Has anyone seen the moon.

Originally posted by stereologist
Gravity won't be inconsistent. Maybe you meant to say that if you placed a sphere around the galaxy and went to places on the sphere and measured the force of gravity you would see that it is not the same everywhere on that sphere. Correct. You wouldn't expect it to be since the galaxy is not a homogeneous ball.

Indeed ... Yes .. that's what i meant ...

Now im trying to help you here stereologist ... I gave you a brand new concept, on the dynamics of a supermassive black hole ... but you refuse to give it any great deal of thought... either because the idea sounds so crazy .. or because i am unable to covey my ideas with the correct level of appropriate scientific terminology and structure, as to articulate my concept to you from the point of another budding physicist ... which i am not .. as has so often been the case in science .. they lose out on an excellent theory, because it sounds too radical .. or the theory came from someone who was at a lower level of education, and therefor did not deserve serious consideration by the educated ones who served their time at university ..

I implore you again .. reread what i wrote ... and embrace my theory before you are too late ... and left out in the cold
i may even just publish a paper in a well known scientific journal .. and take the scientific world by storm ... and youll be like .. yeah .. whatarespinkters .... yeah .. i knew him once .... he stole my idea .. with your half empty bottle of whisky in hand, as you throw another empty bottle at your cat out of bitterness towards me, when you see me getting a nobel peace prize, when it is announced we finally managed to harvest a black holes energy, thanks to our new SpinktersLaw ... Yes .. I'll even have a law named after me ..

he he .. all good .. just messing ..

Thanks for your responses ... and taking the time to read my ramblings ... much appreciated

Originally posted by CLPrime
You should write a book about all of this

.

Aaaahaaaaaa

excellent .. that did made me giggle

i feel as though i just did write a book on it

reply to post by CLPrime


PS - I know you didnt actually mention dark matter to me (dont think you did anyway) .... i only mention my refusal to embrace it, because, other than the super massive black holes gravitation grip on the galaxy theory ... dark matter is the only other theory i know of that can apparently explain what is holding the galaxy in its form .... i could be wrong tho

Originally posted by WhatAreSpinkters
reply to post by CLPrime

 

PS - I know you didnt actually mention dark matter to me (dont think you did anyway) .... i only mention my refusal to embrace it, because, other than the super massive black holes gravitation grip on the galaxy theory ... dark matter is the only other theory i know of that can apparently explain what is holding the galaxy in its form .... i could be wrong tho

I will happily say that, in fact, you are wrong. I'm not a fan of dark matter, either. In fact, that blurry stuff over my head in my avatar over there is the field equation for a modified form of gravity called Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity (STVG), developed by John Moffat. It's a slight tweak of General Relativity which actually explains the rapid rotational velocities of galaxies, the accelerated expansion of the universe, and other "anomalies" without a need for dark matter or dark energy. If STVG had a Facebook page, I would Like it.

Originally posted by WhatAreSpinkters
reply to post by CLPrime

 

so the centripetal force at that point is greater than the gravity ... thats what i imagined ... but in my mind .. i further hypotheised, that perhaps it could be great enough to warp its own gravity ....

Even theoretically, I can think of no way in which centripetal force could warp a gravitational field. Gravity is the warping of spacetime, and centripetal force has no warping effect on spacetime, so centripetal force is removed from the gravitational force. The two are, essentially, in different dimensions, with no ability to interact. But, of course, this is based on a Relativistic understanding of gravity and spacetime. I would have to say that, given the unknowns, the warping of a gravitational field by centripetal force isn't truly impossible - it's just impossible based on our current understanding of the way gravity works.

What if i told you i had a PHD in astrophysics (which i dont)... would my idea gain any further weight and gain further consideration by anyone ?

Not with me. I have no degree whatsoever (I'm assuming a high school diploma doesn't count), and I trust my otherwise educated opinions... as I also trust anyone who shows an understanding of the topic. You easily qualify. Any theory you present, I will take seriously.

On that note, I encourage you to keep considering the consequences of your idea that centripetal force can warp a gravitational field. I think you should see if there's any possible way you can think of that would allow such an interaction. This is how science is built.

Originally posted by CLPrime
Gravity is the warping of spacetime, and centripetal force has no warping effect on spacetime, so centripetal force is removed from the gravitational force. The two are, essentially, in different dimensions, with no ability to interact.

Not trying to be awkward .. Just trying to learn ...
You say they have no ability to interact, as they are in different dimensions .. fair enough ..
But the end effects of Gravity (gravitational field) .... and centripetal force (spinning / dragging i guess .. still have to google centripetal ), are measurable / quantifiable in this dimension .. and actually, the end results do seem to interact in this dimension .. mentioned by yourself .. frame dragging ? Though i realise you were focusing, more speficially, on being able to interact in such a way as to focus the gravitation field ..

Although i have still to google frame dragging also now, i did have a quick peek in wikipedia ... i imagine it to be along the lines of ... Magnetic field is getting literally dragged around with centripetal force, forcing the magnetic field at the equator, to spin faster than the magnetic field at the poles ... as, at the poles, the farthest out reach of the magnetic field, perpendicular to the disc, would not be as affected by the centripetal force, as at the equator .. literally causing it to twist away at the equator.. Frame dragging ... I beleive the sun does something similar, where it is spinning faster at the equator, causing its magnetic field to twist around ... im unsure if that is also considered frame dragging .. Apologies if i'm way out .. i will read up on frame dragging also ..

Either way ... i have been hard at the equations on the abacus for almost 10 minutes now .. and the interactions in this dimension of these remnant residual forces just isnt enough to get the magnetic field to warp significantly the way I casually suggest it could / should ... I need a more direct interaction of forces ...
Hmm ... If only i could invent some unknown force that they cant prove the existence of, to make my theory workable ... YES .. Dark matter ... No .. thats been done already .. Erm .. Spinkters .. yes .. a spinkter .. a newly proposed particle, that actually doesnt even exist as physical matter at all .. similar to Dark mater .. only this matter wasnt even created as part of the big bang .. but infact already existed prior to the big bang .. and, was responsible for the slow down of inflation (theyll have to revise their inflation theory now to allow for my spinkter particle) a millionth or so second after the big bang ... without it, the big bang wouldnt even be possible ... Yes .. It doesnt adhere to the laws of the universe .. but the universe adheres to it... The Spinkter

I would have to say that, given the unknowns, the warping of a gravitational field by centripetal force isn't truly impossible

That's what i was looking for .. of course i already have an 'idea', of the current scientific limitations (boundaries) with respect to black holes, and current models ... i love when a scientist (or person), can say, 'i dont know .. i am limited by facts .. but here is my opinion' ... as opposed to blindly following main stream general consensus that hasnt been proven 100% unquestionable (like, the widely accepted , but, 'unproven specifics' of evolution for example, which are taught in the texts books as fact .. postulation at its finest ), to the point of backing it up in a debate as though its absolute fact ... .. 'this is how it works (until main stream science changes its general stance again .. then i'll blindly embrace their new consensus) .. the use of words like apparently, possibly, potentially, always impress me ... (and loads of other words that end with ly ) ..
Very open minded response sir ... I have even more respect for you now ... plus, you just seem a nice guy, that tries to make time for anyone

I encourage you to keep considering the consequences of your idea that centripetal force can warp a gravitational field.

I shall .. but for now, i am losing this argument .. I will let it sleep .. and come back to it later .. watch some more space documentaries .. see if i can refine my theory

reply to post by CLPrime


Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity (STVG)

Thanks for that ... i suspected you would have another option for me to consider .. The name rings a bell . but thats as far as my immediate familiarity goes ..

It is on my list, with centripetal and frame dragging

(i did just have a peek at STVG on wikipedia .. and swiftly closed it again .. it hurt my eyes .. i will find a source with layman terminology and less equations of glyphs that look to me more like they belong on a pyramid wall )

Edit to add .... Interestingly - i had never been aware of the term frame dragging prior to your earlier response... then, last night, i had some documentary on in the background, at some point they were talking about Torsion fields, they mentioned frame dragging which caught my attention ... i looked at the screen to see what looked like a twisted field, like how i imagine this magnetic field of a black hole would end up looking as a result of frame dragging ..

Torsion fields are also on my list now .. if they are even real .. whatever they are .. the name makes it sound cool

Looked for the moon last night, couldnt see it, when it should have been clearly visible, will look again tonight.

Originally posted by OoohLaDeDa
Looked for the moon last night, couldnt see it, when it should have been clearly visible, will look again tonight.

Okay.

Where do you live and what time did you look?

Uk, I was up extra early because I couldnt sleep, was about 5am.

reply to post by WhatAreSpinkters


I look forward to reading your thesis Now, I know there's going to be a lot of peer pressure to name it something official-sounding, like, On the gravitational warping effects of frame dragging and centripetal force through a novel interaction - the 'Spinkters'... but, I think you should buck the trend...I suggest calling it simply, What are Spinkters?.

Also, I do want to add that, by saying centripetal force and gravity are essentially in different dimension, I'm not suggesting that they are, literally, in different dimension. Both centripetal force and gravity operate in 4 dimensions, as do all things in our known universe (hence, spacetime). But, I use "dimensions" here figuratively... gravity is the warping of spacetime, and centripetal force has no known effect on spacetime. Hence, according to our current understanding, they never interact.
There are, however, two possible ways the two could, theoretically, interact:

1) gravity is, in fact, not a warping of spacetime, and is a force that operates in the same way as the other fundamental forces, making it possible for (the non-fundamental) centripetal force to effect it through a direct causal interaction with the gravitational quanta (gravitons).

2) centripetal force does involve some previously unknown warping of spacetime akin to gravity, and, in this way, interacts with the gravitational field.

The second possibility is highly unlikely. We would expect that such a phenomenon would already have been seen in the vicinity of all massive rotating objects, including the earth. In fact, we have a similar phenomenon (rotational frame-dragging - called Lense-Thirring precession), but nothing to suggest the premise of point 2.

If anything is going to lead you to a successful theory, it's going to be the first point - that gravity is not a warping of spacetime. However, this requires a quantum theory of gravity which reproduces, exactly, the effects of General Relativity using, not a warping of spacetime, but a field of gravitational quanta. Good luck with that, though... quantum gravity is eluding some of the best minds in the world right now. Not that that's stopped even me from working on the problem. I have my own ideas. So, get to it.

Originally posted by CLPrime
1) gravity is, in fact, not a warping of spacetime, and is a force that operates in the same way as the other fundamental forces, making it possible for (the non-fundamental) centripetal force to effect it through a direct causal interaction with the gravitational quanta (gravitons).

I like #1 ... My understanding of Gravity (like most of this stuff) is extremely basic ... but sufficient for me to get a mental picture of attraction based on the mass of an object, and the matter its comprised of ... Like a big magnet pulling on a smaller magnet for my simple mind ..

I do like the idea that gravity is the warping of spacetime ... in that .. it kinda simplifies gravity for me to get a good mental picture of how it 'might' operate .. ie ... earth, orbitting the sun, as it is travelling in the curvature of the suns warping of space .. but doesnt fall in, as the speed and trajectory we are travelling at, stops us falling any further into the warped space and into the sun .... or something to that effect

I'm on the fence with that too ... The warping of time, from the sun, is extremely small in my understanding ... (far more appreciable when you get to black holes) ... For the warping of spacetime to be gravity . space would have to be warped by the sun .. to the furthest orbitting object in the solar system, and likely beyond ... yet we see such little effect on time by comparison .. i realise there could be a very good, and simple reason for this .. if i could wrap my head around spacetime a bit better ...

Im certainly not in a position to say that's not the case ... But hard for me to wrap my head around ... the mental picture of objects 'pulling' at each other .. 'attracting' each other almost like magnets works better for me ..


Ahh the good ol' graviton ...
I think String theory has a long way to go, and when taken seriously and pursued by more scientists, will evolve to something even whackier sounding .. but will explain, and hopefully bridge the gaps between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics ... or even replace them as one unified theory .. and graviton is a great candidate for gravity .. but regardless, i would not be at all surprised if the idea that the warping of spacetime is responsible for our earth being in orbit around the sun, is on shaky ground in 10 years from now ...

I think i will also keep a close eye, on what science learns from Quasars ... With regards to what i was saying, about a supermassive black hole being able to focus its own gravity ...

One thing sprung to mind while i was in the shower a few days ago .. (a false Eureka moment )

A Quasar, in my understanding, is essentially, a supermassive black hole .. which has swallowed enough matter (gas) from its galaxy, that its swallowing more than it can take, and emits the matter, in jets, from the poles, which can extend for hundreds of thousands of light years or so ...

I wondered, how, when light can not even escape , can this jet of matter be thrown out so far .. unless, of course, what i said is correct .. and gravity is not equal all around it, and the force that the black hole wants to eject this matter at, is greater than the force of the gravitational field and centripetal force at the poles ... matter is spewn from the weakest point in gravitational field ... which is also the weakest point in centripetal force i imagine .. at the dead centre .. north and south poles ..

Apparently ... When a regular black hole reaches this point, where it is eating more than it can consume, it supposedly, coughs the matter, or accretion disc, away .. and then continues again when the matter is drawn back ...
Why doesnt a supermassive black hole do the same thing ... perhaps it does, and we havent seen it yet .. but for now .. it seems the jets emitted by a supermassive black hole, are the result of it 'apparently' eating more than it can chew ..

I have no idea why supermassive black holes appear to behave differently in this way .. but the fact they appear to, is what brought me back to my earlier point, that, we barely understand regular black holes, and have known about supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies, for 5 minutes by comparison .. never mind the part they play in galaxy formation ...

I decided to check up on this when i got out the shower ... i checked wikipedia ..
It seems science initially came to the same conclusion as me ... but decided, since their current understanding doesnt allow for light or matter to 'escape' ... (or be 'ejected' at a force greater than gravity at poles as oppose to 'escape' .. spinkters theory) ... that, indeed the supermassive black hole cannot be responsible for the jets .. so instead .. it is the accretion disc itself, that is spewing the jets of matter into space ..
Matter being thrown out from the accretion disc, at a 90 degree angle to the plane of the accretion disc, also goes against my idea that, the gravitational force at the equator, would be greater than at the poles ...


When i read that .. although it didnt convince me as fact, the jets of matter come from the accretion disc, i decided not to post my Eureka moment ...

But .. since you mention , option number 1 ... and Gravitons ... then i thought id share my latest ramblings with you

Infact .. come to think of it ... even if the matter is being ejected from the accretion disc (directly next to the supermassive black hole) . i still fail to see how the particles can achieve a speed, as to escape the supermassive black holes apparently evenly distributed huge gravitational field ...

Also .. I fail to see how the accretion disc, which is matter caught in the centripetal force (?), could send jets of matter outwards that the supermassive black hole could not consume, perpendicular to the plane of the accretion disc ? .. what force in the accretion disc (or interaction from the black hole) could do that ?
Why not just cough matter back out from the accretion disc, like a regular black hole apparently does ..

I can admit i am clutching at straws ... I hope the people who embrace the idea that its the accretion disc which is spewing out the matter in a Quasar can admit the same thing too ..

I am absolutely not convinced by this theory yet .. and if it in indeed very flawed .. then there is plenty of scope for spinkters theory to be even partially correct ...

As excellent as quantum mechanics and string theory are in their own area ... it would be excellent for a unifying theory to explain it all ..
String theory has been refined several times ... and although each time it evolves, it just seems to get wackier .. i think it is the best way forward we have just now ... but not the answer in itself ...
It does throw out some thought provoking ideas ...
Including, why, gravity may be so weak compared to the other forces ... it kinda explains, how ... the graviton, for example, could be jumping between parallel universe, or dimensions ...

I remember one theory, that, the 4 forces were equal, but due to the nature of gravity, flowing between dimensions (i think string theory allows for 11 or 13 dimensions), that all the gravity is spread around in other dimensions as well as ours (or even parallel universes, which could perhaps be considered to exist in other dimensions), ... and electromagnetism, and strong and weak nuclear force do not ... which is why gravity is by far the weakest force

Thanks for your ideas CLPrime ... I like the way you think

reply to post by WhatAreSpinkters


Y'know, I was just thinking, I'm kinda surprised we've been allowed to hijack the thread like this. I guess once everyone finds the moon and sees it's still where it should be, the thread's fair-game.
But, as long as the gate's been left open...

I think I might be able to explain to you a bit better how jets of radiation are emitted from the poles of rotating supermassive black holes. It's actually quite straightforward. I can tell how much you love to take in information, so I'll actually do my best to throw in as much as possible.
There are actually 4 types of black holes:

1) Schwarzschild black hole - non-rotating with no magnetic field (obviously, the simplest, or "ideal", form)
2) Kerr black hole - rotating with no magnetic field
3) Reissner–Nordström black hole - non-rotating with a magnetic field
4) Kerr-Newman black hole - rotating with a magnetic field

The Kerr-Newman solution would be the most accurate for the modelling of Quasars if it weren't for one thing: it assumed a non-existent Cosmological constant. But, of course, we now know that some form of the constant exists (the expansion of the universe is accelerating), so this model fails for true astronomical observations. To accurately model a Quasar, much more complex equations are needed.

But, before I slip into a deep mathematical trance (which has been known to happen on occasion), I digress. As you know, Quasars most likely involve rotating supermassive black holes, with magnetic fields, taking in an extreme excess of matter (up to 100 stars per year). These, of course, have accretion discs. But, the accretion disc is not quite the source of the observed radiation emissions. You seemed confused as to how the centripetal force at the equator of a black hole could cause matter from the accretion disc to jet in a perpendicular direction. There's a very good reason for your confusion. This isn't quite what happens.

The rotation of the accretion disc is slower than the rotation of the black hole, itself, and this difference in rotational velocities is what generates the black hole's magnetic field (just as, at the most basic level, the difference in the rotational velocities of the inner and outer cores generate the Earth's magnetic field). In the case of a black hole, however, the magnetic field is particularly intense, and the rapid rotation and intense gravitational warping causes the field to get twisted (what you were referring to when you mentioned Torsion Fields).
The twisted magnetic field is left with two well-defined opening at the poles, and it's through these openings that particles (such as electrons) are emitted at high velocities (very near the speed of light) away from the poles. As these particles emerge from the magnetic field, they move in a spiral motion, and this motion causes them to emit radiation across the spectrum (we see this all the time here on Earth - look up synchrotron radiation).

So, it's the extremely warped magnetic field of the black hole that funnels the particles to the poles and ejects them at high velocities, causing them to emit massive amounts of radiation in jets. These jets, when observed at an angle, we call Quasars. When the jet is pointed directly at us, we call them Blazars. When the accretion disc is aimed our way, we call them Seyfert galaxies.

Hope that helps

reply to post by CLPrime


Aahaaa ... I suspected things would be slightly more complex than my previous ramblings ...

The magnetic field is firing these jets of matter deep into space .... that's utterly astounding ( as is most science related stuff ) ... the mind boggles

Yes .. it was very helpful ...

I didn't realise there were 4 types of black hole .. i wonder what is responsible for the magnetic field on the non-rotating one ... There's obviously far more for me to learn on black holes ... I will do some research on them online, as opposed to relying on documentaries ... See what up to date detailed info i can get ...

Yes .. Hijacked indeed .. But the moon aspect of the thread was pretty much dead anyway ...
Interestingly .. we arrived here on the subject of black holes .. from my initial statement, about how i suspect earth changing events could possibly be linked to the Solar System, passing through the galactic plane ...

I have learned much from our discussion, including as to why this is very unlikely to be the case .. But admittedly, i am not convinced yet, that something of this nature is not happening ...
The sun appears to be acting a bit strange recently too .. whether this is normal, in the larger cycle of things, is unknown ... but it coincides with strange activity on Earth ...

It could be co-incidence that they are both acting strange just now .. but if they are linked, then, either the earth is acting strange, as a result of the sun acting strange ...
Or, they are both acting strange, as a result of something else, which is affecting the whole solar system.
Time will tell i guess ..

We just went round in a big circle ... what a ride though

Originally posted by CLPrime
If STVG had a Facebook page, I would Like it.

Haa haaa ... Thats worthy of a giggle

reply to post by Dinoman


I love to watch the moon each evening. I live outside of the Vegas strip. The last moom I saw on the 17th(June) was a three quarter moon. For the past three nights there has been no moon. I've never seen that. It does make me uneasy because I don't understand this. On Moon Connection.com they show where the moon should be and what it looks like. There should have been a visible moon all three nights. I could use someone's input to get understanding. Along these lines I actually went to the 12/21/12 moon chart. Apparently there is a quarter moon that night, the night they've been saying all the planets line up. I'm no pro but according to the chart there will be a quarter moon that particular night. Planets only align when there is a new moon or a full moon. Is this correct? Could the Mayan theory alignment be wrong or not true? Thanks for any input, as I am new to this.

reply to post by Soulwatch

Apparently there is a quarter moon that night, the night they've been saying all the planets line up.

The planets are not lining up. The last great alignment was in 2000 when the Earth was destroyed. That was before the destruction of the Earth in 2003 and 2007.

Planets only align when there is a new moon or a full moon. Is this correct?

Alignments are never in a line as you might be thinking. They are vague sort of on the same side of the solar system events.

Could the Mayan theory alignment be wrong or not true?

There are no alignment claims made by the Mayans in reference to 2012.

The fishermen in the Bay of Fundy will let you know is something goes wrong in the tide chart.

The tide is so drastic there, most of them just let their boats go aground, and time it when it is ok to return the next day.

They would certainly notice if the moon skipped a beat in it's orbit!

One of my most favorite people in the world used to sit me down and sing this song to me; sadly I never got a copy of his recording before he passed away, his name was David Chapa.

However, in "Light" of the subject, I found a video that was equally as enchanting!

"What a Little Moonlight can do"

Originally posted by Dinoman
reply to post by WhatAreSpinkters

 

ha ha no obvious effects, What planet you on my friend. Over 300 tornados in America in April alone with over 300 dead. 20 dead in china due to hail storm and over 100 hospitalised. Mexico on fire, Texas on fire. Very large earthquakes every single day, Not to mention all the volcanos either going off or starting to play up. All the bird and fish kills recently, new reports every single day. And then all the flooding just in April alone. I used to be naive when I was about five...

The Moon has absolutely zero effect on tornados, hail storms, fires, earthquakes, or volcanos on planet Earth.

The bird and fish thing is more interesting, but again, nothing to do with the moon.

Flooding would be more interesting with regards to moon behaviour if it was happening in coastal areas (therefore tidal) and not in inland areas.