Balancing gravity with CF

[greendoor]

Personally, I find the notion of the Big Bang to be strange & unlikely. It is a theory with no proof, and is just an article of faith for the believers. Basing our thinking on unproven theories doesn't help the cause of physics, let alone help to discover how Bessler apparantly managed to break the 'laws' of physics.

I don't believe anyone really knows what gravity is just yet - so it's a bit early to speculate on how the universe and all it's laws were formed.

Most of the sacred axioms of modern physics should be viewed merely as solidified opinions. They should be exchanged for better ideas immediately any observable phenomenon demonstrates a violation of the idea.

Nobody can say that Bessler's wheel did not work because of so-called 'laws of physics'. If reliable witnesses observed Bessler's wheel working, we should trust their opinion and distrust the so-called 'laws'.

As far as i'm concerned, even the most basic of physics ideas are still up for grabs.

I certainly don't view E=MC^2 as being infallible truth. It's a popular idea, but maybe not the whole truth - or maybe nothing like the truth. Certainly, the nuclear bomb proved this is a lot of energy in an atom - but what came first: energy or matter? Which is greater: energy or matter? Can energy exist where there is no matter? (What about electromagnetic waves travelling though a vacuum? What is 'waving' in a vacuum? What is the Casimir effect telling us about forces in a vacuum? Or capacitance or inductance for that matter?

Is space really devoid of energy where there is no mass?

I think not.

Trust nothing. In hundreds of years time, people will look back on the knowledge of today and laugh to themselves about how stupid we must have been ...

[erick]

Well Greendoor I'm not sure why you find the concept of the "big bang" strange or unlikely. Here's the thing: there's this thing called the hubble constant which basically says that EVERYTHING that we know, see, experience, eminates from the same point in space at the same exact rate of velocity. Seems to me that that in it of itself is a pretty good validation of the concept of the "big bang"...

E=MC2 has been proven without a shred of a doubt. I can't help but think that your dismissal of this concept is out of ignorance of its meaning. Relativity has been proven by every day observance (my ball and rope example) and by REAL observation of phenomena that can only be explained by the presence of relativity (look up muons on wikipedia). Relativtiy is proven. It is fact.

[docfeelsgood]

great post Greendoor !! sums it up nicely .

[ovyyus]

Most of the sacred axioms of modern physics should be viewed merely as solidified opinions. They should be exchanged for better ideas immediately any observable phenomenon demonstrates a violation of the idea.

Greendoor, if you were a student of physics you would know that already is the case. It has always been the case and, hopefully, it always will be the case.

There's nothing 'sacred' in physics. Observation rules and opinions are changed as knowledge grows. IMO, 'solidified opinion' and 'sacred' belong more to authoritarianism and religious dogma. Authoritarian states, as with many religions and cults, discourage new ideas and knowledge because they don't want change. That's not the case with physics. I find it interesting that at the Genesis of the Christian world-view there is condemnation of knowledge acquisition - God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden for eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge. Does that mean God doesn't approve of physics? Uh-oh, there I go digressing again :D

BTW, recommending how axioms in physics should be viewed when you don't understand them doesn't seem very productive.

[greendoor]

Well Greendoor I'm not sure why you find the concept of the "big bang" strange or unlikely. Here's the thing: there's this thing called the hubble constant which basically says that EVERYTHING that we know, see, experience, eminates from the same point in space at the same exact rate of velocity. Seems to me that that in it of itself is a pretty good validation of the concept of the "big bang"...

E=MC2 has been proven without a shred of a doubt. I can't help but think that your dismissal of this concept is out of ignorance of its meaning. Relativity has been proven by every day observance (my ball and rope example) and by REAL observation of phenomena that can only be explained by the presence of relativity (look up muons on wikipedia). Relativtiy is proven. It is fact.

Thank you Erick - you are a classic example of the closed mind that I am talking about. You have been far too easily convinced that these ideas are 100% infallible truths. Not even Einstein was so sure! (That's why it's still called a Theory ...).

Ovyyus seems to agree with me that real students of physics should view these concepts as merely solidified opinions, which could be dismissed as fiction if better theories come along ...

Theories come and go ... what will we believe in 200 years time?

Human nature seems to be very resistant to new ideas - the way Eric Laithwaite was handled by his professional peers as he was attempting to show to them a new observable phenomenon is sadly very typical of the way science is conducted ... ego & greed certainly get in the way of truth sometimes ...

[docfeelsgood]

Boiler Bill ;

"SACRED" ,,,,,, Tryin ta tell a phyasist that perpetual motion is possible and it was proven by Johann Bessler would be like tryin ta shove warm butter up a wildcats ass usin a red hot poker for a ramrod !!!! IMPO .

fortunately there are a few like you'n me that are willing to accept the truth for what it is !!!!

[erick]

Well Greendoor I'm not sure why you find the concept of the "big bang" strange or unlikely. Here's the thing: there's this thing called the hubble constant which basically says that EVERYTHING that we know, see, experience, eminates from the same point in space at the same exact rate of velocity. Seems to me that that in it of itself is a pretty good validation of the concept of the "big bang"...

E=MC2 has been proven without a shred of a doubt. I can't help but think that your dismissal of this concept is out of ignorance of its meaning. Relativity has been proven by every day observance (my ball and rope example) and by REAL observation of phenomena that can only be explained by the presence of relativity (look up muons on wikipedia). Relativtiy is proven. It is fact.

Thank you Erick - you are a classic example of the closed mind that I am talking about. You have been far too easily convinced that these ideas are 100% infallible truths. Not even Einstein was so sure! (That's why it's still called a Theory ...).

Ovyyus seems to agree with me that real students of physics should view these concepts as merely solidified opinions, which could be dismissed as fiction if better theories come along ...

Theories come and go ... what will we believe in 200 years time?

Human nature seems to be very resistant to new ideas - the way Eric Laithwaite was handled by his professional peers as he was attempting to show to them a new observable phenomenon is sadly very typical of the way science is conducted ... ego & greed certainly get in the way of truth sometimes ...

I don't think I have a close mind at all. The truth of the matter is that there is an aweful lot of REAL evidence to support the theory of the Big Bang. You should read this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang. When a more compelling or convincing theory comes along I'll consider it. Until then, the Big Bang is a pretty eloquent explanation of how everything came into being.

As for relativty: Relativity IS proven and is on its way to becoming a law. Again, it has been proven through observation of REAL phenomena such as time dialation and the effects experienced by astronauts and the like when they leave earths gravity. It has further been proven through theoretical physics equations (proofs). Read all about it here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... WFVR9k_O2A

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think that relativity, the Big Bang, physics in general, are all part of some "grand conspiracy". That my friend, is a pretty ridiculous theory...

[mindsweeper]

Great post greendoor, I'm not a big bang fan at all.

There's one thing which is rarely mentioned by physicists in the media:

All of the evidence for the big bang, black holes, dark energy and dark matter depend on one critical assumption, namely that Einstein's general relativity equations are completely correct when extrapolated from moderate observed conditions to extreme unobserved situations.

Extrapolation is always much, much more dangerous than interpolation.

When too many crazy assumptions have to be made to salvage a theory, it's time to start looking a bit more sympathetically at other theories. Instead of saying that some observation is evidence for black holes, dark energy etc., it should always be emphasized that if Einstein's equations may be precisely extrapolated to the observed situation, then the observation is evidence for black holes, dark energy etc.

Neither black holes, the big bang, gravitational waves, dark energy nor dark matter have ever been observed.

They have been inferred from Einstein's GR equations.

In fact, they have been inferred from the extrapolation of Einstein's GR equations from verified scenarios to unverified scenarios which are thousands or millions of times more extreme.

The dark energy and dark matter are both bandages invented to attempt to save a gravity theory which does not match observations.

A theory which needs such big bandages is in serious trouble.

For example, when people say that they have observed a black hole, they mean that they have observed a large amount of mass in a small space, which means that if Einstein's equations are correct, then there would be a black hole inside that space.

When people say that an accelerating expansion of the universe is evidence for dark energy, they mean that if Einstein's modified GR equations with the ad-hoc cosmological constant "Lambda" are valid, then the observations indicate that the "Lambda" parameter is varying over time (or some space-time combination).

Alternatively, the accelerating expansion of the universe might indicate that Einstein's equations are wrong. (Remember that even Einstein thought his "Lambda" was an unfortunate kludge.)

If the "Lambda" parameter is varying over time, how does it get synchronized over such vast distances?

How does it know that it has to sometimes increase and sometimes decrease?

What makes "Lambda" go up and down?

If variation of "Lambda" causes the variation in expansion rate of the Universe, then what is causing the variation of "Lambda"?

The problem with adding epicycles to a physical theory is that you have to keep adding more and more epicycles.

Also...

Something strange is tugging at America's oldest spacecraft. As the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes head towards distant stars, scientists have discovered that the craft - launched more than 30 years ago - appear to be in the grip of a mysterious force that is holding them back as they sweep out of the solar system. Yet more evidence from Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 of errors in Einstein's equations?

Food for thought I'd say.

[erick]

(Banging head on desk) Relativty IS PROVEN. And yes, Blackholes HAVE been observed. There's a gigantic one in the center of our Galaxy. As it relates to dark matter and dark energy: Relativity explains those phenomena quite nicely. Simply put, all of the dark matter and energy that suspect is out there exists on another plain of reality or dimension. When the big bang occured there were some objects/particles that acclerated past the speed of light effectively disappearing from this dimension and winding up in a parallel dimension. That is why we cannot observe dark energy or matter.

[greendoor]

(Thought about banging head on desk, but nah - i'm completely comfortable in my heretical beliefs ...)

erick - sorry, i'm not trying to upset you. Just pointing out that you (and billions of other people) are far too easily convinced to accept ideas presented to you - ideas which you have not, and cannot, observe to be true. Joseph Goebbels (allegedly) said something like this: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. " Disgraced President Bush certainly lived by that gospel.

IMO - it's all a bit like solving a huge jigsaw puzzle. Have you ever found yourself with a piece to a puzzle that is almost perfectly right, but it isn't in some small detail. Maybe there are several similar pieces that almost work too. You could probably force one of these pieces into place - and it might just work from a distance, but you just know you haven't found the right piece just yet ...

Theories are useful, but always remember they are just theories. Be open to the possibility that there is more ... much more. I've had discussions with academics before, and sometimes I will mention something and they will bristle with righteous indignation because "that theory is 10 years old!".

Mindsweeper - thanks for your thoughts. Totally agree.

[greendoor]

When the big bang occured there were some objects/particles that acclerated past the speed of light effectively disappearing from this dimension and winding up in a parallel dimension. That is why we cannot observe dark energy or matter.

Ok - maybe I misread you - seems like you are just having a laugh ...

Good theory. Good science fiction too. But truth? Who knows ... maybe ...

[erick]

(Thought about banging head on desk, but nah - i'm completely comfortable in my heretical beliefs ...)

erick - sorry, i'm not trying to upset you. Just pointing out that you (and billions of other people) are far too easily convinced to accept ideas presented to you - ideas which you have not, and cannot, observe to be true. Joseph Goebbels (allegedly) said something like this: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. " Disgraced President Bush certainly lived by that gospel.

IMO - it's all a bit like solving a huge jigsaw puzzle. Have you ever found yourself with a piece to a puzzle that is almost perfectly right, but it isn't in some small detail. Maybe there are several similar pieces that almost work too. You could probably force one of these pieces into place - and it might just work from a distance, but you just know you haven't found the right piece just yet ...

Theories are useful, but always remember they are just theories. Be open to the possibility that there is more ... much more. I've had discussions with academics before, and sometimes I will mention something and they will bristle with righteous indignation because "that theory is 10 years old!".

You don't have to worry, you're not upsetting me it just feels like I'm talking to the wall. You can lead a horse to water and all of that...

I don't know what ever gave you this bazaar notion that somehow General and Special Relativity are some sort of grand conspiracy. From what you've written on the topic so far it seems as though you don't even have any idea what they are or what they mean. I am curious to know what it is SPECIFICALLY about relativity that you take issue with AND I'd like to know what other theories you'd propose that contradict the proven laws of General and Special Relativity. These are no longer theories. Let me again state (for like the 5th time) that both of these concepts have been put through rigorous testing and experimentation both on real observed phenomena as well as theoretical physics equations. After over 100 years the ideas originally proposed by Einstien have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[erick]

When the big bang occured there were some objects/particles that acclerated past the speed of light effectively disappearing from this dimension and winding up in a parallel dimension. That is why we cannot observe dark energy or matter.

Ok - maybe I misread you - seems like you are just having a laugh ...

Good theory. Good science fiction too. But truth? Who knows ... maybe ...

What I'm talking about in that response is what is often referred to as string theory and yes that is a theory as is the Big Bang. So yeah, who knows? They both could be proven wrong although the evidence to support the idea of the Big Bang is voluminous to say the least. It is in many ways similar to the *theory* of evolution. It has all but yet to be proven. You're not going to tell me that you don't believe in evolution now are you?

[Oystein]

I read here that relativity predicts or confirm the bigbang theory?... well I believe that not to be completely true. I believe it was mr. Hubble who discovered that light from distand "stars" was red-shifted (energy/frequency was decreasing over distance, propotionally to distance!). And because of relativity it was concluded that the only possible reason would be that these "stars" was moving away from us. (because space is empty).
There are at least two other possebileties for the red-shifting of distant light, and Einstein once tried to add one of the reasons because of Hubbles observations into his theory.

Red-shifting happens to follow a linear curve (shifting pr. distance).
So one of the possible reasons would be the property of space it travels through, because space is proptinal to distance!

NB ! THE ONLY WAY to confirm that the universe is expanding is to measure if the red-shifting of a specific "star" increases over time!! Because as time passes, these "stars" should be moving away from us at a higher velocity, because they later are further away!
I have looked all around the Internet to find a confirmation of such measurements, but can`t find one!! Please post a link here if anybody find information on this, please. Until then.. the universe is NOT Expanding, and the big bang could not have existed..

If these measurements is not done, or proves a non increasing red-shift, we must look at what the space fabric is, except from time, and lack of matter of course.

Here is a man that claims to have found the particles that fills the space that atoms don`t occupy : http://www.svpvril.com/ighina/magatom.html

Best
Oystein

[erick]

Oystein,

Relativity only relates to the Big Bang insofar as it applies to the concept of other dimensions (as proposed by String Theory in its various forms).

As for the Universe expanding: it has been measured. It was originally discovered by Hubble that all objects in the Universe are expanding at exactly the same rate from exactly the same spot. This constant rate is called the Hubble Constant. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hubble_Constant