It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

major shifts occouring in science?

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
i have noticed a major shift in some major aspects of science and science thinking,
it looks like we as a race are re concidering what we know in some key areas of science,
i would like to present a range of science articles to show that this shift is larger than just one aspect of science.

the decay rates of radio active isotopes "may" vary by a very small degree depending on the obital period of the earth around the sun (distence) and the suns 11/22 years cycle





Now, it’s claimed that there is a certain periodicity to the allegedly variable radioactive decay rates. A certain annual periodicity suggests a link to the varying distance from the Sun to the Earth, as a result of the Earth’s elliptical orbit – as well as there being other overlying patterns of periodicity that may link to the production of large solar flares and the 11 year (or 22 year if you prefer) solar cycle.


source

this is from a recent paper and far from "proven" but the thinking about the mecanism has definatly become alot more interesting.

then the next article




The standard model requires the universe to be isotropic and homogeneous – meaning it can be assumed to have the same underlying structure and principles operating throughout and it looks measurably the same in every direction. Any significant variation from this assumption means the standard model can’t adequately describe the current universe or its evolution. So any challenge to the assumption of isotropy and homogeneity, also known as the cosmological principle, is big news.





so spin axis of galaxies in our local group of galaxies have been found to be about 5.5% more right handed than left handed, and now a new survey has cast doubt further.


Antoniou and Perivolaropoulos’ analysis determined a preferred axis of anisotropy – with more supernovae showing higher than average velocities towards a point in the northern hemisphere (within the same ranges of redshift). This suggests that a part of the northern sky represents a part of the universe that is expanding outwards with a greater acceleration than elsewhere. If correct, this means the universe is neither isotropic nor homogeneous.


source

so at this point i have to ask if the universe is "not" homogenous then how can gravity be the driving factor that explains how the universe works.




this is only one paper at the moment but i also casts doubt on the current thinking.
the reason why this is important is that alot of science requires the symatries involved to function.

and no this is only a "paper" but look at what is being said in the context of science this is a big change in direction.

and i have previously a thread here about the slow spinning neutron star that allowed us to see its surface and we got a surprise, it looked like non nuclear forces were shaping the surface,
is this thinking "away" from a nuclear "only" model for exotic materials.


We explore the origin of Type I burst oscillations in IGR J17480–2446 and conclude that they are not caused by global modes in the neutron star ocean. We also show that the Coriolis force is not able to confine an oscillation-producing hot-spot on the stellar surface.” says lead author Yuri Cavecchi (University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands). “The most likely scenario is that the burst oscillations are produced by a hot-spot confined by hydromagnetic stresses.”


source

so if in slow spinning neutron stars we can see hot spots corrilation to magnetice fields,
does this imply an unkown or unnacouted for effect?




so in conclusion we have three seperate models that have had three unexpected results that challenge some decades old cosmology and astro physics theories,
non of this is conclusive atm
but some evidence is starting to point to a much more intricate and interesting science,
one that has yet to be discovered.

xploder



edit on 18-9-2011 by XPLodER because: add pics

edit on 18-9-2011 by XPLodER because: add pic




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
The latest data of the LHC in Geneva hints that we may soon burry the standard model. I just want to point a few more things.

Supersymmetry - the data of the LHC suggests there are no supersymmetric particels. If you know something about physics, you'll know that this has vast consequences as many theoretical concepts require supersymmetry in order to make sense.
Dark Matter - LHC Data suggests CDM (cold dark matter) does not exist. Some try to adjust the model by thinking of WDM (warm dark matter) but that will probably falsified very soon, as it doesn't make much sense at all.
Higgs Boson - The LHC suggests that there is a higher than 95% probability that the Higgs-Boson, the particle that gives mass/gravity, does not exist. We will know by end of the year, whether it is right, as it looks for the last place it could hide without the standard model being wrong.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
That really what you are talking about but I have noticed another shift in science. Things that no one would every even thing about working on for fear of being called a nut and thrown out of science is now being worked on on the open and even getting grants for it. Time travel, no scientist would touch the subject 20 years ago and now they can get grant money for it. Cloning, human/non-human cross breeding and the list goes on. I have seen a big shift in the subjects that are now OK to study that were all but outlawed 20 years ago.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CriticalCK
 


thank you for posting that info,
you are right that this information is exactly the sort of thing i was talking about,
the information from cern, the CDM model,
i have also read that some dwarf galaxies cant work without dark matter, more than we in the milky way would require,

so dwarf galaxies "must" have and "cannot" have dark matter in large quantities

found an article source

xploder


edit on 18-9-2011 by XPLodER because: add source



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I would suggest that the key to why this rethinking of science across various fields is happening is that the simple reality of UFOs seems to have earned a position of attention in the minds--probably youthful minds--of scientists the world over. They are coming to realized that the fundamental fact that we are alone in the Universe has failed to be substantiated while contrary evidence grows by leaps and bounds almost every day.

Further, secret discoveries by our space probes have probably returned data that indicates that the Moon, if not Mars, have shown signs of intelligent activites and that knowledge has spread itself quietly among formerly negatively minded scientists. The secret resides not just within tight circles anymore. Too bad Sagan didn't live to see this approaching day of awakening.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Its possible that some or most advances in science recently is because religion no longer has the grip on everything. The last big debate vs science regarded stem cell research. The more research done with stem cells the more it can and will benefit society.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


in my mind you dont tear down a paradime, without something to replace it,
so if this information and thinking is coming out then i suggest a major discovery has been acepted to take the place of our current theories,
on the religion question the pope has already addressed the issiue of how science and religion need not fight,
i think its that too much recent evidence against the current model with a new model fitting the evidence better.

this only threatens the big bang
not god

xploder



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CriticalCK
The latest data of the LHC in Geneva hints that we may soon burry the standard model. I just want to point a few more things.

Supersymmetry - the data of the LHC suggests there are no supersymmetric particels. If you know something about physics, you'll know that this has vast consequences as many theoretical concepts require supersymmetry in order to make sense.
Dark Matter - LHC Data suggests CDM (cold dark matter) does not exist. Some try to adjust the model by thinking of WDM (warm dark matter) but that will probably falsified very soon, as it doesn't make much sense at all.
Higgs Boson - The LHC suggests that there is a higher than 95% probability that the Higgs-Boson, the particle that gives mass/gravity, does not exist. We will know by end of the year, whether it is right, as it looks for the last place it could hide without the standard model being wrong.


Well, supersymmetry and dark matter are not part of the Standard Model. The LHC looks fairly likely to rule out the simplest kind of Higgs Boson, but there could be a version which is more complex and harder to find.

This is good news actually except for Peter Higgs (and colleagues who came up with similar ideas), as he is going to miss out on a fairly good chunk of Nobel cash. He's rather old now, and if they discover a new version in 20 years he probably wont' be around---no posthumous Nobels.

Do the experiment, and 30 years of theoretical work gets flushed down the toilet. Actually good for the young guys.

During much of the 20th century there was a fair amount of awe at the power of mathematics to predict physics---i.e. the most beautiful mathematics often was a guide to the correct physics. The most prominent example, of course, is General Relativity which was essentially invented by Einstein's brain with only the slightest sliver of experimental evidence. If not for Einstein, GR could easily have gone undiscovered for decades more (40's 50's 60's?)--only the observation of the Hubble red shift would have made the need for a radical theory compelling, and without GR it is less likely that the Hubble observations would have been done as early.

Anyway, now it seems to me that this confluence of clean math and true physics was just a coincidence. Human mathematics is not seeing into the mind of God, it is seeing into the mind of humans, that's it. Supersymmetry & Higgs are the natural mathematical cleanups of the Standard Model, but they might be completely wrong. The SM has a number of awkward hacks.

And then, string theory is proving to be more and more of a theoretical wasteland. There's plenty of amazing and advanced math (of which I understand none) but this math is proving less and less able to constrain actual physics, which was the entire point at the beginning.

Supersymmetry, Higgs & string theory just proves that humans are sufficiently clever that any standard theory of anything can be theoretically extended to all sorts of wonderful stuff, but can be still stone cold wrong.

My opinion: current unexplained anomalies in physics which ought to be investigated substantially more experimentally & theoretically: the slight change in decay rates (is it solar neutrino effect, or something more profound), the sometime reports of gravitation possibly changing during solar eclipses (profound physics or atmospheric fluid mechanics?), and the potential change in fine structure constant in the Universe (latest results have held it up, but it now looks to be space-dependent and not time-dependent. WTF?)

I hope that there is something undiscovered and wonderful behind these!

Unfortunately the Pioneer anomaly and flyby anomalies have now been proven to be just ordinary physics.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Until science finally admits that space and time are infinite, never began, will not end, cannot change, there is no hope. Of course the finite contents of infinite spacetime always changes, has a beginning, has an end.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


in realy enjoyed your reply,
i think the universe never realized we wanted it to conform to our maths models,
i personally like the prediction based observational science,

some one predicts something, others observe and either proove of dis proove the idea.
there are complex mathmatical models beautiful in there context and graceful to compute,
but the universe doesnt seem to agree.

there is a "component" in maths that requires the answer to make sense of the equation,
maby this is a case of answers that make the question make no sence


maths is one of my favourite things,
but observational interpretation is where its really at

xp



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Nice read. Totally agree with most of what you have to say.
However, while dark matter and supersymmetry are not part of SM, they are not entirely seperate concepts either. SM is crucial in order to predict of the quanity of matter and dark matter in the universe (4/5 of all matter = dark matter). The SM kinda created the need to hypothesize dark matter in the first place.
The minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM)suggests that for every particle in the standard model has a supersymmetric twin particle. While the failure of supersymmetry doesn't conclude SM to be wrong, it concludes that MSSM is wrong and thus creates the need for new models to explain what MSSM did. Eventually no such solution can be found and we will have to go back to the drawing boards on the SM.

The idea of the Higgs Boson kinda reminds me of the beginnings of thermodynamics. A french scientist, who's name I don't recall, concluded that "cold" (not heat) consists of tiny particles concealed in matter. If something is warmed up, it loses those cold-particles and thus gets lighter. I guess he thought so because warm air raising in an environment of cold air. I believe gravity / mass may very well be not the properity of a particle but some effect - maybe connected to movement of charges or particles or electromagnetism. Of course this would be supercool, because it would mean that we eventually could control it at some point by immitating whatever mechanism creates mass.


we are ready for a shift. now we just need some genius make it happen. I call for Sheldon Cooper

edit on 18-9-2011 by CriticalCK because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Not much changes with regard to scientific attempts in unlocking our worlds mysteries,
the more we "learn" the more we realize how little we know!



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

If it is true that a black hole, neutron star or a magnetar's magnetic spin rate and field strength determines the collimation of polar plasma emission as gathered from the equatorial accretion disk, then it stands to reason that those spin rates slowing below the speed of light due to gravitation would then exhibit quantum effects upon those emissions and therefore potentially produce oppositely spun matter or 'mirror matter'. Should that 'mirror' matter then interact due to gravitational effects it would create the tremendously explosive annihilation events as theorized/observed above?


This guy took the words out of my mouth, as I was interested and started looking for an answer. I'm always the first to admit I'm a layman, but I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on the basics (math excluded).

The physics community has been rocked by new discoveries about light, time, their correlation and relation to certain objects.

For instance:

If I were to watch matter approach a black hole, I could watch it for eternity and never actually see it fall in. Time almost stops. What does that say about what it means to 'look' at a black hole? Are we seeing everything that has ever entered at once around the event horizon, or are we seeing anything at all?

Time does not run at the same pace through the universe. How do we know this? Light. Well, at least we must assume. We measure distance by the time it takes light to travel to us from another point in space. If that light is taking detours, rest stops and changing speeds, how are we sure of the distance? Could we all be inside a singularity, where distance is an abstract and foreign concept?

It might appear so, recently it has been discovered that the only way to fully describe the universe, and black holes, in a reasonable way is to assume we are inside a black hole singularity. This research paper is one of many, but it does point out a lot of what I believe makes up our universe. We could be a white & black hole, at the same time, or something even stranger.



There is one final twist in the answer to this question. It has been suggested by Stephen Hawking that once quantum effects are accounted for, the distinction between black holes and white holes might not be as clear as it first seems. This is due to "Hawking radiation", a mechanism by which black holes can lose matter. (See the relativity FAQ article on Hawking radiation.) A black hole in thermal equilibrium with surrounding radiation might have to be time symmetric, in which case it would be the same as a white hole. This idea is controversial, but if true it would mean that the universe could be both a white hole and a black hole at the same time. Perhaps the truth is even stranger. In other words, who knows?

math.ucr.edu...


Personally, I believe that until we find out what light does at the edge of the universe, we can not say we are not inside a singularity. If light can not escape the universe, and can't trust light to measure anything accurately, and time is the attempt of the observer to explain his reality, how can we say we aren't inside a singularity?

Furthermore, what happened before the "Big Bang"? No one seems to know, I think I'm starting to understand.

We were a star, a bright and beautiful star. We are all born from this star, and it collapsed into a black hole when the "universe" was born.

Thoughts?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
We were a star, a bright and beautiful star. We are all born from this star, and it collapsed into a black hole when the "universe" was born.


I love it! Sounds like a decent theory considering what we know about black holes.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by User8911

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
We were a star, a bright and beautiful star. We are all born from this star, and it collapsed into a black hole when the "universe" was born.


I love it! Sounds like a decent theory considering what we know about black holes.


It really explains why the universe is "expanding". Just because the observer (as we learned when we discovered quantum mechanics) sees one thing, does not mean it is true. The very act of observing effects the outcome, so what of the universe?

What if what we observe as the universe "expanding", is just the introduction of more matter as it falls into the black hole. Everything must be contained in a small point, the point is infinite and yet it continues to gain matter, how would that look to an observer inside the singularity?

Of course, there is the question of gravity. What would gravity be inside a black hole? Our current idea would have it crush everything, because that is when the force is at it's strongest. What if inside the singularity, there is weaker gravity than the event horizon?

How could this be? Well, they even out. This could account for any discrepancies in how the universe was "formed" and "shaped" because large masses of matter entering the event horizon would distort the singularities opposing force because it had not yet equalled out. So we are inside the singularity, at a point where the inside and outside gravity equal out to make it appear weaker. Does this mean if we found the edge of the universe we would get sucked out? Does it mean that we can never escape? I think both are true. The outer perimeter might be very barren because matter will be pulled to the event horizon from inside if it gets too close, but now I'm really speculating. Let's just keep it simple.

Well, if you observe matter falling into the black hole, it never seems to actually enter. All of that matter seems to sit right on the precipice, eternally, never to fall in. That would create a quantum gravity effect where the event horizon contains all matter and is infinately dense and has incredible gravitational pull. The inside of the singularity also contains all matter at the same time (due to the space / time contradiction because that's the only way I see to explain it). What happens? The event horizon pulls the matter of the singularity out (expanding the universe) while the outer portion is pulling matter in (effectively trapping us inside our "universe").

Again, I'm a layman, and may be easily refuted by someone more knowledgable. I didn't go to school for this stuff, I just got bored and started studying it a lot.

Thoughts?


edit on 2011/9/19 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Check out Nassim Haramein:

www.youtube.com...

He has some new ideas about physics that rings much truer to me than "Dark matter".



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


To add to your thread about the Sun and its recent effects on radioactive elements, from Stanford back in August 2010.

The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements


news.stanford.edu...


It's a mystery that presented itself unexpectedly: The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.

Is this possible?

Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.

There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. "That would be truly remarkable," said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.

The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.



edit on 19-9-2011 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
i have noticed a major shift in some major aspects of science and science thinking,
it looks like we as a race are re concidering what we know in some key areas of science,


Not so much a shift... this is simply the way science is done.

We've got new tools. We've got new techniques, and that changes everything!

Imagine science as... oh... say, the process of building a house.

So before 1800, we were building with rocks.
Then we got stonemason tools
And within the past 40 years, we got lots and lots and LOTS of power tools including stuff that was never thought of before!

Now think of how houses in America have changed since the Native American tipis and longhouses and grass houses of a mere 300 years ago up to the weird building designs of today and artificial materials that weren't possible before.

Science is doing the same kinds of new development.

HOWEVER ... just as we don't know how to make proper buffalo hide tipis today (or, rather, few of us do) with traditional materials (and killing buffalo with stone tipped spears), we have lost some of the old scientific techniques. Our new techniques are far more efficient... just as a high powered hunting rifle is more efficient for killing a big game animal than a stone tipped spear is.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


i really like how your mind works

i as you proberly know am bubble mad

the difference in how i see things is by defining the "bubble" reigion as interior observations or exterior.
the idea works like this,
every thing observed inside the bubble is "modulated" by the transition through the bubble.
ie light is "squashed" into a narrow range for us to interact with (internal bubble observation)
if we were "outside" the bubble (interstella space) and we to "look" at the bubble the oposite effect or demodulation would occour, ie light from the source would be "spread" into a much larger range.

so when we look outside our bubble (heliospherical bubble) we are seeing a "modulated" representation of what is acually there.

so when we consider one modulated bubble (ours) looking at another modulating bubble the light from source to us goes through the observed objects bubble (de modulated) and travels through space as an "expanded" wave.
then as it transitions our helio bubble it is re modulated into the spectrum we recognise. the disproportionate amount of modulation/demodulation could explain the spectra shift we observe.

so if the modulation factor was great enough (cosmic microwave backround) we would not see anything in its expected ranges of wave length and conclude nothing can escape our from our know universe.

but if we knew the modulation factor we could "look" in the right ranges.

to the fact that the maths works both ways, for a black hole or a bubble with a modulating boundry,
the sphere is important,

there is an interesting idea that "stressed" space allows for long range interaction between bodies, everbody tends to focus on the bodies and not on the space these bodies reside, and im not taking warped or bent time space time.

as an example,
recent computer modeling shows a liquid cemical can be "stressed" with electromagnetic fields and form a "crystal" from the material bonding along the lines of magnetic force.
when extra compresion is added the crystal melts further back into a "soild liquid" in this state the movement of the medium density is more than enough to "draw" star bubbles or helio spheres around with the hydrodynamic flow.

i hope you will add more about the foundation of why the universe is inside a black hole as i find the idea very interesting.

xploder



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


i have been watching the progression happening in science for a number of years now,
there is always an ongoing evolution of science, and in some sence the recyling of popular ideas over decades.
a couple of things were devoid of these ongoing advancements and looked to be set in stone.

IMHO
this is different from the cyclic or evolution advances of science,
it feels more like an onslaught of major changes to models that have been around for decades,
than small steps in the knowledge base from ongoing discoveries,

i have been trying to keep up with the changes to the major models and usually i could take my time and sift through the implications of the change in models.

now im looking at changing three major parts of the models, at the same time?
within a week three major "revelutions" in different fields.

at least if they are accepted it will be revolutionary and a good opertunity to get into the frey

xploder




top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join