gravitatie

[Pindar]

Het zijn zeker geen koetjes en kalfjes

Het is meer een 'zwaar' onderwerp.

Maar weet iemand wat 'gravitatie' is?

En NIET aankomen met de m1*m2 formule maar effe uileggen WAT het is, ok?


Pin d' Ar

[exodus]

Een interessant theorie die ik gehoord hebt komt van wetenschappers zoals Hall Puthoff die zegt dat gravitatie veroorzaakt wordt door interactie van atomen met het zero-point-energieveld, een energieveld dat zich in het "vacuum" bevindt. Want infeite bestaat er geen vacuum maar een zee van nulpuntsenergie.

Deze theorie en aanverwanten zou echter doodgezwegen worden door de heersende klasse en belangengroepen vanwege de enorme implicaties en vooruitgang die we ermee zouden kunnen maken. Anti-gravity, "vrije" energie uit het nulpuntenergieveld dat in 1m³ ruimte genoeg enerigie bevat om alle zeeën ter wereld te koken. Men zou geen brandstof meer nodig hebben.Het zou onze maatschappij revolutionair veranderen, en sommigen willen die liever niet zien.

Traagheid zou ook verklaard worden hierdoor. Objecten zouden een traageheid hebben door interactie met een nulpuntsenergieveld waar ze mee intrageren. De huidige fysica kan traagheid nog altijd niet verklaren, evenals zwaartekracht.

[Pindar]

De huidige fysica kan traagheid nog altijd niet verklaren, evenals zwaartekracht.

Hier sluit ik me helemaal bij aan.
Dat van dat zero punt energie weet ik nog niet,
daar heb ik me nog niet veel in verdiept.
Ik vermoed dat het nog verder gaat dan dat
(er zijn om theorien over een 'ether', wat dit betreft zijn de werken van Tom Bearden heel boeiend)
en als je het werk van Bruce cathie bestudeerd, zie je dat
de gravitatie o.m. erg variabel is op deze aarde.
Maar zoals gezegd, ik denk dat de 'conventionele' fysica er werkelijk
niks van snapt.

Pin d' Ar

[Pindar]

"We don't know anything. Everything about gravity is
mysterious." -- Michael Martin Nieto, theoretical physicist, Los
Alamos National Laboratory. Discover Magazine, October 2003

Pin d' Ar

[Pindar]

"Gravity may not be working as advertised. Spacecraft
hurtling through the Solar System have been behaving
so bizarrely that some scientists wonder whether our
theories of gravity are wrong." -- Charles Seife,
New Scientist Magazine, September 1998

Pin d' Ar

[Pindar]

For Michael Martin Nieto, a theoretical physicist at Los
Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the mystery
involves much more than a few hunks of spacefaring
hardware; it reveals that there might be something wrong
with our understanding of gravity, the most pervasive
force in the universe. "We don't know anything," he says.
"Everything about gravity is mysterious."

Pin d' Ar

[Pindar]

With the planets now speeding up and slowing down by law, Newton was able to use Kepler's Law as part of his demonstration that gravity is proportional to matter, leading to the dead-end science we are immersed into today, where the nature of the current forces that cause motion is ignored, and all time is spent peering into the innards of black holes and measuring the effects of dark matter instead of a science that actually reflects realtiy. See the discussion on

pin d' Ar

[BigF]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

Het zijn zeker geen koetjes en kalfjes

Het is meer een 'zwaar' onderwerp.

Maar weet iemand wat 'gravitatie' is?

En NIET aankomen met de m1*m2 formule maar effe uileggen WAT het is, ok?


Pin d' Ar

het zou mij ten zeerste verbazen dat, in tegenstelling tot de hedendaagse wetenschap, hier wel iemand met een verklaring zou komen...

[Derk de Tweede]

Maar waarom bestaat er uberhaubt gravitatie?
Wat is de zin daar eigenlijk van?
En die tijd, had die ook niet veel beter afgeschaft kunnen worden?

[Pindar]

Discoveries

Astronomers recently announced a new discovery, a satellite orbiting the Solar System's 10th planet, which is called 2003 UB313. Planet 2003 UB313 has temporarily been named Xena after the television character and its satellite is temporarily named Gabrielle, Xena's sidekick. I wasn't particularly aware there was a 10th planet, although I am aware of the arguments over whether Pluto is a planet. Pluto was discovered in 1930, and it's claimed orbit is 250 years, so we can readily see nothing that can be said about Pluto's orbit can be said as a result of observation. We've only seen 30% of its orbit.

Looking a little deeper into this, we discover that we have two other maybe planets out there, one temporarily named Santa, the other Easterbunny. Got to hand it to these astronomers, they're creative, but then their whole enterprise is based on fantasy, so why wouldn't they be. These four objects inhabit the Kuiper belt. Because some comets are recurring and some aren't, astronomers had to create two different sources for the two different types of comets. Remember, astronomers believe that the solar system has been the way it is for some 5 billion years, so it couldn't possibly be picking up new matter. All the matter that exists in or around the solar system has existed the same way all these many years. Gravity occasionally knocks some of the matter askew. If the matter is in the Kuiper belt, which begins on the other side of Neptune's orbit, then the result is a recurring comet. If something gets knocked out of the ice field, the Ort cloud that stretches beyond the Kuiper belt, then it becomes a single passage comet. See how simple astronomy can be? All astronomers have to do is make stuff up and it becomes reality.

Now let's get down to the discovery of Gabrielle itself. If we look up discovery, we find that it is the act of something being discovered. The definition of discover is to become aware of something. So assuming astronomers are actually seeing something, they really have discovered something. The reason we honor people who discover something is that it adds to our knowledge. Finding a bunch of rocks in irregular orbits beyond the orbit of Neptune should certainly tell us something. It should tell us we got the operation of the solar system wrong, that it wasn't formed out of a swirling mass of gas, that it isn't operated by historical forces, that it has to be operated by current forces. Once the discovery tells us that, we then roll up our sleeves and get to work figuring out what those current forces might be.

Is this what the astronomers are doing?

Not on your life. The punch line for poor little Gabrielle is that she will allow astronomers to determine the precise mass and density of Xena.

Now let's see. What in the world is the use of this information and, in fact, is it information at all? First off, there is no way that the density of a planet can be verified. The basic rule of any science, which means anything dealing with reality, is, if it's not verifiable, then it simply isn't worth pursuing. It's fantasy, made up stuff. No one can take a planet apart to determine its actually density, and who cares in the first place? We know planets are made up of different mixtures of different elements. That's knowledge enough.

So why the pursuit of density? Well, I'll go over it again, because it can't be said in enough different ways using enough diverse examples. Newton set out to demonstrate that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter by saying he could use the amount of matter in the Earth to predict the orbit of the moon. To do this, and this is enshrined in the Principia, he said the Earth and the moon were made up of uniform particles uniformly distributed. This, of course, is simply tripe, not the case, pure idiocy if you will, under anybody's definition, the rantings of a madman. But in the late 17th Century when Newton was passing off this tripe on a small clique of men, no one knew much of anything about reality. No one knew anything about light, about electricity, about the galaxies or even this galaxy, let alone the sun. Today's highschoolers know more about reality than these guys could even imagine.

So when Newton proposed this little piece of idiocy, it flew. Of course, Newton's assumption didn't end up predicting the orbit of the moon, there being too much moon, and as the 18th Century wore on, it failed big time to predict the orbits of the planets, so what were astronomers expected to do, disavow the Celestial Mechanics, Newton's baby, that was putting food on their tables and say were wrong, and start over? Give me a break. They had to come up with some way to save Newton. How did they do it? They said, well, Newton had it right, he uncovered the basic law of the universe, that gravity is a property of and proportional to matter, he just didn't use it right. Now that we know the basic law (the law Newton was trying to prove but failed to prove), now that we have that law on the books, we can use the orbits of the planets to determine the amount of matter in the planets, the planet's density.

And that, folks, is what these nutcases are doing. They are going through the entirely useless process of determining how much density is in Xena using a theory that attempted to prove what gravity was, but failed, was reversed and became the revered Celestial Mechanics, for the same reason Madonna, Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilera publicly kiss, to get their names in the paper, enhance their reputations and put more money in their pockets.

Now, on to mass. What's the difference between density and mass, you might ask. Better yet, ask, what is mass? Well, mass is what produces gravity. That might lead you to ask, what is gravity? Why, wouldn't you know, gravity is what's produced by mass.

This is empirical science's explanation for the dynamic force that holds us to the surface of the Earth, a circular piece on self-referential nonsense.

What is the source of mass might be a better question, and here we run back into Newton's failed attempt to prove that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter. Notice, his proposition wasn't mass, it was matter because, as noted, he assumed all matter was uniformly made up of the same particle. When Newton was proposing that gravity was a property of and proportional to the matter that made up the planet, he was making a real proposition about a real force. He was trying to physically connect the force to the matter that made up the planet. However, when it didn't work out, and his formula was turned around, using the unproven statement that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter to show how much matter was in the planets, that left the connection of gravity to matter up in the air. Accepting Newton's unproven assumption as the basic law of the universe, but using it to measure Jupiter's very real physical surface as gas, the new empirical science had to connect gravity with something, so it did what it always does when it is totally ignorant of what it is dealing with, it made up a word, mass, and said that word, describing how much matter was in a planet computed by the planet's orbit, was the source of gravity.

Doesn't say anything, but that's empirical science's way. Senseless statements, just as idiotic undertakings like measuring the unmeasurable composition of the planets, can't be challenged. Gabrielle in the TV series Xena has more weight than Gabrielle the satellite, which is occupying millions of dollars of time and telescope computer usage to determine useless information.

But there is a better question. Gabrielle in the Xena program was fictional. Is Gabrielle the satellite also fictional?

Let's look at the process used to discover her. Gabrielle was discovered using the Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics system, LGS AO. Readers of these columns know that the fundamental rule of light that astronomers ignore is that light diminishes inversely with the square of the distance traveled. Astronomers, who like to claim they can see the light from the beginning of time at the end of the universe, simply ignore this fact of reality because this fact of reality tells us clearly that light expands out of existence. Astronomers like to promote the notion that the stronger the telescope they have, the further into space they can see. The reality is, telescopes do not see any further than the lens they contain. They can only collect the light that exists when it strikes the surface of the lens. Sending Hubble up removed the atmosphere that would otherwise distort the light, but it only sees what light exists where it's at. It does not have some magical power to extend its lens deep into the universe and see light that has yet to arrive on its lens.

Because light diminishes inversely with the square of the distance it travels, it does not travel forever. It diminishes because it expands and it expands out of existence. If it expands out of existence, then there is simply no light to see. Another known reality about light is that when it bounces off an object, it begins to reexpand. The light bouncing off Gabrielle is reflected sunlight. Now Xena is some 9 billion miles from the sun (the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun, so we are dealing with reflected light that has traveled and expanded over a distance of some 18 billion miles, knocking off some distance because we are supposedly seeing it from the Earth). While Xena is slightly larger than Pluto, Pluto is smaller than the moon, and, of course, Gabrielle is much smaller, with the claim of being 60 times fainter than Xena. As an aside, it's only been months since Xena was discovered, but astronomers already know its orbit is 560 years. Try and disprove that one. Then again, why bother?

In any event, Adaptive Optics is an attempt to use the better Earth bound facilities to duplicate the Hubble's ability to see without atmospheric distortion. A computer uses atmospheric models to determine the distortion on a bright guide star and then applies those distortions to a fainter object, creating the image of the object as if the object were not being seen through the atmosphere. Given empirical science's inability to even understand lightning, I wonder about the atmospheric mathematical model's ability to do anything, but let's give it to them. The problem with Adaptive Optics is that there are only enough guide stars to cover a measly 1% of the sky. What's an astronomer to do?

That's where the Laser Guide Star comes in. Here there is something very real, a layer in the atmosphere that can reflect a laser beam. A laser is hooked up to the telescope, in the case of Gabrielle, the powerful Keck telescope, and shot into the atmosphere. It hits the layer with the same frequency, and bounces back to the telescope, creating an artificial guide star. Neat technology, but talk about expensive!

It's so neat and so expensive, guess who gets to use it. First you file a plan of what you are going to use it for, then you get approval, and then you use it under the supervision of an approving astronomer. Let me see. Here we have a piece of equipment that cost goodness knows how much, the money coming from the public trough or from tax deductible and tax free university endowments, and then, folks, justification has to occur. The neat, expensive technology has to show that it was worth it. Therefore, boom, new planets are found, new moons are found and announcements are made about how important it is to be able to compute the densities and masses of these new discoveries.

In the meantime, our ignorance remains. We don't know what gravity is, Science magazine's 34th question, and its explanation, "[Gravity] clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model. Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple contained a whole can of worms" being a demonstration of this. We don't know what causes the planets to orbit. We don't know what causes the Earth and the other planets to rotate. We don't know what heat is, we don't know what light is, we don't know what electricity is, we don't know what magnetism is.

And no one, virtually no one, is attempting to find out.

Pin d' Ar

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door BigF

het zou mij ten zeerste verbazen dat, in tegenstelling tot de hedendaagse wetenschap, hier wel iemand met een verklaring zou komen...

ik ook, maar de wetenschap heeft ook geen verklaring



Pin d' Ar

[Djiezes]

Het zal wel een complot zijn...

[La Chunga]

Kijk!!!!! Ik vlieg!

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Djiezes

Het zal wel een complot zijn...

Ik denk dat je er niet ver naast zit.

Maar hier houden we het even bij de gravitatie en wat dat in godsnaam is of zou zijn.


Pin d' Ar

[mad_drone]

ik ga effe reageren op die ferm rare tekst van jou, m'n beste pindar.

Discoveries

Astronomers recently announced a new discovery, a satellite orbiting the Solar System's 10th planet, which is called 2003 UB313. Planet 2003 UB313 has temporarily been named Xena after the television character and its satellite is temporarily named Gabrielle, Xena's sidekick. I wasn't particularly aware there was a 10th planet, although I am aware of the arguments over whether Pluto is a planet. Pluto was discovered in 1930, and it's claimed orbit is 250 years, so we can readily see nothing that can be said about Pluto's orbit can be said as a result of observation. We've only seen 30% of its orbit.

(1) Nogal een kromme redenering. In de fysica gaat het erom dat je een bepaald natuurfenomeen bestudeert en een heleboel metingen doet. Dan stel je een bepaalde theorie op over hoe dit fenomeen werkt. Deze theorie is steeds een benadering van de werkelijkheid, de clue is vooral dat je een opstelt die enkel uitzonderlijk kleine fouten geeft. Zodra je dat hebt kan je voorspellingen maken: je komt een nieuwe beginsituatie voor maar met gelijkenissen, zoals bvb door dezelfde krachten beïnvloed.

Nu in detail. Omtrent de gravitatietheorie van Newton, Kepler en de verfijningen doorgevoerd door Hamilton en Lagrange. (en wie nog niet allemaal...) De fout op bewegingen van voorwerpen op aarde is kleiner dan 0.0002 %, en de grootste fout vind je bij de beweging van mercurius ( 0.15 %), maar deze fout wordt volledig opgeklaard door de algemene relativiteit van Einstein. De clue is dat deze fout zo marginaal is dat je kan stellen dat die theorie goed genoeg is om voorspellingen te maken met betrekking tot de beweging van planeten zonder een grote fout te maken. Dus met maar 30% van de orbit van Pluto gezien te hebben kan men z'n periode van omwenteling weldegelijk goed gefundeerd voorspellen op 250 jaar, met hoogstens een dag of twee mis te zijn. Nu als je je eerste paragraaf dan al begint met zo'n nonsens, dan stel je echt niet veel voor.


Looking a little deeper into this, we discover that we have two other maybe planets out there, one temporarily named Santa, the other Easterbunny. Got to hand it to these astronomers, they're creative, but then their whole enterprise is based on fantasy, so why wouldn't they be. These four objects inhabit the Kuiper belt. Because some comets are recurring and some aren't, astronomers had to create two different sources for the two different types of comets. Remember, astronomers believe that the solar system has been the way it is for some 5 billion years, so it couldn't possibly be picking up new matter. All the matter that exists in or around the solar system has existed the same way all these many years. Gravity occasionally knocks some of the matter askew. If the matter is in the Kuiper belt, which begins on the other side of Neptune's orbit, then the result is a recurring comet. If something gets knocked out of the ice field, the Ort cloud that stretches beyond the Kuiper belt, then it becomes a single passage comet. See how simple astronomy can be? All astronomers have to do is make stuff up and it becomes reality.

(2) Welja, hier ben je weer goed bezig. Ik kan alvast verwijzen naar (1), waar ik aangeef hoe degelijk begrepen gravitatie wel is. Als je die theorie dan gebruikt om de baan van kometen te begrijpen, dan zie je dat voor een single passing comet die allemaal steeds van een bepaald gebied vertrekken, en voor de recurring van een andere. Nogal verdomd logisch dan dat je daaruit kan afleiden dat er twee verschillende regio's in ons zonnestelsel zijn die als bron kunnen dienen voor kometen? Om nog maar te zwijgen dat de theoriën die het onstaan van ons zonnestelsel geloofwaardig verklaren ook het bestaan van beide kometengordels voorspellen. Als twee totaal verschillende theoriën hetzelfde voorspellen, dan zit je op het goede pad. Vooral als een van die twee zo succesvol is dat gans onze telecommunicatie e
Now let's get down to the discovery of Gabrielle itself. If we look up discovery, we find that it is the act of something being discovered. The definition of discover is to become aware of something. So assuming astronomers are actually seeing something, they really have discovered something. The reason we honor people who discover something is that it adds to our knowledge. Finding a bunch of rocks in irregular orbits beyond the orbit of Neptune should certainly tell us something. It should tell us we got the operation of the solar system wrong, that it wasn't formed out of a swirling mass of gas, that it isn't operated by historical forces, that it has to be operated by current forces. Once the discovery tells us that, we then roll up our sleeves and get to work figuring out what those current forces might be.

Is this what the astronomers are doing?

Not on your life. The punch line for poor little Gabrielle is that she will allow astronomers to determine the precise mass and density of Xena.

Now let's see. What in the world is the use of this information and, in fact, is it information at all? First off, there is no way that the density of a planet can be verified. The basic rule of any science, which means anything dealing with reality, is, if it's not verifiable, then it simply isn't worth pursuing. It's fantasy, made up stuff. No one can take a planet apart to determine its actually density, and who cares in the first place? We know planets are made up of different mixtures of different elements. That's knowledge enough.

So why the pursuit of density? Well, I'll go over it again, because it can't be said in enough different ways using enough diverse examples. Newton set out to demonstrate that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter by saying he could use the amount of matter in the Earth to predict the orbit of the moon. To do this, and this is enshrined in the Principia, he said the Earth and the moon were made up of uniform particles uniformly distributed. This, of course, is simply tripe, not the case, pure idiocy if you will, under anybody's definition, the rantings of a madman. But in the late 17th Century when Newton was passing off this tripe on a small clique of men, no one knew much of anything about reality. No one knew anything about light, about electricity, about the galaxies or even this galaxy, let alone the sun. Today's highschoolers know more about reality than these guys could even imagine.

So when Newton proposed this little piece of idiocy, it flew. Of course, Newton's assumption didn't end up predicting the orbit of the moon, there being too much moon, and as the 18th Century wore on, it failed big time to predict the orbits of the planets, so what were astronomers expected to do, disavow the Celestial Mechanics, Newton's baby, that was putting food on their tables and say were wrong, and start over? Give me a break. They had to come up with some way to save Newton. How did they do it? They said, well, Newton had it right, he uncovered the basic law of the universe, that gravity is a property of and proportional to matter, he just didn't use it right. Now that we know the basic law (the law Newton was trying to prove but failed to prove), now that we have that law on the books, we can use the orbits of the planets to determine the amount of matter in the planets, the planet's density.

And that, folks, is what these nutcases are doing. They are going through the entirely useless process of determining how much density is in Xena using a theory that attempted to prove what gravity was, but failed, was reversed and became the revered Celestial Mechanics, for the same reason Madonna, Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilera publicly kiss, to get their names in the paper, enhance their reputations and put more money in their pockets.

Now, on to mass. What's the difference between density and mass, you might ask. Better yet, ask, what is mass? Well, mass is what produces gravity. That might lead you to ask, what is gravity? Why, wouldn't you know, gravity is what's produced by mass.

This is empirical science's explanation for the dynamic force that holds us to the surface of the Earth, a circular piece on self-referential nonsense.

What is the source of mass might be a better question, and here we run back into Newton's failed attempt to prove that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter. Notice, his proposition wasn't mass, it was matter because, as noted, he assumed all matter was uniformly made up of the same particle. When Newton was proposing that gravity was a property of and proportional to the matter that made up the planet, he was making a real proposition about a real force. He was trying to physically connect the force to the matter that made up the planet. However, when it didn't work out, and his formula was turned around, using the unproven statement that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter to show how much matter was in the planets, that left the connection of gravity to matter up in the air. Accepting Newton's unproven assumption as the basic law of the universe, but using it to measure Jupiter's very real physical surface as gas, the new empirical science had to connect gravity with something, so it did what it always does when it is totally ignorant of what it is dealing with, it made up a word, mass, and said that word, describing how much matter was in a planet computed by the planet's orbit, was the source of gravity.

Doesn't say anything, but that's empirical science's way. Senseless statements, just as idiotic undertakings like measuring the unmeasurable composition of the planets, can't be challenged. Gabrielle in the TV series Xena has more weight than Gabrielle the satellite, which is occupying millions of dollars of time and telescope computer usage to determine useless information.

But there is a better question. Gabrielle in the Xena program was fictional. Is Gabrielle the satellite also fictional?

Let's look at the process used to discover her. Gabrielle was discovered using the Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics system, LGS AO. Readers of these columns know that the fundamental rule of light that astronomers ignore is that light diminishes inversely with the square of the distance traveled. Astronomers, who like to claim they can see the light from the beginning of time at the end of the universe, simply ignore this fact of reality because this fact of reality tells us clearly that light expands out of existence. Astronomers like to promote the notion that the stronger the telescope they have, the further into space they can see. The reality is, telescopes do not see any further than the lens they contain. They can only collect the light that exists when it strikes the surface of the lens. Sending Hubble up removed the atmosphere that would otherwise distort the light, but it only sees what light exists where it's at. It does not have some magical power to extend its lens deep into the universe and see light that has yet to arrive on its lens.

Because light diminishes inversely with the square of the distance it travels, it does not travel forever. It diminishes because it expands and it expands out of existence. If it expands out of existence, then there is simply no light to see. Another known reality about light is that when it bounces off an object, it begins to reexpand. The light bouncing off Gabrielle is reflected sunlight. Now Xena is some 9 billion miles from the sun (the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun, so we are dealing with reflected light that has traveled and expanded over a distance of some 18 billion miles, knocking off some distance because we are supposedly seeing it from the Earth). While Xena is slightly larger than Pluto, Pluto is smaller than the moon, and, of course, Gabrielle is much smaller, with the claim of being 60 times fainter than Xena. As an aside, it's only been months since Xena was discovered, but astronomers already know its orbit is 560 years. Try and disprove that one. Then again, why bother?

In any event, Adaptive Optics is an attempt to use the better Earth bound facilities to duplicate the Hubble's ability to see without atmospheric distortion. A computer uses atmospheric models to determine the distortion on a bright guide star and then applies those distortions to a fainter object, creating the image of the object as if the object were not being seen through the atmosphere. Given empirical science's inability to even understand lightning, I wonder about the atmospheric mathematical model's ability to do anything, but let's give it to them. The problem with Adaptive Optics is that there are only enough guide stars to cover a measly 1% of the sky. What's an astronomer to do?

That's where the Laser Guide Star comes in. Here there is something very real, a layer in the atmosphere that can reflect a laser beam. A laser is hooked up to the telescope, in the case of Gabrielle, the powerful Keck telescope, and shot into the atmosphere. It hits the layer with the same frequency, and bounces back to the telescope, creating an artificial guide star. Neat technology, but talk about expensive!

It's so neat and so expensive, guess who gets to use it. First you file a plan of what you are going to use it for, then you get approval, and then you use it under the supervision of an approving astronomer. Let me see. Here we have a piece of equipment that cost goodness knows how much, the money coming from the public trough or from tax deductible and tax free university endowments, and then, folks, justification has to occur. The neat, expensive technology has to show that it was worth it. Therefore, boom, new planets are found, new moons are found and announcements are made about how important it is to be able to compute the densities and masses of these new discoveries.

In the meantime, our ignorance remains. We don't know what gravity is, Science magazine's 34th question, and its explanation, "[Gravity] clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model. Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple contained a whole can of worms" being a demonstration of this. We don't know what causes the planets to orbit. We don't know what causes the Earth and the other planets to rotate. We don't know what heat is, we don't know what light is, we don't know what electricity is, we don't know what magnetism is.

And no one, virtually no one, is attempting to find out.

[mad_drone]

ik ga effe reageren op die ferm rare tekst van jou, m'n beste pindar.

Discoveries

Astronomers recently announced a new discovery, a satellite orbiting the Solar System's 10th planet, which is called 2003 UB313. Planet 2003 UB313 has temporarily been named Xena after the television character and its satellite is temporarily named Gabrielle, Xena's sidekick. I wasn't particularly aware there was a 10th planet, although I am aware of the arguments over whether Pluto is a planet. Pluto was discovered in 1930, and it's claimed orbit is 250 years, so we can readily see nothing that can be said about Pluto's orbit can be said as a result of observation. We've only seen 30% of its orbit.

(1) Nogal een kromme redenering. In de fysica gaat het erom dat je een bepaald natuurfenomeen bestudeert en een heleboel metingen doet. Dan stel je een bepaalde theorie op over hoe dit fenomeen werkt. Deze theorie is steeds een benadering van de werkelijkheid, de clue is vooral dat je een opstelt die enkel uitzonderlijk kleine fouten geeft. Zodra je dat hebt kan je voorspellingen maken: je komt een nieuwe beginsituatie voor maar met gelijkenissen, zoals bvb door dezelfde krachten beïnvloed.

Nu in detail. Omtrent de gravitatietheorie van Newton, Kepler en de verfijningen doorgevoerd door Hamilton en Lagrange. (en wie nog niet allemaal...) De fout op bewegingen van voorwerpen op aarde is kleiner dan 0.0002 %, en de grootste fout vind je bij de beweging van mercurius ( 0.15 %), maar deze fout wordt volledig opgeklaard door de algemene relativiteit van Einstein. De clue is dat deze fout zo marginaal is dat je kan stellen dat die theorie goed genoeg is om voorspellingen te maken met betrekking tot de beweging van planeten zonder een grote fout te maken. Dus met maar 30% van de orbit van Pluto gezien te hebben kan men z'n periode van omwenteling weldegelijk goed gefundeerd voorspellen op 250 jaar, met hoogstens een dag of twee mis te zijn. Nu als je je eerste paragraaf dan al begint met zo'n nonsens, dan stel je echt niet veel voor.


Looking a little deeper into this, we discover that we have two other maybe planets out there, one temporarily named Santa, the other Easterbunny. Got to hand it to these astronomers, they're creative, but then their whole enterprise is based on fantasy, so why wouldn't they be. These four objects inhabit the Kuiper belt. Because some comets are recurring and some aren't, astronomers had to create two different sources for the two different types of comets. Remember, astronomers believe that the solar system has been the way it is for some 5 billion years, so it couldn't possibly be picking up new matter. All the matter that exists in or around the solar system has existed the same way all these many years. Gravity occasionally knocks some of the matter askew. If the matter is in the Kuiper belt, which begins on the other side of Neptune's orbit, then the result is a recurring comet. If something gets knocked out of the ice field, the Ort cloud that stretches beyond the Kuiper belt, then it becomes a single passage comet. See how simple astronomy can be? All astronomers have to do is make stuff up and it becomes reality.

(2) Welja, hier ben je weer goed bezig. Ik kan alvast verwijzen naar (1), waar ik aangeef hoe degelijk begrepen gravitatie wel is. Als je die theorie dan gebruikt om de baan van kometen te begrijpen, dan zie je dat voor een single passing comet die allemaal steeds van een bepaald gebied vertrekken, en voor de recurring van een andere. Nogal verdomd logisch dan dat je daaruit kan afleiden dat er twee verschillende regio's in ons zonnestelsel zijn die als bron kunnen dienen voor kometen? Om nog maar te zwijgen dat de theoriën die het onstaan van ons zonnestelsel geloofwaardig verklaren ook het bestaan van beide kometengordels voorspellen. Als twee totaal verschillende theoriën hetzelfde voorspellen, dan zit je op het goede pad. Vooral als een van die twee zo succesvol is dat gans onze telecommunicatie en ruimtevaart mogelijk maakt.

Now let's get down to the discovery of Gabrielle itself. If we look up discovery, we find that it is the act of something being discovered. The definition of discover is to become aware of something. So assuming astronomers are actually seeing something, they really have discovered something. The reason we honor people who discover something is that it adds to our knowledge. Finding a bunch of rocks in irregular orbits beyond the orbit of Neptune should certainly tell us something. It should tell us we got the operation of the solar system wrong, that it wasn't formed out of a swirling mass of gas, that it isn't operated by historical forces, that it has to be operated by current forces. Once the discovery tells us that, we then roll up our sleeves and get to work figuring out what those current forces might be.
Finding a bunch of rocks in irregular orbits beyond neptune vertelt ons helemaal niet wat hem daar bezigt. Als je twintigduizend rotsen bij elkaar hebt die allemaal een elkaar trekken met gravitatiekrachten, dan heb je een sterkere supercomputer nodig dan er bestaat om dat allemaal degelijk te voorspellen. MAar het is an sich mogelijk. De reden waarom we de term irregular gebruiken is omdat we niet de rekenkracht hebben om die beweging te voorspellen. De theorie om het te doen is er wel. Hoe je dan toch wil beweren dat er iets fout is met de manier waarop de astronomie de structuur van ons zonnestelsel begrepen heeft, wil ik graag weten. Misschien dat em eens met een goed argument moet afkomen.

Is this what the astronomers are doing?
Astronomen onderzoeken de structuur van ons zonnestelsel. Dat blijven ze weldegelijk doen, dat is hun onderzoek. Wil je echter dat de oorzaak van gravitatie onderzocht wordt, dan moet je niet bij astronomen zijn die met telescopen werken. Dan kan ik je bvb naar Leiden doorverwijzen, waar enkele gigantisch tot bijna aan het nulpunt afgekoelde koperen bollen te vinden zijn. Zij hebben als taak zwaartekrachtgolven te detecteren, en zo beter de oorzaken van gravitatie te onderzoeken. Want hoe het werkt weten we wel. Waarom het werkt zoals het werkt, tjah, dat is andere koek. (En eigenlijk het domein van de subatomaire fysica, dus dat deze persoon hieromtrent astronomen aanvalt geeft weer z'n beperkte kennis wat betreft dit hier allemaal aan.)


Not on your life. The punch line for poor little Gabrielle is that she will allow astronomers to determine the precise mass and density of Xena.

Now let's see. What in the world is the use of this information and, in fact, is it information at all? First off, there is no way that the density of a planet can be verified. The basic rule of any science, which means anything dealing with reality, is, if it's not verifiable, then it simply isn't worth pursuing. It's fantasy, made up stuff. No one can take a planet apart to determine its actually density, and who cares in the first place? We know planets are made up of different mixtures of different elements. That's knowledge enough.

So why the pursuit of density? Well, I'll go over it again, because it can't be said in enough different ways using enough diverse examples. Newton set out to demonstrate that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter by saying he could use the amount of matter in the Earth to predict the orbit of the moon. To do this, and this is enshrined in the Principia, he said the Earth and the moon were made up of uniform particles uniformly distributed. This, of course, is simply tripe, not the case, pure idiocy if you will, under anybody's definition, the rantings of a madman. But in the late 17th Century when Newton was passing off this tripe on a small clique of men, no one knew much of anything about reality. No one knew anything about light, about electricity, about the galaxies or even this galaxy, let alone the sun. Today's highschoolers know more about reality than these guys could even imagine.

So when Newton proposed this little piece of idiocy, it flew. Of course, Newton's assumption didn't end up predicting the orbit of the moon, there being too much moon, and as the 18th Century wore on, it failed big time to predict the orbits of the planets, so what were astronomers expected to do, disavow the Celestial Mechanics, Newton's baby, that was putting food on their tables and say were wrong, and start over? Give me a break. They had to come up with some way to save Newton. How did they do it? They said, well, Newton had it right, he uncovered the basic law of the universe, that gravity is a property of and proportional to matter, he just didn't use it right. Now that we know the basic law (the law Newton was trying to prove but failed to prove), now that we have that law on the books, we can use the orbits of the planets to determine the amount of matter in the planets, the planet's density.

And that, folks, is what these nutcases are doing. They are going through the entirely useless process of determining how much density is in Xena using a theory that attempted to prove what gravity was, but failed, was reversed and became the revered Celestial Mechanics, for the same reason Madonna, Brittany Spears and Christina Aguilera publicly kiss, to get their names in the paper, enhance their reputations and put more money in their pockets.

Now, on to mass. What's the difference between density and mass, you might ask. Better yet, ask, what is mass? Well, mass is what produces gravity. That might lead you to ask, what is gravity? Why, wouldn't you know, gravity is what's produced by mass.

This is empirical science's explanation for the dynamic force that holds us to the surface of the Earth, a circular piece on self-referential nonsense.

What is the source of mass might be a better question, and here we run back into Newton's failed attempt to prove that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter. Notice, his proposition wasn't mass, it was matter because, as noted, he assumed all matter was uniformly made up of the same particle. When Newton was proposing that gravity was a property of and proportional to the matter that made up the planet, he was making a real proposition about a real force. He was trying to physically connect the force to the matter that made up the planet. However, when it didn't work out, and his formula was turned around, using the unproven statement that gravity was a property of and proportional to matter to show how much matter was in the planets, that left the connection of gravity to matter up in the air. Accepting Newton's unproven assumption as the basic law of the universe, but using it to measure Jupiter's very real physical surface as gas, the new empirical science had to connect gravity with something, so it did what it always does when it is totally ignorant of what it is dealing with, it made up a word, mass, and said that word, describing how much matter was in a planet computed by the planet's orbit, was the source of gravity.

Doesn't say anything, but that's empirical science's way. Senseless statements, just as idiotic undertakings like measuring the unmeasurable composition of the planets, can't be challenged. Gabrielle in the TV series Xena has more weight than Gabrielle the satellite, which is occupying millions of dollars of time and telescope computer usage to determine useless information.

But there is a better question. Gabrielle in the Xena program was fictional. Is Gabrielle the satellite also fictional?

Let's look at the process used to discover her. Gabrielle was discovered using the Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics system, LGS AO. Readers of these columns know that the fundamental rule of light that astronomers ignore is that light diminishes inversely with the square of the distance traveled. Astronomers, who like to claim they can see the light from the beginning of time at the end of the universe, simply ignore this fact of reality because this fact of reality tells us clearly that light expands out of existence. Astronomers like to promote the notion that the stronger the telescope they have, the further into space they can see. The reality is, telescopes do not see any further than the lens they contain. They can only collect the light that exists when it strikes the surface of the lens. Sending Hubble up removed the atmosphere that would otherwise distort the light, but it only sees what light exists where it's at. It does not have some magical power to extend its lens deep into the universe and see light that has yet to arrive on its lens.

Because light diminishes inversely with the square of the distance it travels, it does not travel forever. It diminishes because it expands and it expands out of existence. If it expands out of existence, then there is simply no light to see. Another known reality about light is that when it bounces off an object, it begins to reexpand. The light bouncing off Gabrielle is reflected sunlight. Now Xena is some 9 billion miles from the sun (the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun, so we are dealing with reflected light that has traveled and expanded over a distance of some 18 billion miles, knocking off some distance because we are supposedly seeing it from the Earth). While Xena is slightly larger than Pluto, Pluto is smaller than the moon, and, of course, Gabrielle is much smaller, with the claim of being 60 times fainter than Xena. As an aside, it's only been months since Xena was discovered, but astronomers already know its orbit is 560 years. Try and disprove that one. Then again, why bother?

In any event, Adaptive Optics is an attempt to use the better Earth bound facilities to duplicate the Hubble's ability to see without atmospheric distortion. A computer uses atmospheric models to determine the distortion on a bright guide star and then applies those distortions to a fainter object, creating the image of the object as if the object were not being seen through the atmosphere. Given empirical science's inability to even understand lightning, I wonder about the atmospheric mathematical model's ability to do anything, but let's give it to them. The problem with Adaptive Optics is that there are only enough guide stars to cover a measly 1% of the sky. What's an astronomer to do?

That's where the Laser Guide Star comes in. Here there is something very real, a layer in the atmosphere that can reflect a laser beam. A laser is hooked up to the telescope, in the case of Gabrielle, the powerful Keck telescope, and shot into the atmosphere. It hits the layer with the same frequency, and bounces back to the telescope, creating an artificial guide star. Neat technology, but talk about expensive!

It's so neat and so expensive, guess who gets to use it. First you file a plan of what you are going to use it for, then you get approval, and then you use it under the supervision of an approving astronomer. Let me see. Here we have a piece of equipment that cost goodness knows how much, the money coming from the public trough or from tax deductible and tax free university endowments, and then, folks, justification has to occur. The neat, expensive technology has to show that it was worth it. Therefore, boom, new planets are found, new moons are found and announcements are made about how important it is to be able to compute the densities and masses of these new discoveries.

In the meantime, our ignorance remains. We don't know what gravity is, Science magazine's 34th question, and its explanation, "[Gravity] clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model. Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple contained a whole can of worms" being a demonstration of this. We don't know what causes the planets to orbit. We don't know what causes the Earth and the other planets to rotate. We don't know what heat is, we don't know what light is, we don't know what electricity is, we don't know what magnetism is.

And no one, virtually no one, is attempting to find out.

[mad_drone]

zucht

stom keyboard

straks nog wat editen.. geduld!

[Havana]

hoe werkt een magneet?

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Havana

hoe werkt een magneet?

goeie vraag!!! Huidige wetenschap weet daar ook niets van!


Ik heb hier nog niemand gezien die uitgelegd heeft wat gravitatie nu is!


Pin d'Ar

[Nussbaum]

Gravitatie is een verzinsel van de door de NWO gecontroleerde wetenschap.