MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Galaxies are always Binary Systems? (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is from Dan on the Orbital Planes thread:
Nothing in plasma physics invalidates any of Newton's laws: not even gravitation(?)* If there's anything in the Electric Universe model to the contrary, I'd like to hear about it. On an Electric Universe thread.

Then please explain the earth quaking stuff above with only Newtonian physics. Maybe Ish can explain it; he's the one who keeps telling us he can explain everything with simple Newtonian physics.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The results totally contradicted their basic assumptions about the Solar Wind.

Unfortunately, quoting some radical's commentary on the results doesn't help us very much: it only tells us there's something to be investigated.

While it often takes more than 24 hours for the charged particles of a solar outburst to reach the Earth, this one was a profound exception. Just thirty minutes after the explosion, Earth was immersed in what NASA scientists called 'the most intense storm in decades'.

What does this have to do with accelerating Solar Wind? Particles get the energy they're given and in this particular outburst that was about 2000 times higher than 'normal' (though "the most intense storm in decades" suggests they are not unheard of), but what does that tell us?

By the way, since these figures suggest the Solar Wind passing us is going typically 2 or 3 times (on occasion, more than 100 times) the escape velocity from the Sun, slowing down on climbing out of His gravitational field would be a rather negligible effect.

Dark Matter is not the product of established laws - it's a theoretical construct require by Big Bang Theory to explain away a contradiction to established laws.

What does the Big Bang have to do with it? And in what sense is "if we go by the mass we can see these orbits are not right: there must be mass we can't see" not a product of established laws?

Since Dark Matter cannot be falsified it is a fictional circular argument.

Why can't it?

{Am I the only one who sees circularity as a perfectly proper part of theoretic logic? Theorem and theory are not the same. And then there are paradigm revolutions. It's fundamental to Applied Epistemology.}

There is a tiger outside your door and if you go outside it will attack you. But you can't see it and you can't hear it and you can't smell it. Ooh! And it's invisible and even if it doesn't attack you it will still be there.
Prove me wrong
.

I wouldn't try: I would ask you what you mean by such a tiger. (Having the appearance of a proposition doesn't make it a proposition: surface grammar vs. deep grammar.) But the point that astro-physics is essentially pure philosophy is well made.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

please explain the earth quaking stuff above with only Newtonian physics.

Please be clear on what Newtonian physics means: it means classical concepts of space and time, the three laws of motion, the conservation laws, the inverse-square laws, the necessity of cause and effect... stuff like that. Which forces and effects are built into any particular model is another matter: Newtonian physics is about the way they play out. "EM forces and the behaviour of plasma are fundamental and gravitation only secondary" does not deny Newtonian physics in any way. If it's (Pseudo)Gravitationalists you have a beef with, please be careful not to confuse them with Newtonianists.

please explain the earth quaking stuff above with only Newtonian physics.

I can't: I don't have enough information. For instance, I can't tell whether there is a 'low speed' region where the Solar Wind is densest and interferes with itself; and a 'high speed' region where the mean free path becomes infinite and we only see the fastest particles that avoided collision. Equally, I can't judge whether the Sun is at the top of a potential hill and the electrons are accelerating away in strict accordance with Coulomb's law.
Send private message
Mallas



View user's profile
Reply with quote

These images took me 5 minutes to find on the NASA website. They seem more appropriate as you can clearly see 2 separate spiral arms.



Is this the start of a spiral galaxy? It certainly look binary to me!



All credit to NASA/Hubble for the nice pics.
Send private message Send e-mail
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan said

What does the Big Bang have to do with it? And in what sense is "if we go by the mass we can see these orbits are not right: there must be mass we can't see" not a product of established laws?


I suppose because it requires the ad-hoc creation of a new entity (invisible matter) to provide this alleged gravitational force, which as far as I know cannot be proven (nor disproven) to exist. That's pretty yukky stuff for any science, isn't it? I mean, sure, if we haven't got anything better, and in order to make progress, sometimes we need to have that sort of speculation in a theory, but we ought to be very open to alternative explanations that do not require the creation of unobserved entitites. Of course this is difficult now since 'dark matter' has made itself very comfortable as an established 'fact'.

What it's sort-of got to do with big bang is the supposed 'dark matter' provides an explanation for why the universe's expansion is accelerating, according to the established explanation for the doppler effect (red-shift) from the furthest stars, and would presumably put a bit of strain on the whole big bang business should that little interpretation get a makeover.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan wrote:

"if we go by the mass we can see these orbits are not right: there must be mass we can't see" not a product of established laws?


Or the mass laws are wrong and/or the gravitational properties predicted by them are inapplicable beyond the initial reference point (sea level on Earth).

Dark Matter was hypothesized as essential for the Big Bang theory nearly 30 years ago. Since then physicists have searched diligently with dozens of experiments for any evidence of the existence of these dark matter particle here on Earth. Billions of dollars have been expended yet every one of the experiments has had negative results including the recent much hailed Large Hadron Collider. In any other scientific field this would have long ago led to the conclusion that Dark Matter does not exist.

Virtually all the anomalies in cosmology are caused by the blind assumption that mass everywhere in the universe is a product of a Gravitational Equation that cannot be verified beyond the surface of the Earth.

In electricity Ohms Law applies to the inductance of a coil. A given current through a give coil produces a given resistance in Ohms. For DC current 4 Amp at 8 Volts produces 2 Ohms.
For AC current 4 Amps gives 32 Volts which effectively equates to 8 Ohms but Ohms Law can't have two values for the same current.

Do we therefore say that after nearly 150 years that Ohms Law is wrong?
No we acknowledge that Ohms Law applies ONLY to DC current.

An object has something more than a mass. It has a given mass only so long as we push it about in straight lines -- weigh it, accelerate it, drop it, etc. But the moment we spin it, it has the property that correspond to the inductance of a coil.

Newton's Laws applying to a mass are restricted to motion in straight lines and where there is no change in the rate of acceleration, just as there is no rate of change of current in Ohms Law.

Spin creates a gyroscopic effect. This is not a new force but the lack of a force that should be there -- centrifugal force.

None of Newton's Laws can be applied consistently to a spinning object. This was discovered by NASA in the earliest part of the space program and later in a series of experiments by Eric Laithwaite and Bruce De Parma.

F = ma cannot explain why a rifle bullet travels further than a smooth bore bullet.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In electricity Ohms Law applies to the inductance of a coil. A given current through a give coil produces a given resistance in Ohms. For DC current 4 Amp at 8 Volts produces 2 Ohms.
For AC current 4 Amps gives 32 Volts which effectively equates to 8 Ohms but Ohms Law can't have two values for the same current.

Do we therefore say that after nearly 150 years that Ohms Law is wrong?
No we acknowledge that Ohms Law applies ONLY to DC current.

This is wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start.

You are mixing up resistance, impedance and reactance. In a DC circuit the impedance is purely resistive; in an AC circuit the impedance can be made up of resistance and reactance (capacitive or inductive...which are both frequency dependant). Ohm's Law only applies to the purely resistive part of the circuit (AC or DC).

The coil to which you were applying your AC current would naturally have an inductive reactance.

http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/imped.htm

If you are able to demonstrate such poor understanding of basic electrical principles, how do you expect anybody to take seriously your advocation of an Electric Universe?
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

KK said:
F = ma cannot explain why a rifle bullet travels further than a smooth bore bullet.


No, but I'm sure that a study of their aerodynamics can. If this really is deeply troubling the scientific community, may I suggest that a spinning bullet keeps pointing into its direction of travel (due to its gyroscopic property), and thus is impeded by less air friction that the wobbling-I-don't-care-which-direction-I-point non-spinning bullet.

And surely, in the 21st century (or even the 19th) it should be very easy to prove that a spinning object weighs less than a non-spinning object in a vacuum? So does it, or not? Why the talk about the distance bullets travel through the air?
Send private message
Mallas



View user's profile
Reply with quote

If gyroscopic effects change the weight of a mass under gravity, then clearly gravity (g) is not a constant!
Send private message Send e-mail
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mallas wrote:
If gyroscopic effects change the weight of a mass under gravity, then clearly gravity (g) is not a constant!


Actually, that doesn't necessarily follow, for example if spinning (somehow) caused mass to increase, weight would increase with the gravitational constant remaining the same. Still, as far as I know there's no evidence that gyroscopic effects change the weight of anything. Having said that, with our limited knowledge it would be foolish to insist that G definitely is a universal constant, as KK's link (posted somewhere round here) demonstrates.
Send private message
Mallas



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hi Brian.

This is a very common experiment in year 11 physics where I come from.

I found a link to how you can set up a very easy experiment using a piece of string and a bicycle wheel.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/gyroscope1.htm
Send private message Send e-mail
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Chad wrote:
You are mixing up resistance, impedance and reactance. In a DC circuit the impedance is purely resistive; in an AC circuit the impedance can be made up of resistance and reactance (capacitive or inductive...which are both frequency dependent). Ohm's Law only applies to the purely resistive part of the circuit (AC or DC).

The coil to which you were applying your AC current would naturally have an inductive reactance.


So in other words AC has a property other than pure resistance that can't be defined by Ohms Law. Impedance, reactance, whatever it is, it's a different property of AC current.

My reference point is Laithwaite's Lecture on Gyroscopes.
The experiment is at 3:40. The entire lecture is well worth the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A89EDdXawvM
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Brian wrote:
No, but I'm sure that a study of their aerodynamics can. If this really is deeply troubling the scientific community, may I suggest that a spinning bullet keeps pointing into its direction of travel (due to its gyroscopic property), and thus is impeded by less air friction that the wobbling-I-don't-care-which-direction-I-point non-spinning bullet.


Well this is the standard explanation. Aerodynamics is said to act differently on a spinning bullet.

But NASA and the Russians weren't firing spinning space craft into space. They were bullet shaped projectiles that had a spinning cylindrical housing enclosed within the outer skin of the rocket. This 'tub', which housed solid fuel rockets, was not in direct contact with the air travelling over the surface of the 'bullet' so the standard answer does not apply. Something else was causing Newton's Laws to be violated.

Von Braun and the Russians eventually figured it out and applied a compensating equation to the standard calculation. But this was never admitted publicly either in the US or Russia.
Solid fuel rockets were replaced soon after so the need for a spinning tub was eliminated and with it the need to 'adjust' Newton's Laws.

The story of this unique discovery can be found here:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If you are able to demonstrate such poor understanding of basic electrical principles, how do you expect anybody to take seriously your advocation of an Electric Universe?

I'm at a loss. Komori seems to advocate Gaede, who says we need a whole new language of science: what we think we know has been corrupted by "the mathematicians", but I haven't managed to digest any more of what he means. And Komori advocates the Electric Universe, which appeals at every turn to laboratory results: everything is supposed to be explicable by hands-on, schoolboy science. Are we to have our cake or discard it?
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Komorikid wrote:


...They were bullet shaped projectiles that had a spinning cylindrical housing enclosed within the outer skin of the rocket. This 'tub', which housed solid fuel rockets, was not in direct contact with the air travelling over the surface of the 'bullet' so the standard answer does not apply. Something else was causing Newton's Laws to be violated.

Von Braun and the Russians eventually figured it out and applied a compensating equation to the standard calculation. But this was never admitted publicly either in the US or Russia.
Solid fuel rockets were replaced soon after so the need for a spinning tub was eliminated and with it the need to 'adjust' Newton's Laws.

The story of this unique discovery can be found here:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm


Thank you for the link, very interesting although the boys' own/sensationalist/conspirational tone doesn't help. For those who haven't read it, here's a quote (describing the result of time-lapse imaging of the path of two balls tossed into the air):

"Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!

An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!

The above ~ 34-year-old image is a recent scan of one of the original "spinning ball photographs" from DePalma's own ~30-year-old files, contrast-adjusted in PhotoShop (with text and grid added), to bring out the data in the faded original. Nothing else has been added or altered.

What this photograph reveals is truly remarkable ... for, in direct violation of both Newton and Einstein, it SHOUTS that "inertial mass" and "gravitational mass" are NOT equivalent--

Thus violating the foundation of all modern physics in one elegantly simple experiment -- which anyone can safely repeat ... even at home!!"


Wow! Yeah, we need to throw out Newton and Einstein because of this experiment! But, er, let's just calm down a bit, eh? There's nothing there that cannot be explained as a purely aerodynamic effect, and this is even confirmed by the author's own words when he says the spinning ball "flew higher" but "fell faster". In other words, behaviour totally consistent with reduced drag on the spinning ball (and, you might note, totally inconsistent with reduced weight).

Having eliminated Newton, Einstein, and Common Sense, he then extrapolates this dodgy interpretation of the experiment to explain the anomalies of spacecraft velocities (if we are to accept his analysis), again without considering the far simpler explanation.

Now Komori, are you serious? You claim that "This 'tub', which housed solid fuel rockets, was not in direct contact with the air travelling over the surface of the 'bullet'". Do you suppose that they added the weight of bearings on the inside of the "bullet" so that an inner 'tub' could spin to provide a gyroscopic effect? Wouldn't it have been far easier and more efficient just to spin the whole assembly? Yes it would, and actually I think that's exactly what they did. If the rotation accomplished anything at all, it was to improve the aerodynamics of the rocket.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group