Thunderbolts Forum
For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology
Skip to content <#start_here>
* Board index <./index.php> *‹* The Future of Science
<./viewforum.php?f=8>
* Change font size <#>
* FAQ <./faq.php>
* Register <./ucp.php?mode=register>
* Login <./ucp.php?mode=login>
Reciprocal System Theory <./viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1783&start=0>
Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed?
Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and
forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The
perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus
good science.
Forum rules
Post a reply <./posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=1783>
First unread post <#unread> • 9 posts • Page *1* of *1*
Reciprocal System Theory <#p20305>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20305#p20305>by *flyingcloud
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=615>* » Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:59 am
I read it that way as well, maybe the optimist in me.
flyingcloud <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=615>
*Posts:* 290
*Joined:* Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:07 am
*Location:* Honey Brook
* E-mail flyingcloud <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=615>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Cha
<#p20308>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20308#p20308>by *StevenO
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>* » Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:44 am
Hi Mike,
MGmirkin wrote:Are you sure you've understood their meaning correctly?
My reading implied that if Newton's gravity is rejected and some
modified gravity replaces it, dark matter would become
unnecessary... IE, the change would do away with dark matter rather
than promulgating it further. Of course the whole thing is a big
house of cards at the moment anyway.
~Michael
To quote the article, they write:
“Professor Kroupa and the other physicists believe that this can
only be explained if today’s satellite galaxies were created by
ancient collisions between young galaxies. Team member and former
colleague Dr Manuel Metz, now at the Deutsches Zentrum fuer Luft-
and Raumfahrt, also worked on the study. “Fragments from early
collisions can form the revolving dwarf galaxies we see today”
comments Dr Metz. But he adds that this introduces a paradox.
Calculations suggest that the dwarf satellites cannot contain any
dark matter if they were created in this way. But this directly
contradicts other evidence. Unless the dark matter is present, the
stars in the galaxies are moving around much faster than predicted
by Newton’s standard theory of gravitation.”
Dr Metz continues, “The only solution is to reject Newton’s theory.
If we live in a Universe where a modified law of gravitation
applies, then our observations would be explainable without dark
matter.”
They combine two beliefs:
1) That "dark matter" must be present, but dark matter has never been
proven, it is merely a gap in their equations if they assume gravity is
the only force at play in the universe. We cannot make a universe from
only attractive forces.
2) That satellite galaxies should have been created ancient collisions
between galaxies
and they use that to challenge Newton's Law of Gravitation which has
been validated by experiments. No chance according to me.
The RST explanations for these observations are:
1) The basic motion of the universe is an outward "expansion" of space
and time at lightspeed
2) The gravitational motion of matter is an inward motion that counters
this expansion
3) As such gravity has a limited reach (until the expansion motion is
faster than the gravitational motion)
4) Stars and galaxies reside in their own gravitational "cell".
Collisions between galaxies are not possible, but heavier galaxies with
larger gravitional reach will eventually absorb smaller galaxies in
their vicinity.
5) These satellite galaxies or globular clusters are the first stage of
star and galaxy forming from interstellar matter. Small sperical
galaxies can merge into small elliptical galaxies and into larger spiral
galaxies.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have
this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your
dreams. Now execute.
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
StevenO <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=171>
*Posts:* 894
*Joined:* Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Cha
<#p20339>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20339#p20339>by *sathearn
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>* » Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:19 pm
StevenO wrote: So instead of revising their unproven 'dark matter'
theories they want to revoke Newton's law of gravity? :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol:
And they do expect others to take them seriously?
MGmirkin wrote: My reading implied that if Newton's gravity is
rejected and some modified gravity replaces it, dark matter would
become unnecessary... IE, the change would do away with dark matter
rather than promulgating it further. Of course the whole thing is a
big house of cards at the moment anyway.
So does Newton's law need to be revised? Here's my own preliminary take,
also based on reading Larson and a bit about the problems that have
given rise to the dark matter hypothesis. StevenO said some of it
already; I will add a few points for clarity regarding just how Larson's
principles affect the problem.
The basic issue is that the outer stars in rotating galaxies have
orbital speeds around the galaxies' centers-of-gravity (if we were to
judge that center of gravity by the visible mass) that are comparable to
those of the stars closer in toward the core. This is certainly not
provided for by Newton's inverse square law, whereby in stable orbital
systems the objects that are farther out have slower orbital velocities,
since much lower speeds are required to balance the much attenuated
gravitational force.
I think the key insight from Larson here is that we should not expect
this relation to hold at the level of the structure of galaxies. The
gravitational effects which Newton observed and based his law on, are
actually a net effect of two opposing motions - the outward progression
of space-time and the inward gravitational motion. The two forces
(motions) do not respond to distance in the same way. The outward
progression is constant everywhere, while the inward motion is
distributed three dimensionally from its points of origin - it therefore
becomes less effective with distance. For any given mass, there is a
finite distance at which the two motions are equal - for present
purposes, we may label this point the "gravitational limit." As one
moves still farther out, objects recede from one another. As gravitation
attenuates still further, the objects actually accelerate away from one
another, toward the limiting speed of the progression.
We may note parenthetically that in Larson's system, gravity is not a
force of one mass on another, but a motion toward all other locations
within the gravitational limits, motion which becomes observable in the
presence of other masses.
The upshot is that Newton's law holds absolutely within the
gravitational limits of an aggregate of matter.
1. The planets are within the gravitational limit of the sun. Their
stable orbits are determined by the inverse-square law.
2. At the level of clusters of galaxies, relatively stable orbits are
less probable, the basic trend being toward aggregation of the whole
Local Group into one supergalaxy. But given the random motions of the
individual components, it is possible that some dwarf galaxies will find
themselves in orbit around, say, the Milky Way. Since such satellites
will be within the gravitational limit of the galaxy, their orbital
velocities will also follow Newton's law.
3. At the level of galactic structure, Newton's law is not applicable.
The stars (or multiple star systems) that make up a galaxy are
necessarily outside the gravitational limits of one another, hence
tending to move apart. However, the gravitational motion of the larger
aggregate of which they are a part (the galaxy) toward each of its
constituent stars (or multiple star systems), "holds" the stars in
place. This kind of equilibrium accounts for the stability of these
structures. It also explains why they tend to rotate as coherent bodies
- outer stars at similar velocities to those of the ones farther in. And
it also explains the stability of aggregates such as globular clusters,
many of which have little rotation. No "dark matter" needed.
sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>
*Posts:* 16
*Joined:* Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am
* E-mail sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=544>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Cha
<#p20354>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20354#p20354>by *quasiplanar* » Wed Apr 29,
2009 9:07 am
The ramifications of this type thought process could be significant.
When electricity became harnessed, and leaped from theory to practice,
we had a boon.
When the Industrial Age, which we're still within the confines of became
real. Then productivity increased many fold.
Now, faced with alternate energies and matters; we could be within the
confines of manipulation not even graspable in the human imagination, now.
If Dark Matter and Energy prove real, and containable then with what's
speculated can you imagine the possibilities? Like the OP, theories
would unravel, and applications would abound.
Should be able to contain samples, if in existence, that would allow
functioning well within the scopes of perpetual. The Holy Grail of many
Electrical Engineers. Imagine, the only cost (monetary and gainful) for
power would be utilization, not the power itself. Seems plausible with
the theories that are presenting themselves...
*quasiplanar*
Guest
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Cha
<#p20383>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20383#p20383>by *sathearn
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>* » Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:48 pm
Response to quasiplanar:
Sorry to be blunt, but I think your comments typify the kind of
delusions to which inhabitants of an industrial civilization are
understandably prone. Think about what actually happened historically.
Stores of hydrocarbons, most of which, in the case of oil, were formed
during geologic intervals of extreme global warming 90 and 150 million
years ago, were used up in a mere instant of geological time spanning a
couple of centuries. And all of the so-called "alternatives to oil" are
rather better described as "derivatives of oil," made possible by the
civilization that oil created, and dependent for their viability on the
oil-based infrastructure. Yes there was an amazing development of
technology during that brief epoch, but that development utterly
depended on and contributed to the drawdown process. It must be
understood that technology and energy are not the same thing, and that
the former is no substitute for the latter.
I think William Catton, in his classic book Overshoot (University of
Illinois, 1982) offers a more realistic assessment of where this will lead:
"Detritus ecosystems are not uncommon. When nutrients from decaying
autumn leaves on land are carried by runoff from melting snows into a
pond, their consumption by algae in the pond may be checked until
springtime by the low winter temperatures that keep the algae from
growing. When warm weather arrives, the inflow of nutrients may already
be largely complete for the year. The algal population, unable to plan
ahead, explodes in the halcyon days of spring in an irruption or bloom
that soon exhausts the finite legacy of sustenance materials. This algal
Age of Exuberance lasts only a few weeks. Long before the seasonal cycle
can bring in more detritus, there is a massive die-off of these
innocently incautious and exuberant organisms. Their 'age of
overpopulation' is very brief, and its sequel is swift and inescapable.
"When the fossil fuel legacy upon which Homo colossus was going to
thrive for a time became seriously depleted, the human niches bassed on
burning that legacy would collapse, just as detritovore niches collapse
when the detritus is exhausted. For humans, the social ramifications of
that collapse were unpleasant to contemplate. The Great Depression was,
as we have seen, a mild preview. Detritus ecosystems flourish and
collapse because they lack the life-sustaining biogeochemical
circularity of other kinds of ecosystems. They are nature's own version
of communities that prosper briefly by the drawdown method.
"The phrase 'detritus ecosystem' was, of course, not widely familiar.
The fact that 'bloom' and 'crash' cycles were common among organisms
that depend on exhaustible accumulations of dead organic matter for
their sustenance was not widely known. It is therefore understandable
that people welcomed ways of becoming colossal, not recognizing as a
kind of detritus the transformed organic remains called 'fossil fuels,'
and not noticing that Homo colossus was in fact a detritovore, subject
to the risk of crashing as a consequence of blooming." (pp. 168-69)
In light of Catton's comments, consider the largely-hidden background to
the "harnessing of electricity" and the "manifold increase in
productivity." This is from a speech by Matthew Simmons:
"Even coal has some limits. We have thousands of years, apparently, of
coal. But what we don't seem to have anymore is even tens of years of
high-quality, black, high BTU, anthracite coal. And what we're
substituting it now with, is brown coal that's so brown that it's low
sulfur, because it doesn't have much coal in it. I'd encourage all of
you to go to the New Yorker magazine in early October [2005]. They had
back-to-back articles called 'Coal Train I' and 'Coal Train II," written
by John McPhee - fabulously good articles. 'Coal Train II' traces you
through the activities to fill up a unit-train that's a mile-and-a-half
long, in the Powder River Basin. It's a hundred and twenty-four rail
cars of nineteen thousand tons of coal. And then he rides the rails for
five days to get to twenty miles outside of Macon [Georgia]. And then he
describes beautifully this process of flipping the rail cars upside down
and pneumatically sucking out the coal, and then the train starts back
five days being empty. But nineteen thousand tons of brown coal creates
eight hours of electricity. That's low-quality coal."
(See http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/whos_t ... t_peak_oil
and for an energy-focused essay of mine,
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47669 )
Now consider exotic 'dark matter,' 'dark energy' and the like. Others
have their own ideas, but I happen to think that Larson provides some
plausible answers: "Dark matter" doesn't exist. "Dark energy" is basic
to the functioning of the physical universe, but is probably already
occupied doing all the work it can ever do. For example, it is
responsible for the cohesion of the atoms in your body (a function
previously ascribed to electricity since the latter was the only one of
the known forces that seemed strong enough to plausibly account for it).
Fusion research has been getting nowhere for fifty years, and the big
irony here is that it is evidently NOT a major energy generation process
even in the sun. "Anti-matter" is actually "inverse-matter" and the
problem is that it is aggregated in three-dimensional time but spatially
extremely diffuse. Which means we can never have enough of it in one
place to be useful as an energy source to us.
sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>
*Posts:* 16
*Joined:* Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am
* E-mail sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=544>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Cha
<#p20388>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20388#p20388>by *quasiplanar* » Thu Apr 30,
2009 4:44 am
sathearn wrote:Response to quasiplanar:
Sorry to be blunt, but I think your comments typify the kind of
delusions to which inhabitants of an industrial civilization are
understandably prone. Think about what actually happened
historically. Stores of hydrocarbons, most of which, in the case of
oil, were formed during geologic intervals of extreme global warming
90 and 150 million years ago, were used up in a mere instant of
geological time spanning a couple of centuries. And all of the
so-called "alternatives to oil" are rather better described as
"derivatives of oil," made possible by the civilization that oil
created, and dependent for their viability on the oil-based
infrastructure. Yes there was an amazing development of technology
during that brief epoch, but that development utterly depended on
and contributed to the drawdown process. It must be understood that
technology and energy are not the same thing, and that the former is
no substitute for the latter.
"Disagreement is the Corner Stone of Betterment"
I'm aware that although Nuclear Energy is a misnomer, in that the waste
is highly toxic; I can demonstrate that power is readily available. Even
now.
I'm aware many believe we are contaminating the planet, and depleting
natural resources. This is true, and the inexhaustible supply is not
that. Alternatives have to be found.
Although My statements are realistically Science Fiction right now, the
Nuclear Genie was believed to be Hog Wash earlier.
Time disbandment barred, something will come down the pike...
I appreciate your viewpoint, as I'm all to aware Human Kind is not so
kind, and tends to be highly destructive. Even with it's mode of
understanding and grasping alien beliefs. Auto-destructo.
*quasiplanar*
Guest
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Cha
<#p20419>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20419#p20419>by *sathearn
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>* » Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:29 pm
quasiplanar wrote: Alternatives have to be found.
What scale are we talking about here? Something that can replace whale
oil? Or something that can replace the rate of energy use in the global
economy of 2008?
Although My statements are realistically Science Fiction right now,
the Nuclear Genie was believed to be Hog Wash earlier.
My interpretation of the history of "nuclear" power is also rather
different. It was said that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter."
That turned out to be very far from the truth, yet the idea implanted at
that time I think is a keystone of the belief that after oil becomes
scarce there will be a replacement that allows society to continue on
its growth trajectory.
Realistically, I think none of the proposed alternatives, singly or in
combination, can replace more than a fraction of the energy we currently
get from exhaustible hydrocarbons - and as I said before they are
themselves basically dependent on the oil infrastructure. And if society
decided to become serious about addressing its predicament, it would be
in order to recognize that as a preliminary matter, a large percentage
of the population will have to move into (small-scale) agriculture, the
monetary system will have to be replaced (the current one depends on
growth to avoid collapse), and much of the rest of the economy will have
to be administered on an as-if-wartime basis. Then we can talk about
researching alternatives.
A sobering discussion of energy alternatives may be found on page two of
lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
I put the warning quotes around "nuclear" above because Larson has
convinced me that Rutherford's interpretation of the scattering evidence
was invalid. Rutherford thought that the experimental evidence signified
the discovery of the "nucleus" of the atom. But arguably the only
significance of the experiment was that the atom turned out to be a
great deal smaller than had been thought. The small region that gave
rise to the large-angle scattering was the atom itself, not the nucleus
of the atom.
sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=544>
*Posts:* 16
*Joined:* Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 am
* E-mail sathearn <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=544>
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Cha
<#p20616>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20616#p20616>by *SpaceTravellor* » Tue May
05, 2009 3:23 am
Of course it´s time to change the "gravity" nonsense! It´s long overdue!
All the talk of "accretion discs" and "matter falling into eachother" is
non sense!
It´s quite the other way around with gravitational forces!
All galaxies is created from within, started of by a big stellar
explosion with rays hitting gas- and dustclouds, creating swirls which
rotates, concentrates in the swirl and heats up until it all melts
together and explodes horisontally/angulary out from the center,
"spitting" out larger, still rotating, globes of melted gas and matter,
which becomes Stars, Planets, Moons and other minor celestial phenomenons.
The Planetary balance in our Solar system is under pressure from 2
sources; the Solar wind pushing the planets outwards in the Solar
system, and the Galaxy Wind, pushing the Planets and Stars away from the
Galaxy center.
Accordingly to each planetary positions in the Solar system and compared
to the direction to the Galaxy center, these 2 forces interacts on all
planets, moons and other matter floating in the Solar system. Alignment
of planets and moons and other bigger lumps in Space causes a "shading
effect" which can be observed in the rhythm of the Tide and otherwhere
in Space where 2 or more celestial bodies interacts.
It´s also the interaction of these 2 forces which influences the Pioneer
spacecrafts to slow down when reaching the increased force of the Galaxy
Wind when the spacecraft leaves the force from the Solar Wind in the
outher Solar system.
"Gravity" is NOT a pulling force, but a PUSHING force! That´s why the
Universe is seemingly expanding. "Black matter" as a force is nonsense -
it´s just the backgound media in which all lit phenomenons is observed.
- For more Cosmological (And Mythological) information, look here:
http://www.cosmology-unified.net and http://www.native-science.net
*SpaceTravellor*
Guest
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Time For A New Theory Of Gravitation? Satellite Galaxies Cha
<#p20757>
New post <./viewtopic.php?p=20757#p20757>by *solrey
<./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=786>* » Thu May 07, 2009 7:43 am
Good article on this subject here:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Study_Plunges_Standard_Theory_Of_Cosmology_Into_Crisis_999.html
Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all
the current discrepancies between actual measurements and
predictions based on theoretical models. Hence the number of
physicists questioning the existence of dark matter has been
increasing for some time now. Competing theories of gravitation have
already been developed which are independent of this construction.
Their only problem is that they conflict with Newton's theory of
gravitation. "Maybe Newton was indeed wrong", declares Professor Dr.
Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University´s Argelander-Institut fur Astronomie
(AIfA).
"Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of
gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable
that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics
underlying the force of gravity".
Contradiction upon Contradiction
The physicists do belief that this phenomenon can only be explained
if the satellites were created a long time ago through collisions
between younger galaxies. "The fragments produced by such an event
can form rotating dwarf galaxies", explains Dr. Metz, who has
recently moved across to the Deutsches Zentrum fur Luft- und
Raumfahrt (German Aero-space Center).
But there is an interesting catch to this crash theory, "theoretical
calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any
dark matter".
This assumption, however, stands in contradiction to another
observation. "The stars in the satellites we have observed are
moving much faster than predicted by the Gravitational Law. If
classical physics holds this can only be attributed to the presence
of dark matter", Manuel Metz states.
Or one must assume that some basic fundamental principles of physics
have hitherto been incorrectly understood. "The only solution would
be to reject Newton´s classical theory of gravitation", says Pavel
Kroupa.
"We probably live in a non-Newton universe. If this is true, then
our observations could be explained without dark matter". Such
approaches are finding support amongst other research teams in
Europe, too.
The deviations detected in the satellite galaxy data support the
hypothesis that in space where extremely weak accelerations
predominate, a "modified Newton dynamic" must be adopted. This
conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics in
general, and also for cosmological theories.
Famous astrophysicist Bob Sanders from the University of Groningen
declares: "The authors of this paper make a strong argument. Their
result is entirely consistent with the expectations of modified
Newtonian dynamics (MOND), but completely opposite to the
predictions of the dark matter hypothesis. Rarely is an
observational test so definite."
MOND will be falsified as well. Thornhills EMOND, on the other hand,
will likely prove to be correct.
Universal Currents
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and
they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a
structure which has no relation to reality"
Nikola Tesla
User avatar <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=786>
solrey <./memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=786>
*Posts:* 563
*Joined:* Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm
*Location:* Corvallis, OR
* E-mail solrey <./memberlist.php?mode=email&u=786>
* Website
Top <#wrap>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display posts from previous: Sort by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply <./posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=1783>
9 posts • Page *1* of *1*
Return to The Future of Science <./viewforum.php?f=8>
Jump to:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
* Board index <./index.php>
* The team <./memberlist.php?mode=leaders> • Delete all board
cookies <./ucp.php?mode=delete_cookies> • All times are UTC - 8
hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB
Group