Starship Asterisk*

aristarchusinexile wrote:You can't see, hear, smell or taste the smallest particles, you can only imagine their existance and effects, yet you call that area of science "science" .. while saying science must be empirical .. must be seen, heard, smelt, or tasted.

I don't imagine their existence. I observe their effects, and ask what sort of theory describing them would explain those effects. That is empirical. I use my senses in all manner of observation and experimentation to test this theory. That is empirical.

I find it difficult to accept that you have read much on MOG, especially Moffat's latest.

In fact, I've read some excellent summaries of his work. I haven't read his original papers because they are outside my area of expertise and are far too dense. I know for certain that you haven't read his original papers, either.

The work is interesting in the abstract, because he has found a mathematical solution that can explain certain observations. However, IMO dark matter is a better explanation. If you assume that his theory is correct, it could provide an alternate (but no better) explanation for galaxy rotation curves and some apparent mass distributions in clusters. But it doesn't appear to explain at all other observations that are tied to dark matter- gravitational lensing characteristics, and most important, the role of dark matter in creating the structure of the Universe itself, as evidenced in the CMB and even the evolution of galaxies.

The bottom line is that the work is valid science, but neither the theory nor the supporting evidence comes close at this point to tipping things away from the concordance model. Note that there is nothing the slightest bit insulting here toward Moffat personally or MOG in general. We're simply talking about a theory that has a long ways to go yet in order to prove its merit.

What has the thing i posted, where an object sits in mid air, got in common with this article NASA posted?
http://keelynet.com/gravity/nasaag.htm some years ago?

I,d just like to point out, spinning objects are the key... What is happening to the coin, that we can not see? that is also happening to black holes? I worked this out fifteen years ago...in my own mind...

listen to this then call me crazy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFdndWjz9w&NR=1


mark

mark swain wrote:I saw a program on TV. In this program it showed a meteorite traveling towards Jupiter.. It did not get all the way round before Jupiter Flung it back out the way it went in at increadable speed.

That's called a gravitational slingshot, and it works by transferring angular momentum from Jupiter into the meteoroid's velocity. We have often used this effect to speed up spacecraft. It has nothing to do with anything odd about Jupiter. The same thing has been done around other planets and moons, including the Earth itself.

Could galaxies act like this in the beginning? If there are two types of galaxies which are not the same ( Dark and Light)

The thing is, they aren't that different. All galaxies are made up of a little ordinary matter and a lot of dark matter. The only difference with the so-called dark galaxies is that they apparently didn't have enough ordinary matter (mainly hydrogen) to condense into stars. So we only see them in a radio wavelength (that is, cool material), not a visible wavelength.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/448034/se ... _homemade/

A clever illusion, but it's just a magic trick. Nothing profound is going on, the card isn't really levitating, there's no antigravity or zero-point forces.

mark swain wrote:What has the thing i posted, where an object sits in mid air, got in common with this article NASA posted?
http://keelynet.com/gravity/nasaag.htm some years ago?

The thing you posted earlier is a magic trick, not a real experiment or demonstration of physics. The assertion that a spinning superconductor somehow modifies gravity has not been replicated by anybody else, nor by NASA. If there is an effect there, it is too small to measure by current technology, which means that whatever the first guy saw, it wasn't modified gravity.

listen to this then call me crazy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFdndWjz9w&NR=1

Hoagland is one of the most successful pseudoscientists- that is, somebody who has found a way to make money from it. There is not a thing he says that is credible. FWIW, he was (and still is) the main guy pushing the "face on Mars" conspiracy.

That was not a trick Chris..

That was the forth time i have seen it. That,s four separate times! The last time a guy built a triangle out of ally,, three foot in diameter with wires around the top.. it levitated 8 foot of the ground and no batteries or can or phone... it was on BBC who do not tell lies.... If i,d have thought for one second it was a party trick, i would not have posted it....

Please find the hidden energy....Which will explain everything..

thanks

mark

mark swain wrote:That was not a trick Chris..

Believe me, it was. Did you try building it yourself? Looks easy enough, go for it.

That was the forth time i have seen it.

Hey, I've seen women sawed in half at least that many times!

mark swain wrote:That was not a trick Chris..

That was the forth time i have seen it. That,s four separate times! The last time a guy built a triangle out of ally,, three foot in diameter with wires around the top.. it levitated 8 foot of the ground and no batteries or can or phone... it was on BBC who do not tell lies.... If i,d have thought for one second it was a party trick, i would not have posted it....

Please find the hidden energy....Which will explain everything..

thanks

mark

I've built one myself. The levitation isn't anti gravity. It does take a power source though. Mine was about 1 foot on a side and rose about 1 foot in the air. It was powered by a 30,000 volt power supply running electricity along the thin wire at the top of the triangle which then transfered to the aluminum skirting before exiting out the bottom wire. The electrical transfer created an ION wind that lifted the apparatus off the ground.

As for the video with the batteries and call phone... did you notice how the card dropped quickly when the left hand entered the image... and then didn't move at all when the battery attached to the can was being manipulated (which also caused the can to move again without moving the card). The card didn't move again until the left hand was again off screen.
Can you say monofilament wires boys and girls???

"Monofilament wires"

very good boys and girls

monofilament wire (fishing line) attach to the card via the same tape holding the nickel to the card.

Chris

Where do you think all this energy is going?

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h ... 4&ct=image

They say one hundred million volts,,, are made from clouds... how many hundred million volts/amps track down to earth because of water particles glancing each other? Per day? or is it the bigger part of the above photo making the volts?

No party trick that mucker

mark

BMAONE23 wrote:I've built one myself. The levitation isn't anti gravity. It does take a power source though. Mine was about 1 foot on a side and rose about 1 foot in the air. It was powered by a 30,000 volt power supply running electricity along the thin wire at the top of the triangle which then transfered to the aluminum skirting before exiting out the bottom wire. The electrical transfer created an ION wind that lifted the apparatus off the ground.

Yeah, I've seen that one. There are lots of plans on the Internet for building them. MythBusters built one as well. As you note, there's nothing about the device that requires any new laws of physics or any unknown energy sources. The darn thing plugs into the wall!

As for the video with the batteries and call phone... did you notice how the card dropped quickly when the left hand entered the image... and then didn't move at all when the battery attached to the can was being manipulated (which also caused the can to move again without moving the card). The card didn't move again until the left hand was again off screen.
Can you say monofilament wires boys and girls???

That would be my guess, but video trickery is a possibility, or something else. Illusionists have quite a bag of tricks at their disposal for simulating levitation.

mark swain wrote:Where do you think all this energy is going?

Keep in mind that the actual energy involved in the solar wind is pretty small. A tiny fraction of the energy from longer wavelength radiation.

They say one hundred million volts,,, are made from clouds... how many hundred million volts/amps track down to earth because of water particles glancing each other? Per day? or is it the bigger part of the above photo making the volts?

Volts don't tell you much. Amps are more interesting, and the currents that flow in clouds and in auroras are moderately well known. And in terms of the actual energy- think of it in terms of the work it could do- it isn't much compared to the more obvious things like solar radiation, wind and wave movement, etc.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Chris said

I don't know where you're getting this. The "original observations" that led to the BB theory were nothing more than than the observation that there was a relationship between redshift and distance. That led to a simple BB theory. Since then, richer and better observations of many other things have led to a richer and better BB theory. All science requires "creative imaginings", since that is fundamental to the development of theories from observations.

Richer and better BB theory.

Is this a joke?

How did it become richer and better?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0039
Halo Mass Functions in Early Dark Energy Cosmologies

Authors: Matthew J. Francis, Geraint F. Lewis, Eric V. Linder
(Submitted on 30 Sep 2008 (v1), last revised 26 Nov 2008 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We examine the linear density contrast at collapse time, $\delta_c$ for large-scale structure in dynamical dark energy cosmologies, including models with early dark energy. Contrary to previous results, we find that as long as dark energy is homogeneous on small scales, $\delta_c$ is insensitive to dark energy properties for parameter values fitting current data, including the case of early dark energy. This is significant since using the correct $\delta_c$ is crucial for accurate Press-Schechter prediction of the halo mass function. Previous results have found an apparent failing of the extended Press-Schechter approach (Sheth-Tormen) for early dark energy. Our calculations demonstrate that with the correct $\delta_c$ the accuracy of this approach is restored. We discuss the significance of this result for the halo mass function and examine what dark energy physics would be needed to cause significant change in $\delta_c$, and the observational signatures this would leave.

and

http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2197
Cosmological Radar Ranging in an Expanding Universe

Authors: Geraint F. Lewis, Matthew J. Francis, Luke A. Barnes, Juliana Kwan, J. Berian James
(Submitted on 15 May 2008)

Abstract: While modern cosmology, founded in the language of general relativity, is almost a century old, the meaning of the expansion of space is still being debated. In this paper, the question of radar ranging in an expanding universe is examined, focusing upon light travel times during the ranging; it has recently been claimed that this proves that space physically expands. We generalize the problem into considering the return journey of an accelerating rocketeer, showing that while this agrees with expectations of special relativity for an empty universe, distinct differences occur when the universe contains matter. We conclude that this does not require the expansion of space to be a physical phenomenon, rather that we cannot neglect the influence of matter, seen through the laws of general relativity, when considering motions on cosmic scales.

Why is it that BB people do not read the black and white?

Hello Doum

You may find this interesting.


This link is quite interesting about NGC1275
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080822.html

Fermi Discovery of Gamma-Ray Emission from NGC 1275

Authors: The Fermi/LAT Collaboration: A. A. Abdo, et al, H.D. Aller, M.F. Aller, K.I. Kellermann, Y.Y. Kovalev, Y.A. Kovalev, M. L. Lister, A. B. Pushkarev
(Submitted on 13 Apr 2009)

Abstract: We report the discovery of high-energy (E>100 MeV) gamma-ray emission from NGC 1275, a giant elliptical galaxy lying at the center of the Perseus cluster of galaxies, based on observations made with the Large Area Telescope (LAT) of the Fermi Gamma ray Space Telescope. The positional center of the gamma-ray source is only ~3' away from the NGC 1275 nucleus, well within the 95% LAT error circle of ~5'.The spatial distribution of gamma-ray photons is consistent with a point source. The average flux and power-law photon index measured with the LAT from 2008 August 4 to 2008 December 5 are F_gamma = (2.10+-0.23)x 10^{-7} ph (>100 MeV) cm^{-2} s^{-1} and Gamma = 2.17+-0.05, respectively. The measurements are statistically consistent with constant flux during the four-month LAT observing period.Previous EGRET observations gave an upper limit of F_gamma < 3.72x 10 ^{-8} ph (>100 MeV) cm^{-2} s^{-1} to the gamma-ray flux from NGC 1275. This indicates that the source is variable on timescales of years to decades, and therefore restricts the fraction of emission that can be produced in extended regions of the galaxy cluster. Contemporaneous and historical radio observations are also reported. The broadband spectrum of NGC 1275 is modeled with a simple one-zone synchrotron/synchrotron self-Compton model and a model with a decelerating jet flow.

These filaments are caused by a single point source that eliminates the probability of disc influence. This maybe evidence for the ability of blackholes to release matter at a huge rate. Just a thought.

harry wrote:Fermi Discovery of Gamma-Ray Emission from NGC 1275

Authors: The Fermi/LAT Collaboration: A. A. Abdo, et al, H.D. Aller, M.F. Aller, K.I. Kellermann, Y.Y. Kovalev, Y.A. Kovalev, M. L. Lister, A. B. Pushkarev

These filaments are caused by a single point source that eliminates the probability of disc influence. This maybe evidence for the ability of blackholes to release matter at a huge rate. Just a thought.

You are misrepresenting the results of the paper. The "point source" referred to in the abstract is described in the body of the paper as being approximately 0.3 pc across (about a light year). "Point source" simply means a source smaller than the PSF of the x-ray telescope used, which is 0.5°.

Another thing you'd find if you went further than just the abstract is that the authors were fitting their data to several standard relativistic jet models, all of which are based (naturally) on infalling material from accretion discs.

There is nothing at all remotely suggesting that black holes release matter, or that jets from AGN sources are material escaping from black holes.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Chris I know what the paper has written.

Read on and do a bit of research.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2712
Magnetic support of the optical emission line filaments in NGC 1275

Authors: A.C. Fabian (1), R.M. Johnstone (1), J.S. Sanders (1), C.J. Conselice (2), C.S. Crawford (1), J.S. Gallagher III (3), E. Zweibel (3) ((1) Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, (2) University of Nottingham, (3) University of Wisconsin)
(Submitted on 20 Aug 2008)

Abstract: The giant elliptical galaxy NGC 1275, at the centre of the Perseus cluster, is surrounded by a well-known giant nebulosity of emission-line filaments, which are plausibly about >10^8 yr old. The filaments are dragged out from the centre of the galaxy by the radio bubbles rising buoyantly in the hot intracluster gas before later falling back. They act as dramatic markers of the feedback process by which energy is transferred from the central massive black hole to the surrounding gas. The mechanism by which the filaments are stabilized against tidal shear and dissipation into the surrounding 4x10^7 K gas has been unclear. Here we report new observations that resolve thread-like structures in the filaments. Some threads extend over 6 kpc, yet are only 70 pc wide. We conclude that magnetic fields in the threads, in pressure balance with the surrounding gas, stabilize the filaments, so allowing a large mass of cold gas to accumulate and delay star formation.

One of the main problems is the ability to see close to a so called black hole. The vector fields going in are extreme, but for the filaments coming out.

G'day Chris

One more paper, but not the last

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0690
The Collimation and Energetics of the Brightest Swift Gamma-Ray Bursts

Authors: S. B. Cenko, D. A. Frail, F. A. Harrison, S. R. Kulkarni, E. Nakar, P. Chandra, N. R. Butler, D. B. Fox, A. Gal-Yam, M. M. Kasliwal, J. Kelemen, D.-S. Moon, P. A. Price, A. Rau, A. M. Soderberg, H. I. Teplitz, M. W. Werner, D. C.-J. Bock, J. S. Bloom, D. A. Starr, A. V. Filippenko, R. A. Chevalier, N. Gehrels, J. N. Nousek, T. Piran
(Submitted on 6 May 2009)

Abstract: Long-duration gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are widely believed to be highly-collimated explosions (opening angle theta ~ 1-10 deg). As a result of this beaming factor, the true energy release from a GRB is usually several orders of magnitude smaller than the observed isotropic value. Measuring this opening angle, typically inferred from an achromatic steepening in the afterglow light curve (a "jet" break), has proven exceedingly difficult in the Swift era. Here we undertake a study of five of the brightest (in terms of the isotropic prompt gamma-ray energy release, E(gamma, iso)) GRBs in the Swift era to search for jet breaks and hence constrain the collimation-corrected energy release. We present multi-wavelength (radio through X-ray) observations of GRBs 050820A, 060418, and 080319B, and construct afterglow models to extract the opening angle and beaming-corrected energy release for all three events. Together with results from previous analyses of GRBs 050904 and 070125, we find evidence for an achromatic jet break in all five events, strongly supporting the canonical picture of GRBs as collimated explosions. The most natural explanation for the lack of observed jet breaks from most Swift GRBs is therefore selection effects. However, the opening angles for the events in our sample are larger than would be expected if all GRBs had a canonical energy release of ~ 10e51 erg. The total energy release we measure for those "hyper-energetic" (E(total) >~ 10e52 erg) events in our sample is large enough to start challenging models with a magnetar as the compact central remnant.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

Hello Aris, sorry I must have overlooked your response.

There a various definitions of Black holes.

I do not believe in the Black holes with singularies and the Event Horizon, the idea that nothing can escape.

But! I tend to think along the lines that Black holes are ultra dense plasma degenerate matter such as Neutron matrix, Quarks and neutrino having densities from 10^17 to 10^35 kg/m3 that physical laws can be applied to.

We apply the properties of plasma, the double layer and pinch dynamics.
That means these black holes are able to create magnetic vector fields that prevent EMR from escaping but are aslo able to create magnetic fields that connect and create jets that eject matter from the so called black hole.

Related topics
Z-pnch dynamics
Naked singularity
Trapping Horizons
Vector fields.

Chris Peterson wrote: In fact, I've read some excellent summaries of his work. I haven't read his original papers because they are outside my area of expertise and are far too dense. I know for certain that you haven't read his original papers, either.

You're correct .. in fact I haven't read any of his papers, and wouldn't understand them .. but I have read his book Reinventing Gravity .. and I recommend you do so as it is for the most part easily understood. His original papers are in the past, and he has moved on, refining as he goes (and acknowledging the enormous value of those people providing assistance).

Hello aristarchusinexile,

Been a while eh ari? Been thinking 'bout your up and coming trip a bit. Hope the raft is sound for the sail.

Now, of course, down to biz:

aristarchusinexile wrote:You're correct .. in fact I haven't read any of his papers, and wouldn't understand them .. but I have read his book Reinventing Gravity .. and I recommend you do so as it is for the most part easily understood. His original papers are in the past, and he has moved on, refining as he goes (and acknowledging the enormous value of those people providing assistance).

My question naturally is that if it is acceptable to you that he is "refining as he goes" then why do you protest so when the BB folks exercise the same option? Doesn't add up except to help your arguments whenever you choose it's convenience.

aristarchusinexile,

May be you should just content yourself with canoing. And stop using library computer to avoid getting ban from this forum (Thus getting everyone in that library your are using to get themself ban from this forum). That's what a 14 or 15 years olds child will do. Just freely jerk on internet and make a library internet being ban for that and all that by your fault and then saying that this forum is responsable for it. (And then he goes into another library and start all over again. Gee.. you are using library as hostages as any terrorist will do. Wich is an adolescent child thing to do. Shame on you!

I wonder how many more library you can get ban before they (Library) are to far from your home for you to get back in this forum and dirty it freely at the expand of everyone in any library? Since fuel is inceasing, it will cost you more to get to that far library. If i was in admin i would try it. Lucky you i am not. Hmm. Let see now what happen.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

I love canoing, I should have taken that up as a hobby instead of cosmology.

That would have made the BB people so happy.


==============getting back on the topic

How can they detect things moving out there rotating and doing their thing?

Detection of Extrasolar Planets by Gravitational Microlensing
Feb-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0902.1761B
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-d ... db_key=PRE

Gravitational microlensing provides a unique window on the properties and prevalence of extrasolar planetary systems because of its ability to find low-mass planets at separations of a few AU. The early evidence from microlensing indicates that the most common type of exoplanet yet detected are the so-called "super-Earth" planets of ~10 Earth-masses at a separation of a few AU from their host stars. The detection of two such planets indicates that roughly one third of stars have such planets in the separation range 1.5-4 AU, which is about an order of magnitude larger than the prevalence of gas-giant planets at these separations. We review the basic physics of the microlensing method, and show why this method allows the detection of Earth-mass planets at separations of 2-3 AU with ground-based observations. We explore the conditions that allow the detection of the planetary host stars and allow measurement of planetary orbital parameters. Finally, we show that a low-cost, space-based microlensing survey can provide a comprehensive statistical census of extrasolar planetary systems with sensitivity down to 0.1 Earth-masses at separations ranging from 0.5 AU to infinity.

astrolabe wrote:Hello aristarchusinexile,

Been a while eh ari? Been thinking 'bout your up and coming trip a bit. Hope the raft is sound for the sail.

Now, of course, down to biz:

aristarchusinexile wrote:You're correct .. in fact I haven't read any of his papers, and wouldn't understand them .. but I have read his book Reinventing Gravity .. and I recommend you do so as it is for the most part easily understood. His original papers are in the past, and he has moved on, refining as he goes (and acknowledging the enormous value of those people providing assistance).

My question naturally is that if it is acceptable to you that he is "refining as he goes" then why do you protest so when the BB folks exercise the same option? Doesn't add up except to help your arguments whenever you choose it's convenience.

Hi Astro,

Oh how I long for the lands and seas of the Polynesians. Yes, it has been awhile .. where've you been?

The BB people don't refine, Astro, they invent excuses (inflation, DM, DE as examples) for observations which contradict the original theory. That is not refinement .. it is hard headedness and akin to fraud.

My trip doesn't involve araft, but canoe .. a wannigan lid will serve as a sail if the wind is suitable.

If you sail, Astro, I hope you have fair winds and safe seas.

Doum wrote:aristarchusinexile,

May be you should just content yourself with canoing. And stop using library computer to avoid getting ban from this forum (Thus getting everyone in that library your are using to get themself ban from this forum). That's what a 14 or 15 years olds child will do. Just freely jerk on internet and make a library internet being ban for that and all that by your fault and then saying that this forum is responsable for it. (And then he goes into another library and start all over again. Gee.. you are using library as hostages as any terrorist will do. Wich is an adolescent child thing to do. Shame on you!

I wonder how many more library you can get ban before they (Library) are to far from your home for you to get back in this forum and dirty it freely at the expand of everyone in any library? Since fuel is inceasing, it will cost you more to get to that far library. If i was in admin i would try it. Lucky you i am not. Hmm. Let see now what happen.

I yust shaken me hed and smyle amuzedly, wondurink hooooooo Doum reelly iz, wundering whoooooo everwhun hear iz reelie, and wishkink I cud immitute Doum's immitootin lankwage so gud as hymn praise the Lord Hallelujah. Fuel is knot increesing, buy thu whey, iffen yu read the topik gloobal warning you will c fooel is beink burnded at alarmink rate to melten glaseeurs undt micecapz, whitch is y the moderateurs don't bannish me to Samos again because they don't want more fuel burnted than nexescary, and becuz Samos is crowded alsew wyth Plasmatic Hairy People. Duom sorry I am to c ur compleshun is green, hoap u feal gooder sune. Iff not, the horsepistol is thiz way .

What ever it is ,, its going to shock....

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=208737

The hole universe inside a giant black hole? People could tell me anything outlandish about our universe.. I would not be surprised.

Mark

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Where is the empirical method in creative imaginings?

You mean like anti-gravity bubbles?

Sort of like that, Bystander, except we can see the bubbles and their effects, and conclude that because there is no matter in the bubbles, and nothing affected by gravity enters the bubbles, they must contain anti-gravity.

Chris Peterson wrote: the "face on Mars" conspiracy.

Chris, you possess great value for the forum, but you discount ideas too quickly. It's going to take very close up examinaions to determine what that face is.