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