Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pantheory

  1. Once the laundry is properly cleaned, softened, nicely folded, and neatly put away -- I think we will know almost certainty that black holes exist, but not of the vacuous singularity type, more like a more condensed form of matter than neutron stars. My fave is compressed field material from the Zero Point Field, other proposals have been quark stars, etc., but in the end I believe they will by made of a presently unknown form of matter. Like others have pointed out, there may be no reason to suspect that the math for such new matter should give the exact same results as general relativity
  2. Is Dark Matter necessary? Hypothetical entities like dark matter and dark energy have been proposed to explain observations that otherwise seem difficult to explain. Three of the main reasons dark matter was proposed in the first place was 1) to explain the stellar orbital velocities of stars in the disks of spiral galaxies 2) to explain orbital rates of galaxies in a cluster 3) to explain the extent of galactic lensing whereby it would take a lot more matter than what we can see to bend light as mush as we observe. There were also other theoretical advantages to this proposal. There h
  3. Really cool. Something very different. They look like floppy mushrooms to me. Maybe they might have a place in the mosaic of man's terraforming aspirations some day. I don't see any chlorophyll, and if not they would be dependent on pre-existing life or its byproducts for food.
  4. Yeah, you are probably right. She may have no desire to collaborate more with Iranians than any other nationality or group now that she's here. Maybe only because she is still an Iranian citizen.
  5. Wow, Lots of unique perspectives and lines of research. Hope she and here Iranian research team can broaden their cloistered horizons (if not already doing so) to exchange ideas with other fundamental research teams from all over the world. Hope we hear of more successes from her and her Iranian team in the future concerning her mathematical research and its possible applications.
  6. 3. They didn't do it in a vacuum, so how do we know the result is valid in space? While the original abstract says that tests were run "within a stainless steel vacuum chamber with the door closed but at ambient atmospheric pressure", the full report describes tests in which turbo vacuum pumps were used to evacuate the test chamber to a pressure of five millionths of a Torr, or about a hundred-millionth of normal atmospheric pressure. (bold added) http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/07/10-qs-about-nasa-impossible-drive
  7. In aether models, aether is a background field like dark matter. "Is there infinite amount of aether, so it can flow outside of device forever?" Not infinite but the answer is yes. "Then why not simplify it and say that some microwave photons escape system, while other one are absorbed by engine?" That's a good explanation and answer but I cannot think of any mechanism in particular to explain how this could work since microwaves are readily absorbed if not reflected. Also such microwaves would need to be linearly directed. I also expect that both covers on each end of the devi
  8. If this effect turns out to be correct, I don't think their conclusions will be like mine since it would be radical for present-day physics. However, I expect they will come up with an ad hoc hypothesis to explain it that will leave the conservation of momentum intact while the new hypothesis may become an addendum to GR or another part of modern physics.
  9. I understand your concern. NASA's explanation of it is that the microwaves are pushing on the ZPF. The ZPF could be considered a kind of aether. For example: My hypothesis/ explanation of this phenomena is similar IMO to NASA's, concerning the gist of it. My preliminary hypothesis is that the microwaves would accordingly be pushing on the aether which would cause aether continuously flowing through the small end of the tapered device and exhausting through the big end. The result would be a lower aether pressure outside the small end of the device and a higher aether pressure outside of th
  10. There is enough information out there now from different sources whereby I think there is really something to this technology. IMO probably new physics is also involved. Yes, Shawyer's explanation of it does not really make sense to me either. Maybe he doesn't truly understand the mechanism(s) involved himself. I have some speculative ideas of how it might work which are similar to NASA's ideas that the ZPF is involved. I believe there will be an ongoing non-stop development of this technology which I expect will reach many of the expectations and hopes of its inventors and developers. Down th
  11. My understanding of it is that microwaves are directionally generated through reflective focusing in primarily one direction, leaving the containment cavity, while the reaction force causing acceleration would accordingly react in the opposite direction. That's the explanation of it in my link above (different form your posting of it) as I understand it.
  12. The paper below was written by Roger Shawyer, the British Engineer and developer of Em-drive (electro-magnetic drive), based upon information available to him in 2013. There is ongoing classified research by NASA, England, China, and probably others where even Shawyer seems to be out of the loop concerning details of such research. Shawyer's company and probably the other researching companies and countries mentioned would probably keep much of details of their present research secret for competitive advantage if the technology proves successful. The promise of such technology seems huge.
  13. There seems to be enough evidence behind this proposed technology that many including NASA are seriously checking it out, as the OP explained. http://guardianlv.com/2014/08/nasa-looking-to-emdrive-to-revolutionize-space-travel/ This is not a something-from-nothing technology. The Input is electricity, which in this case is a kind of fuel, and the output is microwaves. The problem is that this design, according to theory, should not produce propulsion. This reminds me of an old joke which goes something like this: The government was considering investing a considerable sum of mo
  14. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329782.700-strange-dark-stuff-is-making-the-universe-too-bright.html#.U9QHYzd6MQ4 The quote above from the subject link could be the simple answer to their "problem." Neutral hydrogen comes in a number of different forms. Only a single hydrogen atom is relatively easy to observe in the intergalactic medium (IGM) because of its numerous spectral emissions. The other forms of hydrogen are very difficult or impossible to observe in the IGM and afterwords give a very accurate estimate of their overall quantities. Thinking that "that loophole has been shu
  15. No such line should exist if the source of the x-rays "bumps" have their basis in atomic transitions. As stated, it is just speculation as to what the cause might be. Galactic Black holes, stellar black holes, and neutron stars can be sources of gamma rays and x-rays. Most of this type of radiation is thought to be related to interactions of these entities or their jets, with matter. Such forceful entities as black holes and their jets, when interacting with matter, produce gamma rays for reasons that are still only speculative. My guess is that this OP x-ray radiation energy absorption lines
  16. Thanks for your time and interesting comments. I want to stay on topic so I'll try to explain what I can from that perspective. One of the two themes of the subject OP paper is the the universe appears to be "too bright" for known light sources. As to Olber's Paradox, I think it can be readily explained for most any cosmology. The first reason is that galaxies are so far away that we can only see a few of the very closest galaxies with the naked eye, and then they are very dim and barely visible in the night sky. The second and most important reason IMO is that galaxies become redshifted
  17. Alternative cosmology gets published by peer-reviewed journals once-in-awhile if one is careful about the wording (include wordings of possibility rather than of probability, wordings such as "according to this model" etc. Also such papers must include what appears to be evidence for what is being proposed or stated. Most journals do summarily dismiss papers with proposals outside the mainstream, after a quick perusal, but without reading them. Here is an example of a fairly recent paper by someone else that did get published. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/the-universe-is-
  18. The quantitative data that I could find in this article is that by their analysis there appears to be "five times too much ionized gas for the estimated number of UV sources in the modern, nearby universe." The other related theme of this article is that the universe appears to be 400% too bright based upon observable sources of EM radiation. This quote: " Hubble Space Telescope observations of the large-scale structure show a brightly lit Universe. But supercomputer simulations using only the known sources of ultraviolet light produces a dimly lit Universe. The difference is a stunning 40
  19. That is explained in posting #14, and figure 2 in the paper. The mainstream model over estimates brightnesses to a redshift of about 1.1 then under estimates them progressively thereafter. This is the blue line in figure 2. The red "nearly straight line are brightnesses according to the alternative model which match observations very well. The quantitative extent is shown in that figure.
  20. The answer is Yes. There are exact quantitative predictions made within the paper as to what the exact extent the universe will appear brighter. Looking at table 2. You will see the alternative distance predicted/ calculated at a redshift of about .6 (#8 in the table) is about 1.44 times greater than the Hubble formula. Square this concerning the inverse square law of light and you would get an apparent brightness of more than twice as bright. At a redshift of about 1.4, the alternative model predicts a distance of about 1.89 the Hubble distance. This when squared would relate to an apparent
  21. Concerning supernova, predictions would be the red straight-line graphing on figure #2 of the paper. The Hubble formula is the blue-line parabolic graph that would require variable degrees of dark energy to explain the overly dim and over-brightness data. If type 1a supernova are standard candles as expected, then the same graph would apply to all cosmic entities, not just supernovas. Notice on the graph, based upon the Hubble distance formula, that all cosmic entities with redshifts greater than about 1.1 progressively appear brighter than what they are expected based upon their Hubble calcul
  22. This is a peer-reviewed journal. It is the Journal of Applied Physics Research published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education. The unique equations and calculations concerning type 1a supernova and how they quantitatively match the data, is the theme of the paper. The predictions and claims about the brightnesses of all cosmic entities are also within the paper, see sections 7.1 and 7.2 in particular. Here is another link to the paper.
  23. Few would want to consider outside the box explanations (outside the Big Bang model) to solve this "over-brightness" problem. After all, the problem doesn’t seem that awesome that a standard explanation of some kind could not be found. Still the appearance of over-brightness in the universe was a prediction of another cosmological model long ago so I thought I would mention it here. Here is the recent paper on it. It was a supernova paper proposing that Dark Energy is not real, whereby I was the lead author (see 7.2 and 7.3 within the paper.) The paper predicts that the universe will a
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.