Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Gravity

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,785

    Gravity

    Gravity is perhaps the most important area of research today. In this article we have the author saying gravitational waves have not been seen but shortly after this was written they saw something that is predicted by Gravitational Wave theory. Researchers in the field say if this theory is fully proven that our entire reality will be metaphysical in fact. Nothing is impossible according to metaphysics and our mind or collective energy therefrom can 'realize' or 'create' anything according to mystics and engineers like Bucky Fuller. I often wonder what more Isaac Newton knew as I remember he said what he presented in his Principiae was much more than he should give, I know he was an alchemist and belonged to a secret society in a time when such knowledge could get a person burned at the stake (The Spanish Inquisition did not end until 1824 or thereabouts.). Don't assume anything is constant - Einstein said negative gravity was real and he was laughed at but no longer do those people laugh. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/03/us...e-gravity.html

    "But these effects – where there are basically curves, hills and valleys in space — occur for reasons we can’t fully really explain. Besides being a characteristic of space, gravity is also a force (but it is the weakest of the four forces), and it might be a particle, too. Some scientists have proposed particles called gravitons cause objects to be attracted to one another. But gravitons have never actually been observed. Another idea is that gravitational waves are generated when an object is accelerated by an external force, but these waves have never been directly detected, either.

    Our understanding of gravity breaks down at both the very small and the very big: at the level of atoms and molecules, gravity just stops working. And we can’t describe the insides of black holes and the moment of the Big Bang without the math completely falling apart.

    The problem is that our understanding of both particle physics and the geometry of gravity is incomplete.

    “Having gone from basically philosophical understandings of why things fall to mathematical descriptions of how things accelerate down inclines from Galileo, to Kepler’s equations describing planetary motion to Newton’s formulation of the Laws of Physics, to Einstein’s formulations of relativity, we’ve been building and building a more comprehensive view of gravity. But we’re still not complete,” said Dr. Pamela Gay. “We know that there still needs to be some way to unite quantum mechanics and gravity and actually be able to write down equations that describe the centers of black holes and the earliest moments of the Universe. But we’re not there yet.”

    And so, the mystery remains … for now.

    This “Minute Physics” video helps explain what we know about gravity:



    We have written many articles about gravity for Universe Today. Here’s an article about gravity and antimatter, and here’s an article about the discovery of gravity. This recent article discusses how the latest research looks at quantum physics to explain gravity."


    http://www.universetoday.com/75705/w...ity-come-from/
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-09-2016 at 02:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,785
    And though the debate rages on in some circles - metaphysics is getting the upper hand on the professors who insist constants and black and white answers on tests are the only reality we should concern ourselves with.

    "At rare moments in scientific history, a new window on the universe opens up that changes everything. Today was quite possibly such a day. At a press conference on Monday morning at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a team of scientists operating a sensitive microwave telescope at the South Pole announced the discovery of polarization distortions in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is the observable afterglow of the Big Bang. The distortions appear to be due to the presence of gravitational waves, which would date back to almost the beginning of time.

    This observation, made possible by the fact that gravitational waves can travel unimpeded through the universe, takes us to 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang. By comparison, the Cosmic Microwave Background—which, until today, was the earliest direct signal we had of the Big Bang—was created when the universe was already three hundred thousand years old.


    If the discovery announced this morning holds up, it will allow us to peer back to the very beginning of time—a million billion billion billion billion billion times closer to the Big Bang than any previous direct observation—and will allow us to explore the fundamental forces of nature on a scale ten thousand billion times smaller than can be probed at the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest particle accelerator. Moreover, it will allow us to test some of the most ambitious theoretical speculations about the origin of our observed universe that have ever been made by humans—speculations that may first appear to verge on metaphysics. It might seem like an esoteric finding, so far removed from everyday life as to be of almost no interest. But, if confirmed, it will have increased our empirical window on the origins of the universe by a margin comparable to the amount it has grown in all of the rest of human history. Where this may lead, no one knows, but it should be cause for great excitement.

    Even for someone who has been thinking about these possibilities for the past thirty-five years, the truth can sometimes seem stranger than fiction. In 1979, a young particle physicist named Alan Guth proposed what seemed like an outrageous possibility, which he called Inflation: that new physics, involving a large extrapolation from what could then be observed, might imply that the universe expanded in size by over thirty orders of magnitude in a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, increasing in size by a greater amount in that instance than it has in the fourteen billion years since.

    Guth’s work was designed to address what were then seemingly irreconcilable problems with the standard Big Bang model, which did not offer any explanation for why the observable universe is so incredibly uniform on large scales, and how it has continued to expand for so long without collapsing once again. Inflation, crudely put, explains how the universe is likely to have grown shortly after the Big Bang, to bridge the gap between our hypothesis about the origins of the universe and the universe we observe today.

    But the hallmark of great theory is its ability to predict future discoveries, not merely explain previous ones. Within a few years, Guth and a host of others demonstrated that quantum-mechanical effects during this very early period immediately after the Big Bang could have generated primordial variations in matter and radiation that resulted, owing to gravity, in the formation of all observed cosmic structures, including our earth, our galaxy, and all observable galaxies. Moreover, the special characteristics of these “primordial lumps”—produced when the size of the universe was smaller than a single atom—might be tested if we were able to probe out to the farthest reaches of the known universe.

    In 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite reported observations of the so-called Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation—the afterglow of the Big Bang generated when the universe was only three hundred thousand years old—that allowed just such measurements to be performed. Evidence of primordial lumps was discovered—leading to a Nobel Prize—and the stage was set for subsequent experiments, which verified that Guth’s Inflation theory was at least consistent with observation.

    However, consistency is not enough in science. After all, different models of Inflation could have produced results consistent with many different observations. So one needed a much more robust and unambiguous prediction to really confirm these ideas.

    Remarkably, one such prediction arose. If gravity is also subject to quantum mechanics, then it was shown that, during Inflation, quantum fluctuations in gravity would be produced, and would appear today as gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of space and time. Gravitational waves are incredibly difficult to detect directly: we have built huge detectors, here on Earth, that are so sensitive that they can detect a force that changes the length of a two-mile-long detector by an amount smaller than a single proton. So far, however, no signal has been observed.

    But the universe is a far bigger detector. The same Cosmic Microwave Background that gave us an image of primordial structures might also be distorted by gravitational waves with wavelengths as large as the size of the observable universe. In 1992, right after the COBE discovery, a student of mine and I were sufficiently excited to claim that if Inflation occurred at an energy scale only slightly larger than where we think three of the four forces of nature might be unified—the so-called Grand Unified Scale—gravitational waves might even have produced the entire observed COBE signal.

    This turned out not to be the case. But on Monday, nature may have revealed a more exciting possibility. A more sensitive probe of the microwave background—one that measures how the light generated at the time the C.M.B. was created might be “polarized,” as space is alternatively compressed and stretched by gravitational waves—apparently sees precisely the signal expected from Inflation. Moreover, the amplitude of the effect is indeed more or less expected if the scale of Inflation is the scale expected for Grand Unification.

    If it turns out to be confirmed by other experiments, think about what this discovery implies for our ability to explore the universe (besides the other remarkable implications for physics): when we use light to look out at the distant universe, we can only see back as far as three hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, when the universe cooled sufficiently to become transparent to light. But gravitational waves interact so weakly that even waves produced less than 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang can move through space unimpeded, giving us a window on the universe at essentially the beginning of time.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the current result is in some tension with earlier claimed upper limits from other experiments, so we will need to wait for the results of a host of other experiments currently operating that can check this result.

    For some people, the possibility that the laws of physics might illuminate even the creation of our own universe, without the need for supernatural intervention or any demonstration of purpose, is truly terrifying. But Monday’s announcement heralds the possible beginning of a new era, where even such cosmic existential questions are becoming accessible to experiment.

    Lawrence M. Krauss is a theoretical physicist and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. His most recent book is “A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing.”"

    http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elemen...inning-of-time

    This Thunderbolts Project group is even more eclectic and they may be good scientists as well.

    http://opensciences.org/blogs/top-bl...s-project-blog
    Last edited by R_Baird; 12-01-2015 at 04:34 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,785
    The following ties As Above, So Below (one of the Three Laws of the Magi) [U]to astronomy. That is Alex's degreed profession.

    http://blog.world-mysteries.com/scie...ticle-duality/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,785
    The current debate on Dark Energy and these matters is way beyond my pay scale I admit.

    As far as the claim that Einstein was proven wrong about the Cosmological Constant (I will grant no constant can be proven) we have this New York Times report from after his death. It is difficult for our brainwashed minds to comprehend negative gravity, I do admit.

    "Photo Gives Weight To Einstein's Thesis Of Negative Gravity

    By JAMES GLANZ

    Published: April 3, 2001

    A photograph of a distant exploding star has given astronomers the first direct evidence that a mysterious ''negative gravity'' force swept through and still pervades the universe, scientists announced at a NASA news conference yesterday in Washington.

    The Hubble Space Telescope by chance photographed the exploding star, the most distant ever observed, in 1997. Scientists say subsequent detective work on the relative intensity of its light confirms one of Einstein's conjectures about the universe: that all of space is bubbling with an invisible form of energy that creates a mutual repulsion between objects normally attracted to each other by gravity.

    Einstein himself thought the force, which he called the cosmological constant, was so strange that he later repudiated his conjecture. But the idea gained theoretical support in 1998 with findings suggesting that the expansion of the universe was accelerating and that the force accelerating the expansion, negative gravity -- the manifestation of the cosmological constant -- overtook the force of gravity in the last few billion years.

    The new findings confirm that crucial part of the theory. And they rule out several competing explanations.

    Because the amount of negative gravity in any given volume should be minuscule, its effects would not be felt in everyday life. But over vast distances involving huge volumes of space, the effect would be powerful enough to push galaxies and clusters of galaxies apart from one another.

    Exploding stars, or supernovas, like the one that turned up unexpectedly on a photograph made by the Hubble telescope, can be excellent probes of those grand forces. The new observation is of a star that exploded about 11 billion years ago, when the universe was a quarter of its present age and when, scientists theorized, the cosmological constant, often called ''dark energy,'' was less powerful than gravity, the opposite of what prevails today.

    As a result, the expansion of the universe was slowing at that time. This meant that the star was closer to earth when it exploded than it would have been if dark energy had dominated gravity then -- a fact discernable in its brightness. Astronomers said it was twice as bright as it would have been under competing theories about the universe.

    A team led by Dr. Adam G. Riess, an astrophysist at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore analyzed the data. Dr. Riess, who worked with Dr. Peter E. Nugent of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said the measurement ''nails the existence of the dark energy.'' "

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •