Space | Evolution | Physics | Social Sciences | Natural Sciences | DNA | Psychology | Biotech | Medicine | Anthropology | Astronomy

Ian Morison: The Invisible Universe

More videos from this partner:

27
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 12 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
naturalpreservation Avatar
naturalpreservation
Posted: 07.26.10, 04:23 AM
Einstein's 1920 lecture address on 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity' discounts the traditional notion of the luminiferous ether before going on to refer to other ethers, Machs and Lorentzs to name two of them. The whole dark energy and dark matter direction that theoretical physics is taking is quite conducive with Einstein's own assertion in his lecture that the ether must exist in some shape or form, if only as a medium of some kind. As is so often the case we have to balance what we know at this time, with what we'd like to be able to know, with what we ARE able to know at this time. However, to say that the idea of the ether has totally been rejected is a rather outdated and inaccurate statement. As Einstein states himself: "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”
Periergeia Avatar
Periergeia
Posted: 06.12.10, 08:33 PM
"Is it not feasible that the so-called missing mass is a black hole??? He keeps mentioning that through the amount of light or visible star matter he has measured the mass of the galaxy.: Far enough away from its event horizon a black hole has exactly the same 1/r gravitational potential as any other non-relativistic mass. So if the sun were replaced with a black hole of equal mass, we, here on earth, would not feel ANY difference in the resulting gravitational attraction. Of course, there would be no light coming from the black hole and there would be indeed very strong relativistic phenomena going on at the event horizon itself. To give an idea what that means, though, let's imagine that the sun has a Schwarzschild radius of 3km or about a two miles. Strong relativistic effects would be taking place within, say, 10 times the Schwarzschild radius, i.e. within a disk of about 30km radius as seen from a far away observer. Now, since the sun's (visible) radius is about 700,000km, the "visible" sun sized black hole would be some 20,000 times smaller than the visible sun! From earth's orbit the sun has an angular diameter of some 30 arc minutes (half a degree of arc), I believe. If we divide that by 20,000, we are down to 0.09 seconds or arc. That's roughly the optical resolution of the Hubble space telescope! Even with the best of our telescopes we could barely resolve the events taking place near a black hole at the distance of our own sun! In other words, these small black holes are unresolved in optical instruments. In x-rays, however, black holes are very hot because any matter that falls in leaves distinct high energy radiation as a signature of the violence of the event behind. But so far our x-ray satellites have not observed a sufficient amount of this radiation to assume the existence of vast populations of stellar size black holes in the arms and halo of galaxies. Either that or all such objects are starved, without any matter falling in, which, given the abundance of sufficiently dense regions in the galaxy, is unlikely. Giant black holes at the center of galaxies, OTOH, do not show the kind of galactic radius dependent rotation curve that is being observed in most galaxies. Only distributed mass can produce that kind of effect. And that's where non-relativistic dark matter comes into play. To a physicist the notion of dark matter is not particularly adventurous, anyway. Since the discovery of neutrinos we are used to looking for nearly interaction-free, hard to detect stuff. This one is merely one or two steps harder than the neutrino. A lot more abundant, though.
Periergeia Avatar
Periergeia
Posted: 06.12.10, 08:07 PM
Peter Fred: "Just because everyone believes in the dark matter and dark energy does not make it so" Hmmmm... may I ask who you think "everybody" is? Since there seem to be a heck of a lot of people in your engaged in such "belief", it would have been good for you to cite a few names, just for fun. Now, let's get to the real point. Both dark matter and especially dark energy are currently nothing more and nothing less than placeholder names for observed phenomena which the relevant scientific community does not have to believe in... both have been measured in several independent ways with high enough precision to rule out any statistical errors. Dark matter can be literally "seen" by both its direct and indirect gravitational effects, gravitational lensing and galactic rotation curves. Dark energy, OTOH, is visible in the measured acceleration of the cosmological expansion. Again, it is an experimental result, not some theoretical concept that we ordered as a side dish to our lunch menu. :-) "All the high-profile scientists at the turn of the last century were quite confident about the existence of the ether" Or were they? May I suggest you actually read up on the historical discussion about the aether theory of light rather than to infer that again everybody and their grandmother believed in this thing like in the Catholic Catechism? "With the dark energy and dark matter we have the same case." How would it be the same case? We have all the evidence in the world for both dark matter and dark energy, yet, if you ask most scientists in the field, they were completely baffled about finding it. Quite contrary to your failed analogy, whereas the Newtonian worldview calls for an aether (albeit a rather strange and unlikely one) and the laboratory denies it, naive general relativistic cosmology calls for the absence of both dark matter and dark energy but the universe supplies both copiously... is wanting and not getting the same now as not wanting and being smothered in it? Maybe we should try that with chocolate cake... the results should be rather humorous in a Chaplinesque way. "After looking for the WIMP for 16 years they have not detected it. " WIMPS are but one laboratory candidate for dark energy (among numerous others) and none of the dark matter candidates carries much of any information about the source of dark energy. Incidentally, many physicist would actually favor mechanisms without the need for any new particles... Consequently, most WIMP searches are actually designed as zero experiments to push the detection limits for WIMPS to rule them out, not to actually find any. By now few think that we can do dark matter without some sort of material carrier, but dark energy is certainly a completely different animal. "They have found evidence for the dark energy but that energy density is supposed to be either zero to 120 decimal places or an energy density of 120 orders of magnitude greater than zero. " That number makes naive assumptions about the renormalization scale of quantum gravity. It tells you merely that you can't treat gravitation within the current framework of the standard model. i.e., just like the diverging self energy of a classical point charge is a clear indicator for the fundamental failure of classical electrodynamics to explain the interior structure of electrons (one needs quantum electrodynamics for that), treating gravity naively as a fifth force similar to electromagnetism simply fails (and it fails for many, many more reasons than just this one scale argument). This makes any discussion of the meaning of this large discrepancy between theory and experiment to physicists about as meaningful as the theological question how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle. Of course neither question fails to blow air onto the fires of the minds of amateurs who don't understand the actual background of either discussion and therefor are left with "a mystery". I did look at your experiments, though. They are very pretty. Just how do you get your copper so shiny? It must be endless hours of polishing. I can tell that you are really pouring your heart into these things. There is certainly dedication involved. Not that I think your results would be any more or less meaningless if the copper was oxidized. One wonders, though, if you could have become a real scientist if things had gone the right way... but now you are wasting a heck of a lot of effort on publishing measurement errors on pseudo-science websites. Too bad...
JimH Avatar
JimH
Posted: 12.21.09, 05:08 AM
These comments are evidence that understanding scientific knowledge is severely lacking in the general populace. It would be nice to have the time to respond to each of them with the knowledge available in the scientific community, but, alas, there is no way.
Peter Fred Avatar
Peter Fred
Posted: 11.14.09, 08:20 AM
Just because everyone believes in the dark matter and dark energy does not make it so. All the high-profile scientists at the turn of the last century were quite confident about the existence of the ether--even though there was no laboratory evidence for it. With the dark energy and dark matter we have the same case. There is no laboratory evidence for either one. After looking for the WIMP for 16 years they have not detected it. They have found evidence for the dark energy but that energy density is supposed to be either zero to 120 decimal places or an energy density of 120 orders of magnitude greater than zero. The energy density that is thought to cause the acceleration of the universe has been measured to be 0.7. This is much larger than 0.000000000000000000000000000... or smaller than 10^120. For more on this see the video Fortunately, this 300 year old belief that mass mediates the gravitational force is very likely due to an artifact that only gives the appearance that mass attracts other mass. Every astrophysicist knows (1) that there is a high correlation between a star's mass and its luminosity; (2) A galaxy's luminosity is directly proportional to its highest orbital velocity; (3) The Stefan-Boltzmann indicates that if mass has a temperature it has heat leaving it in the form of radiation; (4) Gravitationally bound systems such a planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies and clusters all have a major heat source at their center and a major cold source surrounding them. And guess what? I have performed five experiments that show that the weight of a test mass will either increase or decrease by 2-9% depending on the direction which heat is made to flow through the test mass. These experiments and a paper with the title "Is the sun's warmth gravitationally attractive?" can be found here .
Psycel Avatar
Psycel
Posted: 09.14.09, 07:15 AM
Hi. This is really great to watch. I have no degree in the field of physycis or astronomi. I just have a mental picture of something that might explane/or put into perspective what I think could be the source of gravity. This is imagination! I will name this thought-eksperiment: The universe at siege What if everything around us creates enourmes amounts of collisions and everytime there is a collision, it will send a lot of "fragments" in various sizes and qualities in almost every direction. In this mental picture think of them as allmost infinitely small and that there is a lot of them. They would be undetectable unless they impact, perhaps on the core of a atom, or on an electron, or they might make a more rare impact with something smaller. Every time they impact they influence what they hit, give it a little kick, give a little push. But they are constanly bombarding us from all directions at the same time. Now lets think of two atoms(a and b) in a surroundig where they are in a constant bombardment from all dirrections. They will be moved in all directions at the same time - exept that they will be blocking a minuscule amount of the fragments that probably would have hit the other atom and vice versa, thus they would be pushed together, and they would be blocking more of these fragments as they move closer to each other, thus decreasing the amount of pushes the atom a gets in the direction away from atom b, thereby it would seem as if they are attracted to each other, with a groving intensity the closer they are to one another. But this is not true if there are a large amount of unobservable collisions inbetween them, that are sending fragments in all directions, including the direction of both atoms! If there is a larger amount of collisions (fragments moving in the direction of the atoms a and b) between them than the amount of collisions (fragments moving in the direction of atom a and b) in a straight line through the atom and on the other side. This would make the the atoms move away from each other at great distances, thus creating the expanding universe. Basicly I the only thing I did not understand in the lecture was the assumption that the evergroving amount of plutonium would actually explode under all circumtsances. If it was at the edge of the universe (if there is no matterin space on one side of it) and its movement away from the universe is greater than the growth of the plutonium multiplyed by some unknown factor, I think that the gravitational influence on the plutonium would acctually decrease. If the gravitational influence is decreasing it would not explode, perhaps it would even stop being radioactive (because the core of the atom would be less exposed to the constant bombardment). At some point the atoms of plutonium would perhaps even begin to push each other away (due to gravitational influence caused by their internal collisions) and thereby spreading apart. This was my thoughts on gravity Peter
cribster Avatar
cribster
Posted: 05.17.09, 02:31 PM
Nassim Haramein oops...sorry, search this man and tell me what you think!
cribster Avatar
cribster
Posted: 05.17.09, 02:30 PM
I am not extremely prepared for a debate of my comments below but 'food for though'' This mystery of galaxy formation lends me to a non-belief in the proposed Big-Bang Theory. I do not believe in SOlid State though either. I admit with pride that I have a strong belief in God and that all God need do is say 'Be!' and it is. I know this leaves the discussion hanging, but I am continuing to search for the method of God's creation. You might enjoy a lecture (rather long but interesting nonetheless) by . Search google videos and you'll find it.
Lotus Avatar
Lotus
Posted: 05.14.09, 11:58 PM
cribster, Your counter-argument does make a fair amount of sense, for that argument for dark matter. One hard to explain away argument that sticks out in my mind though, is the formation of galaxys and stars erlier in the life of our universe then would be expected with only normal matter...however his explanation is opperating under the assumption that the original matter of our universe all had the same gravity, and their wernt any other forces in the universe at that time that are no longer as prevelant, or found... I guess what I'm trying to say is that if that was his only argument, then the black hole thing would make more sense but that lacking of explanation in the video is erksum. I'm glad there are still people questioning and thinking, Nelson
cribster Avatar
cribster
Posted: 04.04.09, 04:21 PM
Is it not feasible that the so-called missing mass is a black hole??? He keeps mentioning that through the amount of light or visible star matter he has measured the mass of the galaxy. Does the mass of a black hole at the center of the galaxy not play this immense role in the causation of the dynamics of an observed star's speed through orbit? Also this clumping of so-called 'dark matter' could possibly just be the increase in a black holes mass? My understanding of a black hole is one that black holes growth thru propagation of matter into its singularity. Wish he would address this fundamental counter to his arguement!
Advertisement

Advertisement
FORA.tv ticker