Strong force equivalent of 'space-vacuum' energy, viz.E_sv= 116E+40 KeV, when I converted this into Joules, something interesting came up. The result in Joules, per conversion of 1 KeV=1.6E-16 J, works out to be E_sv=186E+24 J. Why is this significant? Because it approximates E=mc^3, for 1 kg of mass (x 2pi).
The above value for space-vacuum energy was derived from Farshight's "A 511KeV photon causes the same degree of gravitational attraction as an electron." So I hope I got this right in how applied. But the result is curious, because it now says, in effect, that the maximum Energy possible in the universe is about c^3, which can be understood as E*c = mc^2*c, as an upper limit. This is a kind of 'relativistic energy' maximum, that no Energy can exist above itself at the speed of light. The converse, and this is important for 'energy conservation' would be that no Strong force equivalent for the 'space-vacuum' on a point could exceed this value, without violating energy conservation. Thinking a little bit outside the box here, but what this tells me, if true, is that total Energy conservation must fall within this c^3 parameter both ways, toward hottest radiant energy, as well as towards coldest possible energy of the space-vacuum, which would be a 'black hole' type energy.
So within a Total Energy parameter, energy conservation has a maximum limit of E=mc^3 (2 pi), whereas its inverse is where E=0 and gravity G goes to its maximum, such as found in a 'black hole' at centers of galaxies. It is that maximum gravity that can be recreated artificially (in a variable G universe) to tap into the 'space vacuum energy' when radiant E is totally canceled out, at E=0, and where G=c (per Axiomatic Equation), so nothing can escape, not even light, from a 'black hole'. Therefore, as I then wrote:
That pretty much sums it up, where the Total Energy budget falls within these two parameters of E=mc^3 and E=0. Or, as I wrote on these forums May 3, 2006, in Outta this World Physics:
So if we take the total Energy budget, of about ~10X+24 Joules, and if no radiant energy is possible, then the 'black hole' energy takes over; but conversely, if we have radiant energy equal to this maximum limit, then no 'space-vacuum' energy would be possible. In effect, these two are opposites, and possibly interactive, though together they form the total Energy budget which must be conserved.
Therefore, when little g (proton-to-proton gravitational 'constant') approaches the Strong Force =1, as happens when E=0, the G goes to maximum =c. That's the 'black hole' at the center of galaxies where all ambient light cancel on a point (within the Schwartzchild radius inside any hot body), so that E=0 and G=c. Conversely, when radiant Energy is maxed out, at E=mc^3, the G drops down to G=~4E-15, which is approximately where matter fails to hold together gravitationally; this may also account for why there is a solar wind, since molecules no longer hold together and are blown off by the Sun.
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).
[BTW, also interesting 'coincidences' regarding Schwartzchild radius show up inside the Earth's core and in our solar system at Asteroid belt, and Saturn rings, see: Earth's Inner Core, seismic shear waves tomography (inner core boundary), etc. Please note G=c is being treated here as a dimensionless ratio.]
|Posted on Monday, October 13, 2008 - 07:26 pm: |
Hello again, nice to hear from you too. I’ve been so busy of late I haven’t had much time for forums. I tried to post on humancafe and yes, I see how it’s disabled.*
So can I say that in essence all the constants are “running constants”. They’re variable, but we can’t tell because we and our measuring devices are affected by “immersive scale change”. We’re part of it. Hence we always measure the same local value for c even though light propagates more slowly in a high-gravity environment. And kilograms do vary in a sly secret way, related to light being deflected by gravity twice as much as matter. Thus kilograms increase in a high gravity environment, not in a low-gravity environment, not that you can weigh them as different on your balance scales. And G definitely isn’t a constant. It’s just so non-fundamental. Mass is telling you how much energy is there, and G is telling you the gradient in c it causes. Only that gradient depends on the surrounding space, and it might not be homogeneous. In fact, non-homogeneous space is what gravity is.
You might like to read the attached. Sorry it’s so big, but it should explain one or two things rather better than the paper. (Original paper is here: http://www.relativityplus.info/ )
*(posted via email to: email@example.com , since forums are in 'park' until the spammers go away. - Eds)
|Posted on Monday, October 27, 2008 - 09:25 am: |
So can I say that in essence all the constants are “running constants”. They’re variable, but we can’t tell because we and our measuring devices are affected by “immersive scale change”.
Hi John, I read your Relativity 3+1 paper in detail, and will get back to you on that later, just back from Rome. I think your statement above is a valuable insight, as are some other things you mentioned in the paper. We cannot know our 'constant' measures, including kilogram mass, are constants except within the context of how they are derived using the rulers of light to measure them. I wrote about how a variable kg works in a variable G making kg/kg anisotropic above, as well as how to test for anisotropic kg. These are still unresolved issues, so testing this will be important for a better understanding of cosmology. I also think the idea of "stressed space" as a fundamental characteristic of light and gravity, where gravity is in fact the 'unification' of all the forces is an important insight, though some other elements are questionable, since you seem to make mass out of electrons, and that may not be how it works.. But more later.
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 09:55 pm: |
Some notes on Relativity 3+1 paper.*
I thoroughly enjoyed reading John Duffied's paper because it has fresh ideas to ponder on our current understanding of cosmology. I made some notes along the way, of which I would like to address some here.
1) The first thought I had on "twisted space" idea (pg. 14) was "why twisted there?" What makes space focus on one point and become twisted and turned with charge, I wondered? I agree with his idea that space is like a charged battery where all the positive and negative charges balance out (pg. 13), which I think is a good way to look at it, but why would a specific point turn up as a focal center of charge in such a balanced field? Should there not be something that 'triggers' this event? For example (pg 13):
But why there on that point to have the 'twist' charge?
A flat battery is quite replete with charge. Whilst it offers no imbalance of charge to drive a current, it contains both positive charge and negative charge. This is why it exhibits the property of mass, and is a material object.
2) So if an electron is a kind of Mobius-twisted-space, should there be some 'seed' that triggers this event? If the electron is what gives itself mass by twisting space on that point in space, then what made it 'stop' there to do the twisting, or to be inertial in relation to us? Or as it says (pg. 25) on the Particle:
This along with an earlier statement (pg. 11) about mass:
The action motion must persist, but with zero net motion with respect to the observer to re-present momentum as inertia.
But now to make this self-created electron become mass, because it is 'at rest' in relation to us (a very interesting idea, btw), the reasoning becomes circular, that mass is created by the electron's 'rest mass' from an observer's point of view. Something else must be at work here, or else there is no justification for inertia and rest mass, regardless of whose reference frame we are observing it.
If we temporarily disregard the motion of the electron and positron, we can assert that pair production converts travelling kinetic energy or relativistic mass into non-travelling energy or rest mass. In effect the momentum is “stopped down” and now appears as inertia.
Mobius strip 'shells' - like the electron?
3) I think on (pg. 7) Energy invoking KE=1/2 mv^2, where it says: "So we reason that a cannonball travelling at 1000m/s has more than twice the kinetic energy of one travelling at 500m/s." I think the answer is not 'twice' but 'four times' the kinetic energy, if I did the math right. But this is perhaps merely a typo, so a minor point.
4) About Time, I do not necessarily think because atoms slow in a gravitational field that if follows that 'time' slows down, anymore than I think that if my watch stopped, time stopped. The slowing 'tick' of a cesium atom in a gravitational field is a function of its gravitational field, and in terms of Relativity it would appear to slow, but in fact that is only within the domain of applicability of the Lorentz transformation 1/(1-v^/c^)^1/2 relativistic parameters. If the definition of Time is a consistent 'ticking of a clock' then what happens to the atoms must be measured within that consistency, where they obviously 'slow down', but time remains time. If this were not so, then the atomic clock would never slow down when the atomic oscillations slowed down. How would we know if our time is adjusted for the slowing atomic oscillations? It becomes a paradox. Strange that modern cosmology somehow accepts this paradox without question!
5) About the proton (pg. 30) having 938,272 Kev (vs. electron's 511 KeV) which is 1836 times electron energy, it does not compute that electron mass is responsible for proton mass. The component photon wavelength of ~1.33E-15 meters is intriguing, because it happens to fall into the femtometer wavelength of neutrinos, but other than that, there seems to be a disconnect between the term 'mass' as a product of 'twisted space' and the proton mass. In short, the photon is NOT responsible for inertial mass, and in fact may be a 'moderator' for what that mass should be.
6) However, that said, I must agree with the statement (pg. 32) about the Strong force:
But if the strong force is merely geometrical, the natural question is "why is this so?" Why there on that point is the geometry suddenly changed from 'twisted space' into a 'trefoil' geometry?
We do not normally associate the photon with the strong force, but it truly is the strong force in action, and all the forces are but different aspects of geometry. Why is a proton 1836 times more massive than an electron? It’s because the electron is like a fat steel bar, bent into a moebius doughnut that’s so fat there isn’t any hole.
7) Can the photon (pg. 8) "be more fundamental that other particles"? This is trying to reduce everything down to the photon and time 'standing still' for mass, which does not work. Mass is something of its own right, I suspect strongly, and the photon is merely what interacts with that 'something' to create what we call, per the Equivalence principle, 'inertial mass'. To try to fit everything into the photon then becomes a "one trick pony" (pg. 21) of distance as stressed space (pg. 9), which is trying to squeeze something out of nothing. Why is 'stressed space' twisted on that point? Why is the Strong force in that proton? These answers can either be circular, so they don't really answer the questions, or else they must default to something more elemental: mass and photons are not the same thing.
8) There is, perhaps unwittingly, a statement that actually ties all this together, in my opinion, which is noteworthy (pg. 34, regarding black holes):
If the same Strong force that is the 'black hole' gravity is also at the center of a proton nucleus (positive charge), but modified (at femtometer wavelength) into what we call the atom, with its electron shells (negative charge), and all that remains is the (to infinity) gravity gradient; then this can make sense. But if so, it then necessitates that 'something' had seeded the proton nucleus to be there in the first place! For example, why is it that galaxy center black holes polar jets spew out positive charged particles? Where do these particles go in space? This may be key, that these particles may in fact be proto-protons (positive charged) that will modify through photons (at femtometer wavelength) into the basic hydrogen protons we know as the basic atom. This makes sense, and only this, as the fundamental definition of mass: the hydrogen atom in its G environment will display either more or less mass depending upon the level of photon energy received (inversely). In a word, hydrogen on Earth, close to the Sun, has a very high level of femtometer energy hitting its Strong force nucleus, so only a tiny portion remains as 'mass' of the kind we can measure (through Equivalence) as inertial mass. But if we were in a very energy poor region of space (far from any hot radiant stars), then the same hydrogen atom would display greater inertial mass. Does this not sound an awful lot like the mysterious 'dark matter' postulated by flat rotation curves of MOND on the galaxy perimeter (far from hot radiant energy)? Or perhaps even the Pioneer Anomaly as the spacecrafts exit the solar system and grow in inertial mass with distance from the femtometer radiation of our hot star, so they slow? Something to consider.
All that’s left is the raw strong-force stress spilling its gravitational gradient into the surrounding universe.
9) Therefore, if there is a 'stressed location' (pg. 34) where "c is zero", it may have everything to do with the Strong force being there, which may be because that is the proto-proton created out of the jets of black holes, which may be seeding the universe with what ultimately become hydrogen atoms, which are then modified by photons at femtometer wavelength to become the Equivalence inertial mass, which further becomes a 'growing inertial mass' with distance from a hot star (ala Pioneers). That makes sense! Not a 'one trick' pony but really a two trick pony, where two things interact, the atomic nucleus Strong force and femtometer photon energy. The rest of it, that electrons are 'twisted space' still holds true, but now there is a reason why it twists on that particular point in space! E.g., the 'stressed space' is where the proton's Strong force 'captures' a photon and breaks it up into its positive-negative electromagnetic wave as a (negative) electron, while modifying the (positive) nucleus into its inertial mass. Can this work?
10) The question still remains about 'charge' and electromagnetic propagation of photons: why do they exist, and why does light travel at c? This is still the big puzzle, same as why does light 'slow' or redshift going through a gravitational fields? The geometry of General Relativity makes sense here, except it may be missing one very important component, that gravity G is NOT a universal constant, but varies inversely proportional to the femtometer energy received, at about lambda=1.33E-15 meters. (See Axiomatic Equation for more on this: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/166.html "E=9E+16J" paper). It also means, by default, that light traveling through intergalactic space is 'stretched' of necessity by the very high G there, so coming out of a very long well (light years long) and arriving on Earth, it is stretched as the Hubble redshift observed; this means the universe is NOT expanding, so there was no necessary Big Bang origin, only the dimensions of a universe observable with light of about 13.7 billion light years. But why the charge of positive nucleus, neutralized neutron (where an electron is imbedded in proton), and why light travels at c? These are still unanswered questions, except to say that this is how the universe is put together. Two trick pony, Strong force and photons, and the remainder that ties it all together is per force gravity.
+ - + - + - + - + - = 0
John, I want to thank you sincerely for all the hard work you put into that paper, and those fine thought provoking ideas. In fact, I was rather impressed with how you put it all together, but I also had that nagging doubt that we are missing something here. I think what is missing is that Mass is NOT the photon, nor the electron, but the Proton, and depending upon how much photon energy it receives then gives us the inertial mass experienced, where more photon energy is less mass, i.e., inversely proportional. But in today's cosmology this is still unknown. Perhaps a test for inertial mass out in the deep space of the outer solar system will ultimately clarify it. I also suspect that when they do this test, they will discover that gravity G is not a universal constant, but variable in inverse proportion to the photon radiant energy received from our local star, the Sun. Wouldn't that be cool!
All the best, keep working on it, and thanks for sharing this valuable paper here.
* (see published version: http://www.amazon.co.uk/RELATIVITY-Theory-Everything-John-Duffield/dp/0956097804) - Eds
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Saturday, November 01, 2008 - 10:03 am: |
Thanks Ivan. Do read the book version re mass. It's clearer, it better explains the symmetry between momentum and inertia. A photon has momentum. Stop it via pair production and that momentum is now inertia. Mass. There's a chain of logic to follow with all this, and it's important to understand the basic concepts like energy mass and charge before moving on. The picture of the photon undergoing pair production in "Particles Explained" is important. The photon is a travelling distortion, and it distorts its own path. At 511KeV it's constant, so it's going nowhere fast.
Apologies, I'm still doing my image permissions, and must press on.
Posted From: 18.104.22.168
|Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - 12:00 am: |
Edging closer to the Black Holes of galactic centers.
'Death Star' Galaxy Black Hole - NASA's Chandra X-ray telescope
Black Holes Burp Big Bubbles
...Over time, black holes grow in heft as their gravity pulls in surrounding gases. Because cool gas is denser, it sinks to the center of galaxies — and toward the black hole — faster. If the gas around the black hole is kept warm, it sinks toward the black hole at a slower rate.
"In this way, you can feed the black hole and add more and more mass to it," Ruszkowski told SPACE.com. "If there's no mechanism to prevent the cooling that is essentially triggering this feeding process then the black hole would grow in an uncontrollable fashion."
But, he added, "nobody in the field thinks this is happening," he said. The new results, which are detailed in the Oct. 20 issue of Astrophysical Journal, reveal a mechanism for continuous heating of the interstellar material, he said.
A similar mechanism keeps star formation in check and in turn the mass of the home galaxy.
Stars are thought to form as dense clouds of gas and dust collapse under their gravity. Over time, the material heats up and ultimately the tight bundle becomes a full-fledged star powered by thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen and other light elements in its core.
The cooler the material, the more likely the clumps of gas and dust will succumb to the force of gravity and collapse into luminous stars.
Right. The cooler space is less radiant hot energy rich, but more gravity G rich, so its hydrogen molecules (per Equivalence to higher G) will condense into combustible clouds to become stars. They're beginning to make sense! Too bad they still don't get the variable G part of it. But one step at a time.
Life molecule sugar
Posted From: 22.214.171.124
|Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 - 10:25 am: |
This is sweet too, inside the Milky Way
"A simple sugar that is an ingredient of life has been found for the first time in a relatively hospitable part of the galaxy.
As molecules go, glycolaldehyde is not an impressive one, but its lnk to the origins of life make it significant.
It can react to form ribose, a key constituent of the nucleic acid RNA."
Posted From: 126.96.36.199
|Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 - 09:52 am: |
Do the math, Jupiter's central core is 5 times greater mass than its size.
Earth cum Jupiter sizes
Now compare this with the latest article at Space.com:
According to astronomer Geoffrey W. Marcy (Astronomy, October 2006), the planet appears to have a rocky core of around three Earth-masses.
Jupiter's Core Twice as Big as Thought
With information gleaned from these simulations, the researchers developed another computer model. They found Jupiter's core is an Earth-like rock that's 14 to 18 times the mass of Earth, or about 5 percent of Jupiter's total mass. Previous studies suggested the core was only seven Earth masses or that Jupiter had no core at all.
And compare this with the above post on the forum:
Note, all these ASSUME a Newton's G at Earth's 1 AU to be UNIVERSAL, so all figures for mass are based on this assumption. Changing the local G at different AU does not change the calculations for mass, except in local G terms, where it must be expressed with a different local 'kilogram' as explained above. But mass is mass regardless of how expressed, it remains the same body, so same mass.
Of course, if Jupiter at 5.2 AU from our Sun resides in about 5 G equivalent mass, then the numbers make sense, that it's core is some 15 times Earth mass, if its size is about 3 Earth masses. Do the math.
Related: 'Dark sun' is one of our nearest neighbours
"The new brown dwarf breaks two other records as well. It's the coldest brown dwarf ever seen, with a temperature of just 130 to 230 °C. And it's the dimmest: it emits only 0.000026 per cent as much energy as our sun, and this energy emerges at infrared rather than visible wavelengths. It would take 3.8 million of these brown dwarfs to equal the sun's power. It is about the size of Jupiter, but its mass is 5 to 30 times greater."
[It makes sense in a 'variable G' universe, that mass is higher for a 'cold' star than it's size would warrant. -- Eds.]
Related again: The exoplanet GJ 1214b, which orbits a star 40 light-years from Earth,...
Among our solar system's inhabitants, Neptune is the planet that most closely resembles GJ 1214b, Bean said. The alien planet has a radius 2.5 times the size of Earth's and has about 6.5 times the mass, researchers said.
Note, this is about right, considering Vol=4pi r^2, but is it due to size or red-dwarf proximity? At 0.014 AU from cool star, this may be anomalous. Wiki on GJ 1214b exoplanet.
[The more we look, the more variable-G, viz. higher G increases with distance from hot star, makes sense.]
Ivan/Galileo, right again!
|Posted on Monday, December 01, 2008 - 10:36 pm: |
Did Galileo also almost prove the variable-G effect?
Galileo called on the carpet in Rome during Inquisition
A biography by Galileo's pupil Vincenzo Viviani stated that Galileo had dropped balls of the same material, but different masses, from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that their time of descent was independent of their mass. This was contrary to what Aristotle had taught: that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones, in direct proportion to weight.
This story may or may not be true, but it was ultimately proven right. Or was it exactly? We now find that the Pioneer Anomaly may be giving us very distant clue, of orders of magnitude lower than anything Galileo could have measured; the probes are acting 'as if' their inertial mass is growing incrementally with distance from the Sun.
Now, this should not be, if Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment were exactly true, because the 'growing mass' of the Pioneers probes would only translate into larger more massive objects. In effect, the same reason an astronaut can be co-moving with the space shuttle or International Space Station on a space-walk, that the gravitational effect on mass is the same regardless of size, would mean the Pioneers should not be drawn back towards the Sun. For example, there is virtually no evidence of such a mass anomaly in our inter-solar space probes, such as sent to Mars or Saturn, though very slight gravity slingshot anomalies had been reported. But if Galileo was absolutely right, then the Pioneer Anomaly could not exist, unless he was mostly right, except for a very slight variation, that at different Newton's G levels in our solar system (larger G farther from Sun, at rate of about 1G per 1AU) the masses of distant bodies were (all) prefigured on a universal constant Newton's G (6.67E-11 N mass-ratio of attraction); so though distant space probes like Huygen were an order of magnitude 'larger' in terms of G equivalence inertial mass, they acted 'as if' they were no different from simply a larger craft. In the small cannon ball vs. large cannon ball experiment, they both fell to the ground simultaneously (allegedly), and the same should happen gravitationally for larger spacecraft vs. smaller spacecraft in a constant G environment. But what Galileo showed us is that it is not the size of the mass that acts differently to gravitational attraction, since even in a higher G equivalent inertial mass they would act the same; but that (unbeknownst to him) even when the ratio of mass to inertial G is greater, as happens to space probes in the outer solar system, they act merely as if they were larger mass bodies. In effect, we couldn't tell they were of higher inertial mass from gravitational force acting upon them.
So for this reason, we could never see any reason to doubt that Newton's G is a universal constant, since all distant space probes acted (mostly) as they should. Small variations in gyro spin-ups (or downs, dependent on which way spin) were discounted for other factors; same for hard landings on Mars; or clumping soil on Mars; or gravity assist anomalies. All these were written off with a constant universal G. However, Pioneer Anomaly is not so easy to write off, since the probes on exit trajectory leaving the Sun's all dominating gravity are experiencing a tiny, nearly negligible pull back towards the Sun. If this is due to mass 'increase' per equivalent inertial mass, then it is the only way we find evidence that Galileo's Pisa experiment was actually slightly off when it came to inter solar travel: increase in inertial mass, per higher G, will actually increase the 'larger' mass towards the Sun by a tiny, nearly negligible acceleration. And that shows that, once again, Galileo was exactly (nearly) right, again!
Addendum: The Pioneer Anomaly may have a simple explanation: conservation of momentum. So even if the mass increases, per Equivalence, of a space probe traveling away from the Sun (away from low G to higher G), then the equivalent mass increase should be same as if two different masses being acted upon by Sun’s gravity, e.g., they should both be acted upon equally. However, if conservation of momentum is factored in, as it must, then the increasing Equivalence mass per higher G should be accounted for. And the only way this conservation can be expressed, as G related mass increases, is to show as a slowing acceleration (increased acceleration towards the Sun), which becomes slowing velocity of the (per higher G) increased mass of the space probe. So this momentum conservation works out in numbers as (1/AU)^1/2 in centimeters.
How 'giant' black holes?
|Posted on Tuesday, June 09, 2009 - 12:11 pm: |
Giant black holes just got bigger - BBC News
Astronomers weigh supermassive black holes by studying the size of their host galaxies and, critically, the speed with which stars move around inside those galaxies.
The new study used novel computer modelling techniques to tease apart the relative contributions to the total mass of M87 from its visible stars, its black hole and its "dark halo".
Is this 'dark matter' halo anything like this theorized "Sun's inner core boundary" estimated in earlier posts? A super massive black hole may have more to its dynamics than we currently understand, and it can certainly be larger than previously thought.
More related, see: Loony Wacky Crookes idea, and SMBH, what are they?