Brian86 Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Anyone here have interest/study/work in the field of maths/physics/astrophysics, etc? If so what's your field? What's your main interest? Where did you study if you went to uni? I just came back from doing my masters in maths with a heavy dose of astrophysics and would be good to chat with any Shetland folk with similar interests. My main area of study is orbital dynamics and I'm currently trying to put together a paper on stable halo orbits under certain non-gravitational effects, notably radiation pressure from two stars in a binary system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Anyone here have interest/study/work in the field of maths/physics/astrophysics, etc? ... would be good to chat with any Shetland folk with similar interests.Koy is very interested in this topic. Start here: http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4828 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyumpi Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 My main area of study is orbital dynamics and I'm currently trying to put together a paper on stable halo orbits under certain non-gravitational effects, notably radiation pressure from two stars in a binary system. I'm pretty sure I won't be able to make much meaningful comment on these subjects but would lurk with interest. Anyway, now would an opportune moment to trot out my favourite maths joke....... "There are only 10 kinds of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Koy is very interested in this topic. Start here: http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4828 Yeah I read through some of that when I was looking to see if there was any recent threads on this sort of thing. I don't get the hate towards relativity and there a lot of the points raised in that thread aren't right. Relativity is certainly not 'wrong' since it has been experimentally verifed time and time again but it also still needs to be refined. Newtons laws of gravitation are 'wrong' but they provide such a good approximation in most cases that we can use them. when we need to include special cases such as say, looking at mercurys orbits, we move up to special relativity. Similarly there's things that relativity cannot explain that requires other theorems. This doesn't mean that each theorem/field is rubbish, just that it's an approximation in increasing orders of accuracy. A lot to read in that thread but there's some madness too... The pyramid stuff posted on pg. 4 is almost entirely rubbish or numerology... I think Koy seems to think that the big bang was what created the universe when in fact big bang theory just says that the universe was once in a hot dense state. It doesn't say what caused this nor does it mention an explosion, just an expansion. Meh bit too much CT in that thread but I'd rather not have it spill into here... I'm pretty sure I won't be able to make much meaningful comment on these subjects but would lurk with interest. Anyway, now would an opportune moment to trot out my favourite maths joke....... "There are only 10 kinds of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't." Lol heard that one before. This thread isn't just to discuss orbital dynamics or whatever, if you have any sort of interest in sciency subjects post away. This maths joke needs a bit of trigonometry knowledge... What did the cos x say to the 1? Get on top of me and we'll have sec x. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trigonometric_identities#Trigonometric_functions) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 I don't get the hate towards relativity and there a lot of the points raised in that thread aren't right. Relativity is certainly not 'wrong' since it has been experimentally verifed time and time again but it also still needs to be refined. Hello Brian.Firstly, it's not because I hated relativity, that I started the thread; before those days, the picture of the universe we had been given was one of my favorite things. It was only when I realised that it was entirely wrong that the problems started. Yes they do say it has been experimentally verified but of course, being entirely wrong, it has not been in any way whatsoever.What they do do is pile on ever more maths to patch it up as they go; getting all the more wronger as they go.Galaxies don't revolve like their theory said it should...they invent dark matter to balance out the sums that don't add up. Never mind that they can't find any or even describe what it is; as long as they say it's there then they can get along with saying 2+2=10 because the dark matter patch obviously must be the missing 6.Then the universe expanding then slowing down then speeding up, under through their mathematically squint looking glass proves a problem...no problem; they just invent dark energy and now we can all understand how 2+2=10,000,000,000.Oh! the singularity at the center of a black hole defys all their laws of physics...no problem there, as we shall just say it lurks inside the shell of an event horizon; where underneath the laws of physics can break down completely without anyone being any the wiser.As long as the cash flows in, who cares? A lot to read in that thread but there's some madness too... The pyramid stuff posted on pg. 4 is almost entirely rubbish or numerology... Yes, madness was what I thought had happened to me when I first figured that Einstein, N.A.S.A, Hawkings etc were all talking crap but I wasn't about to let a thing like that stop me anyhow.Funny thing was, after a few google searches, I began to see I was not alone in my so called madness. Most of the stuff on the 'trouble with Einstein' thread up until page 5, was just some of my own musings, as I began my fall down the rabbit hole but if you have solutions to the great pyramid of Giza anomalies then you may present them. I would be most interested.By the time I had got to page five on the thread, I came to land, with a sudden jolt on the Electric Universe theory and it is there I still stand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFEVM-IkXLA&feature=related I think Koy seems to think that the big bang was what created the universe when in fact big bang theory just says that the universe was once in a hot dense state. It doesn't say what caused this nor does it mention an explosion, just an expansion. Well what you think I think and what I think I think, may not be a perfect match.I do not in any way think the Universe was created by the big bang. I think the big bang theory was created by a catholic priest named Georges Lemaitre and the term was coined by Fred Hoyle, who also always rejected the entire notion outright and who was a steady state universe proponent.Me, I don't think the Universe was created at all, as I am not a creationist.I tend to lean towards the idea that the Universe has always and will always be here and that it has no limit in time and space.If you have any explanation for how a "hot dense state" managed to exist, floating around before there was time, space, matter or energy until the...(erm... no time; perhaps??) was right for it to explode (sorry, expand) into everything; then I would most like to hear it. Meh bit too much CT in that thread but I'd rather not have it spill into here... I do well understand by now, how your crew don't like your most basic assumptions called into question and far be it from me to interfere, if you find a friend here to throw around gobbledygook maths with but I can't promise you anything and if there is any spillage from me; then surely you have been educated enough to mop it up before it makes a real mess of your paradigm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&feature=related we must not let the reputation of even an Einstein stand in our way when seeking better paradigms. We must simply allow for the possibility that he was wrong, recognising that science is a highly conservative captive of fashion. http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Hello Brian.Firstly, it's not because I hated relativity, that I started the thread; before those days, the picture of the universe we had been given was one of my favorite things. It was only when I realised that it was entirely wrong that the problems started. Yes they do say it has been experimentally verified but of course, being entirely wrong, it has not been in any way whatsoever. Can you post an example of what part you think is wrong. Time dilation? What they do do is pile on ever more maths to patch it up as they go; getting all the more wronger as they go.Oh! the singularity at the center of a black hole defys all their laws of physics...no problem there, as we shall just say it lurks inside the shell of a event horizon; where underneath the laws of physics can break down completely without anyone being any the wiser. Not really how it works. Folk make a model to describe something. Models hold up very well in all tests. Then further down the line something rears up that doesn't quite fit. We then go back to our model to try and see what's wrong and then advance the model in some way. (I.e. Newton -> relativity). There's nothing wrong with this, the advanced model not only will explain the new observed phenomenon but also will explain everything else in a more accurate way. E.g how relativity predicted precession of perihelion which was only obvious in observations of Mercury (probably the Moon too) but also applied to every other gravitationally bound object. I'd like it if you could state exactly what you think is wrong with relativity so I can at least attemp to answer it (though I am no expert in relativity being a maths guy). Yes, madness was what I thought had happened to me when I first figured that Einstein, N.A.S.A, Hawkings etc were all talking crap but I wasn't about to let a thing like that stop me anyhow. What exactly did you figure out? What brought you to the conclusions or did you just think something wasn't right and hunted for answers. Funny thing was after a few google searches, I began to see I was not alone in my so called madness. Most of the stuff on the 'trouble with Einstein' thread up until page 5, was just some of my own musings, as I began my fall down the rabbit hole but if you have solutions to the great pyramid of Giza anomalies then you may present them. I would be most interested. Which anomalies exactly. Egyptians were clearly smarter than we give them credit but there most of the crazy stuff you read about pyramids is numerology or exageratted. Not to mention the work was not solely done by slaves but by the brightest minds in Egypt who were treated well. Let's also ignore the many failed pyramid attempts which seem to go in chronological order... From the other thread. "The Pyramid is located at the exact center of the Earth's land mass". What exactly is the centre of Earths land mass? If you mean the map version described in your post then... http://www.catchpenny.org/pyramid.html Seems it wasn't that exact. "The average height of land above sea level (Miami being low and the Himalayas being high), as can be measured only by modern-day satellites and computers, happens to be 5,449 inches. That is the exact height of the Pyramid. " Hmm... Average height of land above sea level is 840m = 33,070 inches. But ignoring that, let's use Miami (why? the low would be 0 surely...) and the Himalayas. Not sure exactly how you want to use the Himalayas. Let's say Everest. The average height is then around about 4000m which is clearly much much greater 5,449 inches. Maybe use average height of Himalayas. No idea what this is but it would have to be 138m for the average between Miami and Himalayas to be 5,449 inches. Sound plausible? "The actual distance around the base was found to be equal to half of one minute of arc of the Earth’s circumference". Numerology is strong here. "Simple calculations show that, since it took 20 years to complete, and assuming eight or 10 hours' labour a day, one block was fitted almost every minute." More like 2 minutes but doesn't matter. What IS an acceptable number here? 10 minutes? An hour? How are you able to judge what is? Maybe 2 minutes is actually slow? The calculations seem to assume 1 block placed at a time. What if there were 100 teams of 1000 men working on blocks, then it's 1 block every 2 hours. "a Japanese team tested the feasibility of building a scale model of the Great Pyramid using new technology, was abandoned after it was found it would take 1,000 years to finish" Yeah because cranes would take 1000 years to build a pyramid... Me, I don't think the Universe was created at all, as I am not a creationist.I tend to lean towards the idea that the Universe has always and will always be here and that it has no limit in time and space.If you have any explanation for how a "hot dense state" managed to exist, floating around before there was time, space, matter or energy until the...(erm... no time; perhaps??) was right for it to explode (sorry, expand) into everything; then I would most like to hear it. Course not if I did I'd have a nobel proze by now. What you posted has NOTHING to do with the big bang theory though. Big bang theory doesn't talk about the origin of this dense state nor does it talk about before time concepts or anything like that. What if the universe if cyclic? That would support big bang and infinite universe. Why do you lean towards the idea that the Universe has always and will always be here. What has lead you to this idea. Do you have anything to back it up or is it just what you think. I probably lean towards the cyclic universe but I have very little to base this on. As we will probably never know what happened before the planck epoch, I doubt we'd ever be able to confirm it. By the time I had got to page five on the thread, I came to land, with a sudden jolt on the Electric Universe theory and it is there I still stand. Ah plasma cosmology have been reading about that lately. Why did you settle on this? Do you understand the basic principles behind it? I don't really since I'm not a cosmologist but from what I've read, PC/EU theory fails to address so many basic cosmological ideas which is why it is discarded. A last point on dark matter and black holes. I am also skeptical about dark matter too since finding definite proof of such a thing isn't exactly trivial. However, events like these... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7587090.stm give massive evidence to it. Black holes now... Here is a vid of stars orbiting around some 'invisible' object, which has a density that only black hole theory can explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 If we can get the pyramid stuff out of the way first, as it is just an area of passing curiosity for me and I doubt we will get much further on any answers without a new perspective. "Simple calculations show that, since it took 20 years to complete, and assuming eight or 10 hours' labour a day, one block was fitted almost every minute." More like 2 minutes but doesn't matter. What IS an acceptable number here? 10 minutes? An hour? How are you able to judge what is? Maybe 2 minutes is actually slow? The calculations seem to assume 1 block placed at a time. What if there were 100 teams of 1000 men working on blocks, then it's 1 block every 2 hours. Simple calculations perhaps but I get the feeling the answers are still to be arrived at. A construction management study, estimates that the total project required an average workforce of 14,567 people and a peak workforce of 40,000. Without the use of pulleys, wheels, or iron tools, they used critical path analysis to suggest the Great Pyramid was completed from start to finish in approximately 10 years.Their study estimates that the number of blocks used in construction was between 2 and 2.8 million (an average of 2.4 million), but settles on a reduced finished total of 2 million after subtracting the estimated volume of the hollow spaces of the chambers and galleries.Most sources agree on this number of blocks somewhere above 2.3 million.Their calculations suggest the workforce could have sustained a rate of 180 blocks per hour (3 blocks/minute) with ten hour work days for putting each individual block in place. They derived these estimates from modern third-world construction projects that did not use modern machinery, but conclude it is still unknown exactly how the Great Pyramid was built.As Dr. Craig Smith of the team points out:The logistics of construction at the Giza site are staggering when you think that the ancient Egyptians had no pulleys, no wheels, and no iron tools. Yet, the dimensions of the pyramid are extremely accurate and the site was leveled within a fraction of an inch over the entire 13.1-acre base. This is comparable to the accuracy possible with modern construction methods and laser leveling. That's astounding. With their 'rudimentary tools,' the pyramid builders of ancient Egypt were about as accurate as we are today with 20th century technology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques Can you post an example of what part you think is wrong. Time dilation? As good a place to start as any I suppose so yes; I think time dilation is wrong. High redshift quasars are supposed to blink at a slower rate than their closer low redshift counterparts. Observations prove otherwise. Is redshift data being interpreted properly? Observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution–early galaxies are different than those today– lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.â€â€œThe Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities–the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. No time dilation; end of. To quote the man himself... A choice is presented, as once before in the days of Copernicus, between a strangely small, finite universe and a sensibly infinite universe plus a new principle of nature. What brought you to the conclusions or did you just think something wasn't right and hunted for answers. It had been bugging me for a while that they had laid down dark matter with no explanation as to what it was; then the dark energy thing began to make it seem like they were just avoiding any other possible alternative for something that may be wrong with there maths on a massive scale. The whole divide by zero thing that they do with black holes then started to seem worth a second look after that and before long, the big bang with its add on big crunch ideas; started to look like a bubble universe inflating and deflating, for no other reason than to match up with whatever they were saying on telly that day. Folk make a model to describe something. Models hold up very well in all tests. Then further down the line something rears up that doesn't quite fit. We then go back to our model to try and see what's wrong and then advance the model in some way. (I.e. Newton -> relativity). There's nothing wrong with this, the advanced model not only will explain the new observed phenomenon but also will explain everything else in a more accurate way. There's a flip side to that though, in that; if the original model is fundamentally wrong, then any tweaking is just going to wander further from the truth. E.g Folk start to notice a similarity between Mithra and Christ. A christian knows Jesus is the only son of god so they may tweak their model to say that Satan went back in time to put Mithra there, in order to confuse the faithful. When the obvious truth is that Mithra and Christ were in fact the same person and that he was a wizard with his own time machine. relativity predicted precession of perihelion which was only obvious in observations of Mercury (probably the Moon too) but also applied to every other gravitationally bound object. Yet still gravitationally bound objects, seem able to refuse to obey the rules relativity have laid out... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126934.400-exoplanet-spotted-in-hubble-archive.html In this article from New Scientist it is reported that scientists have discovered three massive exoplanets, theoretically estimated to be 10 times the size of Jupiter, closely orbiting their parent star. The catch is that according to gravitational theory, they are in a supposedly unstable orbit.according to standard theory, the orbits they are in should have fallen apart in less than 100 times the estimated age of the star. The article states: “Aspects of the HR 8799 solar system promise more riches. Daniel Fabrycky and Ruth Murray-Clay of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Boston studied the dynamics of the three-planet system and found that the mutual gravitational pull of the massive planets should be enough to make the solar system unstable. They conclude that the planets have survived until now because they have slotted themselves into so-called resonance orbits: each time the outermost planet orbits the star once, they argue, the next one in must orbit twice and the innermost planet four times.†“Resonance orbits†hey? It’s quite the coincidence that out of the handful of exoplanets discovered, that have been directly imaged, we just happened to spot a solar system with a configuration of such low probability as to be nearly mythical. Of course the electric universe theory easily explains all the problems with these findings.EU theory states gas giant planets are born by electrical separation from their parent star. As the stars electrical load increases to the point where it can no longer cope with the stress, it will electrically "split" in order to distribute the electrical load over a wider surface area. This means the most common configuration of planets and stars that we see in space should be tightly orbiting gas giant planets around their parent stars – which is exactly what we see. The planets will interact electrically with each other and their star until an electrically stable configuration is reached. Why do you lean towards the idea that the Universe has always and will always be here. What has lead you to this idea. Do you have anything to back it up or is it just what you think. I probably lean towards the cyclic universe but I have very little to base this on. As we will probably never know what happened before the planck epoch, I doubt we'd ever be able to confirm it. It is just what I think and like you I have little to base this on, other than; you don't get something from nothing and logic leads me to think that everything must be everywhere for all time and space.The energy won't run out, if it has nowhere to run out to.I suppose that makes me a cyclic universe leaner too. Only you will be looking on the whole thing being cyclic within its boundaries; where as I think of the individual parts like galaxies perhaps being cyclic, as energy just moves around, pretending to be matter when it can...or something. (not sure. you're streching my brain with that one) On dark matter and black holes. I am also skeptical about dark matter too since finding definite proof of such a thing isn't exactly trivial. However, events like these... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7587090.stm give massive evidence to it. To me they're more likely doing that thing Fred Hoyle warned against... Any time you point your telescope at the sky now; you're only going to find what you know is already out there. Black holes now... Here is a vid of stars orbiting around some 'invisible' object, which has a density that only black hole theory can explain. Ah yes Sagittarius A, the "Milky Way's Central Black Hole" or more like the Electric Motor of the Milky Way. Only it's not exactly invisible is it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* a bright and very compact astronomical radio source at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy Although to be fair the imagined black hole underneath will be invisible, since there isn't any such thing. There are better explanations... Sagittarius A, presumed to be the core of our galaxy, the Milky Way. From the mainstream point of view it hides a black hole. However, no theorist exploring the mathematical wonders of black holes ever posited the structures observed around it. But the electric viewpoint sees something much different, something that was anticipated by the experimental work of Hannes Alfven and his colleagues who founded today’s plasma cosmology. Radio waves and x-rays are produced by electric currents. For the electrical theorists, the modern radio and x-ray telescopes are catalysts for the evolution of cosmological ideas. By enabling us to see the Milky Way core in wavelengths not normally visible to the human eye, they reveal the “homopolar motor†that drives the Milky Way. A homopolar motor operates on direct current interacting with a strong magnetic field to produce rotary motion. The brushes which connect the rotary component to the surrounding stationary component are analogous to the “threads†which, in the picture above, reach upward to feed the motor of our galaxy. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060403milkyway.htm Ah plasma cosmology have been reading about that lately. Why did you settle on this? Do you understand the basic principles behind it? I don't really since I'm not a cosmologist but from what I've read, PC/EU theory fails to address so many basic cosmological ideas which is why it is discarded. When you say you have been reading about it; it is more than clear you have been reading it from the viewpoint of relativity proponents. Have you ever thought about reading the actual work itself with an open mind? I would like to know just which cosmological ideas it is they do not address; as I have found them able to explain in clear detail what will leave relativists at N.A.S.A baffled and not only but also, predict much that big bangers never see coming.This is a major part of the problem though, in that anyone who does not accept the big bang and the theory of relativity; may well find themselves out on their ear from the scientific community. Ranked as a crank and as you say, discarded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhyHCj_cVKk&feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 As good a place to start as any I suppose so yes; I think time dilation is wrong. GPS wouldn't work without it.That muons created in the atmosphere can reach the Earth is explained by it. Time dilation exists. End of. “Resonance orbits†hey? It’s quite the coincidence that out of the handful of exoplanets discovered, that have been directly imaged, we just happened to spot a solar system with a configuration of such low probability as to be nearly mythical. Mythical? As in so mythical that they would never appear in our own solar system... Oh wait. They do! 1:2:4 resonance in Jupiters moons and many more throughout the Solar system. Resonance isn't some crazy add on to current theory, it's just a term that means particular components are related by integer ratios. That planets, moon, etc, evolve into resonance orbits is predicted by theory, shown by simulation and confirmed by observations. Do a bit of reading on tidal forces and the disturbing function. To me they're more likely doing that thing Fred Hoyle warned against... You can't just hand wave observations away with a quote. That means absolutely nothing and you're simply assuming the observations are wrong or misinterpreted because it clashes with your theory. Only it's not exactly invisible is it? Well we've only imaged it in non-visible light which is why I used the term 'invisible'. Sag A* isn't the black hole, or if it is then wiki is using some really confusing language... The bright stuff you see appears to come from the accretion disc, something fully expected in current theory. When you say you have been reading about it; it is more than clear you have been reading it from the viewpoint of relativity proponents. Have you ever thought about reading the actual work itself with an open mind? I would like to know just which cosmological ideas it is they do not address; as I have found them able to explain in clear detail what will leave relativists at N.A.S.A baffled and not only but also, predict much that big bangers never see coming.This is a major part of the problem though, in that anyone who does not accept the big bang and the theory of relativity; may well find themselves out on their ear from the scientific community. Ranked as a crank and as you say, discarded. Have you read the papers detailing the maths, calculations, equations, etc? The websites certainly seem to paint a nice picture about how mainstream science is an evil corporation and EU are the supressed folk fighting for true justice. They seem to make out that the current state of physics is a mess and scientists just go around doing anything to keep the money flowing in. They also seem to make out that standard theory completely discards electromagnetism. I think the Virial theorem would have something to say about that... Ok then. From EU theory also follows electric sun theory. Let's have a wee look at that. Ignoring for now that solar neutrinos indicate there's fusion reactions taking place (before you post the neutrino problem, be aware of the oscillation explanation). It states that the sun is powered by an influx of electrons. Does this not totally contradict solar wind? It can't emit massive quantaties of electrons and yet attract enough to power it at the same time. EU theory also does not explain CMB radiation. It would be good if you could demonstrate that you had a decent enough grasp of maths/physics so that make statements about relativity, cosmology, astrophysics, etc... The fact you had resonance in quotation marks means you probably hadn't heard of it before despite it being a relatively simple astrophysics concept (actually I just found out why, it was a direct copy paste from a different site http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/the-editor-s-musings/new-planets-defy-gravity). Coupling this along with the other thread and how everything seems to be just be a reference to youtube videos, sites with no scientific content or random irrelevant quotes. makes me wonder if there's much point in this discussion. Whatever I say you can simply copy paste an alternative theory without any knowledge of what I am saying or why the alternative theory is right. Effectively I have to prove every aspect of the big bang or disprove every aspect of EU while you can afford the luxury of not ever having to demonstrate you even understand either theory!Given my non-cosmology background I clearly can't fully explain either theory but I can at least understand basic thoughts behind them and can make some effort to understand the evidence for either. Start with time dilation. If you say it's wrong explain why, sure it's a bizarre concept sure but that's no reason to discard it. I can't find any explanation of the muon experiments on electric universe sites. Also...Try as I might, I can't find any details about the electric galactic simulation that was done and is heavily referred to (the one that shows galaxy formation, this one http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1995Ap%26SS.227..167S&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES). I always find pics, but no reference as to how the simulation was actually performed, what it took into account and what it didn't, initial conditions, types of integration methods etc.... Maybe you know of such a paper taht goes into some more detail... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOYAANISQATSI Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Start with time dilation. If you say it's wrong explain why I think I already did... High redshift quasars are supposed to blink at a slower rate than their closer low redshift counterparts. Observations prove otherwise. But if you need more... GPS wouldn't work without it. According to Thomas Smid (M.Sc. Physics, Ph.D. Astronomy) Relativity is not "proven" by GPS because the actual differences in locations resulting from differences between clocks are much smaller than the margin of error. The margin of error for GPS is in the range of a couple of meters, yet the calculated difference due to Relativity amounts to less than a centimeter. It is incorrect to say that GPS verifies Relativity. http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm Could it be, that once again the mainstream are pointing to itty-bitty intervals as proof of their theories but dismissing gigantic discrepancies against them as being inconclusive? You can't just hand wave observations away with a quote. That means absolutely nothing and you're simply assuming the observations are wrong or misinterpreted because it clashes with your theory. When it comes to dark matter; the emperor has no clothes but you still want me to explain why I think his socks aren't blue. The websites certainly seem to paint a nice picture about how mainstream science is an evil corporation and EU are the supressed folk fighting for true justice. Blatant misrepresentation and underrepresentation. They also seem to make out that standard theory completely discards electromagnetism. A complete and utter, outright, total lie. Also... Try as I might, I can't find any details about the electric galactic simulation that was done and is heavily referred toI always find pics, but no reference as to how the simulation was actually performed, what it took into account and what it didn't, initial conditions, types of integration methods etc.... Maybe you know of such a paper taht goes into some more detail... I found some stuff relating, on page 4 of this one: http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf The set of equations describing how a filamentary, electrically conducting, magnetized plasma evolves is a mathematician's nightmare! Because of this complexity, effective solutions had to wait for the advent of supercomputers.Plasma theorists often use a method called particle simulation. Some tens of millions of "particles" are used to represent, say a galaxy. But since a system similar to the Milky Way may contain 1065 free electrons and ions, each particle in the simulation actually represents a cloud of real ones. These "superparticles" are assumed to be in a magnetic field similar to that between the planets in the solar system but much larger in size. The computer then calculates how the particles move according to the laws of electromagnetism. More about Anthony L. Peratt's Galaxy formation here: Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve, but no hypothetical dark matter is needed, as required by the conventional model of galaxy formation.The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament.The simulation began with two spherical clouds of plasma trapped in parallel magnetic filaments, each carrying a current of around 1018 amperes. The clouds spin around each other until a spiral shape emerges. Peratt concluded that the shapes seen in the simulation appeared similar to observed galaxy shapes, and posited a morphological sequence that corresponded to Halton Arp's ideas that galaxies formed out of quasars ejected from AGN. Perrat's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves. http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation a few more of Anthony L. Peratt's papers/articles that pinpoints what Plasma Cosmology is about here: http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/PerattPlasmaCosmology1W&I.pdf http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/PerattPlasmaCosmology2W&I.pdf Here are a list of papers by Anthony Peratt related to Plasma Cosmology: http://plasmauniverse.info/papers.html Central papers by Hannes Alfven, related to Plasma Cosmology: http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/CosmologyAlfven.pdf http://www.plasmauniverse.info/downloads/ModelOfTPU_Alfven.pdf And a couple from Donald E Scott relating to an Electric Sun: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf All that is well and good but why don't we deal with some of the Elephants in the room that seem to be in your blind spots... Comet Holmes is a personal favorite of mine.Just how does an Elephant with a diameter half that of the Sun even fit in the room... On October 24, 2007, Comet 17PHolmes brightened dramatically by a factor of a million. Within 24 hours, it had gone from a small 17th magnitude comet to a magnitude of 2.5, easily visible with the naked eye. It wasn't finished its impressive display just yet though. Holmes kept expanding until by mid-November it had become the largest object in the solar system and had surpassed the Sun in volume. The diameter of the coma had grown from 28 thousand kilometres to 7 million km. The diameter of Holmes' coma had grown by a factor of 250 and the volume had increased by a factor of 62 million to an impressive 180 quintillion (18 zeroes) cubic km. The volume is currently 5 times that of the sun. You might think that this remarkable behaviour would be big news, particularly among astronomers. A prominent Astronomy magazine recently published their top ten news stories of 2007. Surprisingly, this spectacular comet was not named as the top story. It didn't even finish in the top ten. In fact, the entire magazine completely ignored the comet. There was not even an editorial comment. Additionally, there was little if any newspaper or TV coverage. How could this be, you might wonder? The standard model used to explain comets as dirty snowballs was concocted by Fred Whipple over fifty years ago. This theory has a very difficult time explaining Comet Holmes. After more than two months following the flare-up, the only explanations available on the internet are: Scientists speculate that the comet has an unconventional nucleus which periodically exposes certain amounts of its icey core to the sun, causing the explosion. The cause of the outburst is not definitely known. The huge cloud of gas and dust may have resulted from a collision with a meteoroid, or, more probably, from a build-up of gas inside the comet's nucleus which eventually broke through the surface. There is growing evidence that some comets and asteroids may have a porous internal structure akin to, say, swiss cheese or a honeycomb. Suppose one of the chambers of the honeycomb suddenly collapsed, exposing many square kilometers of fresh cometary ice to sunlight for the first time. A flurry of sublimation would ensue with mega-jets of dusty gas emerging from the sinkhole to create a cloud around the comet much as we see now.The common thread of each of these explanations is that they don't really say anything constructive. The explanations are merely scientists' way of shrugging their shoulders whilst maintaining their snowball theory and justifying their exorbitant salaries. None of them hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. An explosion or collapse would be assymetrical, not the uniform, spherical envelope around the nucleus that is observed. An explosion could be expected to produce an assortment of fragmentary sizes, not just the fine dust that is observed. Typically, the duration of an explosion luminescence is less than a minute, not months. What explosion mechanism are they proposing that can luminate for months? Dusty gas would quickly disperse away from the comet, not persisting in a cluster for over two months.Each of the mainstream theories has the nucleus providing the additional material for the coma. A quick density calculation will now challenge this core belief. Dimensions for the nucleus of the comet before the flareup are not known so we will generously assume an initial diameter of 50 km. It's current nucleus is 3.6 km in diameter. This difference in size would have provided 500,000 cubic km of material. The density of asteroids is typically 3 to 5 grams per cubic centimetre. The density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimetre. The density of the nucleus should be somewhere between these values. We will again be generous and assume 5 grams per cubic centimetre. This would mean that the nucleus ejected an astonishing 3 quadrillion tonnes (15 zeroes) of material. However, spreading this mass over the extent of the enlarged coma would only result in a density of less than 2 grams per cubic km inside the coma. http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/guests08/032908_guest_swall.htm How Brian; just bloody HOW? I know what some experts will say... It's a mystery to me how comets work at all. Now to say time dilation is a bizarre concept is one thing but to say that Comet Holmes was just gassing out some ice on its way away from the Sun; is (imho) just plain retarded. Then there's Wallace Thornhill. Ranked by your home team as the king of the cranks. Just how does he get so many predictions right?You're good with sums so just what the hell does this add up to in your big book of facts? On the question of Saturn's strange polar "hot spot," Thornhill offered an explicit prediction: "The Electric Universe also predicts, experimentum crucis, that both poles should be hot, not one hot and the other cold." On January 3, 2008, the Reuters news service published the science headline, "Scientists find hot spot on Saturn's chilly pole": "Saturn's chilly north pole boasts a hot spot of compressed air, a surprising discovery that could shed light on other planets within our own solar system and beyond, researchers said on Thursday. "We didn't expect it to have a hot spot at the north," said Teanby of the University of Oxford. Saturn's north polar "hot spot" is a total "surprise" to planetary scientists, because the pole has been deprived of sunlight since its winter began more than twelve years ago! Baffled investigators can only propose a strange theory based on the mechanics of wind and water: "The hot spots are the result of air moving polewards, being compressed and heated up as it descends over the poles into the depths of Saturn," said Leigh Fletcher, a planetary scientist from the University of Oxford, England, and the lead author of the Science paper. "The driving forces behind the motion, and indeed the global motion of Saturn's atmosphere, still need to be understood." But in the minds of electric universe proponents, no understanding of these "surprising" atmospheric phenomena is possible for scientists if they continue to deny all things electrical. The idea that the "hot spot" is due to the compression of air is of course just a wild guess, because the theorists have no other resort than standard gas laws And there's more... In October 2001, after the announcement of NASA's 2005 Deep Impact mission, Thornhill wrote: "Given the erroneous standard model of comets it is an interesting exercise to imagine what surprises are in store for astronomers if the plan is successful. The electrical model suggests the likelihood of an electrical discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile, particularly if the comet is actively flaring at the time. The projectile will approach too quickly for a slow electrical discharge to occur. So the energetic effects of the encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter." Twenty-four hours before the impact event, in collaboration with the Thunderbolts.info group, Thornhill predicted that an electrical "flash" might precede the impact and explosion, and that the explosion would be far more energetic than NASA anticipated. And this is precisely what happened on July 4, 2005, much to the astonishment of NASA and astronomers around the world. Other successful Thornhill predictions included: a lack of increase in water production in the cometary coma (indicating a lack of subsurface water anticipated by astronomers); an unexpected lack of ice on the comet nucleus, or water in the immediate ejecta from impact; a sculpted comet surface with sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges (the precise opposite of what one expects of a "dirty snowball"); a rearrangement of the comet's jets due to charge distribution. And there's more... Jupiter's Electric Moon Io Following the lead of earlier investigators Dr Thomas Gold (The Journal Science, Nov 1979), Dr. Anthony Peratt and Professor AJ Dessler (Astrophysics and Space Science, no. 144 - 1988), Thornhill insisted that the so-called "volcanoes" on the Jovian moon Io are actually electric discharge plumes. Prior to the Galileo probe's 1996 arrival in the Jovian system, Thornhill registered these advance claims: the vents of Io's "volcanic" plumes will be much hotter than lava; the plumes are the jets of cathode arcs, and they do not explode from a volcanic vent but move around and erode the periphery of dark areas (called "lava lakes" by planetary geologists); the "lava lakes" themselves are merely the solid surface of Io etched electrically by cathode arcs and exposed from beneath the "snow" deposited by continuous discharge activity. Therefore, they will not reveal the expected heat of a recent lava flow.Each of these predictions received stunning confirmation. Io's "volcanic" hot spots were not only hotter than any lava on Earth, but were too hot to be measured by Galileo's instruments (no "lava flow" ever recorded has produced temperatures as hot as seen in the original Galileo image). Also as predicted by Thornhill, the discharging was found to be focused on the edges of the so-called "lava lakes," though the rest of these dark fields are comparatively cold. None of the expected volcanic vents could be found. Rather, some of the "volcanic" plumes are actually MOVING across the surface of Io! The plume of the "volcano" Prometheus has moved more than 80 kilometers since the Voyager mission. Then more, then even more still... http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/goodspeed08/011008another_thornhill_prediction_confirmed.htm Maybe you're right, in that I have brushed some things relating to relativity aside but if you can't even consider the electric alternative when it comes to Comet Holmes and Thornhills predictions; then you and the high priests of cosmology are driving King Kongs bulldozer into a pit of unending ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkusoBruntskerry Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 I am on the boat, it's four in the morning... I had to vacate my shared cabin as a Scouse fellow kept shouting "I love my Wendy" and decided to P*ss in a cup instead of using the toilet then he almost fell in on my bunk. It was at this point I decided to leave and resulting in me being by myself in the bar with the barman playing on line poker I came across this post and despite all my above problems I am still not bored enough to read through this huge complex post. The only time I use maths is when I am calculating how much I can throw at strippers... with regards to Physics, I did it at the Anderson High School. At this point in time I am slightly more concerned as to whether the nice fellow in my room P*ssed on my suitcase than maths, physics etc. He also P*ssed his bed... he has got to be the ultimate advert for don't drink too much. I also read a post about running over cats thinking this may a joke page and me in need of cheering up... I was saddly wrong... Poor cat. I guess the point of my post is really just to say "sometimes it takes a guy P*ssing on your bag to realise that despite the size of the universe we are specs that will have no impact on it, unless you are a super villan" Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 High redshift quasars are supposed to blink at a slower rate than their closer low redshift counterparts. Observations prove otherwise. There's theories on why that happens but there's no definite answer yet. Ultimately... Supernovas exhibit time dilation, gamma ray bursts exhibit time dilation, all experiments have shown it to exist (see below), so we either take the anomoly and declare that time dilation does not exist and try to explain every other experiment with alternative theories... Or we don't jump the gun and research more into quasars. According to Thomas Smid (M.Sc. Physics, Ph.D. Astronomy) Relativity is not "proven" by GPS because the actual differences in locations resulting from differences between clocks are much smaller than the margin of error. The margin of error for GPS is in the range of a couple of meters, yet the calculated difference due to Relativity amounts to less than a centimeter. It is incorrect to say that GPS verifies Relativity. "assuming both transmitter clocks are synchronized" - nope. "but there is obviously no accumulation as the transmitter clocks run at the same rate relatively to each other (assuming that all satellites have identical heights and speeds, i.e. identical relativistic time dilations)." - nope again, can't assume sync and so whole analysis falls apart here. Here's a simple way of analyzing it. Difference in time after each day without time dilation applied = 38 micro seconds. Distance light travels in that time ~ 11km. This will accumulate. When it comes to dark matter; the emperor has no clothes but you still want me to explain why I think his socks aren't blue. Yup that's dark matter disproved. I found some stuff relating, on page 4 of this one: http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf Not entirely what I'm after but it's not important how it was done since I lack the ability to recreate it anyway. All that is well and good but why don't we deal with some of the Elephants in the room that seem to be in your blind spots... The common thread of each of these explanations is that they don't really say anything constructive. The explanations are merely scientists' way of shrugging their shoulders whilst maintaining their snowball theory and justifying their exorbitant salaries. None of them hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Of course EU suffers from no blindspots... http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html One that stood out for me was 'predicts magnetic fields for the surface of the Sun and at the orbit of the Earth, 1000 to 1,000,000 times larger than measured.' How Brian; just bloody HOW? Clearly black holes, time dilation and sagnac effect. Jupiter's Electric Moon Io Tidal heating, predicted by theory, shown by observations. Study of Io also includes heavy work into Jupiters magnetic field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I decided to look more at the comet thing since it's pretty interesting... I have a couple of points though... One would be, given the explanation offered by EU theory, you would think this happens muuuch more frequently than it does given solar activity... An explosion could be expected to produce an assortment of fragmentary sizes, not just the fine dust that is observed. Various sizes were observed Typically, the duration of an explosion luminescence is less than a minute, not months. What explosion mechanism are they proposing that can luminate for months? Not sure I entirely understand this question... They're saying what caused the comet to be visible for so long yeah? Reflected solar radiation seems an obvious choice... Each of the mainstream theories has the nucleus providing the additional material for the coma. A quick density calculation will now challenge this core belief. Dimensions for the nucleus of the comet before the flareup are not known so we will generously assume an initial diameter of 50 km. It's current nucleus is 3.6 km in diameter. This difference in size would have provided 500,000 cubic km of material. The density of asteroids is typically 3 to 5 grams per cubic centimetre. The density of water is 1 gram per cubic centimetre. The density of the nucleus should be somewhere between these values. We will again be generous and assume 5 grams per cubic centimetre. This would mean that the nucleus ejected an astonishing 3 quadrillion tonnes (15 zeroes) of material. However, spreading this mass over the extent of the enlarged coma would only result in a density of less than 2 grams per cubic km inside the coma. The hell is this crap? Assume 50km? Muuuch larger than average size basically. "We will again be generous and assume 5 grams per cubic centimetre.". Wtf? Comet density is less than 1. Is this not aware that density of ice < water. Spreading the mass equally over the whole coma? Yeah that's what happens... This whole part is retarded. I know what he's --trying-- to imply, but none of it makes any sense and he should just use actual estimations. The comet is estimated to have ejected 8 millions tons, not 3 quadrillion. This isn't equally distributed over the whole coma, the shell will contain the smallest parts and there will be 'layers' to it but it's not anywhere near a uniform distribution. That would imply the comet continually ejected mass the entire time it was visible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 @Brian86I am in no means involved in maths or physics today, although I did study both at school and have a good grasp of them.I have been fascinated with the number 23 since I was a young boy, 1983 onwards (long before any films were made hehe) I was just wondering what your take on the whole number 23 is?I understand some of the math behind it, I was more interested in your take on it. Is it just crazy numerology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian86 Posted October 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 @Brian86I am in no means involved in maths or physics today, although I did study both at school and have a good grasp of them.I have been fascinated with the number 23 since I was a young boy, 1983 onwards (long before any films were made hehe) I was just wondering what your take on the whole number 23 is?I understand some of the math behind it, I was more interested in your take on it. Is it just crazy numerology? Emm who knows. Perhaps 23 is some great cosmological number that determines things. I think a lot of it just numerology though. Not to say it isn't interesting, it's basically pattern finding I suppose. I'd say for every 'this is associated with 23', there's something associated with some other number too. There also seems to be a lack of consistency in how the number is found... An example I've seen used is... 9/11 happened on the 11th of september 2001. This can be written as 11 + 9 + 2 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 23! But then why would you split up 2001 and not 11? It could also be 1 + 1 + 9 + 2 + 0 + 0 + 1 = 14. Or it could be 11 + 9 + 2001 = 2021. If you're interested in a possible mathematical explanation to the 23 appearing in dates phenomenon... I ran a code that added up the digits of every date from 1/1/1 to 31/12/2011 and stored the result which was then plotted. I did it in 3 ways, first case, condsidering every digit on its own (i.e, 31st of december 2011 would be 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 0 + 1 + 1) Second case, considering the month as not as individual digits (e.g. same date as above would be 3 + 1 + 12 + 2 + 0 + 1 + 1) Third case, finally considering days and months not as individual digits (as above, would be 31 + 12 + 2 + 0 + 1 + 1) I included a crude leap year thing with year divisible by 4 = leap year which isn't exactly right but it doesn't make a difference on final results and I also ignored any calendar changes and assumed a Gregorian calendar throughout... Here's the plot of the results of the first case when all digits were added. It's basically a normal distribution as we would expect centred on 24 (it may actually be 23 but since I coded it in C++, they use 0 for the first indice of an array and I might have made a mistake converting everything back or something... Also there may be small changes in final amounts due to leap year not being calculated correctly, the difference between 23 and 24 was very small) http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/6011/unledztt.png Now I realize this is just about dates and there's other places where 23 pops up but it would explain why the number 23 appears so often in dates. When you add up the digits of dates, the second most likely result is going to be 23 (it was 26 for the second case and much higher for the third). Dunno if you do any C++ coding but here's the code I wrote up if you want to check/mod it. Ran through first go and to be honest I haven't checked it to make sure it's actually doing the right thing but I think it is... Also, I use { } braces when not needed so code looks longer than it actually is. #include #include using namespace std; int main() { int store[48]; // all digits seperately int store1[51]; // days seperate, month together int store2[71]; // days + month together. for (int k = 0; k < 48; k++) { store[k] = 0; } for (int k = 0; k < 51; k++) { store1[k] = 0; } for (int k = 0; k < 71; k++) { store2[k] = 0; } int count = 0; int count1 = 0; int count2 = 0; int r,s,t,u,v,w,x,y; int lim = 0; for (int year = 1; year <= 2011; year++) { v = year % 10; w = (year % 100)/10; x = (year % 1000)/100; y = year/1000; for (int month = 1; month <= 12; month++) { t = month % 10; u = month/10; if (month == 2 && year % 4 == 0) { lim = 29; } else if (month == 2 && year != 0) { lim = 28; } else if (month == 4 || month == 6 || month == 9 || month == 11) { lim = 30; } else { lim = 31; } for (int day = 1; day<=lim; day++) { r = day % 10; s = day/10; count = r + s + t + u + v + w + x + y; count1 = r + s + month + v + w + x + y; count2 = day + month + v + w + x + y; store[count-1] += 1; store1[count1-1] += 1; store2[count2-1] += 1; } } } for (int k = 0; k < 48; k++) { cout << k+1 << " appears " << store[k] << " times" << endl; date << k << " " << store[k] << endl; } for (int k = 0; k < 51; k++) { cout << k+1 << " appears " << store1[k] << " times" << endl; } for (int k = 0; k < 71; k++) { cout << k+1 << " appears " << store2[k] << " times" << endl; } } You can also include a wee bit of bias into it by adding the results of all three cases ONLY with 23. As in, if the date adds up to 23 in any of the three ways, count it, but only do this with 23. This gives... http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/1694/unled1ylt.png Showing 23 will appear much more often than any other number (almost 13% of time). this is just a simple way of showing how bias can hugely skew the result. Clearly numbers rule the universe so there's probably some number that appear more than others, is it 23? I dunno. Numerology may be laughed of by most but if two things are clearly linked by certain numbers, it could infer that there is some deep mathematical connection between them... (tbh I don't really know much about numerology so maybe I'm talking more towards number theory here than numerology, which I think also mentions belief system type stuff and sacred numbers and what not) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.