Daymare17

This is supremely interesting. I am particularly intrigued by Alpha Centauri since that system is (a) the closest, (b) the most like our sun and © has not one but two habitable zones. Do you know whether they are going to focus on Alpha Centauri, and how likely it is that they will detect any habitable planets there?

A fictional tv amazon doesn't fit well among the honored

 

They would have pleased everyone, had they named it Hercules

From what I gather (from Wikipedia ) the main (and first) evidence for the existence of dark matter was gathered by measuring the light emitted from galaxies compared with their rotational speed. There was so little visible matter in the galaxies that with their high spin rate, they should not stick together but fly apart from centrifugal force, according to standard theories of gravitation.

 

Well my theory is that the dark matter is simply black holes. We have strong evidence that massive black holes exist at the center of our Galaxy and others. They are invisible, and they are what holds the galaxies together. Any cosmologists here that can check my theory?

With all due respect to the moderators:

 

How can you move my post to pseudoscience when there is not even a single reply that tries to come with a rational explanation of why it is pseudoscience?

 

Isn't this simply a case of intellectual stubbornness?

 

"This cannot be true. Thus it is not true."

 

^-- A great method that has lead to many scientific breakthroughs.

 

*Sigh*

 

I did not come with any bombastic claims. I did not advertise. I simply asked whether biological transmutation is fact or fiction, as it says in the thread title. It would be prudent to let the forum biologists speak for themselves and discuss the topic in a friendly, scientific fashion.

I just found this very interesting article. Does cold fusion and fission really occur everyday in living organisms?

 

http://www.bio.net/hypermail/MOLECULAR-MODELLING/1997-October/001009.html

 

A number of chemists report that plants, animals and human beings

ROUTINELY TRANSMUTE MID-RANGE ELEMENTS (for example, potassium into

calcium or magnesium into calcium) AS PART OF THEIR ORDINARY DAILY

METABOLISM. These transmutations obey rules such as: Mg + O => Ca; K + H

=> Ca. This is revolutionary since, according to current physical theory,

the energy levels required for such transmutations are billions of times

higher than what is available in biological systems. Equally inexplicable

fission reactions such as Ca => Mg + O; Ca => K + H are also reported.

But revolutions in physics have repeatedly occurred, such as the quantum

revolution in which the radical property of non-locality, previously

considered impossible, is now accepted by physicists (see Aspect and

Grangier 1986, Bransden and Joachain 1989, p.671-681, Chiao et al 1993,

Squires 1990, p.173, Rae 1986, p.25-44, and Penrose 1990, p.369).

What I am presenting here is not the "cold fusion" of Fleischmann and

Pons which, as far as I know, lacks clear evidence of actual fusion. Even

if the Fleischmann and Pons effect turns out to be actual fusion, it is

only the fusion of isotopes of the lightest element hydrogen under special

laboratory conditions which is quite different from the UNEQUIVOCAL FUSION

AND FISSION OF MID-RANGE elements found in biological transmutation reports.

 

Now let us examine the evidence for biological transmutation. Crabs,

shellfish and crayfish have shells made largely of calcium. A crab 17 cm

by 10 cm has a shell weighing around 350 grams. Periodically these animals

shed their shell and create a new one. This is called molting. When

molting, a crab is very vulnerable and hides away from all other creatures

so it can not get calcium by preying on other creatures. According to

French chemist C. Louis Kervran of the Conseil d'Hygiene in Paris, sea

water contains far too little calcium to account for the rapid production

of a shell (the calcium content of sea water is about 0.042% and a crab

can form a new shell in little more than one day). If the entire body of a

crab is analyzed for calcium, it is found to contain only enough calcium

to produce 3% of the shell (even taking into account the calcium carbonate

stored in the hepato-pancreas just before molting).

Even in water completely devoid of calcium, shellfish can still create

their calcium-bearing shells as shown by an experiment performed at the

Maritime Laboratory of Roscoff: "A crayfish was put in a sea water basin

from which calcium carbonate had been removed by precipitation; the animal

made its shell anyway." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

"Chemical analysis made on animals secreting their shells has revealed

that calcium carbonate is formed on the outer side of a membrane although

on the opposite side of the membrane, where matter enters, there is no

calcium. This fact has left specialists perplexed." (Kervran 1972, p.58)

Sea water contains a sufficient amount of magnesium to form a shell if

we accept Kervran's proposition that crabs routinely transmute magnesium

into calcium; Mg + O => Ca.

It would be interesting to put a crayfish in water devoid of both

calcium and magnesium and see if it can still create its shell.

 

Normal egg shells produced by hens contain calcium. Kervran (1972,

p.41) reported an experiment in which hens were confined in an area in

which there was no source of calcium and no calcium was present in their

diet. The calcium deficiency became clearly manifested after a few days

when the hens began to lay eggs with soft shells. Then purified mica

(which contains potassium) was given to the hens. Kervran (1972, p.41)

described what then transpired: "The hens jumped on the mica and began

scratching around it very rapidly, panting over it; then they rested,

rolling their heads on it, threw it into the air, and began scratching it

again. The next day eggs with normal shells (weight 7 grams) were laid.

Thus, in the 20 hours that intervened, the hens transformed a supply of

potassium into calcium. ... An experiment of this kind, using the same

mica, was undertaken with guinea-fowls over a period of forty days. The

administering of the mica was suspended three times and each time a

soft-shelled egg was laid ... ."

One might suggest that the calcium in the egg shells was borrowed from

the bones of the hens. But if this is true, why were soft eggs laid when

the mica was withheld and normal eggs laid when mica was given to the

hens? In order to avoid the conclusion that the hens transmuted potassium

into calcium, one would have to show that mica somehow stimulates a

metabolic pathway in which calcium is removed from the hen's bones and

used in the production of the egg shells. This could be completely refuted

by feeding the hens mica (and of course absolutely no calcium) for such a

long period of time that all the calcium in their bones would have been

completely exhausted. If after that time the hens still produce

calcium-bearing egg shells, we must conclude that the calcium in the egg

shells is not being taken from the bones. At that point, we seem to have

no choice but to acknowledge the transmutation of potassium into calcium

within the hens.

 

Kervran (1972, p.52) described experiments performed in 1959 by the

French government in the Sahara desert. The government was interested in

determining the nutritional requirements of petroleum workers in the

extreme heat prevalent in the desert. In the first experiment, conducted

near a place called Ouargla, the total amount of magnesium ingested per

day per man was measured and compared with the amount excreted. It was

found that, on the average, each man daily excreted 117.2 milligrams of

magnesium more than he ingested. Thus, each day, each man lost on the

average 117.2 milligrams of magnesium. Now we must consider how much

magnesium is on reserve in the human body: it turns out that the body is

not able to mobilize more than 5000 milligrams of magnesium. Thus, at a

daily loss of 117.2 milligrams, it is clear that after 50 days the bodies

of the petroleum workers should have been completely depleted of

magnesium. But the experiment was conducted for 180 days and each day each

man excreted on the a verage 117.2 milligrams more than he ingested.

The second experiment lasted for 240 days and was conducted near

Tindouf which has a drier climate. This time each man excreted each day an

average of 256 milligrams of magnesium more than he ingested. Under these

conditions, after 20 days, each man should have been completely depleted

of magnesium; but somehow they survived for 220 days thereafter. It seems

difficult to avoid the conclusion that the human body is able to create

magnesium.

 

Biochemist H. Komaki of the University of Mukogawa in Japan reported

that a number of different families of microorganisms such as Aspergillus

niger and Saccharomyces cerevisiae create potassium during growth. (Komaki

1965, 1967)

 

Kervran described a germination experiment using ryegrass seeds (type

Rina) performed in 1971 by the Laboratory of the Societe des Agriculteurs

de France (Kervran 1972, p.107). Out of an initial group of 2000 seeds,

1000 were set aside as a control batch and the other 1000 were germinated.

The control batch weighed 2.307 grams before drying and 2.035 grams after

drying. These 2.035 grams were analyzed and found to contain 3.02

milligrams of magnesium, 6.97 milligrams of potassium, 6.00 milligrams of

calcium and 0.021 milligrams of copper. The magnesium, calcium and copper

contents were determined by atomic absorption spectroscopy and the

potassium content was determined by flame emission.

The 1000 seeds to be germinated were germinated for 29 days in Petri

dishes under a plastic sheet to insure that no dust could get in. Aside

from 430 milliliters of Evian water, absolutely nothing else was supplied

to the seeds during germination. 430 milliliters of Evian water was found

to contain 10.32 milligrams of magnesium, 0.39 milligrams of potassium,

33.11 milligrams of calcium and 0.00 milligrams of copper.

After the 29 day germination period, the plants were converted to ashes

under high temperature and the ashes and residual Evian water in the Petri

dishes were found to contain 3.20 milligrams of magnesium, 16.67

milligrams of potassium, 36.50 milligrams of calcium and 0.10 milligrams

of copper.

Before germination there were 6.97 milligrams of potassium in the

seeds. During germination 0.39 milligrams of potassium were added to the

growing plants (this came from the Evian water). If atomic nuclei can not

be altered in biological systems, we expect that after germination there

should be 6.97 + 0.39 = 7.36 milligrams of potassium in the plants and

residual Evian water. But this was not the case. After germination the

plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 16.67 milligrams of

potassium. Thus 9.31 milligrams of potassium were apparently created

during germination.

Before germination there were 3.02 milligrams of magnesium in the

seeds. During germination 10.32 milligrams of magnesium were added to the

growing plants (this came from the Evian water). If atomic nuclei can not

be altered in biological systems, we expect that after germination there

should be 10.32 + 3.02 = 13.34 milligrams of magnesium in the plants and

residual Evian water. But after germination the plants and residual Evian

water were found to contain only 3.20 milligrams of magnesium. Thus 10.14

milligrams of magnesium were apparently destroyed during germination.

Before germination there were 0.021 milligrams of copper in the seeds.

During germination 0.00 milligrams of copper were added to the growing

plants. Assuming that atomic nuclei can not be altered, we expect that

after germination there should still be 0.021 milligrams of copper in the

plants and residual Evian water. But it turned out that after germination

the plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 0.10 milligrams

of copper. Thus 0.079 milligrams of copper were apparently created during

germination.

Before germination there were 6.00 milligrams of calcium in the seeds.

During germination 33.11 milligrams of calcium were added to the growing

plants (from the Evian water). Assuming that nuclei can not be altered, we

expect that after germination there should be 39.11 milligrams of calcium

in the plants and residual Evian water. However, after germination the

plants and residual Evian water were found to contain 36.50 milligrams of

calcium. Thus 2.61 milligrams of calcium were apparently destroyed during

germination.

The following challenge can be made: no one knows how much potassium,

calcium, magnesium and copper was in the seeds before they were

germinated. It was assumed that the amounts of these elements was not

significantly different from the amounts of these elements in the control

batch. How do we know this is true? What should have been done is to start

with a 100 grams of seeds, mix them around thoroughly, weigh out 50

batches of 2.000 grams each, randomly select 25 of these as control

batches, determine the amounts of potassium, calcium, magnesium and copper

in these batches and note the maximum variation in these elements among

these batches. The remaining 25 batches can then be germinated and the

plants analyzed for element content. In this way we would have some

measure of the variation among different batches (both germinated and

control).

On the positive side, it can be argued that since the seeds of the

control and germinated batches were of the same type, the variation in

element content between these two batches was not significant. Some

support for this idea can be found in the data provided by chemist D. Long

of the Michaelis Nutritional Research Laboratory in Harpenden, England.

Long analyzed (using atomic spectroscopy) six batches of ryegrass seeds

(each of which weighed 5.4 grams before drying) and discovered that the

difference in potassium content between the batch containing the greatest

amount of potassium and the batch containing the least amount of potassium

was 0.054 milligrams of potassium per gram of dry seed weight. Similarly,

the maximum difference in magnesium content was 0.033 milligrams per gram

of dry seed weight, that of calcium was 0.091 milligrams per gram of dry

seed weight, and that of copper was 1.19 micrograms per gram of dry seed

weight. (Long 1971, p.7)

Kervran proposed that the plants performed the following nuclear

reactions: Mg + O => Ca; Ca => K + H. Kervran did not discuss the reaction

involving copper.

Based on experience derived from similar experiments, Kervran said

that if the seeds are germinated in doubly-distilled water, the amount of

transmuted material is much smaller and may fall within the range of

experimental error and therefore not be significant. The reason for this

is that each kind of plant is only able to transmute certain elements into

certain other elements. Thus the experimenter must provide the plant with

a certain amount of certain elements if he wants to observe a large amount

of transmuted material. For germinating ryegrass seeds, Evian water is the

perfect growth medium because it provides this particular kind of plant

with the elements it needs.

Kervran (1972, p.132) also described a series of experiments in which

wheat and oat seeds were germinated "on porous ashless paper saturated

with a fertilizing solution of salts dissolved in water. The solution was

free of calcium." In the case of wheat (Roux Clair) there was 3.34 times

more calcium in the plants than in the seeds; in the case of one kind of

oats (Noire du Prieure) there was 4.16 times more calcium in the plants

than in the seeds; in the case of another kind of oats (Panache de Roye)

there was 4.51 times more calcium in the plants than in the seeds. The

calcium content was determined by two independent methods (conventional

chemical analysis and atomic absorption spectroscopy); both methods agreed

closely. Kervran performed more than 20 such experiments, mostly on oat

seeds.

Kervran (1972, p.133) mentioned that the moon plays an important role

in the production of calcium. The above huge increases in calcium were

obtained in experiments in which the germination started at the new moon

and stopped on the second full moon (after 6 weeks). This is an important

consideration for those who attempt to duplicate these results. A lunar

influence on the metabolic activity of various plants and animals was also

reported by biologist Frank A. Brown. (Gauquelin 1969, p.131-133)

D. Long questioned Kervran's methods of analysis. Long (1971, p.9) said

that Kervran had made (in some of his earlier experiments) the mistake of

comparing the ash weight of the control batch with the ash weight of the

plants after germination. Kervran may have made this mistake in some of

his earlier experiments but he did not do so in the ryegrass, wheat and

oat germination experiments described above. In these experiments, he

rightly compared the weight of the control batch with the weight of the

seeds to be germinated. In other words, the weight comparison was done on

the two batches of seeds before one batch was germinated. This is the

correct procedure as acknowledged by Long himself.

Long germinated ryegrass seeds in deionized water and reported that he

was unable to observe a transmutation of elements. As discussed above,

this is to be expected since without a sufficient input of certain

elements, there is insufficient material to be transmuted.

A more serious criticism is Long's claim that he corresponded with

Kervran who advised him to germinate green lentil seeds (Leguminacae) in

water containing certain minerals. Long reported that although he did this

he was still unable to observe a significant transmutation of elements.

But Long did not attempt to duplicate the best of Kervran's germination

experiments, namely the ryegrass, wheat and oat experiments described

above. I hope that many scientists will do these experiments and report

the results to the scientific community.

In the 1950s Pierre Baranger, a professor and the director of the

Laboratory of Organic Chemistry at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris,

performed a large number of germination experiments and concluded that

plants routinely transmute elements. Baranger did his experiments

independently of Kervran. Baranger said: "My results seem impossible, but

here they are. I took every precaution. I repeated the experiments many

times. I made thousands of analyses for years. I had the results verified

by third parties who did not know what I was investigating. I used several

methods. I changed my experimenters. But there is no escape. We must

submit to the evidence: plants transmute elements." (Michel 1959, p.82)

I tried to get more information by writing letters to the Ecole

Polytechnique, the Societe des Agriculteurs de France and the Agronomie

Research National Institute, but I received no reply.

 

In 1975 chemists O. Heroux and D. Peter of the Division of Biological

Sciences of the National Research Council of Canada conducted a meticulous

experiment with rats (Heroux and Peter 1975). They measured the amount of

magnesium ingested through food, water (and even air) as well as the

amount of magnesium excreted in the form of urine and feces over three

periods of time: 69 days, 240 days and 517 days. In the case in which the

rats were fed a diet in which the amount of magnesium ingested was less

than the amount of magnesium excreted, it was expected that the total

amount of magnesium in the body would decrease. In fact, long before the

517th day of the experiment it was expected that there would be zero

magnesium in the body. However, when the rats were analyzed for total

magnesium on the 517th day, each rat contained, on the average, 82

milligrams of magnesium. The method used to determine the amount of

magnesium in the body, food, water, air, feces and urine was atomic

absorption spectroscopy.

Heroux and Peter verified the accuracy of their determinations by

giving samples to two other laboratories (the Division of Chemistry at the

National Research Council and the Department of Chemistry at McMaster

University); both of these laboratories obtained essentially the same

results as Heroux and Peter at the Division of Biology at the National

Research Council. Finally, other methods were used (such as destructive

neutron activation and spectrographic emission) and these methods yielded

results very similar to those obtained using atomic absorption

spectroscopy.

I do not advise the replication of this experiment since it involved

killing the rats in order to analyze their bodies for magnesium.

Experiments involving animal killing are not required since there are many

ways (as described above) to verify biological transmutation without such

killing.

 

Bibliography

 

Albert, D. "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics."

Scientific American, May 1994, pages 32-39

 

Aspect, A. and Grangier, P. "Experiments on Einstein-

Podolsky-Rosen-type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons."

In Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (edited by R. Penrose and

C. J. Isham). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986

 

Bohm, D. and Peat, F. Science, Order and Creativity.

New York: Bantam Books, 1987

 

Bransden, B. and Joachain, C. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics.

Essex: Longman Group U.K. Limited, 1989

 

Chiao, R., Kwait, P. and Steinberg, A. "Faster than light?"

Scientific American, August 1993, pages 38-46

 

Darnell, J., Lodish, H. and Baltimore, D. Molecular Cell Biology.

New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1990

 

Gauquelin, M. The Cosmic Clocks. London: Peter Owen, 1969

 

Heroux, O. and Peter, D. "Failure of balance measurements to

predict actual retention of magnesium and calcium by rats as

determined by direct carcass analysis." Journal of Nutrition,

1975, volume 105, pages 1157-1167

 

Kervran, C. Louis. Biological Transmutation.

New York: Swan House Publishing Company, 1972

 

Komaki, H. "Sur la formation de sels de potassium par

differentes familles de microorganismes dans un milieu sans

potassium." Revue de Pathologie Comparee, Paris, September 1965

 

Komaki, H. "Production de proteines par 29 souches de

microorganismes et augmentation du potassium en milieu de

culture sodique, sans potassium." Revue de Pathologie Comparee,

Paris, April 1967

 

Long, D. B. "Laboratory Report on Biological Transmutation."

Monograph of the Henry Doubleday Research Society.

Braintree, Essex, England, September 1971

 

Michel, A. "Un savant francais bouleverse la science atomique."

Science et Vie, Paris, 1959, pages 81-87

 

Penrose, R. The Emperor's New Mind. New York: Vintage Press, 1990

 

Rae, A. Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality? Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1986

 

Squires, E. Conscious Mind in the Physical World.

Bristol: Adam Hilger, 1990

Ok, I just thought that since many solids are lighter than many liquids the same might apply to gases and liquids.

Is there any liquid that is lighter than a gas?

Hi, I am a Marxist and I am also very interested in science. The site of my tendency recently carried an article about quantum mechanics. It criticises the mystical and irrationalist trends in modern science in general, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics in particular. Can any of you criticise the article? I'm sure it has very interesting points even for anyone who's not into politics at all.

 

Excerpts:

 

Modern physicists have been forced to accept that concepts which had previously been considered separate must be linked, that they can not be thought of as separate but are different yet interconnected aspects of the physical world. In particular, the physicist’s concept of motion has to be extended to acknowledge the simultaneous wave and particle aspects of matter. When matter moves, a physicist can describe the process by momentum, which is the mass of the moving body times its velocity. A wave, on the other hand, is a different type of physical process. It is a disturbance, of the surface of a body of water or of an electrical field for example, and is a process in which energy moves. A physicist might describe a wave by its wavelength, the distance from one peak of the disturbance to the next. Momentum and wavelength are two quite distinct abstractions used to describe two different processes. Yet after Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect, and after the theoretical work of the founders of quantum mechanics, physicists were forced to accept that momentum, a characteristic of matter behaving like a particle, is directly related to wavelength, a characteristic of matter behaving like a wave.

 

Much of the confusion surrounding quantum mechanics, added to and propagated by Bohr and Heisenberg, relates to the insistence that concepts such as wave and particle, or momentum and wavelength, must be kept separate - “we have two contradictory pictures of reality” as Einstein put it. This confusion is deeply rooted in the rejection – or the lack of awareness - of dialectics by modern scientists. “On the one hand, but then on the other” says the academic as he agonises over his choice between apparently contradictory options, wondering why the world is always like this. That apparently contradictory properties can be present simultaneously is not only possible but also universal. Light and dark, hot and cold, north and south, wave and particle, an inevitable and unavoidable combination, the existence of one being impossible without the other, and out of which comes change and motion...

 

In the two slit experiment it is not possible to predict where the particle will go after the slits, other than on average. There is an indeterminancy, in the sense that the precise trajectory cannot be predicted in advance. But this is different from acausality. The particle arrives where it does as a causal chain of events. The apparatus fires the particle at the slits; it passes through one of them; it arrives at the detecting screen. And there are many examples in nature of causal but non-deterministic systems. A toboggan sliding down a bumpy hill arrives at a position at the bottom which is impossible to predict beforehand. If it starts from a slightly different position at the top it will arrive at a widely different position at the bottom. Unpredictability does not preclude causality. In fact modern science is beginning to understand that often causality is expressed through unpredictability – that necessity is expressed through chance:

 

“At first sight, we seem to be lost in a vast number of accidents. But this confusion is only apparent. The accidental phenomena which constantly flash in and out of existence, like the waves on the face of an ocean, express a deeper process, which is not accidental but necessary. At a decisive point, this necessity reveals itself through accident.”

 

 

http://www.marxist.com/quantum-mechanics-copenhagen130705.htm

My physics teacher says that there is such a thing as darkness rays! Is this true?? He says that when you hold a shroud in front of a spotlight, the spotlight emits darkness rays onto the wall in front of it. Isn't this pseudoscience??

What is the essential difference between Newton's and Goethe's color theories? Which one is correct?

Has anyone considered how much of what is usually regarded as science fiction or godlike powers, is a fact or a possibility at our current level of development. Let me take some examples:

 

- Precognition, prophecy, the ability to foresee the future, is often regarded as unachievable but in fact it is the purpose of all science. Without precognition (essentially, nothing more than the knowledge of causal relation) human civilization could not exist since it is required for the simplest tasks such as agriculture. The history of humanity is the history of the expansion of precognition. There is the classic example of the Victorian Englishmen who travel to Darkest Africa and are captured by cannibals, but set free since they can predict the upcoming solar eclipse. So much for the religious monopoly on prophets. Every person today is a prophet to some extent.

 

- Telepathy we have already achieved through camera cellphones. You can transmit images and words instantaneously over a huge distance. So much for telepathy being a "star trek" thing.

 

- We can change water into wine by manipulating the individual atoms. We can also change lead into gold although it's prohibitively expensive.

 

- Resurrection is not achieved yet but to my knowledge we are not far from it. If you are picky then you can say that defibrillation is resurrection since people who have to be revived by defibrillation would usually die without it.

 

Maybe others can come up with similar things?

 

The ground will be cleared for science to displace religion completely when we have solved the problems that people today find that they can only solve by placing their faith in God. This means war, poverty, exploitation etc. that can only be solved by the replacement of the capitalist world economy by a democratically planned economy.

I haven't read his book, but have a question: does Dawkins also apply genetics to human evolution? I.e. evolution from one generation to the next within society. Can you give me any passages where he says this? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the rate at which well renowned scientists open their arms to the most mystical and religious theories is alarming.

 

There are many theories that appear not creationist on the surface, but are in reality nothing more than a way of injecting mysticism into science through the back door. This includes the latest craze of "intelligent design", see this Reuters article. The proponents of this theory argue that it is a way to find common ground between religion and science, since it argues that some species have evolved while others are so complex they must have been Created. The theory is rapidly gaining foothold in the scientific community, for instance the Smithsonian Institute recently accepted it as a valid theory.

 

Conscientous scientists have to militate constantly against all this resurgent rubbish. We live in the 21st century, not the 11th. You can't let down your guard like far too many scientists have done. The fundamentalists come with all sorts of arguments about how science must "meet up" with religion since there is a divide between the religious masses and the scientific "elite". The solution to that problem is not to lower science to the level of the religious masses (thereby making it not science at all), but to raise the masses to the level of science! The prime way to do that is for science to enter into a life and death struggle with Creationism and not rest until all of its incarnations have been wiped from the face of the earth. The religious fundamentalists are permanently aggressive, like a tiger that knows what it wants. In comparison scientists are like a retarded little lamb, and give away their ground without a fight. First you accept that God created "certain species", because they are "too complex" to have developed through natural evolution, and then the door is wide open for more and more creationism until you accept that the Book of Genesis is taught at universities. Intelligent design is a transitional stage towards pulling the whole of science into the creationist swamp.

If you repel something with an electromagnet, is the electromagnet pushed with an equal force in the opposite direction from what it pushes?

 

For instance: In the core of a fusion reactor, plasma is confined by a magnetic field that basically equals the pressure inside the core of the sun. Does this mean there is a huge pressure outwards, on the walls that the magnets are mounted on? How big is this pressure?

Thanks a lot!

Assuming a spherical body, is the gravitational acceleration at a given distance from the sphere's center, independent of the body's volume?

 

For instance if you were orbiting the Earth, and the Earth suddenly shrunk to one tenth of its volume, would you continue to orbit?

I think we have a confusion resulting from my misunderstanding of the term geostationary orbit. I took it to mean an orbit that went parallel with a definite point on the Earth's equator, regardless of altitude. Meaning, I stupidly considered each point of the length of a space elevator to be in geostationary orbit, which is obviously not true - for one, the base is not.

 

To clear things up: If you have a 190,000 km long space elevator with a space station at the end (forget the ring already), wherein people can walk in the roof at 1G, will it of necessity fly off into outer space ("tearing itself out of the ground")?

Thanks a lot for your help Xyph. I solved the equation and got the solution of 189681995,4m or 189692 km, which is about half of the distance to the moon's perigee and generally sounds reasonable. You can really ignore the part about a circumference-parallel space station - the essence of the question was how long one beanstalk must be for the centripetal acceleration (thanks for that term calbiterol ) to provide "-1G" at its end.

 

Calbiterol, I see your point but I don't see why the feat would be impossible, if you approach it not from the standpoint of an all-orbital space station but a single space station tethered to a single elevator. The elevator doesn't have to be physically tethered to the Earth - why can't it be tethered by that part of its own mass which is within the geostationary orbit, i.e. within the area where the gravity outweighs the centripetal acceleration? The "anchor" would still be in geostationary orbit. From the standpoint of material tensile strength, the process (in essence, nothing more than the doubling or tripling or so of the cable length and the increase of the mass of the lower part of it) doesn't sound that much more difficult than keeping the huge fricking cable upright in the first place. Keep in mind that CNT's were sci-fi until 15 years ago.

The fact that this earth ringing space station is in a geostationary orbit means that it would be effectively in free fall i.e. no effective rotation and no centrifugal force i.e. no artificial gravity.

 

I think you are mistaken there. The centrifugal force would be the same for a earth-ringing space station as for a single space elevator. The centrifugal force comes not from the rotation of the station relative to the Earth but from its rotation parallel to the Earth. My question can essentially be rephrased as: How long must a single space elevator be for the centrifugal force at its end not only to nullify the Earth's gravity but to mirror it, in effect creating -1G?

 

Thanks for the links although I already read them.

Sorry - I obviously mean "geostationary", not "geocentric"

Sorry for cross posting here and in the astronomy forum but the problem falls under both categories.

 

Imagine if you have a gigantic circular space station that is tethered with numerous space elevators, is concentric with the earth and spans the entire geostationary orbit (I think A.C.Clarke played with this idea in one of his early works). My question is, at what altitude would it need to be tethered to provide 1g of centrifugal force in the "roof" of the space station, so that people can walk around up there in a normal way?

 

Some numbers that might help, which i found from a NASA study but the interconnection of which I do not understand since I do not know the maths of centrifugal force. Can anyone who does, help me?

 

1 rotation per minute (rpm) gives 1g at the inner circumference of a "circle" that is about 1600 meters across. 1g is achieved at 3 rpm with a 200 meters diameter, and a 4 rpm rate gives 1g if the circle is 110 meter across. There are 1440 minutes in one day, which is the rotational time of a space elevator/station, thus it would rotate at 1/1440 rpm. Earth's equatorial radius is 6,378 km. LiftPort corporation, which are currently planning to build an elevator within a few decades, calculates a length of 100,000 km.

Some numbers that might help, which i found from a NASA study but the interconnection of which I do not understand since I do not know the maths of centrifugal force. Can anyone who does, help me?

 

1 rotation per minute (rpm) gives 1g at the inner circumference of a "circle" that is about 1600 meters across. 1g is achieved at 3 rpm with a 200 meters diameter, and a 4 rpm rate gives 1g if the circle is 110 meter across. There are 1440 minutes in one day, which is the rotational time of a space elevator/station, thus it would rotate at 1/1440 rpm. Earth's equatorial radius is 6,378 km. LiftPort corporation, which are currently planning to build an elevator within a few decades, calculates a length of 100,000 km.

Imagine if you have a gigantic circular space station that is tethered with numerous space elevators, is concentric with the earth and spans the entire geocentric orbit (I think A.C.Clarke played with this idea in one of his early works). My question is, at what altitude would it need to be tethered to provide 1g of centrifugal force in the "roof" of the space station, so that people can walk around up there in a normal way?

I have heard that the main obstacle to producing a portable railgun, apart from miniaturizing the power source, is the immense recoil involved in launching an object at such a speed. Can this be solved by making it a two-way railgun, i.e. so that the mechanism, at the pull of the trigger, in addition to launching the projectile, launches an object of equal mass and velocity to the projectile in the diametrically opposite direction? would this neutralize recoil?

 

This is the principle used in the Bazooka, for instance.

I think I might have found a way to debunk the simplest proof that 0.9 = 1. The proof goes like this:

 

N = 0.9

10N = 9.9

10N - N = 9

N = 1

 

The debunking goes like this:

 

Infinity is not a number but a concept. This is apparent from the fact that you cannot divide by infinity but only by successive approximations, i.e. continually increasing numbers towards a limit that equals infinity, yet never reaching infinity itself. 0.9 "in practice" has to be 0 followed by a set amount of decimal nines. It can be any amount but has to be a certain amount. It can be followed by a million nines, or a googolplex nines, or three nines, or five nines. Let's try five nines and see what we get.

 

N = 0.99999

 

10N = 9.9999

- N = 8.99991

 

And then the whole proof falls to pieces. The same thing would happen no matter how many decimal nines we had.

 

As we see, in order for the proof to be true we have to proceed from the supposition that N is two different numbers, namely 0.9 (followed by x decimal nines) and 0.9 (followed by x+1 decimal nines)

 

When you proceed from contradictory premises it's no wonder the result is contradictory.

 

I haven't found a way to debunk the proof that uses the infinite geometrical progression (let alone dave's first proof, which I don't understand at all ) but I imagine that it may have a similar flaw.