Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Posers and Puzzles

Posers and Puzzles

  1. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Jan '06 05:50
    A physicist named Heim came up with a starting theory connecting
    gravity and quantum theory, based on 2 extra dimensions and
    later another physicist added 2 more which Heim had thought about
    but rejected. Heim died in 2001 at the age of 76 but his theory has
    achieved something the standard theory of matter has never done:
    predict with incredible accuracy the mass of all the particles from
    first principles, the best the standard theory can do is between one
    and ten percent accuracy. He predicts several new fundamental
    forces, similar to what is already seen in the acceleration of the
    expansion of the universe and there is a proposal that just won
    out over many other proposals for advanced space propulsion.
    Heim predicts that a superconducting ring spinning above a
    VERY strong magnetic field will start to counter gravity and the stronger
    the field and the faster the spin, could lead to an anti-gravity
    space drive. It is already a proposal being studied seriously.
    The fact that Heims theory predicts mass makes the physics world
    take it very seriously indeed.
    Here is the New scientist link:
    http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200
  2. Standard member Trains44
    Full speed locomotiv
    11 Jan '06 17:11
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    A physicist named Heim came up with a starting theory connecting
    gravity and quantum theory, based on 2 extra dimensions and
    later another physicist added 2 more which Heim had thought about
    but rejected. Heim died in 2001 at the age of 76 but his theory has
    achieved something the standard theory of matter has never done:
    predict with incredible accur ...[text shortened]... ndeed.
    Here is the New scientist link:
    http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200
    This stuff sounds serious. It wont affect my world of trains, will it? I pray not.
  3. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Jan '06 18:03
    Originally posted by TRAINS44
    This stuff sounds serious. It wont affect my world of trains, will it? I pray not.
    They may indeed run into an unsuspected black hole and reappear
    up your butt!
  4. Standard member Trains44
    Full speed locomotiv
    11 Jan '06 18:13
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    They may indeed run into an unsuspected black hole and reappear
    up your butt!
    Oh God..No!!!!!!!!
  5. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Jan '06 20:58
    Originally posted by TRAINS44
    Oh God..No!!!!!!!!
    It could happen
  6. Standard member PBE6
    Bananarama
    11 Jan '06 21:02
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    They may indeed run into an unsuspected black hole and reappear
    up your butt!
    Or vice versa! Or is that the same thing...
  7. Standard member Bowmann
    Non-Subscriber
    12 Jan '06 00:51
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    several new fundamental forces
    Oh God, not more of them. You know, there's really no need to believe that any of these forces exist.

    Take gravity, for instance. Suppose the earth, along with all the matter in the universe, were expanding. And suppose this were an accelerating expansion. We'd feel the "force of gravity" simply because the earth were expanding beneath us.

    This sort of idea does away with many problems in physics today, not least of which is the notion of forces drawing on unidentifiable, unlimited power sources...
  8. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 Jan '06 03:16
    Originally posted by Bowmann
    Oh God, not more of them. You know, there's really no need to believe that any of these forces exist.

    Take gravity, for instance. Suppose the earth, along with all the matter in the universe, were expanding. And suppose this were an accelerating expansion. We'd feel the "force of gravity" simply because the earth were expanding beneath us.

    This ...[text shortened]... least of which is the notion of forces drawing on unidentifiable, unlimited power sources...
    But there is the fact Heim's theory EXTREMELY accurately
    predicts the mass of all the known particles, a million times
    as accurate as the standard model. That alone has to give any
    physicist pause. Another aspect of this theory is the forces it
    predicts would explain the accelerated expansion of the universe,
    the force behind it. The accelerated expansion is a done deal, its
    been proven and modern physics is dealing with it by also postulating
    a new force, dark energy or quintesence or whatever they want to
    call it. So our big four of forces, weak, strong, electromagnetic and
    gravity seem to be headed to the big 5 or the big 6 forces and
    extra dimensions to put them in.
    I heard of an esperiment already done with the superconducting
    rings above a strong magnetic field supposedly causing a reduction
    in its weight by one percent. Don't know if anyone is trying to
    verify that result or if its just another south korean scientist making
    waves. On the strength of the mass prediction alone, its worth
    a shot, don't you think?
  9. Standard member Bowmann
    Non-Subscriber
    12 Jan '06 17:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    The accelerated expansion is a done deal...
    That's what you believe. Redshifted starlight could be caused by something much simpler (such as the Compton Effect) with no need for yet another mysterious force.
  10. Standard member PBE6
    Bananarama
    12 Jan '06 18:07
    Originally posted by Bowmann
    That's what you believe. Redshifted starlight could be caused by something much simpler (such as the Compton Effect) with no need for yet another mysterious force.
    From Wikipedia under "Compton scattering":

    The Compton scattering has on occasion been proposed as an alternative explanation for the phenomenon of the Redshift by opponents of the Big Bang theory, although this is not generally accepted because the influence of the Compton scattering would be noticeable in the spectral lines of distant objects and this is not observed.
  11. Standard member Bowmann
    Non-Subscriber
    12 Jan '06 21:16
    Originally posted by PBE6
    From Wikipedia...
    Oh, then I'm convinced I must be wrong!
  12. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    14 Jan '06 04:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Bowmann
    That's what you believe. Redshifted starlight could be caused by something much simpler (such as the Compton Effect) with no need for yet another mysterious force.
    Its not just the redshift but the change in the redshift, you know
    the inverse square law, 1/R^2. That produces a given power
    density vs distance curve. So if the inverse square law is correct,
    then 'standard candles' which are intrinsically the same brightness
    anywhere in the universe, one here is the same stuff as one
    ten billion LY away, then at a given distance, it should glow at a
    given luminosity. The farthest ones away have more power showing
    than would be given by our inverse square buddy. So the conclusion
    is a long time ago in a galaxy far away, (literally in this case!)
    they were brighter than they would have been if the expansion was
    constant. So they say, therefore, things sped up at about the
    6 billion year lifetime of our universe which freaked the
    cosmologists totally, they were not prepared for such a phenomena.
    Thats why they are invoking mysterious new forces to account for it.
    But the Heim theory ALREADY postulates two new forces so they
    may be related. Of course its all theory so there will always
    be dissenters which is a good thing in science, especially since
    statistically speaking, any new theory has a pretty large probability
    of being wrong, just by the numbers: Lots more theories proven
    wrong than right so we have to await the exerimentalists results.
    News at eleven.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's about respect
    14 Jan '06 05:08
    Sounds fascinating. Unfortunately I studied biochemistry, not physics (except the lower div sequence). It's a bit over my head.
  14. Standard member Bowmann
    Non-Subscriber
    14 Jan '06 11:36
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Its not just the redshift but the change in the redshift, you know
    the inverse square law, 1/R^2. That produces a given power
    density vs distance curve. So if the inverse square law is correct,
    then 'standard candles' which are intrinsically the same brightness
    anywhere in the universe, one here is the same stuff as one
    ten billion LY away, then at a ...[text shortened]... ies proven
    wrong than right so we have to await the exerimentalists results.
    News at eleven.
    I do wish you'd summarize. I don't have all day.
  15. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    14 Jan '06 18:58
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Its not just the redshift but the change in the redshift, you know
    the inverse square law, 1/R^2. That produces a given power
    density vs distance curve. So if the inverse square law is correct,
    then 'standard candles' which are intrinsically the same brightness
    anywhere in the universe, one here is the same stuff as one
    ten billion LY away, then at a ...[text shortened]... ies proven
    wrong than right so we have to await the exerimentalists results.
    News at eleven.
    Quite right. An expanding universe implies that the change in redshift is even more important than the redshift itself.

    As for Mr. Bowmann, well, you know, "flat-earthers" still exist too, and you also have to restrict your words to single syllables with them, too.