Baby Astronaut

Does the calender really end....or simply resets? I thought all calenders "end".

Just an idea...say the other forces all had infinite reach like gravity, scientists wouldn't be able to measure it beyond their currently known values, as gravity's force would interfere after that point (being stronger). Is my reasoning correct? Well do keep on, I might like that abuse

Well if you really think about it, only the effects of the past can be observed, not the past itself. All we've got is memory to go by, some (fuzzy bits) of it remembered in living brains cells, and some of it captured by technology.

That's my point. If a wandering heavy body passed in front of a star, it'd be closer to us than the star it's passing in front of -- thus larger, and more visible. But instead, we just observe the star's light distort as if doing so on its own. I meant, can it account for such observed effects as described above -- i.e. not just if RTG can predict light's bending. Did you check out the links of post # 52? Reviewing the second link again... In this case, a team of astronomers were able to study the inner parts of a black hole’s accretion disc with a level of detail a thousand times better than that of the best telescopes in the world, providing the first observational confirmation of the prevalent theoretical models of such discs. So, does RTG explanations account for those observations, dealing with accretion disks, not merely light-bending?

I don't think so. What about the microlensing effects of black holes passing in front of stars? If they weren't black holes, we'd likely have seen them, especially if so massive. Lone Black Holes Discovered Adrift in the Galaxy Also... http://astronomynow.com/081216Dissectingablackholewithnaturalmagnifyingglasses.html Combining the natural magnifying power of galactic lenses with ESO’s Very Large Telescope, astronomers have scrutinised a supermassive black hole 10 billion light years away. By using a technique known as gravitational lensing – the effect of a foreground galaxy or star magnifying a distant object by bending light with its gravitational field – astronomers can hone in on an object that would otherwise be too distant to observe in much detail. In this case, a team of astronomers were able to study the inner parts of a black hole’s accretion disc with a level of detail a thousand times better than that of the best telescopes in the world, providing the first observational confirmation of the prevalent theoretical models of such discs. Has the RTG theory accounted for such observed effects?

If you use Firefox: Ctl_+ (plus sign) increasingly enlarges all text on a webpage. Ctl_- (minus sign) reduces it.

I'm thinking, as every bit of space if filled with photons, and throughout the universe -- even in deep space, there's virtual particles continually -- even if only briefly -- popping into existence (and sending out gravity waves), then how much gravity does their combined amount generate (en route photons + virtual particles)? Enough to be a candidate for the effects of dark matter?

I found a website (below) that discusses entropy. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sbleas/creative/entropy/#11 Consider a box of small magnets. If the small magnets are lined up in the same direction, as a group they can attract other metal objects. If they are not lined up in the same direction, individual magnets cancel each other's effect and cannot do useful work. The same is true of energy - it is useful when it is ordered, but when it is disordered, its effects cancel each other out. ........ When there is zero entropy, all the energy can be used. As the entropy increases, available energy decreases until, with maximum entropy, no useful energy is available. Continuing with the concept of the magnets, imagine you must move them to a different box in order to use them. As you are moving them, you may put some into the new box the wrong way round - the useful energy will then have decreased. Of course, the slower and more carefully you make the exchange, the fewer mistakes you will make. The same is true of energy - the entropy in the system always increases, unless the rate of change is infinitesimally small. But why doesn't entropy (the disorder) decrease? What prevents only those magnets facing the wrong way being turned round? This could happen in two ways - 1. The first possibility is that someone decides to increase the order in the system. However, as anyone tries to order the system, that person is doing work - and so the system's entropy decrease would be balanced by a hefty increase in that person's entropy. Thus entropy would increase on the whole. 2. Otherwise it could happen by chance. This is very unlikely because, for both magnets and energy, there are a lot more ways in which things can be disordered than ways in which they can be ordered. This means it is practically impossible an ordered arrangement will appear by accident and practically certain any ordered arrangement will become less ordered. With one hundred magnets, it is more likely that you win the national lottery jackpot four times in a row than that they all point the same way by chance. With the many millions of atoms in any system, for all intents and purposes, entropy will never decrease. For #2, is that a good analogy for why entropy tends to occur? If so, the reasoning has a flaw. It would be just as unlikely for the magnets to all end up facing opposite ways in a perfectly even distribution. Not to mention, wouldn't it be order to have such an even distribution? Take a checkers board. If you separated the colors so that each side of the board were a solid color, you'd have order. And if each square moved randomly here and there, you'd get disorder. But if all the random-moved squares became evenly distributed, you'd have order again. (by Jud McCranie. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License) It'd be a lot easier to go from a totally even distribution to a messy one. Wouldn't it? And so shouldn't a completely even distribution be the same as a completely ordered non-distribution?

I'd say the way he phrased it above is significantly inaccurate. Too much indiscriminate information within a peer-reviewed journal is a bad thing, and for which such reasoning is entirely compatible with democratic principles.

Since light has the kinetic energy of nearly 300,000 km per second, it probably doesn't take a whole lot of it to create a gravitational pull? If so, how much light (packed into a small area) would it take to cause a 5 kg ball to revolve around it out in low-gravity space? (ballpark figure. Example: like the sun's total light output for ___ days?)

Does that mean (in bold) light is also a source of gravitational fields?

Also controlled to a fair degree is....blinking, due to people sometimes needing an override to keep unwanted substances from the eye ;)

Exactly. Basically the OP's looking for a safe repository, to get hypothetical thoughts published where others can view them and with proper credit to the author.

ponderer, you can try viXra. It's probably easier to get something accepted there. Read the submission guidelines at their website and check out the rest. Might fit what you're seeking.

Holy crap. That's a very good explanation. So, basic question: higher frequency means shorter wavelengths, and in effect it should also mean a greater number of photons. Is that correct? If so, when you lower the frequency of light, does that mean photons vanish if their total number is reduced?

But what other energy besides kinetic can light have? If light transfers any kinetic energy, it'd no longer travel at c. Are most of those examples particle decay? For instance, light? Or would it not be considered to be a particle and/nor energetic?

Yeah temperature's what I meant. So light has temperature. It's a really odd thought, because photons would have an inner kinetic motion of c, and therefore light should measure to have a temperature of c.

It's all so mind-boggling. Within an empty universe, a tiny flea's own gravity can pull on another flea a trillion light years away. Gotta love it

Yeah, of course. Spot on. Understand I'm not suggesting further investigation or testing of homeopathy or such. Rather, my point is to explore further study and research into the disciplines of prevention and optimizing the body's defenses: eating habits, short and long term benefits of exercise, reinforcing or helping protect specific areas of your body systems with commonly available foods/plants, etc. Imagine a lot of today's preventative disciplines stuck at the level where it's still tainted by poor "alternative" origins, just like today's medical advances had its origins in blood-letting and whatnot. I think a lot of scientists allow their judgment to be clouded for the potential development and effectiveness of the preventive disciplines. Much like ArjanD was judging the entire field of psychiatry based off the "dark ages" (1935 ) pseudoscience of lobotomy -- and other more recent practices. note: Cap'n Refsmmat, do you have (university's) access to studies related to effects on the liver by Silymarin (Milk Thistle) or Dandelion Root, effects on the heart by garlic, the supposed optimal balance of amino acids for protein in the quinoa grain (pg 7), and the effects by flavonoids in vegetable and fruits on cancer prevention? I'd really like to see the data and results from official/trustworthy studies. How very interesting

Would that include nuclear decay since it's not a photon that's being emitted or radiated? Solar wind. I had thought its particles collided with air, forming a long chain of reactions where eventually air particles collide with the ground. But I just learned the solar wind mostly avoids us. So now I'm confused again. I thought heat's the internal kinetic energy of a bunch of particles in a system. So in order to transfer the internal kinetic energy from one thing to another, wouldn't you need particles? Unless light itself contains heat, which if that's the case it doesn't really make sense.

What does non-radiative decay mean? I looked it up in several places, even Google Images, and couldn't grasp it whatsoever. I thought it'd get heated by particles from the sun, rather than light itself.

I meant it's not revolving an object, simply just going in circles on a track under it. Somewhat like a model train. I didn't mean a void. Can you elaborate which part? Also, thanks.

What's interesting to me is not homeopathy or any modern equivalent type of alternative or compliment to mainstream, rather it's the similar underlaying philosophy of treating the cause of symptoms rather than just one individual symptom. I don't care so much if homeopathy or whatever is totally bunk, it's just interesting how the other bunk medicinal practices from the < 1800s evolved beyond their quacky and naive origins, yet their competition became refined, established, and funded. Why interesting? Skimming through the homeopathy book, it was surreal to view all the quackery of pre-1900s medical disciplines through the filter of 21st century hindsight. Yet I also found very interesting that homeopathy's philosophical competition would eventually become the most profitable if advanced: treat the symptoms, and if the cause remains, profits for life. Headache? Take a pill. Overweight? Drink this. Mental problems? Adds to the stock in your bathroom cabinet. Etc. Still, prevention and total curing has gotten its due attention/research in critical areas (heart-unhealthy lifestyles, pathogens). Yet it's taken a back seat in many other areas. It "sickens" me a tad when viewing the full bathroom cabinet of many people. I fully support/recommend taking medication in emergency situations or for critical and potentially damaging effects, as it's a smart way to look out for your health. Modern technology is often awesome, but it's profitable too -- and not all the technology is awesome. Some of it's just a quick profit fix that supports a dirty habit by profiteers. Other times it's unnecessary, merely a convenience. For example, I take novocain for a dental work and tooth extraction, but refuse the pain meds. And I do it for the principle of it. Also I've gone nearly 15 years without even a sniffle. No headaches, coughs, vomiting, nothing. When before that I didn't go a few months without runny noses, body shivers, lots of phlegm, etc. I've learned to take care of myself better. All I'm really saying is that not enough research (priority) is given to how a person can nudge their body defenses into an optimal state to better help prevent disease, and to more quickly adapt once you do fall victim. But I'm sure plenty of research will go into biogenetic tinkering to do the same, except artificially on a continual and profitable timetable. Symptoms medicine, and the pathogen killers, and the last resort of direct surgery, were all given the money for research/advancement that the "whole body" and "root/habitual causes" philosophies from the 1800s weren't. Before that, homeopathy and other "medicines" from that day were on a level playing field: all such disciplines were utterly, totally, astoundingly non-scientific. Yet each had different underlying philosophies in their approach. However, one's potential for generating long-term profits likely got it the funding to develop into a mature, scientifically-respected field. I wonder if the other could've developed likewise given the same chance. Imagine a different reality, where another scientifically-based method of treating illness had developed -- to us it'd be a modern landscape that's unrecognizable -- and its scientists were refusing to consider looking into the equivalent of our medical know-how, because what had survived until then was only the bogus precursors to our current know-how. And it's not wrong for those scientists to beware claims without evidence, that such an equivalent to our medical know-how might yield benefits if explored. But much is lost if the scientists close their minds at least to the possibility, simply because its roots are mostly filled with quackery -- no different than the roots from which current, scientifically based medical knowledge emerged.

Yeah I also enjoy discussing such matters quite a lot From the Wikipedia link... The equivalence principle proper was introduced by Albert Einstein in 1907, when he observed that the acceleration of bodies towards the center of the Earth at a rate of 1g (g = 9.81 m/s2 being a standard reference of gravitational acceleration at the Earth's surface) is equivalent to the acceleration of an inertially moving body that would be observed on a rocket in free space being accelerated at a rate of 1g. Einstein stated it thus: "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system." (Einstein 1907). That is, being at rest on the surface of the Earth is equivalent to being inside a spaceship (far from any sources of gravity) that is being accelerated by its engines. The ship's increased gravity is triggered only by acceleration, it seems -- but does that apply only for a person inside? What if they're outside? Anyhow. The ship at the moment of acceleration is going faster than its occupants, any difference between ship and occupant will tend to equalize after the ship's no longer accelerating. So, is the extra gravity caused by the speed difference while accelerating? If the speed difference is, in fact, the responsible variable, then I assume for a person stationed within low gravity near to a quickly moving object, they'd be attracted to it more than if the object had been at rest. Just wanna emphasize that the object is racing around a circular track, it's not spinning/rotating. What it's doing, in essence, is revolving 80% c around nothing.

If you were in outer space's low gravity, near an object pretty much your size, and that object's racing around a small track of < 10 foot diameter at say 80% c, would it attract you with a stronger gravitational force than it would've if the object had instead been at rest? You're outside it. Trying to deduce how the equivalence principle works. I'm thinking the object's mass will be "virtually" increased by the speed, and so its gravity would be stronger than if at rest.