"You only find complete unanimity in a cemetary." -- Abel Aganbegyan, economist, 1987
For the most part that's true, but if there is one person I see eye to eye with on every issue I can think of it's the great Louis Hissink.
He stands head and shoulders above even the rest of the Electric Universe crowd and I am very grateful for his friendship and guidance: The Fallacy of Magnetic Reconnection.
The following list of physical phenomena are imaginative absurdities because they have not been physically observed.I have nothing to add.
1. Neutron stars (made of matter comprising 100% neutrons)
2. Dark Matter
3. Dark Energy
4. Black Holes
5. Magnetic Reconnection (physically impossible)
6. Frozen magnetic fields (physically impossible)
7. Biological Evolution (not observed empirically)
8. Plate Tectonics (no physical mechanism)
9. The Big Bang
10. Expanding Universe
11. Curved space
12. Gravity waves
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
42 comments:
what is escape velocity?
What is the magnetic permeability of free space?
What is acceleration? What is velocity?
Why are there long segments of equivalent gene sequences among multiple species? Why do MOST species of animal have two front and two hind limbs?
Why do larger atomic nucleuses correlate with higher neutron to proton ratios?
Good questions.
I'd rather be the one asking the questions rather than venturing answers, but allow me to define escape velocity. Escape velocity is the speed at which universal gravitation is falsified. Zing!
Why do you continue to lie on this blog?
Evolution is a fact.
You perpetuate your creationist nonsense as if ignorance is a virtue.
OIM,
As you stated, you have nothing to add.
Why? Because you are an emptied brain...
Did you read Scott's paper?
JK,
Yes, OIM is back to repeating his stuff.
The poor unevolved emptybrain is running out of the ancient clippings so soon, even before the month is out for 2010.
Brace for the same old nonsense like repeats of old TV shows.
OIM says "I'd rather be the one asking the questions rather than venturing answers..."
Worthlessness.
QF,
Do you think your questions are worthless? I don't. I think they are useful.
Asking questions is 1/2 of the search for truth, the better 1/2 is finding the answers.
The more I read about Steve Hawking the more I wonder if 'modern physics' with its loonie bin cast of non-existing mathematical wonders, wasn't some kind of scientist's revenge on the world. He was certainly smart enough to get us to believe in these things, and his physical life gave him the reason to be angry.
Still.
Haven't we suffered enough?
QF,
"Asking questions is 1/2 of the search for truth, the better 1/2 is finding the answers."
I take the opposite view. I say the better 1/2 is asking the questions.
"...their theory is incorrect but they don't have an accepted theory to replace it and that I think is very psychologically bothersome to particularly scientists who have gone into science in order to be certain about the world, to be sure that they're right and so forth, and it's a very insecure position. Some scientists have joked that, well, a scientist would rather be wrong than uncertain. We sort of have to live with uncertainty which is, well, it's an interesting and challenging situation." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 1998
John,
Excellent commentary.
If you desire to live with uncertainty OIM, then how can you be so certain that (5) magnetic reconnection and (6) frozen magnetic fields are physically impossible? Or how can you be certain in your statement that "Escape velocity is the speed at which universal gravitation is falsified"?
No integrity with you is there?
QF,
"If you desire to live with uncertainty OIM"
It isn't about what I desire, it's about what is.
Obviously I would want to know things with certainty but that's not the real world.
"then how can you be so certain that (5) magnetic reconnection and (6) frozen magnetic fields are physically impossible?"
I'm not certain about it but it's what I believe based upon the evidence.
You shouldn't say that something is impossible just because that is what you believe, you should say "I believe it's impossible" instead.
....I'll try to do the same too, OIM. The thing is that when people say something is impossible, then it becomes an offensive challenge to people whom believe otherwise, which thereby invites attacks from people and also causes people to censor their opponent.
Quantum-Flux
Do you actually understand what magnetic reconnection theory is based on?
It's based on the idea of two lines of magnetic force joining up and exploding.
Magnetic lines of force are similar to topographic contour lines, graphical cartoons to aid understanding but have no existence in physical reality. All magnetic fields are closed loops - you cannot have a magnetic field terminated in nothing.
These theories are deduced from doodling on pieces of paper or on computers, (since how do you graphically show any magnetic field) and is simply the reification of imaginary graphical representations.
Actually the idea stemmed from the magnetic field of two parallel currents, and the space between those two currents is a null point where the magnetic field of one current nulls the field of the other, and why when two electric currents travelling in close proximity and in the same direction then move towards each other and start to twist, or corkscrew, (AKA Birkeland currents).
Frozen magnetic fields? Again impossible for it means a frozen electric current, since no magnetic field exists in the absence of its electric current. A frozen electric current isn't, it needs to be part of a circuit.
The mistake Alven made and which he publicly corrected at his Nobel Prize speech, was that he assumed electric plasma to have zero resistance. It doesn't, as experiment subsequently demonstrated, and electric plasma is instead a very good conductor, but not perfect. Hence he said, magnetic fields cannot be frozen in electric plasma.
The mathematical term for what you say is one of Maxwell's laws. Essentially, the divergence of any magnetic field from a moving charge is zero. However, upon closer examination, that rule is based on the magnetic permeability of free space being a non-zero entity. Where is the proof that the magnetic permeability of free space is a universal constant?
Also, another point of contention is that a magnetic field to exit a moving charge via a photonic release and thereby be transferred to a new charge upon photonic absorption. (photons don't oscillate while traveling at light speeds, but they do oscillate upon refraction through a medium or via charge absorption though)
Fundamentally, a magnetic field is merely a measure of the angular momentum of a spinning charge (atomic spin), or a current of charges as in the case of a wire loop. If all of the magnetic spins are aligned then that means that the magnetic field strength is greater, but if all of the magnetic spins are randomly disordered then that means there should be no net magnetic field, or at least a minimal level.
A photon is essentially a closed loop electric field, scientists have majorly biffed the schematic that shows this by presenting a photon as oscillatory. The only time that a photon oscillates is after there is a change in electrical current though, which is caused by the electric field loop interaction with a charge.
Quantum_Flux
The magnetic permeability of space is another nonsense - only physical objects possess that property. Space. by definition, is non-matter.
QF and LH,
Consider space as a product of matter. Hence, there is no free space.
The free space concept is from Euclidian geometry. Great for abstract thinking, but not real like the magnetic reconnection.
If the magnetic permeability of free space were zero then all magnetic fields would be monopoles.
mu = 4π × 10-7 henry per meter
The Aether exists.
Since we cannot establish a perfect vacuum, we cannot perform the Casimir experiment, which appears to demonstrate that particles come into and go out of being, generating pressure? Mere conjecture on the part of those proposing it but informed, unlike lines on paper being found in space...?
Well, let's see there is a bunch of stuff, here.
I'll address what interests me and what is important to address.
Because this post is in tribute to Louis Hissink, I'll address his comments.
Louis Hissink wrote: "...since no magnetic field exists in the absence of its electric current."
This isn't quite correct and has led to problems for 'Electric Universe' subscribers.
“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Biography of Anthony L. Peratt.
Notice in the above quote, plasma, charged particles, quasi-neutral, an equal amount of free electrons and ions randomly distributed, in motion is not an electric current, ordered charged seperation.
But most important, flowing plasma has a self-sustaining magnetic field.
So, the axiom that only electric current generates a magnetic field is not correct. Yes, the axiom that an electric current always generates a magnetic field is correct (notice the subtle distinction between the two axioms), but, also, a flowing plasma without organized electric currents has a magnetic field and the magnetic fields strength is determined by the velocity and density of the plasma flow.
But wait, here is how actual classical electrical currents are generated in space plasma:
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(The physical process described above by Dr. Peratt results in an Electric Double Layer.)
And, thus electric currents are generated in space plasma.
Louis Hissink links to Dr. Peratt's website at Louis's website so I know Louis repects Dr. Peratt and Dr. Peratt was a close friend and colleague of Hannes Alfven.
I had this same confusion until I carefully went over Dr. Peratt's papers. The strength of 'Electric Universe' analysis could be greatly improved if this subtle distinction was kept in mind.
Generating electric currents in space plasma is a two-step process: One, a flowing plasma with its self-sustaining magnetic field, and, two, another flow of plasma impinging on the pre-existing magnetic field.
Essentially, a collision of two bodies of plasma will generate an electric current.
As one can imagine, two colliding flows of plasma happen all the time in space, so, electric currents in space plasma are ubiquitous.
Magnetic fields are not "frozen in" to flowing plasma. The "frozen in" concept was an early formalistic approximation developed by Hannes Alfven, 1970 Nobel Prize winner, but Alfven, himself, publically rejected the concept of "frozen in" magnetic fields at his Nobel Prize acceptance speech because subsequent repeated laboratory experiments showed magnetic fields are not "frozen in".
To have "frozen in" magnetic fields would require infinite or perfect conductivity of plasma.
As repeatedly proved experimentally, plasma does not have perfect conductivity. While plasma is highly conductive or nearly perfectly conductive, there is some resistivity in plasma and more specifically, space plasma.
As the plasma flows and eddies (bunches up in places) different strengths of magnetic fields develop and then other plasma flows impinge on the pre-existing magnetic fields of other bodies of plasma (which have a magnetic field) and thus:
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
To be cont.
Continuing:
An important axiom and consideration:
Motionless plasma (yes, hard to achieve) has no magnetic field, but almost all plasmas in space have motion (thus magnetic fields).
And, of course, once electric currents are generated by the process summarized by Dr. Anthony L. Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory:
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.”
These electric currents always have a magnetic field and the two-step process acts:
Quasi-neutral plasma flows impinge perpendicularly (at right angles) on the magnetic fields of electric currents and more electric currents are generated (this whole process is a positive reinforcing feedback loop).
Put this altogether and it easily describes & explains the reason why electric currents are ubquitous in space plasma.
So, in essence, 'Electric Universe' is right, but the failure to correctly outline the specific steps allow astronomers (who rely on gravity) to discredit 'Electric Universe' proponents.
Since I have refined my understanding, all gravity "only" astronomers have gone silent in the face of my arguments or tell everybody not to listen or call names, particularly call names as they don't have any arguments.
Another corollary: Motionless plasma gives the lie to the "frozen in" magnetic field dogma. As stated above, motionless plasma has no magnetic field, but if magnetic fields were "frozen in" to bodies of plasma, even motionless bodies of plasma would have magnetic fields because the "frozen in" concept takes no account the scientifically proven fact that motionless plasma has no magnetic fields. If it (the "frozen in" idea) was true then even motionless plasma would have to have magnetic fields.
Controversial dictum: The fallacy of "frozen in" magnetic fields puts the lie to the concept of "frames of reference" which are only human perception (the human perception that a body of plasma is not in motion if one is being carried along with it is false, the body of plasma is still in motion regardless of what the human being carrried along with it might perceive). Human perception is not the actual thing, ,itself, the physical conditions, at the time of the "event", and, so, since General Relativity relies on "frames of reference", then it leads to the conclusion that General Relativity is false.
To be continued.
Continued:
All of the above discussion about magnetic fields and electric currents in space plasma (except the controversial dictum) leads to a discussion of "magnetic reconnection" and Electric Double Layers. The physical process labeled "magnetic reconnection" by many if not most astrophysicists (although, not all by any means) is the Electric Double Layer process.
So-called "magnetic reconnection" as a conceptual idea is false for all the reasons Louis Hissink provides in his comment.
That is why NASA researchers when given the chance to publically comment on "magnetic reconnection" have this to say:
science@NASA --August 31, 2009:
“It’s ubiquitous ["magnetic reconnection"].
The problem is, researchers can’t explain it.”
“But how? How does the simple act of crisscrossing magnetic field lines trigger such a ferocious explosion."
Of course, the reason they can't explain it is because the a priori principles they apply in their assumptions about the process don't work in the physical world as outlined in Louis Hissink's comment.
These researchers are trying apply concepts that were made up in an attempt to get around the Electric Double Layer description & explanation for the phenomenon.
In essence they are attempting to put a square peg in a round hole and it just won't fit.
When one reviews and studies the in situ observations & measurements of the process labeled "magnetic reconnection", it becomes quite clear they are observing & measuring Electric Double Layers, a process that encompasses magnetic fields, electric fields, plasma flows, and charged particle acceleration of free electrons and ions in opposite directions.
And for whatever reason many astrophysicists refuse to discuss this process "magnetic reconnection", aka Electric Double Layers, in terms of the magnetic field, the electric field, the flow of plasma, and acceleration of free electrons and ions in different directions.
Now, the reason is clear: They just can't stomach the idea that plasma physicists were right all along, and that fundamentally "magnetic reconnection" is an electromagnetic process.
A hold-over and very much alive dogma and refusal to acknowledge electromagnetic processes are the dominant processes in space.
You see if Electric Double Layers are properly described & explained it is apparent on its face that "the thunderbolt rules the Universe."
Any charge that is moving relative to an observer constitutes an electric current. Hence the difference between an electric field and a magnetic field is whether the charge is in relative motion or not.
Continued:
Here are two in situ satellite probe observation & measurement papers on "magnetic reconnection", aka Electric Double Layers:
The following quotes are from the peer-reviewed paper: Magnetopause reconnection impact parameters from multiple spacecraft magnetic field measurements published 30 October 2009.
(Both papers are PDF files.)
paper one
“Discrepancies between the measured components of E [electric field] and the corresponding components of v B [magnetic field] after a careful error analysis signify a nonideal electric field. We intend to show in a subsequent paper that the Cluster electric field and particle flow data for this event satisfy the criteria for a parallel electric field.”
“With the instantaneous coordinate system and the parallel electric field established, one can place particle moments, such as velocities, pressures, and temperatures, as well as magnetic and electric field measurements…”
The presence of parallel electric fields are exactly why Electric Double Layers are named as such because they have “parallel electric fields” at the heart of their structure.
Further from the paper:
“Sufficiently accurate ion and electron moments and electric field measurements within this coordinate system delineate ion and electron diffusion regions.”
The electric field…delineate ion and electron diffusion regions [acceleration regions].”
(Which is also at the heart of “magnetic reconnection”, aka Electric Double Layer Process.”)
The description in the paper puts this “parallel electric field” right at the heart of the process, the “X-line”.
But to put it in clearer relief, the following is the caption for a schematic of “magnetic reconnection” from the peer-reviewed paper, Recent in-situ observations of magnetic reconnection in near-Earth space published 11 October 2008:
paper two with schematic of "magnetic reconnection", aka Electric Double Layers
Figure 1. “(bottom [schematic, page 2 of 7] ) : “Zoom-in on the region around the X-line, with the ion and electron diffusion regions indicated by the shading and the rectangular box, respectively. The quadrupolar Hall magnetic field is pointing in and out of the plane of the figure. The Hall electric field is shown by the red arrows, while the blue arrows mark the oppositely directed jets in the outflow regions. Note that entry and acceleration occur all the way along the current sheet. Figure courtesy of Marit Oieroset.”
To see the schematic in Figure 1. it is on the second page of seven of the PDF, please go to the link above of the paper:
You’ll see that the “Hall electric field is shown by the red arrows” surrounds the X- line at the heart of the “reconnection” structure”.
The “parallel electric fields”, where double layers get their name are right on both sides of the X – region.
Compare the two papers descriptions and the Wikipedia entry for double layers (plasma) and it is easy to tell they are the same process after comparing the entry and the papers.
Anaconda,
You wrote: Motionless plasma (yes, hard to achieve) has no magnetic field, but almost all plasmas in space have motion (thus magnetic fields).
Have you heard of a capacitor - charged capacitor, waiting for someone to hold it... Get hold of one with slightly wet hand...
Quantum_Flux wrote: "Any charge that is moving relative to an observer constitutes an electric current. Hence the difference between an electric field and a magnetic field is whether the charge is in relative motion or not."
No, please review Dr. Anthony L. Peratt's statement:
“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.”
To fully explain the statement: The moving plasma, i.e., charged particle flows [of quasi-neutral plasma, equal numbers of free electrons and ions], are currents, but not electrical currents in the formal definition.
I'm sorry, on this one I have to respect Dr. Anthony L. Peratt.
What are your qualifications in this area of research?
And, you reference to "relative motion" is slipping into the fallacy of "frame of reference".
Think about it Quantum, if you are floating in the flow of plasma and going "with the flow" so to speak, relative motion of the plasma would be zero velocity, but that is not the reality. The flowing plasma [quasi-neutral, equal numbers of free electrons and ions], is moving in terms of absolute motion, thus has a self-sustained magnetic field or as Dr. Peratt puts it, "produce self-magnetic fields".
Again, an electric current where charge seperation is present requires this two step process:
“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Once you get your head around that concept everything flows from there.
Read and study. The quotes from Dr. Peratt are drawn from two of his papers.
Notice Dr. Peratt doesn't say "a plasma flow is an electrical current." The two step process is critical for a conceptual understanding.
Remember, I made the same mistake you are making for a long time.
Dr. Peratt is the real deal, check out his biography and I think you will appreciate the quotes a little better.
Step one, generation of magnetic fields, step two, generation of electric currents. And, step one is the flow of plasma, and step two is plasma flowing perpendicularly into a magnetic field.
It's that simple, but also that critical.
I suppose you could semantically call electrons flowing in a wire an "electric" current but electrons and ions flowing through space a "plasma current" while calling ions diffusing between two potentials in a chemical solution an "ion current" or whatever, but physically they are all currents of charged particles flowing. Hence any charged particle that is flowing in relative motion to an observer is an electrical current.
If an electrical current is at rest relative to an observer then the only field that will be felt is an electric field. Or conversely, if a charged object (perhaps a van de graph ball) is moved then it will create a magnetic field, and the faster the charged object is moved relative to an observer (perhaps a van de graph machine on a subway train passing the observer by) the larger the magnetic field will be observed even though the observers on the subway train would just sense an electric field.
KV presents Evans' statement: "Motionless plasma (yes, hard to achieve) has no magnetic field, but almost all plasmas in space have motion (thus magnetic fields)."
And KV responds: "Have you heard of a capacitor - charged capacitor, waiting for someone to hold it... Get hold of one with slightly wet hand..."
I get your point, and I appreciate your raising it, you are right to do so.
In a capacitor situation, there are free electrons across from ions with a gap between (and in a capacitor an insulating medium)creating a 'electric potential drop', the ions and electrons are held apart from each other by the insulating medium (and are held in a relative motionless state), at some level of voltage the insulating medium breaks down and an electric discharge will cross the gap.
Hence, KV's reference to an electric shock if you have a wet hand.
I was thinking more on the lines of open space plasma, but, again, I take your point.
....Unless I'm incorrect about the above statement I made. I never personally tested the moving van de graph hypothesis, I'm just taking Feynman's lectures for it on that one.
So far, I've presented two "magnetic reconnection", aka Electric Double Layer, scientific papers based on in situ satellite probe observations & measurements.
Comparing the two papers findings with the Wikipedia entry for double layers (plasma) demonstrates that so-called "magnetic reconnection" and Electric Double Layers are one and the same thing.
Although, the a priori theoretical assumptions for "magnetic reconnection" are nonsense as stated earlier by Louis Hissink.
When you read the papers, at least at a superficial level, the physical processes are obscured -- you have to read carefully and tease it out (and have some background in Electric Double Layers to know what to look for) to pin down what is actually happening -- not a surprise since the authors probably know they are describing an Electric Double Layer and explicitly describing such an Electric Double Layer is not what the "magnetic reconnection" community wants to hear or have other people read and identify from their papers.
So, now I will present an Electric Double Layer peer-reviewed published paper:
Parallel electric fields in the upward current region of the aurora: Indirect and direct observations, published 2002 Physics of Plasma
(PDF format)
double layer paper
Abstract: "In this article we present electric field, magnetic field, and charged particle observations from the upward current region of the aurora focusing on the structure of electric fields at the boundary between the auroral cavity and the ionosphere. Over 100 high resolution measurements of the auroral cavity that were taken by the Fast Auroral Snapshot ~FAST! satellite are included in this study. The observations support earlier models of the auroral zone that held that quasi-static parallel electric fields are the primary acceleration mechanism. In addition to the statistical study, several examples of direct observations of the parallel electric fields at the low altitude boundary of the auroral cavity are put forth. These observations suggest that the parallel electric fields at the boundary between the auroral cavity and the ionosphere are self-consistently supported as oblique double layers."
Compare the abstract of this double layer paper and the "magnetic reconnection" papers and first consider which is the more direct and straightforward abstracts and second whether they are describing the same physical process.
Where is the emphasis?
This paper's abstract (and it continues in such a manner in the body of the paper) clearly articulates the plasma, charged seperated free electrons and ions, electric fields, magnetic fields, and last, but not least, acceleration of charge seperated particles by electric fields generating electric currents and ion beams in opposite directions.
The game is up for the "magnetic reconnection" crowd, it's just a matter of time because their own approach inescapably comes to the conclusion that "magnetic reconnection" is an Electric Double Layer phenomenon if in a more convoluted tortured manner.
KV Wrote:
"Consider space as a product of matter. Hence, there is no free space.
The free space concept is from Euclidian geometry. Great for abstract thinking, but not real like the magnetic reconnection.
January 25, 2010 10:11 PM"
This is a non sequitur.
OK, I have a day job, and what you folks need to take on board is "plasma double layers".
These spontaneously occur in plasma when an electric potential is applied across a volume of plasma.
Once the plasma double layer appears, say between a cathode C in physical connection with anode A, then an electric potential exists between C and A. You could graph it.
However in the presence of a plasma double layer between two electrically active bodies, the electric potential drop is not between C and A, but within the plasma double layer.
So, from our Sun to the boundary we label as the ionosphere on Earth, there is not electrical potential drop. Between the ionospheric boundary, the +ve part of the plasma double layer, and the negative layer, the surface of the Earth, there is a measured electrical potential of -300volts per metre.
The electrical potential between the Earth and Sun is constrained between the electric plasma double layer defined by the base of the ionosphere and the solid earth.
LH,
Prove it.
LH,
You are full of it. So, there is no plasma at all between the Earth and Sun, but a charge layer formed by solar wind, and it is only because of the magnetic field of earth coupled with its atmosphere.
There is no free space. Check your quantum mechanics.
LH, Yopu wrote:
Frozen magnetic fields? Again impossible for it means a frozen electric current, since no magnetic field exists in the absence of its electric current. A frozen electric current isn't, it needs to be part of a circuit.
here is why you are full of it:
As long as the current does not vary in magnitude and its path, it is called a constant current in space-time, and hence, the resultant magentic field is fixed, constant and FROZEN in its path too, in the space-time.
So-called "space-time" is a dangerous fallacy that must be discarded for science to advance.
So-called "space-time" is not an object, but a concept. The error of those that use the concept is that they have reified (made it into a concrete object that has physical parameters and physical relationships) a concept into an object or physical process.
It doesn't wash.
Why do they do it?
Mostly because then all their other "objects" (see list in the instant post) don't have to be observed & measured, but can be "theorized" on an abstract theoretical basis and then counted as reality.
General Relativity is the anchor for the rest of their concepts, not necessarily a direct anchor, but it holds out a protective umbrella: It provides a theoretical justification to believe in their ideas and insist that others must, also, believe, too.
This is because General Relativity was formulated without regard to observation & measurement, i.e., the empirical scientific method of making observations & measurements, and, only then, drawing mathematical phyisical relationships (laws of physics). Rather the supposed success and validity of General Relativity allows other objects & processes to be inferred without actually fulfilling requirements that observations & measurements be made to justify the existence of said objects & processes.
In other words, any number of abstract theoretical constructs without observation & measurements to back them up can be deemed to exist.
While Einstein exhibited an incredible imagination and a tremendous ability to coherently organize his imagination into abstract mathematical relationships, his grand idea, General Relativity, has been the great stumbling block of "modern" astronomy and much of astrophysics.
In order for these sciences to move ahead and advance, General Relativity must be jettisoned to the ash-heap of history where failed ideas go to die.
I'd add gravitons to the list.
Nuclei not nucleus!
Do you speak English as a native?
And the Casimir effect?
Is it true that the Clarke-Maxwell equations, relying upon Hamiltonian quaternions, are assymetric, whereas the simplified (Falsified?) Heaviside equations are symmetric?
How evolved is the physical substance of our local space? As the misunderstanding of distance measurement, by visible light doppler shift, is proven to my satisfaction, we find ourselves acknowledging that we can see different energy levels prevalent in other galaxies, including proto galaxies.
Related to the last question is what influence do the particles from the local star have upon the local masses, planets and the like. Do they power expansion in some or all of these?
Post a Comment