MORE GAS FROM THE DARK SIDE

[Jarvamundo]

Black Holes That Fling and Get Flung

These idiotic press releases all lack the one critical element that every fairytale shares in common. They're supposed to start out with: "Once upon a time."

from link:

In future, it might even be possible to observe this process with the planned LISA satellite due to launch in 2020. Astronomers hope to use this satellite to measure the gravity waves that the two merging black holes emit.

and so the seeds of hope are planted for the yet another gravity probe...

were guna ride the gravyty train

[remelic]

Well if planets did form from a pile of rocks floating around in space and then all of the sudden there is a planet with no debris around, maybe a ring of dust...

Why hasn't the asteroid belt "gathered" into a planet yet? Why haven't the rings of Saturn formed piles here and there? Why do galaxies form in spirals if gravity is the only reason planets/galaxies form?

Instead we find that the asteroids and the rings spread themselves out evenly from each other and orbit within a given distance from the sun or planet. They never clump together to form blobs or round objects. I haven't seen anything that could show that these structures gather together under gravity. I can see how they could be electrically charged objects pushing each other away as they orbit the sun/planet.

Peter

[jjohnson]

Peron, Peter has an interesting point. We have this large sandpile in our backyard called the asteroid belt, composed of everything from, well, asteroids or large chunks of rocky material a couple of km across down to pea gravel and possibly smaller. Every single mass has an attractive gravity field surrounding it which extends forever, falling off as 1/r^2. (As the bat in the dreadful eco-flick, Fern Gully, observed, "Gravity works!!")

If there is no repulsive force present in the belt, why don't these things begin attracting each other and pull together and create a planet in that orbit instead of a rubble pile? Keplerian orbits are not sensitive to the masses involved, relative to a much more massive primary (the Sun). Mercury could be orbiting 93,000,000 miles from the Sun just as well as we do.

Is the observation, that the asteroids apparently are not, do not and apparently have never coalesced gravitationally into a planetismal or even a small planet, not evidence of falsification of your concept of planetary formation?

[Siggy_G]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can there be such a thing as "neutral dust" in interplanetary (or inter galacting) space? Dust grains, small rocks and astroids (and atmospheres) are generally bombarded with "cosmic particle rays", i.e. mainly protons, from both the Sun's plasma along the ecliptic and the surrounding galactival environment. On the objects' side facing the Sun, there is some degree of photoelectric effect, releasing electrons. So, there will be surrounding thin layers of plasma around each object - or if they have any atmosphere, that one will be (dis)charged. The Moon has "dust fountains" due to these effects i.e. repelling dust due to the charge contrast along the day/night band.

I doubt interplanetary dust or small rocks will clump together, but rather be positioned at EM equilibrium states between them - well, they're probably even animated because of this (like plasma dynamics, but with the additional inertia of mass). Even IF these dry rocks clumped together, how would you imagine it would look like? I'd say, like a clump of dry rocks (and couldn't it then be explained by magnetic positioning and re-polatizations as they group, like a clump of small ferromagnets would?). We should also see several such states of accretion in the astroid belt, which I believe we don't. All the dust and rocks seems to be evenly distributed. Also, there is the explanation of the Saturn ring, which I'm not too familiar with yet, but I believe there is a similar case of charge and dustry plasma equilibrium (but there the planet plays a central role).

[StevenJay]

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: Just when I thought I'd seen it all. . .

I don't know why this stuff still suprises me. Neil and Paul definitely need to get out more, though.

And whatever they're smokin' . . . it's makin' 'em stoopid!

Is Gravity from a Parallel Universe Creating "Dark Energy"?

String theorists Neil Turok of Cambridge University and Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton believe that the cosmos we see as the result of a Big Bang was actually created by the cyclical trillion-year collision of two universes (which they define as three-dimensional branes plus time) that were attracted toward each other by the leaking of gravity out of one of the universes.

To refer to multiple "universes" doesn't phase 'em a bit. And why should it? The rest of it sure doesn't.

You can see how this sit-com proceeds here.

Up next - a roadrunner cartoon . . . No, seriously! It's all about the law of gravity and stuff!

[jjohnson]

"string theorists".... 'nuff said!
Jim

[mharratsc]

Most of the mere mortals of Science are attempting to discover just what Gravity is... and how to even detect it! But these two "supah-geeeniuses" (immitating Wile E. Coyote from Warner Bros.) not only have surpassed the scientific masses, but have determined that gravity leaks!

Hey Peron- I know you didn't get a chance to look around much before you found your way to this thread. Just wanted you to know tho, that there is an rational electrical hypothesis as to how asteroids, meteors, comets, rocky planets and even gas giants and binary stars can form!

Planet Birthing - more evidence

[StevenJay]

Clearest ever image of 'dark matter'

This picture is one of the sharpest and most detailed maps of dark matter in the universe. Dark matter is an invisible and unknown substance that makes up the bulk of the mass in the cosmos.

That statement is one of the sharpest and most explicite examples of the CMC's (Church of Mainstream Cosmology's) dogmatic propaganda.


. . . Or is it propagandistic dogma? I'm confused.

[Goldminer]

Dang it. I wish we would have directed Nereid to this thread before we ran "her" off!

Now, this here'd be my string theory!



MJV, Keep push'n the"shop now button," it may start to work.

or maybe this:


Or maybe this string theory should beposted in this thread:

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

Yep, I am still pushing that "shop now button". I'm beginning to wonder if it might not be a ruse on your part, but I think it's worth the effort....just in case.

Michael

[Goldminer]

Sacrificing Einstein: Relativity's keystone has to go(The article will disappear in 8 days.

Dark inertia

In the 1930s, we noticed that galaxies spinning around other galaxies were not moving as Newton's and Einstein's laws of gravity dictated. A few decades later, something similar was observed of the rotation of individual spiral galaxies. It was almost as if some invisible matter was whirling the matter we could see around faster.

That idea has now become mainstream: standard cosmology textbooks will tell you that "dark matter" outweighs normal matter by a factor of 5 to 1. Yet despite particle physicists supplying an almost endless list of hypothetical particles that might fit the bill, to date none has been definitively detected.

An alternative first championed in the 1980s by Mordehai Milgrom, a physicist then at Princeton University, is that gravity must somehow be modified at a galaxy's edges. This could be explained if there was a drop in inertial mass without a drop in gravitational mass for stars experiencing the ultra-low accelerations found at the outskirts of galaxies. This would naturally make them move faster. If vacuum interactions can really bring this about (see main story), they could be just the ticket to mimic dark matter.

Now, we have to deal with dark inertia?

" . . . stars experiencing the ultra-low accelerations found at the outskirts of galaxies." They realize "ultra-low accelerations" and still think they have "gravitational lensing?" No matter how cynical I become, it's never enough to keep up!

[StevenJay]

Now, we have to deal with dark inertia? [...] No matter how cynical I become, it's never enough to keep up!

Yeah, the Church has become such a target-rich environment for cynicism, it's not even very sporting any more. And that's speaking as a lowly layman.

Assuming you're still hangin' together, I can see why time spent with your ass and Lab, Meth would truly be quality time, G!

[Goldminer]

Assuming you're still hangin' together, I can see why time spent with your ass and Lab, Meth would truly be quality time, G!

I had to put ol' Meth down. A sad time that was! Another pooch showed up recently. He's a red dog, likes to mooch. I named him Karl Marx.