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!

Thanks for the reply and the modesty and the links.People are like old records and I hope that in saying that I wasn`t hijacking your topic with an old complaint of mine.

(I admit that I didn`t understand all of the jargon.) I like the tone of this piece and some of the conclusions (for what it`s worth), and I like people to bring up the water wave analogy as often as possible so I can bring up a point YET AGAIN.(Please indulge me!) "Any bang can and does create a local density fluctuation wave front, a place of constant change. This wave is seen in any ripple on the water caused by the ‘bang’ of a tossed in rock." Water waves are caused by collections of water molecules so comparing any behavior of individual particles to a water surface is incorrect. It is not correct to compare the behavior of individual fundamental particles and the wave patterns caused by particulate interactions of large numbers of water molecules in a body of water since the former is a property inherent to a single particle and the latter is an effect, and that is caused by the collective particulate behaviors of many particles. I wish there were clear everyday examples of individual particles acting as waves but there aren`t. But you`re wrong with this analogy because you`re trying to describe one thing in terms of another that is completely different! (If you got rid of the idea of the 'wavelike' nature of particles,I might begin to understand the concept!!:blink:When scientists talk about the 'wavelike' nature of particles,I can only see in my mind water waves,and every particle interacting in a particulate way but limited,unlike in the everyday world,by the speed of light- so APPEARING as wave sources to each other....As I said can somebody provide a real world example of a particle **CLEARLY** acting like a wave?Then somebody could correctly use that analogy instead!(And I would FINALLY accept this wavelike notion!))

Thanks for reply.The history of science is full of crackpots but also of accepted wisdom being challenged and fiercely defended - often without good reason.I can`t see how science can suddenly have become enlightened in the last 100 years. I cant say that I`ve ever really been a fan of anybody (apart from the opposite sex)-I think that might be why I question everybody! Lee Smolin has an axe to grind because he says that he`s working in an unfashionable field - Should there be fashion in physics? In the end it`s just semantics.Ideally there should only be logic in science. I also think that the lecturers are generally a lot cleverer than the undergraduates (cleverer than me anyway!) and very few of them now have time for another dumb question from the audience - The ones in the UK at least.

I can only speak of my experience at university.Orwell would call it Groupthink. Officially there`s no plagiarism but everybody copied everybody elses write-ups -It went to the extent that somebody would answer a question incorrectly - clearly contrary to what textbooks say- and get a good mark and then everybody else would follow suit for fear of being marked down. Traditionally lecture theaters are portrayed as places where lecturers lecture,and students ask questions- In 3 years I can barely remember an instance of anybody asking questions. I myself had lots of questions and I`ve come on the internet years later to try and find some answers- but few people seem to want to provide any. Few people seem to want to ask questions either anymore. Shouldn`t science be about asking questions rather than just accepting everything? Lee Smolin describes modern physics in a recent book 'The Trouble With Physics' in a way that makes it sound more like the film industry.The Professor Wheelers of this world are like big Hollywood producers and gaining their support is as important as the work itself. Important fields of study receive no funding because they are unfashionable. How did we get into this situation? The fact that most people seem to be happy with it makes it seem more like religious fervor than logic - People seem to be unknowingly getting indoctrinated. I was TOTALLY disillusioned with the state of science when I left university and I believe that there`s a real possibility that the evidence will soon be so overwhelming that some of the more recent established theories could be overturned- but it might take a lot more evidence than it should and I have little confidence that a sizable minority will ever accept change because they`ve been brought up to believe something different.

How do we work out the amount of matter inferred by the light we see in the universe? How do we work out the amount of matter from the light? The little I remember about spectroscopy was that you could find the amount of stuff by the intensity of absorption bands-but that was small samples in equilibrium. Looking in any direction into space gasses are at different temperatures so we`ve got emission bands superimposed on absorption bands and vice-versa. So surely using spectroscopy we`re only looking at the difference between emission and absorption and there isn`t a way of determining the amounts of material spectroscopically. So is there another way of finding the amount of matter using light, or is it safe to ignore superimposition? This is such a basic question that the 400 page book I bought to answer this question didn`t mention it- Or will somebody clear up my confusion?

There is an etiquette to modern science.Nowadays you can`t just jump out of the bath and run up the road shouting 'Eureka' in a loud voice.If you`re going to give your topic such a title then it deserves all the scorn and derision it gets - Whatever the content.

If every test on the validity of redshift as a means to gauge recessive velocity was to suggest its unsuitability for the task (I have found nothing to say that it is suitable) then what other indications do we have other than suggestions offered by mathematical models that things are receding? Thanks for the VERY HELPFUL link-I can`t say that I totally understand all of it: "Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine, and although its density corresponds to 3.18o it is much richer in high-frequency constituents than equilibrium radiation of that temperature." Why is radiation in interstellar space far from thermodynamical equilibrium?Could alternative (steady state) models provide the possibility of equilibrium being reached over perhaps an infinite timescale? "The starlight radiation field is concentrated in galaxies like the Milky Way, which only occupy one part per million of the volume of the Universe, while the CMB fills the entire Universe." >99.9999% of the universe isn`t dominated by the starlight radiation field and could`ve reached equilibrium over an infinite timescale? "If the solar system were opaque at the millimeter wavelengths of the CMB, we would see a 300 K blackbody; and if the Milky Way were opaque to mm waves we would see a 3.18 K blackbody; but neither the solar system nor the Milky Way is opaque." If the universe was actually limitless and mostly occupied by 3K gas in equilibrium,wouldn`t it appear opaque-a blackbody? By these arguments would a steady state model also fit the facts?

The Big Bang theory is a mathematical model that has to rely on two principal observations to be seen as fact-but both of those seem unsafe. 1/Redshift-From the redshift of spectral lines we can conclude that objects are generally receding. Dark matter,dark energy inflation all rely on the assumption that redshift is a reliable indicator of radial velocity- I can`t see how it can be. 1/Critics mention Compton Scattering as a contributor to redshift 2/The K Trumpler effect,known since 1911-The well documented,accepted,but ignored apparent phenomenon that O,B type stars are receding to a much greater extent than other spectral classes. I must also mention that I plotted (15 years ago) graphs of i/ redshift of stars v galactic latitude ii/ distance of galaxies derived from redshift v distance of galaxies derived from apparent magnitude Both these graphs suggest that redshift is caused by something other than radial velocity.Looking through the plane of the galaxy,stars seen to recede more,and galaxies appear to recede by an amount partially dependent on their type. I can`t say this is reliable-I did get the data from a planetarium program after all! I would like -at the very least- to see observational data that redshift is a reliable indicator of recessive velocity. 2/ Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Critics say that this looks like black-body radiation.The interstellar environment in our galaxy is calculated to be at 3K which should produce a spectrum similar,if not identical,to the CMBR.You don`t need an explosion 14 billion years ago to account for this light,so why bring one in? There are other considerations such as the abundances of light elements-but I can`t say that I myself understand them.Maybe the Big Bang is still a safe and valid explanation but to me it shouldn`t rely on two debatable observations for its foundations.

Sorry I-try.Nowadays I find that I hardly have time to read 10 pages but I`m sure that everyone here would like to see a summary if you`ve got the time. I haven`t heard any convincing arguments why my interpretation is wrong-Although somebody will probably find one soon. At the moment we seem to be at the chicken-and-egg stage of the debate and maybe my powers of rational thought are`nt particularly good because I can`t see why everybody is convinced that I`m wrong.

All electrically neutral substances nonetheless always exhibit EM phenomena to a certain extent,although the magnitude of these effects vary on the composition. If it`s good enough for the electrons,protons in atoms then it should be good enough for more fundamental particles(if they exist)-What effects would they produce?I`m inclined to think that they would be attractive because most EM phenomena are,and attractive configurations are the lowest potential energy states-Simply speaking things prefer going downhill than uphill. Electrical and magnetic properties are irrelevant-What causes an objects mass? An objects mass has nothing to do with its electrical and magnetic properties- The cause of mass is from something further inside atoms. There is no equation that I`m aware of that says that we`ve seen the most elementary particles. There could be 3 levels or 100 further levels of complexity inside the atom- It is an equally probable scenario - Unless there is an equation somewhere that says this is false. If somebody came out with an equation that perfectly described the universe in terms of a few more levels of reality,I can`t see any reason to object - It`s better than adding more dimensions! It is not a total impossibility that gravity and EM come from the same couple of elementary particles inside every particle that has mass (I think that this is a popular (crackpot) belief- so I worry about saying it) The difference with gravity is that it could be caused by these constantly moving particles - fixed EM fields would have an effect but that effect might only reflect the distribution of groups of particles (atomic structures) and might only manifest itself as diamagnetism,paramagnetism etc. I didn`t say EM has no measurable effects- If it is truly a fundamental force then it must be acting at every level of reality on even the fastest moving particles inside atoms.Question:If bodies are moving in perfect ellipses are they being affected by photons/gravitons with infinite wavelengths because they would have to be arriving at every instant to effect the change-otherwise wouldn't we have hexagonal orbits etc? And if particles have infinite wavelength,can we consider them particles? How are gravity waves different from EM waves? If gravity came from electromagnetism then massive bodies would alter EM fields just like EM induction- Light emitted from massive bodies is weakened-The field is weakened-This is consistent with the bodies countering the field-Electromagnetic Induction. Frame dragging - Electromagnetic induction. All light phenomena attributed to gravitational effects could be attributed to EM induction. Mentioning photons is leading to another discussion I started about wave-particle duality. My logic in that is consistent with the logic in this. I`m not aware of a phenomenon whereby photons interact with themselves. Photons are very nice at explaining the photoelectric effect-but I think that describing light as a particle might`ve been a convenient shortcut. If you can describe a phenomenon where photons interact with themselves,I will have to find a way out of it though! (This all sounds very arrogant and I do get shaky when questioning Einstein!)