341

New Theories / Re: Dark energy? Are we just making things harder than they need to be Lorentz?

« on: 17/03/2012 02:32:43 »

So many scientists today appreciate dark energy as a must. They are wrong. In fact, the root of the problem is the Big Bang. There are in fact atleast 15 major problems with the BB. In fact, the static universe can answer for more than what the 15 major problems of BB can account for. I will find you a link.

342

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Did a UFO come into contect with William Schaffner?

« on: 14/03/2012 15:23:35 »

Sorry you had to change where I posted this!

Anyway, there might be some element of truth behind the fact that the ejector seat would not operate accordingly. In fact, in similar circumstances, the background interference of these objects have been known to disable communications and even ejector seats. Here is a famous case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident

D.I.A. form
 
Alongside the report there was a form from the DIA which assessed the quality of the report. The form indicated in checked boxes that the content was of high value, that the report was confirmed by other sources, and that the utility of the information was potentially useful to them. The form from the DIA also stated the following:
 "An outstanding report. This case is a classic which meets all the criteria necessary for a valid study of the UFO phenomenon: a) The object was seen by multiple witnesses from different locations (i.e., Shamiran, Mehrabad, and the dry lake bed) and viewpoints (both airborne and from the ground). b) The credibility of many of the witnesses was high (an Air Force general, qualified aircrews, and experienced tower operators). c) Visual sightings were confirmed by radar. d) Similar electromagnetic effects (EME) were reported by three separate aircraft. e) There were physiological effects on some crew members (i.e., loss of night vision due to the brightness of the object). f) An inordinate amount of maneuverability was displayed by the UFOs."

......................................

I am sorry if Michael ever comes to read this, but the body of his father may have been kept from public view. Indeed, if his body had come into contact, direct contact no less with high levels of radiation, tell-tail signs would emerge that this has happened, such as a slow appearing but recognizable burn marks. I don't revel in conspiracy theories, but I can't get my mind off the fact that his ejector seat is claimed to have malfunctioned yet there is no body to account for, even when the aircraft was found with the cockpit tightly shut.

Something does not add up.

343

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Did a UFO come into contect with William Schaffner?

« on: 14/03/2012 14:21:16 »

Oh, and glass orbs have been seen previously far back in our history as well

http://www.rense.com/ufo6/glow.htm

Perhaps not a surprise to all of us. Some of us are well aware that UFO have been depicted in art as well for centuries.

344

That CAN'T be true! / Did a UFO come into contact with William Schaffner?

« on: 14/03/2012 14:18:59 »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schaffner

William Schaffner intercepted a UFO intentionally. His fate was dire and unfortunate. His body was never found.

According to this investigation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series1/alien-abduction.shtml

The inquiry report makes the following points:

1. It was not a UFO but a slow moving Shackleton recconaissance aircraft that the Captain was trying to intercept on an exercise
2. Its crew had lost radio contact. Then, by the light of a flare, they’d seen the aircraft in the water.
3. The Captain had simply flown too low trying to get beneath his target and hit the sea.
4. Captain Schaffner had not been properly trained to carry out the exercise he had been asked to undertake.
When he tried to bail out, his ejector seat failed to operate.

Many part of this inquiry official report are severely in question. Part 1 is almost absurd to think that Mr. Schaffner had mistaken a recconaisance aircraft for ''shapes'' one oblong shape with a blue glow and one glassy-orblike sturcture floating beside it. Things have not been called into question, like his initial reports that he felt dizzy and saw shooting stars. There is a real scientific explanation for this I can give but it will only add to the mystery. Before we do this, I want to state I am disappointed somewhat in Michael's acceptance of the official report. Whilst understandable, he seems to have ignored many gaping holes in the report, like for instance, his ejactor seat failed to work yet there is no body to account for, yet original divers who found the plane said it was almost intact with the cockpit shut...

I can understand why Michael may simply want to allay these issues and put his father's case to rest - there are some problems with this report, but if Michael is willing to just accept a report without fully understanding what he is being told (which I am under the impression) then there are some serious questions abound. But moreover, it is likely Michael probably spent little time before this to investigate UFO's. If he had, probably when the Ministry of Defence gave himself and his family the bums-rush concerning the facts of Mr. Shaffners death, perhaps he would have been more attuned to not accepting the paper work had been shredded if he was more educated on the wide involvement of UFO's and governement related investigations.

Yes Michael, this was clearly a governmenet cover-up. The first denial of said papers which would have proved what happened detail by detail went missing (who would shred a case that hasn't been solved and was still under investigation) only but to cover-up some proof. We know the Ministry of Defence was covering up something dodgy because UFO-case files have remained in their posession for many years until forced to release them under FOIA. So, they officially stated originally such papers did not exist - was this giving them time to create some to quell the growing demand of the family and supporters?

It seems to indeed have been the case, since later a ''suspicious'' investigation appeared. Some of the points raised already concerning the investigation, is that what he observed was not a recconaissance aircraft. They blame his unfortunate set of events on him being not qualified for the job, but later admit that his ejector seat failed to happen? In fact, his machinary was in fact being effected by some unknown background intereference, not to mention, that communications had in fact been disrupted at the exact same time frame of the ground control observing on radar, that the captain's aircraft merged with the object. It was upon this merging the captain began to feel dizzy and observe shooting stars.

Yet the investigation led by the alleged official report did not take into account, clearly ground control's observations of these objects - and it's ignored his physiological effects which obviously took play when the two ships (of whatever origin) merged. Well... Deep in space astronauts are actually very accustomed to seeing ''shooting stars'' and I don't mean the kind which fall to Earth. What they saw was actually the product of high energy particles. It has been long respected amkong the UFO investigators of past, including Wilbert Smith, a canadian scientist who worked a lot on the UFO phenomonea that usually with UFO observations there can be attributed some form of gamma radiation, or perhaps other radioactive properties.

What I believe the good pilot saw then was in fact a high energy stream of particles, probably due to the connecting of the two objects, since he only began seeing these shooting stars after he lost communications. Obviously communications failed for the same reason, a high flux of particles disturbing normal communication channels.

If no one has ever linked this possibility, then I am certainly surprised.

Perhaps more interestingly, glass ball UFO's that same year had been reported as I qoute wiki:

''In the period of Autumn 1970 to Spring 1971, UFOs were seen over the Lincolnshire coast around Cleethorpes. At RAF Donna Nook, a large (180 ft long) UFO was seen hovering for many hours by RAF personnel and was accompanied by 'glass ball' objects.''
 
Yet, ignored as usual in any report designed really to conceal the truth about the existences of UFO's. I believe William struck this object accidently and was exposed to extremely high cascades of energetic particles which incidently caused him to black out for a number of moments.  This is what caused the intereference of communications including his feeling of being dizzy and seeing shooting stars, this I find a very credible explanation.

If this is what happened, then we could only presume the kind of radiation required for that kind of background disturbance and rendering him unconscious. In fact, a Russian scientist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski was involved in an accident involving a high energy particle accelerator. According to reports, he saw the flash of a thousand suns but did not feal any pain.

Well, neither did Mr. Schieffner but he did say he felt dizzy, which radiation almost certainly would cause this. Not to mention the shooting star phenomenon.

I have studied UFO's for years and years now and this is one of the most interesting cases I think UFOlogy has to offer.

345

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is time an illusion?

« on: 13/03/2012 21:51:27 »

I should state that Julian neither places bold assertions on wehether a universe contains a past or future. To understand these things, one must first understand the wheeler de-witt equation then come to terms that worldlines are indeed static.


As I said, he was right.

346

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is time an illusion?

« on: 13/03/2012 19:16:29 »

I would like to know what orthodox physicists think of Julian Barbour's radical ideas about time.  This also relates to he quantum mechanics theories that i also have a post about.
"Barbour argues that we live in a universe which has neither past nor future. A strange new world in which we are alive and dead in the same instant. In this eternal present, our sense of the passage of time is nothing more than a giant cosmic illusion." Discover Mag.
He says that there is no time, only change.Does he have a following?

Julian Barbour is absolutely correct. I have most appreciated his understanding of time over the last two years has it has been formulated http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Barbour_The_Nature_of_Time.pdf?phpMyAdmin=0c371ccdae9b5ff3071bae814fb4f9e9 into Markoupoulou's title of the Problem of Time on the FQXI team and forum http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Markopoulou_SpaceDNE.pdf , that space can be understood in a unique way in a model called Geometrogenesis: The intricate understanding that space is a low energy phenomenon - so it happens late in the universes history, and geometry according to Einstein's field equations, is directly linked to the curvature (the geometry) of space and time.

Timelessness may exist, according to Barbour. In Fotini Markoupoulou's interpretation, we can keep time by removing space. Her model is revolutionary but faulty - time will not exist either, for using her same methodologies, time would have no appearance at the big bang. Geometry is not concerned with high energy phenomena, atleast in the fundamental sense - geometry appears late in the universes history as an indication itself that not only the normal spatial geometry comes into question when you unify physics into absurdly small places, but you also get a problem in time as well since geometry according to the ''Minkowski'' view of space, was to be coupled to a fourth dimension of space.

But space at big bang did not exist, since there was no space since big bang happened at an infinitessimal point. So how can current theory tackle the prevailing truth?

347

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there limits to what we can comprehend about the Universe?

« on: 13/03/2012 19:01:17 »

I still think the larger part of our understanding of the universe is mostly biological itself - that intellect is a product of natural selection. I think Susskind is right - but perhaps what he did not realize was that if this was to be true, then nature emerges itself with the intent of creating life; it does afterall bring us back to not only an age-old question, but one Susskind has dedicated most of his life to, the question of the strong anthropic theory, the idea there is an intelligence behind the universe at large - one maybe us mere intellects may call ''God'' - but those who did might consider such as the trailor trash of intelligence.

348

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time seem slower at the speed of light?

« on: 13/03/2012 18:52:33 »

I am going to add a more technical note which will either leave you more confounded, or it will leave you more knowledgable about what is occurring here.

When, according to the postulates of relativity, when you move in any given volume of space, your normal understanding of three-dimensional objects are thrown out the window. Objects which move below the speed of light are called ''Bradyons'' - it has been a collectively acclaimed use for particles which have velocities below the speed of light and therefore having an inertia. These slow moving particles actually move more in the space dimensions more than they spend time in the temperal artefact (and dimension) of the metric of spacetime.

Only at higher speeds, speeds which are in fact significant can we consider pop-math buzzwords like time dilation and time warps. To have a significant effect on time, if indeed time is part of a classical theory, just like what relativity is, then it seems like we need to have either high speeds or high energy densities to achieve local frame dilation.

There is loads of things here which can be discussed but the OP has been answered.

349

New Theories / Force-Spin Equation for A new look on Spin Mechanics Force Exchanges

« on: 13/03/2012 17:52:23 »

First, I respectfully oppose the idea that a theory is a hypothesis; that is the lead-title sub-forum here. My theory is not a hypothesis. It's rather a prediction of quantum mechanics.

It has been standard approach to give certain forces between particles the inverse square law - one which governs the strength of interactions over a given volume. It certainly holds true for both the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force.

Therefore, in certain models in theories which deal with forces between particles (given by a distance r_ij) then we can graph unique ways to veiw spin as well along the axes which the force is entailed with. A way to achieve this is by introducing a new kind of equation in physics which I will present soon.

If one considers a specific force equation, which is given in full detail here: http://www.ilovephysics.com/forum/t3631-Gravitational-Equation-Derived-Spin-Force-Relationship.html (Atleast in mathematical detail) - I give a narrow view of it's interpetation here, but I will give a fuller one here.

One may assume multiple modes of calculations from just the single force equation. Not once in quantum physics history have I ever heard of a ''force-along an axis'' but if quantum mechanics is really the correct approach, then such a force should exist - assume for a moment that a particle is never truely at rest as it is subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Because of this, particles constantly have a force exerted on them along a specific trajectory - one which follows an axis of angular momentum. Afterall, angular momentum (spin) only ever makes sense in a calculation when we consider it along some dimensionsional axis - so such an equation would predict something new: not only a force present but one unified along a specific trajectory, one which has a trajectory coupled with a spin possibility.

In my original representation, I considered the force, angles of the spin and spin itself all in the one equation: later I attempt to justify this using the Larmor Energy. Using a few substitutions it shows that my equation was (whilst a force equation) was structurally-similar to the Larmour Energy. I actually did not realize such a similiarity until after I derived the force equation.

I further try and strengthen it using different ''statistical approaches'' but they are really irrelevant since I really desire the force equation in it's fullest to be discussed.

So, one final time, I will literate what the math is saying about the force equation: The equation can be decomposed for either particles (i) or (j). The measure the distance between the two particles: one can use trigonometry as well from my calculations since we can find the angle. So a few multiple uses already. It calculates the force of interaction between two particles, assumed to very high for unit lengths. As seperation diverges, the particles interactions (in a physical sense) become weaker, but an entanglement could still be connected to each system if they interacted accordingly at short distance.

So the equation describes the force exhange of virtual particles potentially. It also describes a new quantum effect, ''a force along an axis of spin''. That spin itself is what can be coupled to a force: which is a vector field coupling to the spin mechanics. So for two particles shooting off in perpendicular directions, one can say the force-spin equation describes the force linearly (that is along it's given trajectory) and it describes the perpendicular force between the said objects. I do show however that the Ising Model is really the static case of my model. The force can be extracted from realizing relativistic equations when considering the Ising Spin Energy term. There may be more unique ways to investigate that further by proving my model is just a more advanced case, but I haven't found it yet.

350

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens to a body exposed to the vacuum of space?

« on: 12/03/2012 19:29:18 »

Accidents have happened and animal tests have been made, no one bursts although they lose conscious pretty quickly due to loss of Oxygen.
all those accidently exposed survived.

May we have some links?

351

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did a broken cable produce apparently faster-than-light neutrinos?

« on: 12/03/2012 15:44:37 »

As Sheldon has remarked saying ''no one is saying that faster than light neutrino's cannot exist.''

This is true, it was just such a hard experiment to reconcile. Nothing has been determined yet. And this talk about the neutrino moving faster in rock, I think that was speculated due to a special refraction index but nothing has been determined there either.

I hope the particles turned out to be superluminal. I wrote an entire mathematical theory for them - shame to see it go to waste.

352

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did a broken cable produce apparently faster-than-light neutrinos?

« on: 12/03/2012 15:42:06 »

Thanks Imatfaal. To introduce FTL would create a lot of logical contradictions in Relativity as I think of it.
==
And as mathematics is about logic? Where would that leave it?

The problem would be in causality - if information can travel faster than light (whether on the back of a neutrino or otherways) then you have a problem with either SR or with causality.   As we would almost certainly agree that causality is sacrosanct, then SR is wrong.  The maths of SR is self-contained, self-consistent, and exact; so there is no possibility of a problem there.  All that remains is that one of two axiomata are incorrect ie SR can only be wrong in an axiomatic sense.   HOWEVER, I am pretty sure we do not have super-luminal transfer of information, thus causality and SR are no put into opposition, and we can all rest easy.

Some reinterpretation rules can modify the equations so they do not violate causality - usually the causality breakdown comes from oscillating in time, so one could use a completely spatial interpretation, for instance.

353

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do we see the same region of historical space from different locations?

« on: 12/03/2012 15:38:01 »

If you turn 180 degrees you are moving in space, all you have done is shuffle your coordinates by an angle phase. So your object has not evolved in time.

354

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there limits to what we can comprehend about the Universe?

« on: 12/03/2012 15:35:42 »

What do you mean by limits?

And as far as the mind-brain goes, I am in agreement with Susskind, that it was part of evolution that our brains could understand physics.

355

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens to a body exposed to the vacuum of space?

« on: 12/03/2012 15:33:15 »

Yes, the body would not hold up to the pressure... all the soft parts of your internal body would be squeezed out of the dermeological shell we call our protective skin.

Not a nice thought at all.

356

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible to map the centre of the universe?

« on: 12/03/2012 15:31:22 »

So to fully answer your question, big bang happened everywhere.

357

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible to map the centre of the universe?

« on: 12/03/2012 15:30:21 »

The universe has no center. The reason why is because space did not appear from one point alone, but appeared as the space between objects exponentially increased. If you like, there was an infinite amount of centers proportional to the infinite amount of degrees of freedom provided by an ever-expanding universe.

358

Guest Book / Hello

« on: 12/03/2012 15:26:47 »

My name is Aethelwulf. I have an extensive knowledge of physics and look forward to future discussions and sharing thoughts.

Regards