 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / April 2008Violent Planetary Formation, Failing GR
The latest issue (May) of Sicentific American has a good article on the violent process of collisions by which the planets in our Solar System formed. It is a violent universe! We are lucky to be here. Other Earth-like planets with whatever life they had may have been plunged into the fires of the Sun. Others may have been expelled from the Solar System into the darkness of interstellar space, their frozen oceans, and perhaps spores of life, forever waiting for a planetry spring that never comes. In another article, besides the Pioneer anomolies, other anomolies have been detected in the motions of long range probes as they come back and pass the Earth's gravitational field. They end up moving either slower or faster than Einstein's theory of graviation (GR) would predict! This raises the question of whether a better theory of gravitation is needed. SPED anyone? Double-A There's always room for a better theory, especially if a supercomputer simulation as based upon this new and improved theory is what brings home the bacon (so to speak). The public owns the world's fastest supercomuter node of 2048 extremely fast CPUs, plus hosting all the other necessary bells and whistles of resources to go along for the ride. It's on lone to our JPL/NASA, but apparently doing next to nothing most of the time. . - Brad Guth > The latest issue (May) of Sicentific American has a good article on > the violent process of collisions by which the planets in our Solar [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Double-A That supercomp. is running it's control program most of the time same as every other computer that's running, Brad! lmfjao! And loan is not spelled lone! lmao! Anything else you need help with? Oh My God, don't get me started! lmao! Saul Levy >There's always room for a better theory, especially if a supercomputer >simulation as based upon this new and improved theory is what brings [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >JPL/NASA, but apparently doing next to nothing most of the time. >. - Brad Guth > In another article, besides the Pioneer anomolies, other anomolies > have been detected in the motions of long range probes as they come > back and pass the Earth's gravitational field. They end up moving > either slower or faster than Einstein's theory of graviation (GR) > would predict! Of course they do, because the present 'flat' version of GR describes a universally-isotropic 'void-nothing' devoid of *density gradients* in gravity wells. > This raises the question of whether a better theory of > gravitation is needed. SPED anyone? Yeah. Recognizing the fact of *density gradients* in the SPED will not only bring GR out of its 'flat' status, but recognizing the deep-past *cosmological density gradient* will bring SR out of ITS 'flat' status and lay to rest the "ever-accelerating expansion of the universe" crap. > > In another article, besides the Pioneer anomolies, other anomolies > > have been detected in the motions of long range probes as they come [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and lay to rest the "ever-accelerating expansion of the universe" > crap. Sounds a bit like a physics/science kind of revision, of the good ship LOLLIPOP kind of status quo boat rocking revisions. This could get real nasty. . - Brad Guth > Sounds a bit like a physics/science kind of revision, of the good ship > LOLLIPOP kind of status quo boat rocking revisions. Well, the perceived "ever-accelerating expansion" calls for the ad hoc invention of "dark energy" to drive the expansion. And it's all based on the assumption that space is a universally-isotropic 'void-nothing' all the way back to the instant of the BB. But if space is a profoundly real 'Something', a Fluid, that underwent a precipitous density drop from the instant of the BB that gradually leveled out to its present value, this would be termed the 'cosmological density gradient' (CDG). And it would indeed account for the most distant 1a supernova 'standard candles' appearing 'dimmer than they should be'. "Ever-accelerating expansion" would become a grand illusion, with no need for mythical "dark energy" at all. The expansion curve would be shifted toward DEcelerating expansion and a closed universe. AND there would be a slowing of the clock rate across the CDG as these guys recognize : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml While their model abolishes any need for "dark energy", it extrapolates to the eventual stoppage of time altogether, which is impossible in the real universe. > > Sounds a bit like a physics/science kind of revision, of the good ship > > LOLLIPOP kind of status quo boat rocking revisions. > > Well, the perceived "ever-accelerating expansion" calls for the ad hoc > invention of "dark energy" to drive the expansion. What's wrong with the universe being sucked out into the supposed nothingness of less than one atom/ly3, and possibly doing this at . 5'c'? > And it's all based > on the assumption that space is a universally-isotropic 'void-nothing' [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > expansion curve would be shifted toward DEcelerating expansion and a > closed universe. I tend to like the closed universe, or the quantum string like universe that's quivering but always connected in a loop. > AND there would be a slowing of the clock rate > across the CDG as these guys recognize :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/sci... > While their model abolishes any need for "dark energy", it > extrapolates to the eventual stoppage of time altogether, which is > impossible in the real universe. Perhaps instead of dark energy it's merely an ISM that chuck full of gravitons and photons trekking through the mostly dark matter of perhaps 2 atoms/m3. . - Brad Guth > I tend to like the closed universe... > that's... always connected in a loop. A closed-loop system is exactly what the CBB model proposes. The freon cycle in a common 'fridgerator provides an excellent analogy, replete with its 'hot' and 'cold' phases illustrating the pre-BB state and the whole externalized universe, respectively. See - http://community-2.webtv.net/oldcoot/ContinuousBigBang/ Notice the little embedded 'marble' (#1), representing the sphere of our visible cosmos, the 'known universe'. In the freon analogy, that sphere would be represented by a cluster of freon molecules wending its way from the 'bang' point toward the final 'crunch' of re- ingestion back into the compressor. Notice that two distinct referance frames are involved. From here inside the 'marble', a finite beginning-point and end-point, the BB and 'Big Crunch', are experienced. But from the 'outside' frame, the whole process is seen, with each phase running continuously at its own station on the cycle. Thus the CBB model subsumes but does not negate the 'singular BB' idea. And incidently, the model proposed by Senovilla et al is congruent with the 'cosmological density gradient' of the CBB model. That is, there would be a precipitous slowing of the clock rate from the instant of the BB. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml So, what does this say about the perceived "age of the universe" ??? Vastly more 'ticks of the clock' will have transpired than allowed under the Void-Space Paradigm which recognizes no 'cosmological density gradient' or slowing of the clock-rate across said gradient. > And incidently, the model proposed by Senovilla et al is congruent > with the 'cosmological density gradient' of the CBB model. That is, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > under the Void-Space Paradigm which recognizes no 'cosmological > density gradient' or slowing of the clock-rate across said gradient. So, how many hundred billion years old (your best swag) is our universe? . - Brad Guth > So, how many hundred billion years old (your best swag) is our > universe? A hellava lot more than the 14 billion or so presently assumed (referring to the age of our 'decoupled marble' sphere of visibility since it emerged from the BB). > > So, how many hundred billion years old (your best swag) is our > > universe? > > A hellava lot more than the 14 billion or so presently assumed > (referring to the age of our 'decoupled marble' sphere of visibility > since it emerged from the BB). At an average expansion velocity of .5'c', in order to have covered a 100B ly diameter, we're looking at roughly 200 billion years (based upon one singular BB expansion cycle). So hell yes, it's "a hellava lot more than the 14 billion". . - Brad Guth > > I tend to like the closed universe... > > that's... always connected in a loop. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > continuously at its own station on the cycle. Thus the CBB model > subsumes but does not negate the 'singular BB' idea. How many nearby items of significant mass, or passing through as rogue stars with planets and moons do we have within a 12 ly radius? Is our little passive solar system a rogue consideration? What is the nearest tidal radius from a given stellar cluster? . - Brad Guth Cosmicly, heat dissipates ( and heat sinks absorb it ), fueling all motion ( including life ), accruing entropy. It's an eternal process.. the cooling / thinning never ends. We've seen the entropy of our visible Universe accruing over the last 13.7 giga years of colomolical time, so your CBB model seems quite irrelevant to me. In 1949, Einstein wrote: “ A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more varied the kinds of things that it relates and the more extended the area of its applicability. Therefore classical thermodynamics has made a deep impression on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which, I am convinced, within the areas of the applicability of its basic concepts, ▲ will never be overthrown ▲. ”. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington wrote: “ If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; ▲ there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation ▲. ”. I wrote: “ colomolical time ”. Make that: “ cosmological time ” ( a.k.a. comoving time ). > But if your theory is found to be > against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; > ▲ there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation ▲. ". Under the CBB model, the transition from Expansion to the Contraction phase is like a 'Solstice' where the pendulum stops cold still. It marks the onset of acceleration into the Contraction phase of the universe and the beginning of *reversal of entropy*. If this is not so, then our cosmos sprang from a singular, 'one shot' Big Bang into an open-ended, ever-accelerating expansion that's slated for an entropic heat death in the far future. THAT would be the epitome of 'deepest humiliation'. Not a very elegant or rational prospect. Bear in mind that the sitting model portrays 'Nothing' as undergoing ever-accelerating expansion, carrying matter along for the ride. It uses the 'raisin bread' analogy. So it must believe in dough-less raisin bread. :-) The sitting model has no concept of the *cosmological density gradient* which when recognized, will show "ever- accelerating expansion" to be a grand illusion.. along with the entropic heat death it implies. Cosmically, entropy forever accumulates, of that you can be sure. The CMB ( a blackbody ) has cooled from 2,965 kelvin 13.7 giga years ago to the 2.725 kelvin we see today.. it's now 1,088 times thinner. Although we imagine that “ life ” requires liquid-water temperature and pressure.. motion ( i.e. life ) exists at all temperatures and pressures.. so I see no problem with an ever-cooling cosmos. As the cosmos cools and thins, life evolves with it. The Pioneer anomaly may be solved, DA. It's due to uneven heating of parts of the spacecraft. See: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/newsblog/17846774.html Saul Levy >The latest issue (May) of Sicentific American has a good article on >the violent process of collisions by which the planets in our Solar [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Double-A > The latest issue (May) of Sicentific American has a good article on > the violent process of collisions by which the planets in our Solar [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Double-A Talk about having another one of those bad God days. Images of galactic encounters, of the worse possible kind. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro.amateur/browse_frm/thread/59e1650e7a556 dfd?hl=en# The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as 64r, if not 128r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in town) http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D07-8B3267209 8BE3984 http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/ Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents a mutual tidal grasp of better than 60r. . – Brad Guth |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.