ukgazzer

Mr ACG52 and Mr swansont will you please look at the facts before making such remarks.People submitting comments to this forum generally have an interest,and some grasp of science.The most common topics that come up again and again in this and similar fora seem to be either about the nature of black holes or whether gravity comes from EM. Most proposals seem to be flawed and for good reason,while others are debated and end up in circular arguments.Some people reply civilly and some people -who evidently have more fixed beliefs- reply dismissively. I did start a topic about 'science is all about religion' and yet again we see it is.

I`m sure that most people have accepted that gravity is quite likely to be electromagnetic in origin,but not in the way you describe. Anti-gravity may well be impossible. There is also no need for positively charged gravitons and negative monopoles in any theory that describes gravity in terms of EM - 'All' that is required is the formulation of the relevant equations and the acceptance that common phenomena can equally well be described in a different way- We really need a new Maxwell or Minkowski to come along!

I can make very convincing silhouettes of rabbits with my hands.The same kind of logic that would say that my hands have turned into rabbits could be being employed in suggesting the existence of dark matter.I have not got perfect 20:20 vision and maybe cosmologists should accept the possibility that maybe they might not have either and maybe some visual factor is involved.

Has a timescale of ~100 years been great enough for any variation in redshift due to cosmological expansion to have any noticeable effect?At the moment we have to accept that a lot of cosmology is guesswork.We can`t get it in a lab and poke and prod it so it`s not surprising that the subject is largely a debate in progress. BTW There seems to be (at least for me) too many reasons :doh:to believe that redshift is not a reliable measure of radial velocity for the question to have any relevancy.

Has a dust cloud turned into 'dark matter' around TYC 8241 2652? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120705201330.htm What`s an alternative/better explanation?

step1 : sunbeds would solve vitamin D deficiency wouldn`t they? step2 : a very tall building,if it could be built,would require a lot of work to maintain.Colonizing Antarctica seems more like a 1st step to colonizing space. step3 : Artificial gravity-enormous wheel space stations would solve low gravity problems and probably be easier to build and maintain than your tall building- especially if materials were ferried from outside the Earth - the moon for example. step4 : Vacuum is something that you`ll just have to put up with.Maybe they could use some kind of material to absorb micrometeorite impacts? step5 : Moon bases should be comparatively easy once they get sophisticated robots with a good power supply up there.There`s no reason that with current technology that they couldn`t build a whole city up there out of lunar material. tomorrow (or maybe Thursday).

I can`t see any meaning in the numbers BUT/ 1/In current society,I don`t think that people would accept your argument even if you supplied crystal clear irrefutable proof because I think most people are anti religion and thus anti God - Religion has caused too many problems. 2/If there was any significance in the numbers, I think that God would`ve been clever enough so that the system worked in ANY language and for ANY calendar - Unless God is no cleverer than us, which doesn`t seem right . 3/I don`t think that if there is a God that he`d make it that easy.

Don`t forget DARK MATTER!!

Experts are human too and they undoubtedly try to describe the universe in a way that they are comfortable with-Sometimes leaving everybody else clueless as to what is going on.

What`s a strange claim and what isn`t?

People also used to believe in God at one time.Now we have science.Maybe nowadays people are becoming too blinkered but I haven`t seen any research to support or discount numerology.Maybe the sceptics could share their data?

Infinities,paradoxes and unique physics describe both black holes and the Big Bang so we`re wandering into the area of belief and religion when we talk about both - It`s all about the current fashion in philosophy,and guesswork. I can see no reason why we can`t attribute the Big Bang to events in a BH - The distribution of matter around BH`s suggests that they play a bigger part than they should if it was only about their masses ,so maybe they reprocess matter and occasionally spew it out - Maybe the Big Bang was a Big Spew- This is conjecture but the field is full of it and I don`t think that we know nearly enough to say anything concrete about the origin of the universe and the nature of BHs. This is the current position as I understand it,anyway.

i/ If acceleration due to gravity is due to the sum of the contributions of all masses, how can this acceleration provide us with a figure for the actual amount of mass present? For example (an extreme case!) if we were living in the centre of the Earth,we would feel weightless. To me it seems that orbital motion only reveals the difference in gravitational attraction from opposite directions. How does orbital motion provide a reliable way to determine the actual masses or mass distribution? ii/ Is there a formula for the relationship between the number and size of bodies in the universe? How many different processes are at work to determine how frequently things get big? If there is a formula,what does it suggest for the number of brown dwarfs etc in the galaxy? How much do they contribute to the missing mass? iii/ How reliable is the principle that material will produce a gravitational field directly proportional to its mass? I`m only aware of an established and reliable relationship with cosmically very small masses. Why do we get stuff orbiting/GOING AROUND BHs in spiral patterns in the 1st place if there`s no connection between the BH and the pattern?

re that link (for what it`s worth) orbs of water from a marble dropping in a pool - waves simulating particle behavior?!? energy from compression - I have no idea. "What you propose violates the second law of thermodynamics"- Aren`t laws meant to be broken ? Maybe somebody a little ignorant should give it a try? earths gravity to produce electricity - Isn`t that water wheels? the energy used by gravity - I know too much to accept that concept. John Galt - Energy from the Earths magnetism - Impractical. I saw 'The Core' and that didn`t go too well! free energy from gravity - I know too much to accept that concept Kapanadze Free Energy Device Replication- Insufficient data- To me at the moment it looks like a magic trick.

"Although expansion of space-time seems more reasonable than contraction of mass/energy, the dynamic relationships inherent in these two perspectives of change are equivalent." As an everyday person with a tape measure and a watch,who relies on the assumption of an immutability of the dimensions in everyday life,it would be nice if this interpretation is correct (It doesn`t mean it is though). I wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan Collins-It`s a pity that somebody else hasn't said anything about this statement-Maybe he`s wrong and somebody can answer the questions and clear up all the confusion? I`ve got books on String Theory- Reading these texts feels like I`m being force fed beliefs and convictions without any corroborating data to back them up (although they`re dumbed down and don`t include the math.) (I`m not happy with physicists !!) The Higgs Boson is something that I`ll just have to take somebody elses word for!