The End of Space-Time Symmetry?

[xelasnave]

Yes I have been giving it a lot of thought as one would expect the opposite.
I think they encase fuel rods in graphite and I wonder what is behind that and have been considering what properties these (assuming the encasement thing is right) facts may point to.
What are your thoughts?
alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Yes I have been giving it a lot of thought as one would expect the opposite.
I think they encase fuel rods in graphite and I wonder what is behind that and have been considering what properties these (assuming the encasement thing is right) facts may point to.
What are your thoughts?
alex

Not a lot on that at the moment !! (Ie: .. ah dunno ..!!).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Graphite acts as a moderator in nuclear reactions. It slows fast neutrons and that's why they use it to encase fuel rods....to help control the reaction by slowing down the neutrons.

[CraigS]

Some more words on that Graphene property:

http://www.physorg.com/news161529738.html

"Even at room temperature, electrons in graphene are more than 100 times more mobile than in silicon. Graphene apparently owes this enhanced mobility to the curious fact that its electrons and other carriers of electric charges behave as though they do not have mass. In conventional materials, the speed of electrons is related to their energy, but not in graphene. Although they do not approach the speed of light, the unbound electrons in graphene behave much like photons, massless particles of light that also move at a speed independent of their energy.

This weird massless behavior is associated with other strangeness. When ordinary conductors are put in a strong magnetic field, charge carriers such as electrons begin moving in circular orbits that are constrained to discrete, equally spaced energy levels. In graphene these levels are known to be unevenly spaced because of the "massless" electrons."

Interesting ..

[renormalised (Carl)]

Interesting behaviour.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

AND may I round off with this....why did the pioneers slow using all we think we know...was it a jack russel event or could a mug like me have just got it a little right?
alex

Alex

You have provided a good example of Craig's classification of reality in one's mind.

Your argument that the supposed failure of mainstream science to explain the Poineer anomaly indicates that your ideas are a "little right" (or in other threads "completely right") defies logic.

It makes as much sense by claiming the Pioneer anomaly led me to experiencing a toothache last Tuesday.
The fact is there is no causal relationship between the two, as much as there is no relationship between failing to explain the anomaly and the existence of push gravity. One cannot conclude the anomaly leads to a justification of push gravity or any other alternative.

Why don't you engage in some physical reality and explain the Pioneer anomaly in terms of push gravity with supporting evidence instead of assuming it is a "little right" by default.

Regards

Steven

[Virgs]

Alex here is a simple challenge for you... Your push gravity says that the everything is being pushed from the outer to the inner right?, well then why is it that things travelling in straight lines like light or space craft only change their direction when passing near large mass objects like stars or planets? If your push gravity was acting the way you harp on about it, then it should not matter if the large mass is there, these things would not travel in a straight line ever due to the constant push. So we observe the large mass attracting the object as it nears it - how do you explain it? You will note that I have not included any maths as this is how you like to operate.

[bojan]

The challenge (required some math) was issued 3 years ago, here (mid and lower end of the page):
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...rse+square+law

And couple of times before and after that.

I am still waiting :-)

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by Virgs

Alex here is a simple challenge for you... Your push gravity says that the everything is being pushed from the outer to the inner right?, well then why is it that things travelling in straight lines like light or space craft only change their direction when passing near large mass objects like stars or planets? If your push gravity was acting the way you harp on about it, then it should not matter if the large mass is there, these things would not travel in a straight line ever due to the constant push. So we observe the large mass attracting the object as it nears it - how do you explain it? You will note that I have not included any maths as this is how you like to operate.

(wrong alex i know)
A model covered by Tom Van Flandern's - Dark Matter Missing Planets book.

in short: 'gravitational shielding from the push-er-particles'

Imagine a gravi-push-tron sea, with two bodies... as you bring the bodies closer together, gradually the inside face of the bodies receive less push... and the 'force' of gravity is manifested.

The bigger the body, the more push-trons it will shield and shadow.

A neutrino style sea would represent a good candidate for this particle. These push particles would ofcourse be rapidly moving.

the first 3 or so chapters in that book give a really great run down of the model. (not sure if this is the same as Alex's tho)

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

(wrong alex i know)
A model covered by Tom Van Flandern's - Dark Matter Missing Planets book.

in short: 'gravitational shielding from the push-er-particles'

Imagine a gravi-push-tron sea, with two bodies... as you bring the bodies closer together, gradually the inside face of the bodies receive less push... and the 'force' of gravity is manifested.

The bigger the body, the more push-trons it will shield and shadow.

A neutrino style sea would represent a good candidate for this particle. These push particles would ofcourse be rapidly moving.

the first 3 or so chapters in that book give a really great run down of the model. (not sure if this is the same as Alex's tho)

A quote from wiki on Tom Van Flandern (for those reading this):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern

"Van Flandern advocated several ideas related to astronomy and physics which were not supported by the mainstream scientific community. In particular, he was a prominent advocate of the belief that certain geological features seen on Mars, especially the "face at Cydonia", are not of natural origin, but were produced by intelligent extra-terrestrial life, probably the inhabitants of a major planet once located where the asteroid belt presently exists, and which Van Flandern believed had exploded 3.2 million years ago. He gave lectures on the subject and at the conclusion of the lectures he described his overall conception:

"We've shown conclusively that at least some of the artifacts on the surface of Mars were artificially produced, and the evidence indicates they were produced approximately 3.2 million years ago, which is when Planet V exploded. Mars was a moon of Planet V, and we speculate that the Builders created the artificial structures as theme parks and advertisements to catch the attention of space tourists from Planet V (much as we may do on our own Moon some day, when lunar tourism becomes prevalent), or perhaps they are museums of some kind. Remember that the Face at Cydonia was located on the original equator of Mars. The Builder's civilization ended 3.2 million years ago. The evidence suggests that the explosion was anticipated, so the Builders may have departed their world, and it produced a massive flood, because Planet V was a water world. It is a coincidence that the face on Mars is hominid, like ours, and the earliest fossil record on Earth of hominids is the "Lucy" fossil from 3.2 million years ago. There have been some claims of earlier hominid fossils, but Lucy is the earliest that is definite. So I leave you with the thought that there may be a grain of truth in The War of the Worlds, with the twist that WE are the Martians."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers

[Virgs]

Nope that does not make one bit of sense. If push was coming from everywhere, why isnt the motion of the object slowed down. For f%#&s sake this push argument has more holes in it than a sieve. I have better things to do with my time than carry on reading this dribble.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by Virgs

Nope that does not make one bit of sense. If push was coming from everywhere, why isnt the motion of the object slowed down. For f%#&s sake this push argument has more holes in it than a sieve. I have better things to do with my time than carry on reading this dribble.

Why did you ask the question? Was it serious, or were you just setting up strawmen?

Push is not my view, but i actually bought the book, read the works, investigated the model. I see the merits, and arguments. Your follow up question is also covered in this.

Re: Craig_S

Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack.

1. The personal attack is also often termed an "ad personem argument": the statement or argument at issue is dropped from consideration or is ignored, and the locutor's character or circumstances are used to influence opinion.
2. The fallacy draws its appeal from the technique of "getting personal." The assumption is that what the locutor is saying is entirely or partially dictated by his character or special circumstances and so should be disregarded.

Wikipedia? really?

Cmon, lets address the science....

Otherwise this is just pointless psuedo-skepticism.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

A quote from wiki on Tom Van Flandern (for those reading this):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern

"Van Flandern advocated several ideas related to astronomy and physics which were not supported by the mainstream scientific community. In particular, he was a prominent advocate of the belief that certain geological features seen on Mars, especially the "face at Cydonia", are not of natural origin, but were produced by intelligent extra-terrestrial life, probably the inhabitants of a major planet once located where the asteroid belt presently exists, and which Van Flandern believed had exploded 3.2 million years ago. He gave lectures on the subject and at the conclusion of the lectures he described his overall conception:

"We've shown conclusively that at least some of the artifacts on the surface of Mars were artificially produced, and the evidence indicates they were produced approximately 3.2 million years ago, which is when Planet V exploded. Mars was a moon of Planet V, and we speculate that the Builders created the artificial structures as theme parks and advertisements to catch the attention of space tourists from Planet V (much as we may do on our own Moon some day, when lunar tourism becomes prevalent), or perhaps they are museums of some kind. Remember that the Face at Cydonia was located on the original equator of Mars. The Builder's civilization ended 3.2 million years ago. The evidence suggests that the explosion was anticipated, so the Builders may have departed their world, and it produced a massive flood, because Planet V was a water world. It is a coincidence that the face on Mars is hominid, like ours, and the earliest fossil record on Earth of hominids is the "Lucy" fossil from 3.2 million years ago. There have been some claims of earlier hominid fossils, but Lucy is the earliest that is definite. So I leave you with the thought that there may be a grain of truth in The War of the Worlds, with the twist that WE are the Martians."

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers

That Craig, is just the sort of prime time nonsense that we have to deal with and the sort of rot these guys are proposing.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Wikipedia? really?

Cmon, lets address the science....

Otherwise this is just pointless psuedo-skepticism.

Smug.

I've seen you use wiki quite often yourself so don't put someone down for using it.

What is pointless is arguing with someone such as yourself who has clearly come to the conclusions that they have. It's also plain to see that you joined this forum with those conclusions already formed, otherwise you would never have approached the various threads you have posted in in the manner that you have.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

I thought this was about push gravity?

ahwell for those interested... like if you ask a question, and are actually interested in a response. looks like since he's passed on it's available on gbooks.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...page&q&f=false

around page 35 might be what you look for

again, i'm not sure if this is Alex's views, it should not be attached to them... but it has been part of an investigation on push-g.

all the best,