The hunt for gravity continues:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/toba-is-a-swingin.ars
Quote:

The little TOBA is a torsion bar with some cleverness attached to it. It's not suspended by a wire; instead, the Japanese research group used a property of a particular class of superconductor to hold the torsion bar suspended in vacuum. When a magnetic field penetrates a superconductor, it gets pinned to a specific location. By attaching a magnet to the center point of the torsion bar and hanging the torsion bar below a superconductor, the magnetic field lines get held in place, creating a suspension system that has very little resistance. The result is that, when the torsion bar is set in motion, it stays in motion for a long time. Another consequence of this low resistance suspension is that the resonant frequency of the torsion bar is very low—around 5mHz in this case—making it very sensitive to low frequency disturbances in the gravitational field. As with all things, I suspect the experiment has been operational for some time now. But all the early work would have been making sure that the performance was as expected. After all the additional sources of noise had been expunged, the research group took 12 hours of preexisting data, selected the least noisy sections, and analyzed them for the presence of gravity waves. End result: they didn't find any.

...and fails it seems...

...but what I find interesting is the bolded area that I highlighted.
Let's say you make a superconductor sphere. What would that do to another sphere with a magnetized center and applied a force to it? Hmmm...

Best of luck to them looking for something that doesn't exist...however to me they've overlooked the obvious...

@MikeB

Quote:

Nomatter there are many millions of christians worldwide (and they conquered most of the world). Hence worthy of discussion.

Umm didn't I just do that by letting you know that Christianity has a long history of predicting the end to the world 'in our lifetime'? Just because millions believe any religion doesn't make their beliefs true.

Quote:

Only modern science believes may be discussed without ridicule?

I'm not sure what this is coming from. Didn't you tell us you were discussing without ridicule? It's unclear what point this is.

Quote:

Modern day scientists agree they know very little about the role of magnetism

This clearly doesn't mean what you think it means.

Read the article again. It says that EM in the early universe likely had a larger role than it does now in respect to planets, solarsystems, and galaxies. And flashback to my earlier post where I described how your actions were akin to the Creationist. Our current understanding of planets is like that of evolution. We know the current forces at work in the solar system is dominated by gravity just as we know the current forces at work in evolution is genetic change of the species. Neither theory has a great explaination for what came before what we have now. The Creationist throws out God, you throw out EM. The plus here is yours has some physical properties and might be proveable or disproveable. What science says is -- we still don't know and we're working at it.

Quote:

Gravity bending light (as Einstein theorised)? How about magnetism actually bending light?

Certainly magnetism could bend light. We have 4 fundamental forces and and under the right circumstances one force appears to predominate over another force. Why does a nucleus of an atom stick together, for example. We look at the 4 forces and find the Strong Force overcomes the effect of the electromagnetic which would otherwise push the like charged protons apart.


Quote:

My theory is that it's actually attraction / repulsion what you see in the above-most picture.

Part of the problem here is you are using theory and I'm using Theory. A Scientific Theory, as I use it, is the best explaination for the evidence we have. Your theory is one that is the common day usage of 'I have a guess'. I'd suggest you use hypothesis as it is more clear and really what you mean. And again conjecture is not conclusive. Great to have a guess, that's the starting point afterall, even better to have validity.

Quote:

. Of course I understand you will more likely believe Einstein's theory (because that's what you've been taught).

I don't believe. And if I did what I had been taught I'd be knee deep in religion.

Instead I accept based upon the best evidenced and predictive ability available. Along with that comes the understanding of what this says and what it doesn't say. Certainly there's work to merge our current understanding of gravity and the quantum. It may be a modification of what we have OR it might be something entirely new. Either way it has to be evidenced and make more accurate predictions of our universe. Science is great it's open and flexible in this manner.

Unfortunately for you, the electromagnetic guess was found very quickly to have large failures of observation and has no predictive ability in the question of planets. That's why it's been discarded. I'm open that this was a mistake. If you want to convince me you must provide a better system of observation and prediction.

And this has happened time and again in science as our understanding evolves.

@MikeB

Quote:

It's not about being wrong or healthy. If there are 50 million smokers, it can be discussed without ridicule.

The correct analogy to what you're saying would be '50 million smokers think there are no health consequences to smoking worth worrying about, therefore there are no health consequences worth worrying about'.

What you've said is 'lots of Christians think the world will end 'soon', therefore the world will end 'soon'. This is a logical fallacy.

Quote:

My theory of motion regard the spiral current created by the magnetic sun which through millions of years allowed the planets to orbit at a certain speed. The current is stronger nearby the sun and grows weaker further away. Not only this is the criteria, also volume/mass/resistance the planet has/endures.

Again you give us a qualitative assertion of your hypothesis. What we keep asking for is a quantitative expression of your model of the solar system.

If you can't provide it, you can't gather any observations to test it. And if you can't do that, you're not doing science.

Quote:

I accept you believe this, but why can't you accept I don't?

First reason: We're discussing science. Belief is irrelevant. Evidence is key.

Second reason: You have failed to provide a worked example disproving Einstein and demonstrating your alternative to be more accurate. Until you do that, there is no rational grounds to believe you are right. And since we are discussing science, its generally best if both sides are at least rational.

@Lou

Quote:

Best of luck to them looking for something that doesn't exist

Can't tell you how funny it is reading that coming from a Nibiru true believer.

Regarding the article, its not the search for gravity, its the search for the transmitting particle/wave. If we can't find any transmitting wave/particle for gravity then we need to look elsewhere to explain the incontrovertible evidence for the attractive property of mass that we have named 'gravity'.

Entropic force is one candidate. There are others.

Last edited by T-J on 29-Apr-2011 at 03:05 PM.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: Quote: Best of luck to them looking for something that doesn't exist Can't tell you how funny it is reading that coming from a Nibiru true believer.

No funnier than the words of a true science (which is mostly theory) believer.

Quote:

Regarding the article, its not the search for gravity, its the search for the transmitting particle/wave. If we can't find any transmitting wave/particle for gravity then we need to look elsewhere to explain the incontrovertible evidence for the attractive property of mass that we have named 'gravity'. Entropic force is one candidate. There are others.

Right, sure. When I search for light waves, I'm not really searching for light either.

Perhaps the nucleus of an atom is a superconductor...
When we split the nucleus of an atom, what happens?

Perhpas stars are superconductors...
When a star goes supernova, what happens?

@Lou

Quote:

When we split the nucleus of an atom, what happens?

The way I look at it: Atoms are made up of waves, repulsed by other waves into a particle. Look at it as piercing a bubble with content and pressure wanting to be released. The bubble bursts and the waves are seperated.

Quote:

When a star goes supernova, what happens?

The way I look at it: After a certain amount of bubbles have popped inside the sun (part of the new waves/radiation leaks through and reaches the earth), the pressure inside gets so high it expands, eventually it caves in due to the repulsive foces being insufficient and a lot of the star the the bubbles pierce through at once and a supernova explosion is the result.

Our Sun is at the end of its lifecycle, but may still take a long time to go supernova or so is the theory.

@Lou

Let me fix this for you :
The hunt for a gravity WAVE continues.

You seemed to be snippet happy and missed this from your article.
Quote:

Article referenced by Lou Quote: This paper isn't really about the gravity wave data; instead, it is about an instrument that, in its first stage of development, is performing as expected. What is next? The researchers plan to move the experiment to the bottom of a mine, so that the environment is a bit quieter. They plan to improve the vacuum conditions, so that the intrinsic instrumental noise is reduced. They also plan to add a second torsion bar at right angles to the first. This second bar will allow the researchers to eliminate many local sources of vibrational noise, increasing their sensitivity further.

Thus, not finding it was an expected result.

There could be various reasons why the gravity wave wasn't found. One could be, as stated, too much vibration still and a first gen equipment to simply demonsrate that item could be built. It could be the tuning was wrong. This instrument was .1-1Hz and perhaps the wave is at a different frequency. This would be like tuning your radio to 100.5FM and then telling me you disproved 830AM doesn't exist.

And of course the hypothesis of gravity waves makes certain assumptions about spacetime. An easy way to think of this would be like throwing a rock in the water and you see waves. Now throw a rock in molasses and the waves are undectable. Now both molasses and water is acted on by gravity, so that's an opposing force. It could be the medium of spacetime is 'thick' enough and/or not acted on by other forces such that waves aren't created. Thus the 'wave' of gravity isn't a concept that works but gravity still could be.

Needless to say 1 experiment is unlikely to establish the non-existence or existence that gravity is a waveform.


Now, of course, there's still the electromagnetism you want to work so badly. Seems such device didn't find any of that either. If the 'gravity wave' is never found the only answer here is we didn't find a gravity wave. You can conjecture that it's really EM but you'd still need an experiment to prove it.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Apr-2011 at 06:38 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Let me fix this for you : Quote: You seemed to be snippet happy and missed this from your article. Thus, not finding it was an expected result.

I didn't miss it. Looking for gravity is like looking for a flat planet.

Quote:

There could be various reasons why the gravity wave wasn't found.

The first of which being it doesn't exist...

Quote:

Needless to say 1 experiment is unlikely to establish the non-existence or existence that gravity is a waveform.

So gravity is an observed effect that is immeasurable only after the fact that is happens... Why do you suppose that is?

Quote:

Now, of course, there's still the electromagnetism you want to work so badly. Seems such device didn't find any of that either. If the 'gravity wave' is never found the only answer here is we didn't find a gravity wave. You can conjecture that it's really EM but you'd still need an experiment to prove it.

Like I said: good luck finding something that doesn't exist.
Gravity, to me, is the net effect of electromagnet field of every atom near me (which is related to mass and distance). It's one that's mathematically hard to prove, but to me it's also why you'll never find a 'gravity wave'. So until your 'gravity wave' is actually found, my 'sum of all electro-magnetic forces' sounds better... Keep in mind, when you measure a magnetic field, you are measuring it at 1 point in space. Repeat for every point that space that your mass is going to occupy. Now take a mass, figure out it's electro-magnetic resonnance for all of it's points that make up it's mass. Cross that with what you calculated before and now you can define if something is attracted to something else or not.

Now imagine this. Is it possible that the earth's core is emitting a huge magnetic field and that obviously all matter on the planet is tuned to this field which is why this core is surrounded by material we call a crust. We are also tuned to be attracted to the earth's core.

Notice how nothing along the surface of the earth's crust is attracted to anything else along it's circumference? I guess this mythical force only works in one direction, huh?

Let's take a piece of metal. The electromagnetic forces that hold the molecules of metal together are indeed stronger than the earth's magnetic field so the piece of metal remains solid, however, generally the metal will still be attracted to the earth and does "fall" when you drop it. Who would have thunk it?

@MikeB

Quote:

> 27th of September, ELEnin will be in alignment with sun/earth. > 17th of October, ELEnin will be at its nearest point to earth and on earth's orbit. > 2nd of November, Earth will move through ELEnin's orbit at the location ELEnin passed through earth's orbit.

I should add 9/11 as that's the date according to NASA it's closets to the sun.

Last edited by MikeB on 29-Apr-2011 at 08:06 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

The first of which being it doesn't exist...

Which could possibly be. Then we 'simply' need another hypothesis to how it does exist and importantly have this pass experimentation. No one's stopping you from the EM is the only universal force swag.

Quote:

So gravity is an observed effect that is immeasurable only after the fact that is happens... Why do you suppose that is?

Gravity is an effect with a predictive equation that is highly accurate. I listed several reasons why the wave idea might not have been found. Perhaps they're listening to the wrong FM band and they should be on the AM band, for a comparitive example. But again They DIdn't Expect to find it. The experiment was not meant to find it.

Quote:

So until your 'gravity wave' is actually found, my 'sum of all electro-magnetic forces' sounds better...

Your SWAGS are infinite and your Validated Evidence is ZERO. We're open to your ideas and find them lacking in support. Sorry. At least do the honor of making your postulate falsible so it could actually be considered past the 'It's a flying invisible dragon that breathes heatless fire' statement.

Last edited by BrianK on 29-Apr-2011 at 08:52 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Apr-2011 at 08:50 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 29-Apr-2011 at 08:47 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Our Sun is at the end of its lifecycle, but may still take a long time to go supernova or so is the theory.

The scientific theory is that the sun is roughly 4.6 billion years old.

According to Buddist and Hindu thoery 4.32 billion years is when th cycle of the universe during which all the heavenly bodies return to their original positions

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: So until your 'gravity wave' is actually found, my 'sum of all electro-magnetic forces' sounds better... Your SWAGS are infinite and your Validated Evidence is ZERO. We're open to your ideas and find them lacking in support. Sorry. At least do the honor of making your postulate falsible so it could actually be considered past the 'It's a flying invisible dragon that breathes heatless fire' statement.

Hmm, I could make an argument for gravity that it's evidence is 0 because it can't be measured directly, only it's estimated effect.

And yes the universe is full of magnets.

Last edited by Lou on 29-Apr-2011 at 11:25 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Gravity, to me, is the net effect of electromagnet field of every atom near me (which is related to mass and distance). It's one that's mathematically hard to prove, but to me it's also why you'll never find a 'gravity wave'. So until your 'gravity wave' is actually found, my 'sum of all electro-magnetic forces' sounds better... Keep in mind, when you measure a magnetic field, you are measuring it at 1 point in space. Repeat for every point that space that your mass is going to occupy. Now take a mass, figure out it's electro-magnetic resonnance for all of it's points that make up it's mass. Cross that with what you calculated before and now you can define if something is attracted to something else or not. Now imagine this. Is it possible that the earth's core is emitting a huge magnetic field and that obviously all matter on the planet is tuned to this field which is why this core is surrounded by material we call a crust. We are also tuned to be attracted to the earth's core.

Nice theory.

Pity non-magnetic objects also fall to the ground, isn't it?

Or do you now suggest that its impossible to measure these 'electromagnet fields of atoms' as well? Or perhaps science has conspired to cover up these mystery magnets? Perhaps its the Illuminati? Or the Pope? Or your good old standby, Space Aliens!

Quote:

Notice how nothing along the surface of the earth's crust is attracted to anything else along it's circumference? I guess this mythical force only works in one direction, huh?

You ever heard of friction, mate?

Of course gravity acts between any two objects. Its just that the mass of any objects that can be said to be 'on the Earth' is inevitably too small to overcome the friction imposed by the gravitation of the Earth.

Deny the physics all you like, but our physics creates results we've used to put probes out beyond the heliopause. Your physics can't even explain a loaded dice.

Quote:

Hmm, I could make an argument for gravity that it's evidence is 0 because it can't be measured directly, only it's estimated effect. And yes the universe is full of magnets.

Hmm, no. Because your theory makes no predictions (No equations = no predictions) we can't even measure its estimated effect!

And the Universe is even more full of mass! Gravity is the name we've given to the attractive force of mass.

Without a shred of evidence, you cannot dispute the existence of the attractive force of mass and still remain in the realms of rational thought.


Oh, and just for fun, let's have a look at those magnetars you linked us to and why they're completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, shall we?

A magnetar is a type of neutron star currently thought to be the best hypothesis for Soft Gamma Repeaters and Anomalous X-Ray Pulsars. None are close enough to the Earth to study in any real depth, but we know they are about 20km across and contain more mass than the Sun. They also rotate once every one to ten seconds.

These things are not very much like our Sun. Tiny, incredibly dense and spinning very fast compared to the Sun, they generate much stronger magnetic fields. These fields decay after about 10,000 years of activity, after which energy emissions cease.

Let's think about those magnetic fields, though - the average magnetar has a field strength of about 10 gigateslas. Compare that to the Earth's, at about 38 microteslas. Or the Sun's, which at its strongest, in sunspots, is about 0.1 to 0.2 Teslas.

So, a Magnetar has a magnetic field that's about a billion times stronger than the Sun's, then. Do you perhaps think that just maybe, using a magnetar as your model for how the Solar System works might not be entirely appropriate?

Last edited by T-J on 30-Apr-2011 at 12:11 AM.
Last edited by T-J on 29-Apr-2011 at 11:50 PM.
Last edited by T-J on 29-Apr-2011 at 11:36 PM.

@Lou

Quote:

Hmm, I could make an argument for gravity that it's evidence is 0 because it can't be measured directly, only it's estimated effect.

Please start about 350 years ago when they measured the speed of a falling ball from the Tower of Piza. When you're caught up to the 21st Century and all the measures of this let us know.

Quote:

The first of which being it doesn't exist...

And why the closed mindedness? At least we're open enough to welcome the validated obseration and equations to your and MikeB's swag of magnents. It's really not our fault that neither of you are able to produce a shred of valid evidence.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Apr-2011 at 01:06 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: Our Sun is at the end of its lifecycle, but may still take a long time to go supernova or so is the theory. The scientific theory is that the sun is roughly 4.6 billion years old. According to Buddist and Hindu thoery 4.32 billion years is when th cycle of the universe during which all the heavenly bodies return to their original positions

Seeing as our sun doesn't have enough mass to go supernova, meaning it can't happen, then indeed that's 'a long time'.

Oh poor Budda he's 300 Million years in the hole. Oops. Another religious related predictive failure. Didn't we already all agree that various religions have predicted the end of the world and all have been wrong so far?

@BrianK

Quote:

Seeing as our sun doesn't have enough mass to go supernova, meaning it can't happen, then indeed that's 'a long time'. Oh poor Budda he's 300 Million years in the hole. Oops. Another religious related predictive failure. Didn't we already all agree that various religions have predicted the end of the world and all have been wrong so far?

This of course assuming the scientific theories and estimates are facts and 100% accurate.

@BrianK

Quote:

"Astronomers usually cannot tell the age of an individual star. There are certain stars that we know are very young, and others that are very old, but for most stars we cannot tell. When we have a large group of stars, however, we can tell its age. This is possible because all of the stars in a cluster are presumed to have begun their life at approximately the same time. After a relatively brief time (in 'star time,' that is--we are talking thousands to millions of years here) stars reach the adult phase of their life, which we call the main sequence phase. The length of time a star spends in the main sequence phase depends on its mass. "Constructing a plot, called the HR diagram, of the stars in the cluster, scientists can determine the mass of the stars that are just ending this phase and moving on to the next phase of their life, the red giant phase. Computer models allow us to predict how old a star of that mass must be to be at that juncture of its life, and hence to estimate the age of the cluster. Recently, this procedure has come under close scrutiny because that age it gives for the oldest star clusters in our Milky Way seems to be older than the age of the universe derived from the most recent Hubble Space Telescope data."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-scientists-determi

There are plenty of assumptions which may be wrong. There is conflicting data and there are plenty of phenoma not explained by science.

I hold no blind faith regarding our official scientific understandings of the universe. I think the universal views may change dramatically in the nearby future.

@BrianK

Quote:

Seeing as our sun doesn't have enough mass to go supernova, meaning it can't happen, then indeed that's 'a long time'.

According to current science, the sun will become a white dwarf star. White dwarf stars are observed to go through very violent supernovae.

Scientists estimate the mass of stars (which may be flawed) and scientists observe that distant stars behave differently than expected comparing stars of similar estimated mass.

"Supernovae are being used to make statements about the fate of the universe and our theory of gravity,” Scalzo said. “If our understanding of supernovae changes, it could significantly impact of our theories and predictions."

http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=7354

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: Seeing as our sun doesn't have enough mass to go supernova, meaning it can't happen, then indeed that's 'a long time'. According to current science, the sun will become a white dwarf star. White dwarf stars are observed to go through very violent supernovae. http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=7354

First let me say I applaud you for accepting a SuperNova of a star based on mass and therefore gravity. If you notice there nothing relating to charge here. So why did you give up on the EM swag?

Next... Our sun is 99.8% of the mass within our solar system. It's about 4-5x too small to go Supernova. Our sun doesn't generate new material. It fuses Hydrogen into Helium. Fusion requires merging 2H -> 1He. Along with this is, to no suprise, energy which is the solar winds and EM field. Additionally as the sun goes through the Red Giant phase the outter most parts will tear away creating a nebula. At this point the sun collapses to a White Dwarf. One would have to determine what the most likely composition is at this point. We have lots of loss of mass in this process. Your post indicated a White Dwarf might go Supernova is it's more than twice the mass of our sun (again gravity not EM). I'd have to sit down and do the calculations but I don't believe our sun will more than double it's mass.

Whose right? We'll never know. But what we can say is our current state of knowledge indicates supernova is a very unlikely possibility.

Oh and again welcome to interjecting a gravity fed effect into the MikeB Universal Hypothesis.

Last edited by BrianK on 30-Apr-2011 at 02:18 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

First let me say I applaud you for accepting a SuperNova of a star based on mass and therefore gravity

I talked a lot about gravity and how it plays a critical part on the earth, so why not on the sun?

Mass is a result from attractive forces (gravity). The apple falls from the tree due to attraction (gravity), it does not fall through the earth due to repulsive forces.