Would magn. pole reversal actually mess up electronic equipment?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Integrated AGC 100kHz-10MHz
Next: Piezo Amplifier
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 6 Jan 2010 13:26 http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: John Fields on 6 Jan 2010 15:44 On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:54:02 GMT, J Thomas <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: > >> The reality is that galaxies are receding from us at velocities which >> increase as their distances from us increase, and that they're >> accelerating, while the theory is that that can't happen because there's >> no gravitational force which can power the acceleration if the universe >> started with a big bang. >> >> Consequently, my argument was, and is, that since the creation of a >> universe from a putative "big bang" cannot explain the anomalous >> acceleration of galactic red shift with distance, 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. >> >> Do you have a better idea? > >The problem with a better idea is that it is necessarily limited. > >There's a big army of people working out justifications and explanations >and just-so stories that fit the current accepted theory. If you are one >person you cannot hope to read all of that, much less respond to it. But >if you create an alternative theory, all by yourself, then all takes is >say five people trying to poke holes in your ideas and you probably can't >keep up with them. Five of them can ask questions faster than you can >answer them, and if you try to show that the current theory does not solve >those questions they can repeat the standard assertions without necessarily >understanding them, and you cannot possibly discuss the issues in enough >depth with them to resolve the issues. --- That's exactly the predicament Galileo found himself in when he rejected the geocentric Ptolemaic system in favor of the heliocentric Copernican system, the guilt of that heresy only being "pardoned" by the Church after 360 years! So, it matters less that a battle is lost rather than the war. --- >Being a single person who proposes an alternative is a little bit like >being a single person who wants to defeat the Fifth Panzer Group. As Gisli >pointed out, "Nothing prevails against numbers.". --- He obviously knew nothing about nuclear weapons... --- >But the time you might have a chance is when the consensus is that >the current explanation cannot explain the facts. --- Indeed, and it seems to me that Occam's razor favors a mass external to our bubble causing galactic acceleration rather than the added epicycles of dark matter and energy invented to bolster up the big bang. --- >Still, you have an interesting question. If the shifted light indicates >that the known universe is accelerating away in all directions, so the >velocity is larger the greater the distance, how can that be explained? --- Not necessarily the known universe, just the matter within it accelerated by a mass external to our bubble attracting matter within our bubble according to an inverse square law. --- >One possible explanation is that the universe is not accelerating in all >directions but that for some reason light gets slowly red-shifted as it >travels. --- That would require the photons to slow down for some reason, causing their wavelengths to increase. However, once they traversed whatever medium was slowing them down they'd speed up to 'c' again and the wavelength would decrease to what it was before the slowdown. --- >Or perhaps atoms used to emit light that was red-shifted compared >to the light they emit now. --- Only if they've slowed down, I think. Consider: If one of the electrons of an atom at rest is excited to the point where it jumps an orbital and then releases a photon when it jumps back, the wavelength of that photon can only decrease if the atom moves away from a reference at rest. So, it seems that if the light was once red shifted, compared to what it is now, it can now only be less highly red shifted if the atom's speed decreased relative to the reference at rest. But that's not what we see, which is that the more distant the galaxy the more highly red-shifted the light from it is. --- >I see no obvious way to test these ideas. --- It can be done with atomic clocks and airplanes. --- >You can't keep light bouncing >in a physics lab for a few thousand years to see if it gets red-shifted. >The next best thing would be to see how well they fit together with other >things to provide a seamless whole. If it all fits together in an elegant >simple pattern then people will think that it's so beautiful it has to be >true. But how could one person or a few people fit one of these ideas into >the framework of modern physics, a structure so complicated that no single >person can begin to understand it all? --- One person doesn't have to understand it _all_, he just has to supply a piece of the puzzle that fits so well that the beauty of it is seen even by the detractors. --- >How could anyone possibly tell whether something is a better idea, until >it became the standard model that most physicists agree on? --- Galileo did, Newton did, Einstein did... All the giants did. JF
From: The Great Attractor on 6 Jan 2010 19:25 On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:44:50 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >>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. >--- The simulation videos sure are cool.
From: The Great Attractor on 6 Jan 2010 19:29 On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:26:37 +0000, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html Aptly termed. Hypercrazy even. That was organized craziness...
From: The Great Attractor on 6 Jan 2010 19:33
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:44:16 -0600, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >But that's not what we see, which is that the more distant the galaxy >the more highly red-shifted the light from it is. The 'older' galaxies are 'out' farther, placing them closer to the 'outer mass' on the other side of our universe's barrier 'shell', making them move faster. |