 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron wrote:
> What if, instead, it was just the universe which was repelling, and the
> "mass" of the other object was in fact a shield against that repulsion.
Already considered and tested. You would weigh less on the "back" of the
earth than the "front" because the earth was blocking repulsion particles
that are assumedly not moving along with the earth in its orbit.
Also, the "everything is expanding, so if you jump you don't fall but rather
the earth and your feet expand towards each other" theory can be trivially
disproven as well.
> Hence there is no graviton to find for the "fifth" force.
> It's just made up from the known ones (the 4 united...)
I'm pretty sure gravity is one of four, not five. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23-11-2010 17:12, Darren New wrote:
> Le_Forgeron wrote:
>> What if, instead, it was just the universe which was repelling, and the
>> "mass" of the other object was in fact a shield against that repulsion.
>
> Already considered and tested. You would weigh less on the "back" of the
> earth than the "front" because the earth was blocking repulsion
> particles that are assumedly not moving along with the earth in its orbit.
>
> Also, the "everything is expanding, so if you jump you don't fall but
> rather the earth and your feet expand towards each other" theory can be
> trivially disproven as well.
>
>> Hence there is no graviton to find for the "fifth" force.
>> It's just made up from the known ones (the 4 united...)
>
> I'm pretty sure gravity is one of four, not five. :-)
>
The one who left before they became famous.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] free fr> wrote:
> It seems gravitation has always been considered as "attraction between 2
> objetcs".
Actually since about 1915 gravitation has been considered a side-effect
of the geometry of spacetime.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/11/2010 4:29 PM, andrel wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure gravity is one of four, not five. :-)
>>
>
> The one who left before they became famous.
LOL
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/11/2010 12:54 PM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> As an aside
As an aside to your aside:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It seems gravitation has always been considered as "attraction between 2
> objetcs".
>
> What if, instead, it was just the universe which was repelling, and the
> "mass" of the other object was in fact a shield against that repulsion.
The most intriguing thing for me is the speeds of stars relative to the
centre of the galaxy, they don't follow the expected pattern by simply
solving the math for orbits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo
"either the halo is composed of weakly-interacting elementary particles
known as WIMPs, or it is home to large numbers of small, dark bodies known
as MACHOs."
I really think the scientists need to knock this sort of stuff off. 500
years from now, people will still be using these names.
For a fun fictional take on the problem, check out Robert Sawyer's
"StarPlex" novel. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> scott wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo
> "either the halo is composed of weakly-interacting elementary particles
> known as WIMPs, or it is home to large numbers of small, dark bodies known
> as MACHOs."
> I really think the scientists need to knock this sort of stuff off. 500
> years from now, people will still be using these names.
As far as I understand from his presentations, Neil deGrasse Tyson fully
embraces and promotes the use of descriptive, mundane and even funny names
in physics, especially compared to the cryptic and technical names used eg.
in chemistry and biology. Such names include things like "big bang", "black
hole" and "spaghettification" (all quite complex subjects of astrophysics).
I assume "WIMP" and "MACHO" are also right on the spot. :)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:16:22 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo
>
>> "either the halo is composed of weakly-interacting elementary particles
>> known as WIMPs, or it is home to large numbers of small, dark bodies
>> known as MACHOs."
>
>> I really think the scientists need to knock this sort of stuff off. 500
>> years from now, people will still be using these names.
>
> As far as I understand from his presentations, Neil deGrasse Tyson
> fully
> embraces and promotes the use of descriptive, mundane and even funny
> names in physics, especially compared to the cryptic and technical names
> used eg. in chemistry and biology. Such names include things like "big
> bang", "black hole" and "spaghettification" (all quite complex subjects
> of astrophysics). I assume "WIMP" and "MACHO" are also right on the
> spot. :)
That sure sounds like him - and I think he does it to make science more
fun for kids in order to get them interested in it.
We need kids to be interested in science, or we're screwed.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> embraces and promotes the use of descriptive, mundane and even funny names
> in physics, especially compared to the cryptic and technical names used
Sure. But "big bang" is descriptive. "WIMP" is almost descriptive. "MACHO"
is obviously a tortured acronym to go along with WIMP.
Calling quarks "charmed" and "strange" and "beauty" is another example.
Sure, there's probably no good name for those anyway (as in, they don't
correspond to anything that might suggest a name), so picking a meaningless
word that isn't easy to confuse with anything else is really quite reasonable.
But when your competing theory has a particle called WIMP, and you make your
particle's acronym MACHO, you're just being silly. :-) It's as bad as XNA
one-upping GNU.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
