Would magn. pole reversal actually mess up electronic equipment?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Integrated AGC 100kHz-10MHz
Next: Piezo Amplifier
From: The Great Attractor on 6 Jan 2010 00:33 On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:21:23 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:58:14 -0800, The Great Attractor ><SuperM(a)ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote: > >>On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:22:32 -0600, John Fields >><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >>>Which leads to my favorite hypothesis; that there was no big bang, but >>>rather a big bubble which came about much like a bubble appears in a >>>cavitating medium. >> >> >> I think of it as a big cheese ball, and a black hole places matter >>"outside" the bubble. > >--- >I like to think of the Universe as a more or less infinitely large and >massive Swiss cheese with lots of bubbles in it, one of which is our >local universe. >--- > >> After all, where does all that matter go that they swallow up? > >--- >It returns to the Universe. > >Since we observe galaxies with larger and larger red shifts as they >hurtle toward whatever is accelerating them toward the "wall" until >eventually they hit it, leave our universe, and become part of the >Universe. > >Another possibility (among any number of others) is that they could >accelerate without bound until they go transluminal and then wink out of >existence when their mass turns into energy. >--- > >> Once enough of it ends up outside the bubble, it will collapse the >>bubble, in a time frame quick enough that we may not see it coming. > >--- >True. > >Since what we see when we look as far as we can out into space is what >was happening billions of years ago, what happened more recently, at the >cosmological horizon, will tag along behind that early light. > >Then, if our bubble is collapsing at less than the speed of light we'll >never be able to detect it except, perhaps, for galactic and stellar >extinction events which occur closer and closer to us in time as the >horizon (wall) approaches us. > >Just as an aside, if the bubble was collapsing and the infinitely >massive Universe was on the other side of the wall, we would expect to >see objects accelerate toward the wall as it approached them. > >Maybe the collapse will engulf us in 2012? > >JF Rapture. No more need for food, genitals, partners, babies, struggle, happiness, misery... all become one with the maker, and the only one left is love.
From: The Great Attractor on 6 Jan 2010 00:35 On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:27:59 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:16:48 +1100, Sylvia Else ><sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >>John Fields wrote: >>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:36:18 +1100, Sylvia Else >>> <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have >>>> different orbital periods. The time the Earth takes to go around the >>>> galaxy will be different the time other objects take. There is no reason >>>> to deem that the Earth's orbital period is the period of rotation of the >>>> galaxy, and since different objects have different periods, the galaxy >>>> does not have a rotational speed. >>> >>> --- >>> Surprise!!! :-) >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve >>> >>> JF >> >>No - they still have differing orbital periods, even though they move at >>about the same velocity, because those further out have further to >>travel to make one orbit. > >--- >Agreed; good point. > >However, what remains is that the velocity of the objects a little way >out from the hub and all the way out to the rim is nearly constant, >which is anomalous and flies in the face of Newton's universal law of >gravitation. > >JF In other words, we are dragging something along with us, OR IT is dragging us along with it. De Mattre De Durkness. (not from any given language, consider it to have come from Blade Runner) :-)
From: The Great Attractor on 6 Jan 2010 00:44 On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:06:42 -0500, Rich Webb <bbew.ar(a)mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote: >On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:27:59 -0600, John Fields ><jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:16:48 +1100, Sylvia Else >><sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >> >>>John Fields wrote: >>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:36:18 +1100, Sylvia Else >>>> <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Objects at different distances from the centre of the galaxy will have >>>>> different orbital periods. The time the Earth takes to go around the >>>>> galaxy will be different the time other objects take. There is no reason >>>>> to deem that the Earth's orbital period is the period of rotation of the >>>>> galaxy, and since different objects have different periods, the galaxy >>>>> does not have a rotational speed. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Surprise!!! :-) >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve >>>> >>>> JF >>> >>>No - they still have differing orbital periods, even though they move at >>>about the same velocity, because those further out have further to >>>travel to make one orbit. >> >>--- >>Agreed; good point. >> >>However, what remains is that the velocity of the objects a little way >>out from the hub and all the way out to the rim is nearly constant, >>which is anomalous and flies in the face of Newton's universal law of >>gravitation. > >Not necessarily. When we run across anomalies between predicted and >observed, the choice usually comes down to "our understanding of gravity >is incomplete" or "there's something else out there." > >Observations of perturbations in the orbit of Mercury, for example, >pretty much had the smart money betting on the "something else" theory >(Vulcan) but the right answer turned out to be "incomplete understanding >of gravity" (GR). > >Some discussion (and a pretty picture) over at ><http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/11/01/dark-matter-still-existing/> >although there's still quite a lot of room for legitimate "Yes, but ..." >refutations. I read chrono style, so I just now saw this, but my answer is similar to what you wrote... something is 'here with us'... It's all in the Tea Foam... You should try it. Microwave the water so that there will be a lot of live and ready heat for all those little nucleation points that the tea leaves have... result is foam. Stir ... a bit more than mildly, but not quite briskly ie do not inundate the foam. Upset the spin a bit with the tail of the spoon (careful hot), but do not kill the spin... Just enough to make it mildly chaotic below the surface... Make it so the foam wobbles in and out from the center as the 3-D whirl of your stirs undulate below. You will get a pseudo 2-d image (video) of a spiral galaxy on the surface if done right. Attractions... yada yada yada Big ones form in the center usually, eventually.
From: The Great Attractor on 6 Jan 2010 00:53 On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 19:16:45 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >then perhaps there was >no big bang, but rather a big bubble at the beginning of time which does >allow galactic red shift acceleration with distance. A 'BIG bubble' to us, but that bubble is inside a much bigger Universe (as you earlier said) full of bubbles of various sizes. Knowing our luck, were are probably one of the small bubbles. Oh, I capitalized your "T" in "The Universe" where I quoted you before, and here, I would say 'beginning of time and space' at least for all of us within it.
From: John Fields on 6 Jan 2010 11:44
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:52:32 +0000, Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 07:31:18 -0800 (PST), MooseFET <kensmith(a)rahul.net> >> wrote: >> >>> You are correct that the motions are relative to other bodies and not >>> relative to some >>> mythical fixed frame of reference in space. We are part of a group at >>> appears to be >>> gathering together amidst the greater collection that is flying apart. >> >> --- >> Which leads to my favorite hypothesis; that there was no big bang, but >> rather a big bubble which came about much like a bubble appears in a >> cavitating medium. > >Big Bang was a derogatory term invented by the Steady State Cosmologist >Fred Hoyle to disparage the new theory where the universe had a point in >time where its entire radius was miniscule. > >Although it is possible that universes look big and long lived when you >are inside them they could just be quantum fluctuations in some other >larger object. It isn't a scientific theory unless you can test the >hyposthesis. --- Indeed. That's why I labeled it "my favorite hypothesis" instead of "my favorite theory". --- >Some multiverse proposals do make testable predictions. --- Yes. I'm working on mine, but it's slow going... --- >> If that were the case, then the medium surrounding our bubble would be >> the Universe, while what was bounded by the walls of our bubble would be >> our universe. > >The distances are far greater than that. --- I made no mention of distance; my point was that if we do live in a bubble universe, then the delineation between it and what lies beyond it (the "wall", if you will) will determine what's our local universe and what isn't. --- >Exponential inflation has made >a very large universe, we can only hope to see a fraction of it, and to >a very good approximation it looks similar in all directions. And >amazingly smooth at the furthest extremes in the CMB wavelengths. --- If we do live in a bubble universe such as I envision, then the exponential inflation came about and continues to exist because of the tugging on what matter lies within our bubble by what lies beyond it, on the other side of the wall. --- >> Looking at it from the point of view that matter is accelerating away >> from us as its distance from us increases makes no sense in a big bang >> universe since, after the initial acceleration, nothing would be driving >> the mass and one would expect that matter would either recede at a >> constant velocity if the universe was open, stop if the universe was >> static, or accrete if the universe was closed. > >Not quite. Open universes expand forever and matter still has a finite >velocity at infinity, and closed or bound ones it reaches zero and moves >in again at some period - cyclic if you allow it to rebound. --- How is that different from what I stated? --- >> Such is not the case however, and for matter to accelerate as it gets >> farther way from us requires that some force be attracting it. > >Or some force to be repelling it which is how the field equations >represent dark energy (not a term I like). --- Nor I. My feeling is that dark energy and dark matter were invented in order to hold on to the proposition that the big bang really existed, rather than to seriously consider other origin scenarios. Time will tell, I suppose. --- >> If that force is gravitational and our universe is bubble-like, then the >> tug must be exerted by something external to our universe: the mass >> peculiar to that part of the Universe which is attracting it, causing >> matter on this side of the wall to hurtle toward it. > >If the universe outside our visible horizon is as uniform and smooth as >it looks from the microwave background then it is difficult to see how >this would work. --- While the CMB may be remarkably smooth, I don't believe there's a "Cosmic Gravitational Constant" which exhibits the same characteristics. --- >It might explain our peculiar velocity relative to the >CMB if there was something massive accelerating us in the very early >universe but is presently beyond beyond our observable horizon. >NB Cosmological expansion of space itself at large distances is not >limited by the SR restriction of being less than c. This means there are >or could be parts of our universe moving away so fast that they can >never be reached even at the speed of light. --- Which would also mean that our universe wasn't surrounded by uniform shells of external matter, since we actually _do_ see galaxies flying toward the wall, and going faster and faster as they get closer and closer to the wall. --- >You cannot have uniform shells of external matter accelerating things >towards them Gauss's Theorem prohibits that entirely. --- Then, since we _do_ see acceleration, that must mean that the gravitational attraction from what's behind the wall isn't uniform. --- >> As you say, there are, interestingly, blue shifts in our local group >> which indicate that some of our members are being attracted to each >> other. > >It is called gravity. --- Please, try to be a little less condescending and keep from turning this discussion into a flame war, OK? --- >Our local cluster is gravitationally bound. It is >no more surprising than finding the solar system with the odd comet >hitting Jupiter. The heavyweights mop up the smaller stragglers and if >you wait long enough either settle into a nice mutual orbit or collide. >Galaxy collisions are fairly rare but very pretty. > >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001113.html > >Like atoms galaxies are mostly open space so they pass through each >other but drag stars and gas into complex patterns. --- Yes, I think that's all pretty much common knowledge. --- >> Even as that happens, though, we're _all_ accelerating toward the wall, >> sort of like people walking toward each other on a train accelerating >> toward a mountain. > >You seem to be using the word "wall" in a non-standard way. --- Perhaps, but since I'm using it to describe the delineation between a bubble universe and what lies beyond it, its meaning should be clear. --- >Observations >of galaxy distributions have put some pretty tight constraints on what >is possible. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament --- Since all of those structures lie within the bubble, that has little to do with my hypothesis since the wall I describe is used to indicate the delineation between a bubble universe (of which the galaxies you cite are members) and what lies beyond it. --- >The string theorists might just be right - the distribution is >suggestive - although it can also be simulated with conventional theory >- Durham University have a super computer doing exactly this. Some of >the more interesting simulations are online at: > >http://www.dur.ac.uk/n.s.holliman/CosmicOrigins.html --- OK, thanks. JF |