Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 1:00 AM
29 online now:
dwise1, Faith, PaulK (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,103 Year: 5,140/19,786 Month: 1,262/873 Week: 158/460 Day: 3/97 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
14NextFF
Author Topic:   GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 16 of 205 (178362)
01-18-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by simple
01-18-2005 2:30 PM


Re: up in the attic
cosmo writes:

Seems like you are searching, and feel confident you will someday find what you are looking for.

Well, I think I am more likely to find it by looking than by just waiting around drinking lattes ... :D

I know it seems unfair for those who put so much work into trying to figure it all out by themselves. I figure it's like two very young brothers who want something from an attic, they can't reach, and have no ladder they are near or allowed to use.

But it is not a matter of {scientists} doing it on their own, but of standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before: a solution that two kids in my experience figured out.

Very easy. Just add in the Spirits involved.

I have no problem with that as long as you clarify “at this point spirits stepped in” or some other form of “god-done-it” and ... don’t call it science. I also think it should be preceded by “I don’t really know but I believe ...” but that may be asking a lot eh?

Wow. I am actually surprised. I think it's great. I'll have to chew on some of this stuff for awhile.

Thanks, enjoy it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 2:30 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 12:03 AM RAZD has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 17 of 205 (178409)
01-19-2005 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
01-18-2005 9:41 PM


Re: up in the attic
quote:
Well, I think I am more likely to find it by looking than by just waiting around drinking lattes ...

seek, and ye shall find.
quote:
But it is not a matter of {scientists} doing it on their own, but of standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before: a solution that two kids in my experience figured out.

The attic in question is way way too high for any men to reach it on their own, even if they stand on someones head and jump. No possibility. But it is simple if we ask for help.
quote:
I have no problem with that as long as you clarify “at this point spirits stepped in” or some other form of “god-done-it” and ... don’t call it science. I also think it should be preceded by “I don’t really know but I believe ...”

And since that is sort of the way I feel about secular science, I guess we can't progress on the philospphical, oh well, ...you're welcome.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-18-2005 9:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2005 7:18 AM simple has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 18 of 205 (178477)
01-19-2005 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by simple
01-19-2005 12:03 AM


Re: up in the attic
cosmo writes:

And since that is sort of the way I feel about secular science, I guess we can't progress on the philospphical, oh well,

hmm ... what happened to seek and ye shall find? this also displays a slight problem: science is not philosophy and philosophy is not science ...

... make that two slight problems: it isn't "secular science" ... it is science, the study of natural phenomena. OR, as I said on another thread:

Think about as science asking “what can I understand about the {“life, the universe and everything”} that doesn’t require a supernatural explanation?” Think about {religion\philosophy} as asking “what can I understand about the {“life, the universe and everything”} that requires a supernatural explanation?” With this viewpoint you can see that they are not necessarily in conflict but can actually be complementary.
Adding secular to science is oxymoronic. All one needs to ask is what would religious science be?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 12:03 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 5:19 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 23 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 11:00 PM RAZD has responded

  
Raymon
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 205 (178998)
01-20-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by JonF
01-18-2005 4:22 PM


Re: Can you give me a source for this?
I can accept that the universe has a net energy of zero, but that doesn't quite address my concern: IF gravity cancels out mass, souldn't we be seeing massive objects appearing all the time (today)because of the Uncertainty Principle?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by JonF, posted 01-18-2005 4:22 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 5:21 PM Raymon has not yet responded
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2005 10:55 PM Raymon has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 20 of 205 (179007)
01-20-2005 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
01-19-2005 7:18 AM


A slight rewording of the definition of science.
Think about as science asking “what can I understand about the {“life, the universe and everything”} that doesn’t require a supernatural explanation?” Think about {religion\philosophy} as asking “what can I understand about the {“life, the universe and everything”} that requires a supernatural explanation?” With this viewpoint you can see that they are not necessarily in conflict but can actually be complementary.

How about:

Think about science as asking:
"What can I understand and the universe that I can attempt to avoid human mistakes and biases from coloring?

This requires ('cause I can't think of another way) that I have something that independent observers can check, test etc. separately from me and my biases. That leaves out a lot of thing including the supernatural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2005 7:18 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 12:11 AM NosyNed has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 21 of 205 (179009)
01-20-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Raymon
01-20-2005 4:57 PM


Uncertaintly principle
I can accept that the universe has a net energy of zero, but that doesn't quite address my concern: IF gravity cancels out mass, souldn't we be seeing massive objects appearing all the time (today)because of the Uncertainty Principle?

Don't quote me but (well, someone will when they correct what I'm saying) I think there is a decreasing probability of the object appearing based on the mass of it.

Or I'm not sure that the gravitation "cancelation" can apply to a local single object (I am way over my head here) and we'd have to gather up a lot of energy in one place to allow a really massive object to appear.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-20-2005 17:21 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Raymon, posted 01-20-2005 4:57 PM Raymon has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 22 of 205 (179164)
01-20-2005 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Raymon
01-20-2005 4:57 PM


Re: Can you give me a source for this?
first, why massive, why not just a lot of subatomic appearances and dissappearances? does the presence of a current universe prevent the subsequent inflation of another within it?

and second, how do we know there are not a lot of spontaneous appearances already?

take the issue of dark energy and matter ... what if they are "dark" because the appearances and dissappearances are so quick that the only effects are gravitational ones? that adds up to a lot of the universe (94%?)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Raymon, posted 01-20-2005 4:57 PM Raymon has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 23 of 205 (179168)
01-20-2005 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
01-19-2005 7:18 AM


Re: up in the attic
quote:
Think about as science asking “what can I understand about the {“life, the universe and everything”} that doesn’t require a supernatural explanation?”

Yes it flashed by my head a time or two, but my answer comes up something like...not a whole hec of a lot, certainly it would be filled with dead ends, unknowable mysteries, and some wrong assumptions, as well as maybe even some right ones. It's like studying about what we think is in the attic, without actually taking a peek.
quote:
Adding secular to science is oxymoronic

I disagree. No need to add religion to science in the least, but there is a need to add God, as a creator, and the record He gave us. We are like little ants to Him, and when He gives us a clue we would be very wise to take it. because we can only do so much on our own. My normal concept of 'religion' is not pleasant. It brings up images of people killing Jesu, releasing terrorists instead of Him, and paying people to lie about the ressurection. It brings to mind some of the old time wasting scenes, where they would argue how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. It brings to mind Bush, and Ayatolah Khomenei, and the Inquisition. I don't need any religion, in science, thank you very much. I would like to actually get to the real truth of the matter in some of these things, however, and realize that calculating in the bible God can not lead you astray, and time and again, like gravity, or clockwork, we can see How He was right, and we were wrong about some things. Today's news has a duck found with some dinosaurs. I read some on this forum, saying something like, birds came later. Also, some said, no mammals, none, nyet, I think at dino time (?). A few days ago, another item in the news, where a mammal was found with a tasty little dino in it's belly. No, I say science without acknowleding God, is far inferior to science that does acknowledge Him. We need a new definition of science, and we will get one. The old kind, will eventually only be rememered as science falsely so called. And rightly so. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away, Jesus said, and science as it now is is less important, than the dust on an old scale would be. Yes it is measureable, but of no signifigant importance. Mostly we'll remember the things like science almost blowing up the world, biological weapons, and chemical, human chip implants, (I, at least believe myself, and I know this is a minority opinion among christians) that will bypass free will itself, women being jiggered to have a baby at 66, (this weeks news, in Russia), pollution, death dealing cars, cancer causing stuff all over the place, etc. Sometimes, even though we also may do a lot of good, if we do really bad, that's what is remembered. Newton, Pasteur, and most of those earlier men of science did not rule out God, I think.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2005 7:18 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2005 7:57 PM simple has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 24 of 205 (179457)
01-21-2005 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by simple
01-20-2005 11:00 PM


Re: up in the attic and WAY off topic ...
cosmo writes:

It's like studying about what we think is in the attic, without actually taking a peek.

No because science is about studying the evidence, turning it over in your hand and wondering what it is and how it happened. Thinking about things like shadows in a cave is more the religious\IDist mode of operation.

No need to add religion to science in the least, but there is a need to add God, as a creator, and the record He gave us.

But science is studying the record. That is all that is required to understand the record. And adding god is adding religion, it is adding something that is supernatural.

but there is a need to add God

okay we’ll add mine.

Also, some said, no mammals, none, nyet, I think at dino time (?). A few days ago, another item in the news, where a mammal was found with a tasty little dino in it's belly. No, I say science without acknowleding God, is far inferior to science that does acknowledge Him.

No, there were mammals in the age of dinosaurs, just small and unable to take over ecological niches that were filled by the dinosaurs. The first mammal is a Therapsid where the mammal jaw evolved from the reptilian one and this is set at 200 million years ago, versus the 65 million year old end of the dinosaur age.

See http://www.stellar.co.nz/tl10.html

Megazostrodon is widely accepted as the first mammal. It was about 10cm long. Contrary to popular belief, mammals appeared on the earth almost as long ago as dinosaurs. In fact, tiny shrew-like animals such as Megazostrodon were alive throughout the entire age of dinosaurs




also see Megazostrodontidae: Megazostrodon(click), the source of the above picture, and The Therapsid--Mammal Transitional Series (click)

We need a new definition of science, and we will get one. The old kind, will eventually only be rememered as science falsely so called.

Why don’t you start a new topic on this issue to discuss it properly? This thread is getting badly off topic as it is: not a thing on gravity.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 11:00 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 9:45 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 25 of 205 (179480)
01-21-2005 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
01-21-2005 7:57 PM


Re: up in the attic and WAY off topic ...
Do we know exactly what gravity is, and what causes it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2005 7:57 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2005 12:19 AM simple has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 26 of 205 (179514)
01-22-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NosyNed
01-20-2005 5:19 PM


Re: A slight rewording of the definition of science.
Yes it leaves out a lot of things!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2005 5:19 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2005 12:17 AM simple has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 27 of 205 (179517)
01-22-2005 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by simple
01-22-2005 12:11 AM


Re: A slight rewording of the definition of science.
Yes it leaves out a lot of things!

Then perhaps you would like to go to this thread:
What is Science?

and explain what is left out.

You might start to understand that throw away one liners will not make you look very clever. You have to support what you say. Have a go at it in that thread why don't you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 12:11 AM simple has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 28 of 205 (179520)
01-22-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by simple
01-21-2005 9:45 PM


Re: up in the attic and WAY off topic ...
Do we know exactly what gravity is, and what causes it?

Could you:
1) Explain why you ask this and how the answer will help the discussion progress?
2) Clarify what you mean by "exactly"?

We do have a very good (but probably incomplete) theory of gravity. However, I'm not sure if it answers your question or not.

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-22-2005 00:20 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 9:45 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 1:35 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 29 of 205 (179532)
01-22-2005 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by NosyNed
01-22-2005 12:19 AM


exactly
I asked, because things were waxing philosophical, and the Thread starter indicated he was tired of being off topic. I looked at the title of the thread, or a previous post or something, to see what the topic was supposed to be. Gravity stuck out. I had tried to bow out of the thread before, but, sure enough, ol Razd dun went and posted again on the philosophy line. So, I replied. So much for 'why', now on to the latter point of interogation. What means this 'exactly'? Well, I was trying to get a response that would tell me if some certainty was felt about our knowledge of gravity, or whether it was pretty 'grey' and maybe some room for a fresh opinion. Or not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2005 12:19 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 12:27 PM simple has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19816
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 30 of 205 (179647)
01-22-2005 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by simple
01-22-2005 1:35 AM


Re: exactly
cosmo writes:

I asked, because things were waxing philosophical,

yeah, it is pretty easy to get dragged off into those areas, and I am as guilty as the next person for making off topic comments and getting involved in side topics: that is, after all why this particular topic was started -- it was an offshoot from the {Falsifying a young Universe} topic.

I have noted before that gravity is probably the least understood mechanism in science. The mystery of mass, the dilemma of density.

And yes it is a pretty gray area on a causal mechanism, especially at the quantum level.

maybe some room for a fresh opinion. Or not.

Lots of room for fresh ideas (as there is in any science, that is how new theories start). But for them to have value in science, they have to be able to explain observed information in a new way and lead to the development of tests to see if they are right. Pure speculation is fun, but it is 'science fiction' and not science. Opinion implies that the mind is already made up before the evidence is in, and that is not the way to move science forward ... in my opinion ... :D

To me the proper approach to the gravity issue is to list what is not working:

Our current theories on gravity do not explain the observed motions of large scale cosmic systems; the rotation of galaxies is to fast to match up to the calculated mass density distribution theoretical rotation.

This means that either the {combined observations of thousands of man-years and millions of telescopes etcetera} or the {model of the large scale cosmic system} or the {theory\theories of gravity} are wrong.

(1) Observations: how can they be wrong?

Now it is pretty hard to conceive of any way that the observed rotational speeds could be wrong, because that is based on Doppler shift in the visible and invisible light - across the spectrum board, and it is entirely, completely consistent with observations here on earth and with the known behavior of very well known objects - human made and launched satellites. So we can assume a very high degree of confidence in the observed rotational speeds.

Likewise it is pretty hard to conceive of any way that the observed distribution of the objects within the system is wrong, as they are based on the visual evidence, so we can assume a very high degree of confidence in the observed distribution of the objects in the system.

What about the mass of the objects? Could they in reality be greater in mass than they are ‘observed’ to be (here in quotes because we do not directly observe the mass, but calculate it based on theoretical models of objects and how they behave based on size from planet to star, to neutron star to black hole and compare those models with the observed data)? The problem here are that there are a number of threshold masses like brown stars (just not big enough to generate light, but may give off heat ... Jupiter?) and black holes (so massive that light cannot escape) and that these thresholds also match the observations: we see {borderline-not-quite-black-hole-massive} objects but not over the border black holes, and we see weak small stars and even some possible brown objects. The observed individual characteristics match the theoretical characteristics for the spectrum of massiveness that is known. We can assume a high degree of confidence in the mass of the observed objects (down one notch from “very high” because of it being an indirect two-step process).

This gets us to the distance between us and those objects and the distances between objects in the large scale cosmic systems. The nearer large scale cosmic systems can be measured from one side to the other by the angle they take, and this relates strictly then to the geometry of similar triangles and proportionate sizes. An angle of 1o causes a ”y” value of 17.455 feet after an “x” distance of 1000 feet, double “x” and “y” also doubles. This puts these objects on a “jacob’s ladder” of relative {distances\widths}.

Now the distance is usually related to that red-shift-light issue, but here we have an added wrinkle to that: the near and the far sides of the large scale cosmic objects can be independently measured for distance and that can be compared to the visible angular distance to see if there are any anomalies (keeping in mind that tilt causes an elliptical appearance that can also indicate relative {near\far} distances). In particular, if the distances were significantly closer in reality than the red-shift-light issue, then the large scale cosmic systems should be skewed into very elongated near far shapes that are incompatible with elliptical shapes generated by rotated circular systems, and all such systems would be pointing in the direction of observations. This is not seen.

There are also two and three body systems, where two or three stars orbit around a common point in close proximity, some close enough to measure their angular distances, and their behavior is consistent with the gravity calculations for such simple systems and their masses and their relative distances, similar to the calculations and mass distribution of the objects in the solar system. Keep in mind that their apparent separation distance (asd) is proportional to their calculated distance and that their rotational behavior is proportional to (asd)2 so the math should stand up and shout if there were any inconsistencies here as well. Here too, observation matches theoretical behavior and the model for distances on the cosmic scale. We can assume a {moderate\high} degree of confidence in the distances of the observed objects (down one notch from “high” because of it being another indirect process).

I think it is fair to say that the distance and mass distribution of the universe is pretty much defined by the observations and the calculations and the stunning consistency of matching observation to calculation. So it is hard to conceive that the observations are significantly wrong, say by a factor of two (at best you will get a few percentage points imho).

(2) The Model of the {Large Scale Cosmic System}: how can it be wrong?

As noted in the concept of dark energy and dark matter, it can be missing critical elements that contribute to the behavior of the system. Also as noted, it is logical to assume that there are plenty of objects that are not {seen\observed} because they don’t have sufficient mass to become visible in any of the electromagnetic spectrums available. There could be large swatches of cosmic dust that fill the void with distributed mass, affecting the rotational calculations more as a result (it’s that d2 thing again). There could be a pervasive subatomic particle field with particles popping in and out of existence all the time, invisible to observation, but affecting the mass rotation similar to the dust, and some could be massive point size particles (according to QM anyway). It is possible that there are a lot {more\bigger} black hole systems too that would also add mass to the total system without contributing to the observed spectrum of objects. And it is possible that there is matter in an extra dimension or two that we can’t see that contributes to the behavior of the observed dimension systems.

The model is a mathematical construction built on assumptions, some of them just possibly could be wrong. :D ... If you know how I feel about mathematical models representing reality, then you know that I do not trust them to NOT be based on {false\inaccurate\inadequate} assumptions at some level or other regardless of how carefully they are constructed. Imho a mathematical model can tell you what is wrong but it cannot tell you what is right.

We can assume a poor degree of confidence that the model is an accurate representation of the complete reality. There is room for improvement here. Note, however that this has been on the table for many years with a lot of good minds working on the task and still coming up short, but we will get to that after we cover .... (sounds of swelling music in the background ....)

(3) The {Theory\Theories} of the Gravity: how can {it\they} be wrong?

It could be missing a component that operates at large scale cosmic distances. This is entirely consistent with the evolution of any theory or theoretical system. Note that we freely talk about how Newton’s ‘Law’ of Gravity (F=GmM/d2) works within small systems (and on earth is usually reduced to F=gm, where g=GM/d2, d being the average radius of the earth, for ease of calculations well within the needs of accuracy for most effects). When we get to stellar distance scales, though, this needs to be exchanged for general relativity. It is highly likely, imho, that there is a similar process going on when we talk about large cosmic scale systems, that general relativity can adequately model stellar scale interactions, such as light bending around stars and the rotational behavior of two and three body star systems, but is missing an element when describing the motion of the {large scale cosmic systems}.

Do a google on {Einstein cosmic constant} and you get a number of interesting articles about the issue of general relativity and tweaking the system. See:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/anthol/fudge.html
for a discussion of this constant and what it would take to make it work:

Among these internal fields, there may even be ones that we haven't yet discovered. Could the cosmological constant be the fingerprint in our universe of a new 'hidden' field in Nature? This new field could affect the likelihood of our universe just as a kettle of soup may contain unknown ingredients although we can still precisely determine the kettle's mass.

A series of mathematical considerations led Hawking to deduce that the weaker the hidden field becomes, the smaller will be the value we observe for the cosmological constant, and surprisingly, the more likely will be the current geometry of the universe.

Or, as I said in another thread, a strong and a (new) weak version of gravity.

You also get articles like http://www.fen-net.de/horst.fritsch/summary/ that are questionable ... the value of time changes? (That would mean that the farther away, the more the time value has shifted since the light left the system and there should be a relationship between distance and anomalous behavior of {large scale cosmic systems} that just isn’t seen). But this also gets into the issue of what “time” is, and how does that relate to the whole concept of the universe. We assume time is constant....

But back to the gravity of the situation: problems with the “standard” theory is that there is no theory for what “dark matter” is composed of, or how “dark energy” works, or ways to test for them. There are some indicators that are also significant: when the pioneer 10 satellite left the solar system, it’s motion was not quite according to Hoyle ... or rather Einstein ... it was behaving as if there were {{dark stuffs}} “right here in River City,” (“and that means trouble ...”). A little close to home, eh? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_10#Pioneer_anomaly

Analysis of the radio tracking data from the Pioneer 10/11 spacecraft at distances between 20 - 70 AU from the Sun has consistently indicated the presence of an anomalous, small Doppler frequency drift. The drift can be interpreted as being due to a constant acceleration of {{ap = (8.74 +/- 1.33) x 10-8 cm/s2}} directed towards the Sun.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly for more information.

Because wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia it is {liable\likely} to be edited as more information becomes available, and in situations like this, likely to be pretty up to date on the status of the anomalous behavior.

We can assume a poor degree of confidence that the current {theory\theories} represent an accurate picture of the complete reality. There is room for improvement here. Note, that only recently has there been any question that something is wrong in the state of Denmark, and thus there is not the {depth\breadth\density} of study in this area that there is on the model issue.

Conclusions:

(1) "That we really just don't know enough to say at this point."

(2) There is work to be done, theories to be thought, experiments to be run, things to learn. Fun times are ahead.

Does that help?

This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-22-2005 13:31 AM

This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-22-2005 22:15 AM


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 1:35 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 3:30 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 5:44 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 184 by simple, posted 04-14-2006 6:07 AM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
14NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019