UFO Conjecture(s)

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Three items of interest (perhaps)

I can't explain this spike:
This is a 3-D picture of the Universe (as explained). My 3-D glasses produced nothing (Mouse over the image to enlarge):
The new Einstein?

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2014/12/the-next-einstein-radical-new-theory.html#.V4-_rdQrKt8

N.B. The spike is from my Blogger account stats. The other items are from my MediaWatch Facebook news feed.

RR

2 Comments:

  • I must invoke 'Betteridge's Law of Headlines' here (for the New Einstein? bit). ;)

    Can't argue with the "paper or it doesn't happen" bit. Even then, it'll all stand or fall on observational evidence. That could take decades. By which time, aliens will already have landed and explained it all (as well as curing all disease).*

    *(Makes you wonder why they've been so reticent with the likes of George Adamski, Billy Meier, Whitley Streiber, the Gulf Breeze fella etc. etc.)

    By Blogger scherben, at Wednesday, July 20, 2016  

  • Regarding the New Einstein:
    Here is another view from "Beyond Einstein: Non-local physics" by Brian Fraser (2015):
    *****
    Einstein recognized that a “static” Universe (the accepted view in the early 1900s) could not be a stable one. The Universe would eventually collapse due to the action of gravitation. To counter that problem, Einstein introduced the “cosmological constant” to General Relativity in 1917. It represents what is now viewed as “dark energy” which keeps the Universe from collapsing. However, it was recognized that its inclusion still did not lead to a static Universe, because the equilibrium was unstable. If stars moved closer, the gravitational force would increase, moving closer still. If stars moved farther apart, then the gravitational effect would be lessened, and “dark energy” would more readily move them even farther apart. The whole situation was unstable, and to this day the cosmological constant is still regarded as an “outstanding theoretical challenge” in cosmology.

    --snip—-

    The view that is gaining currency today is that space itself expands or is "emergent" (new spatial units are being generated by some unknown process). It is like time, in that it progresses. But it progresses in three dimensions, and we call that an expansion.

    Opposing the expansion is gravitation, which is centered on an object (planet, star, galaxy). We interpret the resulting motions in terms of forces, the cosmological expansion force, which is not affected by distance, and the gravitational force, which has a 1/d^2 dependence. Because of this, there is necessarily a distance where the forces are at equilibrium, a distance I call the "gravipause" (which, in this definition, involves only one body, and space itself). For stars it is apparently a few light years, and for galaxies it is apparently a few million light years. Inside this distance, objects come together, and outside this distance, objects move apart. This is the “beyond Einstein” view that reconciles the issues of stability and instability. It explains why globular clusters are stable, even though they do not rotate sufficiently to keep them from collapsing. It explains why stars are separated by light years, but not by light weeks. It may explain some of the problems in calculating the Hubble constant, because the “constant” would be dependent on the location from which the observations are made (a large versus small galaxy). . . .
    *****
    The paper can be downloaded from: http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/BeyondEinstein.html The .html file gives a link to the .pdf file but the former has additional information, and many more links and insights.

    By Blogger Brian F, at Thursday, July 21, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home