Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral


  • Rank
  • Birthday 08/13/1956

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
  • Interests
    Kayaking, hiking back country
  • College Major/Degree
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physical Science
  • Biography
    Teacher- 8th grade science
  • Occupation
  1. Heisenberg or why the electrons don't fall in the nucleus According to the classical Physics , electrons, being attracted by the nucleus of the atom, should fall inside it and so all matter should collapse. Heisenberg was the first to explain why this doesn't happen and the matter is solid. The answer was in his famous indetermination principle that can be "explained" in this way. The electrons have a kind of "vibration" that increases as we force them in a smaller space and the nucleus is so small that there is no way to force them there unless we use a very big force. It is as if we have a few people around in a room : they will move around doing something. If the room get smaller the same people will move more and more and this creates a kind of pression that forbids at some point to the room to became smaller.This jitter motion of electrons is sometime called zitterbewegung and arises from attempting to localize the particle or from interaction of the particle with potential(a force).
  2. Planetary science is awakening to the realization that our solar system contains many more planets than any 20th century textbook ever envisioned. It's not your father's solar system. by S. Alan Stern Principal Investigator - New Horizons Boulder CO (SPX) Sep 11, 2006 A real revolution is afoot in planetary science. The first shot was fired in 1930, with the discovery of Pluto, but almost no one realized its import. The second and third shots came in the late 1970s, with the discovery of distant objects called Chiron and Charon, but again, few recognized what they would portend. Rapid-fire volleys began in the 1990s, as myriad discoveries of icy bodies 100s to well over 1000 kilometers across occurred in the Kuiper Belt, just beyond Neptune, became an observational reality. But it was only this year, with the recently announced discovery of 2003 UB313-a world larger than Pluto-that we have heard the equivalent of the American Revolution's "shot heard round the world." When I was a boy in the 1960s, in college in the late 1970s, and in graduate school in the 1980s, we were taught that our solar system contains four rocky planets on the inside, four giant planets on the outside, and one spit of a planetary misfit called Pluto, moving in a markedly elliptical, and oddly inclined orbit beyond Neptune. Like many people, I recall thinking: What an odd bird that lone Pluto is. Today, however, we see a very different picture of our home solar system is emerging, one which reveals Pluto in context-as a nearby example representing what is almost certainly the most populous class of planet in our solar system-the "ice dwarfs." Consider that less than 2% of the Kuiper Belt has been thoroughly catalogued, yet over a thousand plus rogue worlds and worldlets have already been spotted there. And among just those bodies catalogued to date, we know that half a dozen (like Sedna and Quaoar) already rival-and in the case of the just discovered 2003 UB313-exceed Pluto's size. Moreover, most of these new worlds follow orbits that are as cockeyed as Pluto's-some even more so. Now we can see just how naive our 20th century perspectives were: Pluto is no misfit. Instead, once the advance of technology allowed us to probe deeply enough, it is becoming clear that Pluto was the advance harbinger of a populous new region of the solar system lying beyond the giant planets. Modern simulations of planetary formation, performed by different research groups around the world, led to broad agreement that in the process of forming the giant planets, some hundreds to thousands of smaller worlds, ranging from a goodly fraction of Pluto's size to at least Earth's size, were also formed. Most of these bodies were dwarf planets, like Pluto, with steeply declining populations at larger and larger sizes, so that only a few or few tens of bodies Earth's size were formed. These simulations also show that most of these bodies were ejected from the giant planets region to more much more distant orbits as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, neared their current sizes and gravitationally cleared out their formation zones, some 4+ billion years ago. Importantly, these numerical models are supported by some solid forensic clues that are scattered about the outer solar system, and which lead us to similar conclusions: One such clue is the fact that Pluto's moon, Charon (itself half of Pluto's size) seems to have been formed by a giant impact with a body nearly as large as Pluto itself. What is most important in this finding is that, in order to make such a collision probable, there must have been hundreds or more 1000-km diameter bodies orbiting in the ancient outer solar system. A second clue comes in the form of Triton, a 2700 km diameter moon, which circles Neptune on a retrograde orbit that is the hallmark of gravitational capture from a previous orbit around the Sun. Triton is compositionally much like Pluto, but a tad larger. Apparently, it is one of the "many Plutos" that once formed, and it seems to have escaped ejection by becoming caught in a long-lasting orbit around Neptune. Yet another clue comes from the polar tilts or Uranus (98 degrees) and Neptune (30 degrees). The only viable mechanism known to be able to generate such extreme tilting of these gargantuan (15 Earth mass-class) planets, are off-center collisions with bodies of one to several Earth masses. Crucially, calculations also reveal that in order for both Uranus and Neptune to have had a high probability of suffering such collisions, as many as a few dozen such Earth-mass objects may have once orbited in their region of the solar system. As a result of the modeling capability that modern computers give us, combined with the forensic observational clues just discussed, and now the discoveries of rivals and even successors to Pluto's throne, we are slowly but surely coming to a simultaneously jarring and exciting new conclusion: that our solar system formed not just the nine planets we were taught to name in school, but many dozens, if not hundreds of others as well! A revolutionary aspect of this emerging, new paradigm is the dawning realization that the long-known eight rocky and giant planets, Mercury through Neptune, now seem to be the misfits. Indeed, from today's 21st century perspective, the solar system seems likely to be dominated by a huge population of rock and ice planets ranging from dwarf sizes like Pluto to perhaps super-Earth's. Most of these new worlds are expected to follow elliptical, highly-inclined orbits, like those of Pluto, Quaoar, Sedna, and UB313. Further still, of all the planets now expected to orbit within our sun Sol's grasp, most orbit between ten and a thousand times farther than do any of the planets we were taught about in school. It's not at all your father's solar system. Less than two centuries ago it was discovered that all the stars one can see by eye, and their innumerable brethren seen by telescope, are distant Suns, with numbers too great to count. Similarly, it was just under a century ago that our galaxy, the Milky Way, was realized to be but one of literally billions of galaxies. Both of these realizations, like the 16th century realization that the Sun (not Earth!) is the center of our solar system, jarred perceptions and changed textbooks in revolutionary ways. Just as jarring to us now is the newly emerging view that our solar system made, and is still littered with, very many distant planets, most of which are nothing like the familiar planets that orbit close to the Sun, like Earth. In a real sense, we are seeing a new chapter unfold in the revolution that Copernicus wrought when he displaced the Earth from the center of everything. Alan Stern is a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute and the Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.
  3. ANTIGRAVITY DOES NOT EXIST Bert Schreiber Abstract: Several experiments in the field of antigravity research by different individuals and or groups showed that rotating masses (gyroscopes) apparently showed antigravity effects. The two results were: Weight loss. Gyroscope(s) falling slower or measured gn changed. These results and conclusions were false due to poor methodology and failure to understand exactly what the parameters of a gyroscope are. Furthermore, antigravity (as a force/field) cannot exist, as there is no morphological (table) position for them to exist at. Simply, an antigravity (Riemann Mirror Image of the gravity force/field) force/field would self-destruct. 1. INTRODUCTION: Over the past years various experiments by H. Hayasaka [1], V. G. Labeysh [2] and many other of a similar nature, apparently showed the existence of an antigravity effect. The work by Hayasaka only will be considered, as the end result is likewise applicable to all of the other experiments. Within reason, Hayasaka eliminated, to the best of his ability, all of the other possible causation’s such as the Coriolis’ force, change of gn with Earth’s surface tides, temperature, etc. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, none of the experimenters considered the absolute speed and direction of the Earth through space that changes (vectors) constantly. However, it has no measurable effect and so is eliminated. Likewise, all of the experiments were done in the Northern Hemisphere between restricted latitudes. 2. THE GYROSCOPE: Unfortunately, the author must digress at this point. The majority of the readers of this paper will probably not be familiar with the simple experiment shown in the old physics textbooks as such have been removed from almost, if not all, current textbooks. A person holds a gyroscope (a spinning bicycle wheel with the axle extended a few inches, in ones hands, arms extended at right angles to their body while standing on a “lazy Susan”. When the person attempts to tilt the wheel, their body rotates. In addition the wheel exerts a strong force against the tilt apparently becoming “heavier”. Moving the axis laterally has no effect. Likewise, moving the whole axis up or down vertically or even in a “horizontal” arc has no effect 3 The author is not aware of such experiments being done in the Southern Hemisphere as all of the current experiments were done in the Northern Hemisphere and at latitudes above roughly 40 degrees. Obviously, if ever done on the Moon, no effect as the rotational rate of the Moon is below measurable effect. 4. NO ANTIGRAVITY FORCE EXISTS: The author has offered a $2000.00 reward [3] starting over two years ago (EASY MONEY, 1998) to anyone who can show that there are more than three forces: Gravity, electric, and magnetic. The morphological process did this. To date, not one single person has responded. In addition, the author has a new a theory [4] that totally destroys all current physics theories. It has been (was even in the past) that the Gravitational Constant is only a constant of proportionality, consisting of two parts, and therefore just a number. The author has also shown that any constant of proportionality can be eliminated in any equation it so appears in. The Gravitational Constant is not required (and never should have been) in the first place to calculate the force of gravity between masses. This is also in the reward along with the true equation for gravitational attraction and the effect that requires only one mass to calculate it, i.e., a/the singular gravitational force exists. 5. CONCLUSION: A spinning mass does not create antigravity. The wrong conclusions were applied to poorly performed experiments as all of the experimenters forgot the three primary simple facts on gyroscopes to start with. There is no place in the Laws of the Universe for antigravity, as it cannot exist.
  4. To weigh as much as a penny, how big would a ball of Aerogel have to be? It would have a diameter of about ... 35% - a) 15.75 cm 46% - b) 11.5 cm 12% - c) 6.25 cm 8% - d) 3 cm Answer is: b) 11.5 cm The latest aerogel weighs 1.9 milligrams per cubic centimetre, just .7 milligrams more than the same volume of air. Yet it's strong enough to support thousands of times it's own weight. It also withstands extreme temperatures, and as an insulator, aerogel is about 40% more efficient than fiberglass. To get the answer you had to know that a penny weighs 2.35 grams. If you divide the weight of the penny by the weight of one cubic centimetre of aerogel, you get the total volume of aerogel. Now you need to calculate the volume of the balls, to figure out which ball's volume is closest to the volume of aerogel. The formula for calculating the volume of a sphere is: Volume = 4/3 x pi x radius cubed pi=3.14 The radius is half of the diameter. Now you can try plugging various ball radii into the formula to figure out which ball is the closest to the volume of the aerogel.
  5. • Gravity is not down - it is together! • Weightlessness is not because one is in space: it's because one is falling! Space has gravity just like everywhere else, just no fixed objects to hold against to keep from falling. • Antigravity doesn't exist. Gravity is always attractive, always a "together" force. • Black holes don't suck everything into them, unless the object is falling towards them in the first place. If the Sun were converted into a black hole (which it can't be because the Sun is not massive enough), the Earth would continue in its orbit unperturbed. • Heavier objects don't fall faster! • Astronauts on the Moon were not weightless! The Moon has gravity much like the Earth. But since the Moon is less massive, the gravitational pull is smaller. The astronauts were pulled to the Moon with about 1/6th the force of gravity back here on Earth. • Galileo probably didn't drop cannonballs from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. • Newton probably wasn't really hit on the head by an apple. He might have possibly gotten the idea for extending the realm of gravity to the heavens by watching an apple fall; but, if so, he was likely in the safety of his study looking out a window... (He was a fastidious man in many ways, and it's hard to imagine him lounging around in an orchard.) • Astrology simply doesn't work! The gravitational forces between the planets and newborn infants are tiny! Far smaller than the gravitational force between the doctor and the baby! And, as discussed before, none of the other forces have long range interactions that might be important. • Planetary alignments have absolutely no effect on the Earth.
  • 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.