PDA

View Full Version : 13 things that don't make sense



VanderL
2005-Mar-17, 06:47 PM
This New Scientist article (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600)
shortlists 13 things that don't make sense. While some of them are merely strange, others are quite profound (dark matter/dark energy). Any comments/additions?



Cheers.

John L
2005-Mar-17, 07:56 PM
The two in biology are big ones. Knowing the mechanisms that make the Placebo Effect and Homeopathy work could have a huge impact on medical care in the world. Imagine a world where one dose of AIDS medication could be dilluted millions of times and still work, or a just drops of vitamins added to the water supply could result in a healthier society as a whole.

I don't believe in Dark Matter or Energy so thats no surprise it in here. I agree that we just don't fully understand the large scale physics of gravity, and that when we do these anamalies will disappear.

I'd like to see a probe that investigates both the Kuiper Cliff and the Pioneer anamaly together.

VanderL
2005-Mar-17, 08:26 PM
I don't believe in Dark Matter or Energy so thats no surprise it in here. I agree that we just don't fully understand the large scale physics of gravity, and that when we do these anamalies will disappear.

I'd like to see a probe that investigates both the Kuiper Cliff and the Pioneer anamaly together.

Same here, I just can't believe that most of the Universe consists of invisible matter, if observations don't match theoretical expectations, it is most probably the theory that needs to be changed.

The probe designers are already busy to include ways of confirming/testing the Pioneer anomaly, so your wish will be granted (it'll take time though).


Knowing the mechanisms that make the Placebo Effect and Homeopathy work could have a huge impact on medical care in the world.

Both are probably related, and the placebo effect is already exploited today. I guess the immune system is a very powerful factor in curing a disease and the control of the immune system is not well understood. Maybe the brain can directly influence the immune system?

Cheers.

Prime
2005-Mar-17, 09:01 PM
No matter who tries to deny it, The Germans disproved the false concept of relativity, as proven here, in the 1920's and 30's http://community-2.webtv.net/WF11/MagneticMonopoler/

I can find NOTHING in Einstein's theory to account for these devices.

So with a faLse concept, built upon over time, you get what we have now in physics; unexplainable phenomena, as mentioned in the Top 10.

Physics never admits it's mistakes, it just keeps on adding to them, getting some results, and more mysteries that will ever be explained, until the error of relativity is admitted.


Obviously, there is a major coverup continuing to this day.

piersdad
2005-Mar-17, 10:32 PM
The basic claim of cold fusion is that dunking palladium electrodes into heavy water - in which oxygen is combined with the hydrogen isotope deuterium - can release a large amount of energy. Placing a voltage across the electrodes supposedly allows deuterium nuclei to move into palladium's molecular lattice, enabling them to overcome their natural repulsion and fuse together, releasing a blast of energy. The snag is that fusion at room temperature is deemed impossible by every accepted scientific theory.

From a very uneducated (in this area) but well educated in batteries i would think they have designed a battery which would consume some of the substances in the experiment the output seems to be small otherwise we would all be using them now.
As it is a repeatble experiment i have to believe it


No matter who tries to deny it, The Germans disproved the false concept of relativity, as proven here, in the 1920's and 30's
Thanks for that site/ link prime.



The magnets are then separated still further, and the coils moved again. This process is repeated until at a critical separation of the magnets an indication appears on the voltmeter.

Ah ha here is the first thing that always appears in magnetic perpetual machines they physically use energy from them selves to store some energy (capacitators?) and release it later.

In one 'motor' I built to see how it worked it worked amazingly till i replaced my hand held focusing maget for a fixed one and YES I was turning the rotor by hand just as a kid pushing a hoop along the ground moves by hitting it at criticle times

when 'inventors can power a 747 aeroplane with their magical magnetic motors i will believe them.

stevek8
2005-Mar-17, 10:38 PM
Might I suggest a read of The Field by Lynne McTaggart? ISBN 0-06-093117-5

While not all of it is completely definitive, it goes a long way toward answering a lot of questions. If nothing else, it will certainly make you think.

John L
2005-Mar-17, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Prime@Mar 17 2005, 03:01 PM
No matter who tries to deny it, The Germans disproved the false concept of relativity, as proven here, in the 1920's and 30's http://community-2.webtv.net/WF11/MagneticMonopoler/

I can find NOTHING in Einstein's theory to account for these devices.

So with a faLse concept, built upon over time, you get what we have now in physics; unexplainable phenomena, as mentioned in the Top 10.

Physics never admits it's mistakes, it just keeps on adding to them, getting some results, and more mysteries that will ever be explained, until the error of relativity is admitted.


Obviously, there is a major coverup continuing to this day.
Your Magnetic Monopoler is a simple transformer. I built one in 7th grade science, and the description on the link you noted is EXACTLY what I built. I doesn't create indefinite power, though, and nothing on that link disproves Einstein's General Reletivity. I agree EGR isn't the whole story, but for the things we can test here on Earth it is accurate.

piersdad
2005-Mar-18, 02:29 AM
:P johnl
So many people see an increase of voltage as an increase of power forgetting that the increase of voltage is ballanced by a decrease in current.
Its like a gearbox an increase in speed at one end has to be ballanced by more torque and less speed at the other end

scorpio711
2005-Mar-18, 05:29 PM
Prime,
I am also a bit surprised by your strong reaction... and as you are chasing (rightly) wrong statements and errors, you will allow me to chase also your wrong statements too...


I can find NOTHING in Einstein's theory to account for these devices.


well you should not be amazed... coz Einstein GR intends to address gravity and not electromagnetism ! It's like you tell me "I can't find anything in my cooking book from my kitchen on how to drive my car... thus my cooking book is wrong" !

and physics admits its mistakes, and corrects them... as proven by the Kepler theory replacing the Ptolemeus one, then Newton replacing, then Einstein's GR replacing.

and yes, there are still mysteries and there will always be... because NO theory is perfect and a theory is always replaced after some time by a better one, not perfect either.

Last but not least, nobody claims that Einstein's GR or the BigBang are absolute Truth !!!! I can tell you: they are all wrong !!! Simply they are the best that we have today, and they have allowed us to explain a bunch of things already.

And yes, the next theory will probably explain everything already in the GR plus few "mysteries", may be some of the top 13 ?

Scorpio

Guest
2005-Mar-18, 06:48 PM
Interesting list of anomalies. But what about the biggie? That is, that the universe is both "infinite" and "finite". No cosmologist seems to address that crucial contradiction. Surface of a balloon? (Doh!)

wstevenbrown
2005-Mar-19, 05:34 PM
An area of hot research with respect to cold fusion is sonoluminescence. Here is a pessimistic link, outlining the principles. Not all sources agree with this author.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cf...EB7809EC588F2D7 (http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000950E3-6815-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7)

I have personally done the water/air version of the experiment and verify that the volume of a trapped bubble is decreased by a factor of 10 exp 10. This makes it quite hot. Other solvents and solutes have been tried. Exp. is simple enough to do on a tabletop with a household budget.

Need I say more? ;) Steve

Guest_StarQuestor
2005-Mar-20, 04:32 AM
This excerpt was taken from an article in UNIVERSE TODAY called "Ripples in Spacetime Could Explain Dark Energy".
I cite it here in response to No.9 Dark Energy ....I found their theory refreshingly elegent in its simplicity.


[QUOTE]The requisite amount of dark energy is so difficult to reconcile with the known laws of nature that physicists have proposed all manner of exotic explanations, including new forces, new dimensions of spacetime, and new ultralight elementary particles. However, the new report proposes no new ingredient for the universe, only a realization that the present acceleration of the universe is a consequence of the standard cosmological model for the early universe: inflation.

"Our solution to the paradox posed by the accelerating universe," Riotto says, "relies on the so-called inflationary theory, born in 1981. According to this theory, within a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the universe experienced an incredibly rapid expansion. This explains why our universe seems to be very homogeneous. Recently, the Boomerang and WMAP experiments, which measured the small fluctuations in the background radiation originating with the Big Bang, confirmed inflationary theory.

It is widely believed that during the inflationary expansion early in the history of the universe, very tiny ripples in spacetime were generated, as predicted by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. These ripples were stretched by the expansion of the universe and extend today far beyond our cosmic horizon, that is over a region much bigger than the observable universe, a distance of about 15 billion light years. In their current paper, the authors propose that it is the evolution of these cosmic ripples that increases the observed expansion of the universe and accounts for its acceleration.

"We realized that you simply need to add this new key ingredient, the ripples of spacetime generated during the epoch of inflation, to Einstein's General Relativity to explain why the universe is accelerating today," Riotto says. "It seems that the solution to the puzzle of acceleration involves the universe beyond our cosmic horizon. No mysterious dark energy is required."

VanderL
2005-Mar-20, 10:52 AM
Sorry to disagree Starquestor,

To me it seems like exchanging one puzzle for another.
The requirement for dark energy hinges on our measurements of distance ("redshift equals distance") and our understanding of supernova lightcurves. Both have been shown to be possibly erroneous, so before we accept accelerating expansion (or even expansion itself) it would be wise to consider dark energy as a possibility among other possibilities, not a given.
Inflation is also something that "explains things only if it happened", we can't be sure it is actually a real process.
Same for dark matter, it could very well only highlight our misunderstanding of gravity, and not constitute evidence for new laws or novel particles.

Cheers.

Moseley
2005-Mar-20, 12:10 PM
Interesting article - got stuck reading about placebos yesterday and have only just managed to get through the next 12.

buzzlightbeer
2005-Mar-20, 12:25 PM
i would list entanglment as a big unknown too....

antoniseb
2005-Mar-20, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by buzzlightbeer@Mar 20 2005, 12:25 PM
i would list entanglment as a big unknown too....
Yes, entanglement is a bigger deal to me than are quite a few on the list of thirteen.

ynot
2005-Mar-21, 05:27 AM
Interesting to note a pattern in these anomalies - five or more of the problems seem to involve a matter of "perspective", namely dark matter and energy (good to see these clarified), the "Pioneer" effect, the alpha un-constant, perhaps the gamma-ray direction mystery, and the regularity of temperature.

They all seem to imply that our constants of measurement involving great distance are not reliable. So perhaps distance, or "length" itself, and even direction, are not reliable constants, but change by your relation to them. It might be interesting to compare the RATIO of difference of all these anomolies.

In other words, a star looks looks like it's in one place at a given distance, but when we get there, it's somewhere else. The Pioneer craft look like they're off target, but when we get out to them, suddenly the Earth is not where we left it.

It's like we're seeing everything through a lens, or like the "pencil in the glass of water" illusion. Refraction. All of space is refracted to our perspective. The farther away, the more refracted. In other words, nothing beyond a certain distance in space is actually where or when it seems, to us, to be.

In a way, this fits in with the rest of what was begun with relativity - NOTHING is constant, everything is relative to your perspective from a given point, and at great distance or great speed, the rules curve in on themselves. We might as well keep questioning our assumptions of constants.

This might help resolve the "dark energy" acceleration mystery by revealing it as a trick of illusion. The universe is NOT expanding, it only seems to be, from every direction. What we are seeing is not movement, but a shift or warp in the continuum, apparent from all perspectives of great distance. How else could these anamolies be so regular in all directions?

This then also undermines the Big Bang assumption that everything in the observable universe had to spread out from a single point, which never felt right. A point outside of space and outside of time, no less.

This would also help resolve an even more fundamental mystery than any mentioned in the article - the infinitude of space itself. It is rationally inconcievable that space goes on in all directions forever. It must curve in on itself to be comprehensible.

ynot
2005-Mar-21, 05:32 AM
Explain "entanglement", thanks.

ynot
2005-Mar-21, 06:01 AM
I like the idea that if you shoot out one side of space, you come in the other, but you can never see both sides at once. Or perhaps percievable space does continue forever, but the only reliably perceivable or conceivable place is your immediate environment.

Because of the perhaps insurmountable obstacle of the vast distance of space for travel, I believe we may only progress through such "inward" logical questioning of assumptions. After all, Einstein only questioned perceptions right in front of our noses, like trolleys. Newton assumed our criteria of measurements are constant. Einstein merely said, "No, they're not..."

Each step of breakthrough is followed by a few centuries of developing the ramifications and collecting new anomolies. So we should treasure and collect each anomaly, no matter how inconvenient, and not try to avoid them.

ynot
2005-Mar-21, 06:21 AM
So, if the universe isn't expanding, then what is it doing? In fact, what, where and when are any reliable points or frames of reference, both macro and micro-cosmic? Don't know, only here and now. Our biggest bugbear seems to be the infinite distance (both macro and microcosmic), so if we can reduce it all to an illusion of perspective or "even more general" relativity, we could perhaps get a grip on something.

We don't need to know what went on "before" or "outside" the big bang, only how things work now. We don't need to know the next smallest particle if nothing at that level retains any logicality either. Newton made such a compromise: we don't need to explain HOW gravity has an effect across an empty distance, only that it observably does. Accept certain mysteries and move on.

There was a speculative physicist a while back who spoke of an "implicate order" as opposed to the "explicate order". In other words, observable phenomena is only the "outside" of physics. On the outside, we and another star appear to be a great distance apart, but somewhere within or below the explicate level, distance disappears and we are right next to each other on the implicate level. Somewhere in this direction fresh answers lie, and relativity is the first step in that direction.

ynot
2005-Mar-21, 06:42 AM
To give it yet another statement, all "measurement" is only meaningful locally. Our perception of the rest of the universe, space and time are an omni-directional "fisheye lens" or "fishbowl" illusion.

buzzlightbeer
2005-Mar-21, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by ynot@Mar 21 2005, 05:32 AM
Explain "entanglement", thanks.
ok. sit down for this one. its astonishing.

Entanglement means that it is possible for two particles to become so closely related (ie entangled) that they can be separated any distance (even opposite sides of the universe), subatomic particles could become inextricably linked, and that a change to one such particle would instantly be reflected in its counterpart,

Bearing in mind this implies that the two have a connection that gets around Einstein's pronouncement about nothing travelling faster than light, it's easy to see why he didn't think much of it.

experiments in both the United States and Europe show not only that it does happen!

wow found a great link
http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles...s/entanglement/ (http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles/entanglement/)

ynot
2005-Mar-22, 02:05 AM
I love it, because it defies what we think we know. It's a similar issue to the quantum "split light beam" problem - how do particles and waves "know" what to do independent of conscious manipulation? And it fits well with what I was rambling about. Count me as a believer in entanglement, and add it to the list.

It reminds me of psychologist Carl Jung's theory of "synchronicity" - synchronous events occurring in our lives which are intimately related, though very physically separate. They occur so frequently in practice that Jung had to formalize a theory.

We will eventually have to expand our theories of the transmission of force from mere "wave" and "particle" to a framework in which forces can act instantaneously at vast, even infinite, distance. All forces do not have to "travel" through space, but are activated throughout all the fabric at once. The neat thing is that they act exactly where and when they are needed.

Sort of like "object-oriented" computer programming vs. linear. Rather than stepping through one unchanging script line by line, the entire program is running at all times, so that its output can respond to the unique needs of any individual user in any location/time. Object-oriented physics.