MrGamma

Okay... I've done a little bit of research on this. Apparently there is no need for the ionized 3He+2 to turn into a solid but rather a gas... There is Titanium Oxide which is known to absorb Helium quie effectively once it reaches a temperature above a certain degree. Titanium essentially acts as a sponge for the plasma state helium and captures it to gas trapped within the soil itself? Is this correct?

Whoops... I must have got it mixed up with telekinetic...

Psycho (mental) Kinesis (kinetic) So... essentially... sonar may be capable of killing whales. There is a myth that whales can use sonar to stun their prey by amplifying their echo location sense. By definition... I think that falls into the realm of kinetic force. But I know of no living organism which can inflict damage through sound waves. This isn't kinetic... but it's close... Squid stun prey by flashing http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1044/squid-stun-prey-flashing Not by any measurable amount or accuracy... but a Rodney King beating televised could be an action at a distance... Twin Towers collapsing certainly has an effect at a distance... it started a whole war right? So... if your brain doesn't have the capability of physically altering material... I guess the next best thing is to use your "influence"... right? The NLP people for the most part can seem really touchy feely ( alot of it is junk )... but there are real sciences involved and I guess it's not a physics dimension in the traditional sense... but it is a medium through which results can be achieved at a distance... even if it's just mentally... swish patterns are a scary concept... not sure how much truth there is in it... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nlp+swiwsh+pattern&search_type= If you need any validation on the science which goes into it... this is a good video to watch...

It sort of does ( for the WILD 2 Samples )... I don't mean to paraphrase the article but... Which means they are not captured ice-balls from the Kuiper belt or for the most part formed strictly of water/ice/methane. I am sure there are other comets which are... but this one examined by stardust... not so much... it's rock which was formed in extreme heat temperatures... and it has some ice on it's surface... it's more like an asteroid that's been through some cold weather rather than a dirty ice-ball... I am entirely aware that matter accretion occurs.... I just wasn't aware that 43,000 house size objects made of water-ice were slamming into the atmosphere daily...

This is the most reliable source I have regarding the subject. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03136.htm Is this true? There is currently no known plasma to solid conversion process? Technically... To put it into context... Would Ionized 3He+2 in the solar wind be a possible resource to convert into 3He? ( regardless of it's quantity ) Or technically... would turning an ionized 3He+2 to a 3He equivalent be similar turning lead into gold? Impossible/Possible? So essentially... you could place the 3He+2 along with some other metal in an electrolysis plasma bath and this would transfer the plasma to another material? If this has steered off into speculation my apologies. I am just trying to understand the chemistry behind plasma and ions a little better.

This I realize... What baffles me is that the New York times article claims that up to 43,000 dirty snowballs are pummeling the earth each day... I know when you look at a comet from a distance it appear to be an "ice ball" but for the most part it's accretion matter from it's travels... or so they say (NASA StarDust)... I'm just freaked out that this many "ice balls" have been seen flying into the atmosphere each day... Is this a real phenominon or an imagined one?

Is this for real? Scientists in 1997 claimed that the earth was being bombarded with upto 43,000 dirty snowball comets a day. "Tiny Comets May Have Huge Impact" http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E7DD123AF93AA15756C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all I'll admit... it's getting really hard to find the truth... the only reason why I thought the whole dirty snowball thing was a fake was because NASA has a stardust program which says comets are not made of dirty snow... "Stardust Findings Suggest Comets More Complex Than Thought" http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news110.html If anybody could help me keep my sanity for a bit and possibly shed some light on this story ( perhaps it has a history ) then it would be appreciated. Are comets really pummeling the earth with dirty snow? If they are not... How does something like this make the New York Times?

I am fairly illiterate when it comes to chemistry but I am doing my best to learn. Helium-3 is stable and is denoted as 3He. Ionized Helium-3 is denoted as 3He+2. What does it take to transform ionized 3He+2 into 3He? Is it possible?

I don't see why Psychokinesis would be impossible at all... I have not tried to verify these sources... however navy sonar test might be able to kill whales... Whales' Deaths Linked to Navy's Sonar Tests http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1231-02.htm Psychokinesis might not be impossible at all... but I would suspect you would have to find an organ in the brain which is capable of projecting a detectable force. Otherwise... you can simply think that you're creating an action at a distance... and assume it's true with no evidence to support it... However... Physics claims no accuracies with social interaction and influence regarding action at a distance. Clearly the effect is seen... perhaps even measurable... People are certainly trying to master the effect... Neuro Linguistic Programming may be an interesting area of study in this instance... along with the arts...

Whoops... ??? function acceleration($m,$f,$r){ return $f / ( ($m*2) / ($r*2) ); } $f = 735; // Newtons... $m = 75; // Persons Number One Weight in KiloGrams... $r = 1; // Radius in Meters... $acceleration = acceleration($m,$f,$r); echo $acceleration; What other forces besides the crafts own propulsion would effect it's acceleration? How do I figure out how many newtons there are? Is 735 Newtons the gravitational constant of the earth?

Okay.... It's tough for me to understand Latex at this point... in php... function force($m,$g){ return $g/$m; } $g = 735; // Newtons... $m = 75; // Persons Weight in KiloGrams $force = force($m,$g); echo $force; When you come up with... 9.8\,m/s^2 according to the square it's the rate of acceleration... 9.8\,m/s^2 (first second) 19.6\,m/s^2 (second second) 39.2\,m/s^2 (after three seconds) My main issue seems to be rooted in the classic equivalence principle. Where it says that mass does not effect acceleration. Objects falling to earth will do so at the same velocity. I imagine this is typically done because the effects are insignificant. However... for the sake of understanding this properly... This mass effecting acceleration is still hypothetical correct? I am referencing this Nasa article. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/06may_lunarranging.htm It is my goal to understand orbital mechanics and I am currently under the belief that they do not use the mass of the object to determine acceleration. Which has me wondering... how do they know how to navigate their satellites? What to they do? Just throw on the accelerator and wait for a ping back? If they gave a little bit too much throttle they play it by ear and adjust? Or are they actually using the gravitational force of the planets in their navigation budgets? Are they always using 735 Newtons? If not... how do I figure out the Newtons of the objects... or theoretically... should I always just use 735 in all my equations. If this is a stupid question I apologize.

Understood... Acceleration = (Gravity Force Constant) / Mass of object So... essentially... Object one and Object Two both have their own acceleration applied to the equation? Acceleration One = (Gravity Force Constant) / Mass of 1 mile square paper. Acceleration Two = (Gravity Force Constant) / Mass of 10 mile square paper. And those two Accelerations are applied to determine the point at which they will arrive in the vacuum. But... If Two objects are falling to Earth... There is only one acceleration which is applied? Acceleration = (Gravity Force Constant). Is this the way it works?

"And, if you catch your child smoking pot in his room when he is 16-18 and he tells you to screw, you've already failed as a parent and didn't raise them correctly." I would like to say that if the kid says screw you... then perhaps you never connected with your child ( you don't owe them anything... what do they owe you? )... and you should either throw them out... or wait for them to leave... your choice... As for hitting your kids... I would like to say so long as it's not in anger then it's fine... but you'll find some people who can make the rational decision to brutalize their child regardless of their emotions... Maybe the laws should be set in the gray area... Child Abuse being illegal and hitting your child left out of it... after all... emotional abuse can fall outside of physical punishment... Let the jury decide and give lawyers a job... jmo...

I currently understand that there are a few theories floating around which differ regarding orbital mechanics. The first theory is the equivalence principle which I do believe is what is used today. Additionally there appears to be a second equivalence principle used in particle physics which is a more precise calculation of gravity which states that mass effects acceleration. My reference... http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/06may_lunarranging.htm My Question... 2 pieces of paper face each other in a vacuum 2miles apart. One is 1 mile square. One is 10miles square. ( answer using the original equivalence principal ) The two pieces of paper meet at the half way mark at the same time. ( answer using the more accurate equivalence principal ) The one mile square piece crosses the halfway mark first. Is this a correct conclusion? Particle Physics currently applies different gravitational laws than what space navigation uses? Assuming what others have told me in the past to be somewhat accurate. Mass is currently not detected as influencing the pull of gravity according to the standard equivalence principal. Would it be a far stretch to think that gravity could be a harmonic phenominon? Meaning the planets orbit due to standing fields rather than mass and inertia? In particular... I am trying to understand the validity of this theory. http://www.mountainman.com.au/news96_p.html

Okay... understood... but he is a Nobel Prize winner and I just did a Google search for ether and his name Frank Wilczek and discovered he published a book recently called. ( honest to god... I had no idea... ) "Lightness of Being: Mass, Ether, and the Unification of Forces by Frank Wilczek" The video gets to the math at about 6:20 minutes in... at 8:50 he claims it to be the one of the greatest achievements in the whole history of science. What is the difference between a Vacuum Fluctuation and the Aether? Aren't they both the medium through which everything moves?

I understand this... I did not understand that precise measurements could vary. In a Hubble video there was mention that during a solar eclipse the effects of gravitational lensing were noticed to change. Stars in the sky changed their position and the effects of gravitational lensing were "proven". To quote a website... "He studied the properties of a solar eclipse on various expeditions around the world. This research eventually confirmed Albert Einstein's theory that as light passes a very massive star, its path is bent due to gravity." I was unaware that the moon's gravity could bend light and I would think this bending of light could have been observed without the need of a solar eclipse. ( you could just look at the moon as it passed a star right? ) The nature of the Michealson Morely experiment attempted to determine the presence of a Luminous Aether and it's movement relative to the Sun. If the experiment was carried out during a solar eclipse would it have effected the outcome at all? This article from Nasa ( suggests to me anyways ) that the possibility exists, "Decrypting the Eclipse" The very nature of a Foucault pendulum detecting the spin of the earth and the Aether experiments using interferometers which eventually led to the discovery of the laser gyroscope has me thinking that the perhaps the MM experiment would have found something different during the tests if performed during an eclipse? Would he have found something if he wasn't using the Sun as a point of reference for the tracking of the Aether? Essentially... the Aether should move relative to itself... shouldn't it? I understand my speculation is completely psuedo but please understand it is just me trying to understand the nature of light, gravity, aether and spin, direction and how they work with each other. How does one use the light from the sun and the sun as a point of reference to determine the movement of the Aether when logically... he was trying to detect a property of light itself as it came from the sun? Shouldn't the speed of light be a constant? And any variation found in the experiment, which is stated as being... “since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity” ...be a discovery of the property of light itself? If you were running modern physics experiements on the speed of light and you discovered a displacement which was proportional to the square of the velocity... would you write it off as an error?

My apologizes... I am not fluent with Particle Physics or Quantum Theory enough to know how to dissect the papers... This is the list of publications of the person who gave the lecture... http://web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty_documents/wilczek_pubs_15_march_04.pdf I was just wondering if the lecture was related to the Aether in any way shape or form.

Perhaps what I am thinking is that Nothing is the medium through which energy travels through. I do not believe that scientists of the time could have had the correct means to determine if an Aether existed or not. So I have been trying to understand the experiment better so that I can understand how it has influenced history and our understanding of the universe. That's all. I have a great deal of respect for science. My limited understanding of particle physics has me questioning the validity of the following video. I have made the connection between their findings regarding the origins of mass and the Aether. Is this a correct view?

First off... Thank you very much to everyone in this forum who has helped me come to a better understanding of physics. A website has mentioned that eventually the earth will cease to spin and both the earth and the moon will face each other. Tidally locked with one another. What happens after that? Do they collide with each other and form a larger planet? What might the collision ( if that's what would happen ) be equivalent to? Would they merge as one slowly over time? Would they impact with tremendous force and energy and explode? Is there any known observed phenomenon in the universe which demonstrates this on a planetary scale?

I completely understand that... That's why I posted this in the speculations section... For the most part... you'll never find a peer review paper which rolls everything all up into one... I haven;t read any papers on string thoery or anything... but I imagine a paper like that would show "everything" all at once... These guys are just suggesting some of the sun's phenominon could be explained via traditional electrical means... I would imgine the volumes of work which would have to be spit out to prove every aspect... and "overthrow" the standard model all at once... who would want to do that really... but for the most part... I can see how people like this would show a little passion in their video... I can imagine since they think slightly out of the box they must get called crackpot a few hundred thousand times a day... who wouldn't be bitter after that right? So... ya... your only going to find papers here and there which nibble at the concepts... isn't that the whole point of the scientific process? Well... honestly... how is an electrical engineer going to understand particle physics and argue that with you right? They do make some arguable points even though it might not be all accurate... right? What do you think about the umbra argument?

Well... I'll admit I haven't read all of the papers... but those links point to peer reviewed papers... This thread is just in the speculations section... The problem with most non-mainstream videos like these is that they seem to be built to appeal to a wide audience... I get the feeling they are after funding more than a "scientific fanbase"... this particular video had some connection to spiritual religious theories cut out... but I imagine the other versions are going to get their money from where ever they can... right? I don't know alot about it... just guessing... For someone like me there is one really convincing arguments to the story... The Umbra is mentioned as being the looking point closer into the sun yet it's a lower temperature when it should be hotter... Is it true that area should be hotter to reflect the nuclear processes within? Also I know I read something about recently discovered x-ray eruptions from the suns surface as observed by the Japanese... and they are saying it contributes to the surface temperature being a little hotter further out into the suns atmosphere but are they correct ( in the sun video ) when they mention that if the sun was being fed energy from the universe it would solve the problem? Could that even be possible?

I just grabbed those links from the youtube video in case others found them interesting... I really don't know how much truth there is in this theory but for the most part it seems to hold alot of potential... Even if most would consider it crackpot... it looks like a valuable resource of information and theories to peruse... I would think some of the info would even work interchangeably with the current standard model... I'm not really arguing for this theory... I just think it's extremely interesting... but I give you 70 points... 10 points for each use of the word crackpot...

These guys seem to suggest that the Sun is an electrical process... They seem very passionate about the facts they claim. Not scientific for sure... but for some of the more scientific people here it might be interesting... How the Sun Really Works http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVaL-FHUyk (see links below for details of this model, numerous peer reviewed publications, and direct observational evidence) The first thing that any person can see is that the current standard model of the sun is highly inadequate. Its assumes that the top of the convection zone (photosphere) is the final stage in the mechanism that makes the sun shine. But this is not true. It has no explanation for the majority of the sun from this point onwards, it fails to explain why the photosphere is at a temperature minimum, it fails to explain why the corona is millions and millions of degrees hotter than the sun, it fails to explain why the solar wind stops completely on occasions (sometimes for days), it fails to explain why the equator rotates more rapidly than the rest of the sun, the filamentary structure of the corona, why particles accelerate with increasing distance to the sun, and a whole host of other issues that are better explained with the electric sun model. The main Problems with the current model of the sun are as follows: * Temperature of the halo-like corona is 300 times that of surface, violating the inverse square law for radiation * Rotates faster at equator, faster on surface * Solar wind accelerates (somehow) upon leaving the Sun * Sunspots reveal cooler interior * Sunspots travel faster than surrounding surface * Sunspot penumbra (interior walls) reveal structured filaments and move much faster than slow convection should allow An eletcrical model would solve many of these problems. To its advantage the electric sun model is relatively simple. It is entirely self consistent and does not require the existence of mysterious entities such as the unseen solar dynamo that lurks somewhere behind the fusion model and creates impossible 'tangled magnetic fields' that produce sunspots. (The very word dynamo was coined by electrical engineers to describe a direct current generator. Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents in coils, inductors and transformers, not by the movement of hot gasses.). The ES model does not require arbitrary adjustments, exceptions to the laws of physics, or after-the-fact speculations. It passes the Occam's razor test far better than the current model. In the ES sun hypothesis, the power of the sun does not lie deep within it, the sun sits as the focus of not only the planets but also a large plasmasphere. Due to its size the sun has a large electric capacitance; this capacitance receives charge from cosmic (birkeland) currents that exist in our arm of the galaxy. The sun thus exhibits a relatively high voltage. The suns voltage multiplied by the total value of current coming towards it could be sufficient to produce the suns observed power output. The sun is powered by its galactic environment, and not from within itself. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm Check out these links for some direct proof of this model, and the science behind it; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001A%26A...376..288I&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73305181 http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/spacesciences/research/sun.htm http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/11/21/solar.gas/index.html http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0111/21sohogas/ http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/news/gtbr/rx1914.html http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4346305 http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Texts:On_Possible_Electric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021003.html http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Heliospheric_current_circuit http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Sun/SunGasFallsInward.html http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1996Ap%26SS.244...89P&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457 http://www.springerlink.com/content/k38204671658130q/ http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...633L..57S http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/abs/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation

Well... Why would they expect anything is my real question? The aether is by definition "nothing". What would make somebody think that the aether ( which is nothing ) should fringe shift light? Is this a property of light itself? To fringe shift when it's pointed at itself at right angles? Why would they use the sun as a point of reference and not the center of the Milky way? If I took a measurement with a ruler twice... and each time it was measured I came up with a different result. Then I would immediately realize my measurement was wrong. And I would measure it a third time. Why does light fringe shift at right angles? Shouldn't this produce an accurate reading in all circumstances seeing that the speed of light is a constant? So essentially... these measurements of the Aether are ignoring a few oddities... what oddities are they ignoring? Would the fringe shift be different if they used the center of the earth as reference for the shift as opposed to the sun? Honestly... If I used a scale to weight a rock and then used another scale to measure a rock and I came up with an different weight... I would have to calibrate my scale to the other to get the exact same result. So essentially... over history they have "calibrated" the fringe shift of light to what people expected to be zero? Is that what this experiment does? It calibrates the properties of light to zero in relation to the sun using the theory that nothing should exist?

I understand... The fringe shift should reveal the aether as a medium which moves in relation to the sun. I'm convinced that there is no aether. I am also convinced that the detection of nothing should produce a result of 0. These experiments however produce results. Example... Michelson et al. in 1929 Fringe shift expected 0.9 Fringe shift measured 0.01 If they expected to find nothing with a fringe shift of 0.9 but instead found a fringe shift of 0.01. I would think that the search for nothing should return exactly that. 0 right on the money each and every time. But... this experiment suggests that Zero is in fact 0.9 and they found 0.01. So essentially this experiment produced a result of -0.89. Correct? Perhaps I am mis-understanding what a fringe shift is. Right now I am under the impression it's the speed of light as it travels in right angles towards each other. If the speed of light being is a constant. Why do they continually find discrepancies in it?