« Snow and Gianfranco | Main | Snow finally »

January 21, 2005

Comments

Peter Fred

Do you really think that more and more experimental work will resolve the dark energy problem. I am sure it has crossed your mind that there is quite a similarity between the need for the ether and for the dark energy (and dark matter as well). The ether was needed to patch up the some of the problems associated with the electrodynamic and gravitational field.

I am also sure you are aware that what finally resolved the ether problem and its failure to be detected was not more and better experiments but a pure insightful theoretical solution provided by Einstein where in his 1905 Special Relativity article he wrote: " The introduction of 'luminiferous ether 'will prove to be superfluous...."

But I doubt whether it is possible for a thoroughly trained professional to be capable of such a simple appropriate solution that Einstein came up with regarding the ether when his mind was not so inculcated with the shared beliefs of his profession.

However, I do not think it was a mere coincidence that both Copernicus and Darwin were "sophisticated" amateurs and not professionals in the field that they made lasting contribution too.

Due to the fact that I was a “sophisticated” amateur or started out as one and always have had a bent for theoretical work, I felt it was almost my duty--having a little money to sustain the effort--to tackle the dark matter problem full time starting 27 years ago. Fortunately the same solution for the dark matter turned out to be quite appropriate for dealing with the newly unearthed dark energy problem.

You know it does not take much brains to pose the question, as the all those well-trained Scholastics were apparently incapable of doing, to raise and answer the question,

“If the planets do not go around the earth, what body do they go around?”.

Likewise since artificial selection was an almost dailly preoccupation of many of the landed English gentlemen, it does not much brains or cunning to raise and answer the question

“How would nature go about solving ‘the origin and variety of the specie problem’?”

Using mass to explain gravitational phenomena found within the solar system works quite well. But boy does it flop when it comes to gravitational phenomena found within and between galaxies.

Guess what is a ubiquitous as mass, varies inversely as the square of the distance from the source in the same way that the gravitational force varies from the source and is measured in units of power which in the everyday world of applied physics is intimately and causally linked to acceleration.

But you are taught in your training that the answer—luminosity—produces only a slight repulsive force and therefore you will immediately dismiss it as a quality that could be substituted for mass to account for gravitational phenomena. Like you the Scholastic had an observational justification for summarily dismissing the more intuitive and understandable Copernican sun-centered theory. They could not observe parallax.

But as there was with parallax could the be a way to discount or circumvent the contraindication of the results of light pressure studies. Like could it be that only an attractive force can be generated in mass if the luminosity or heat impinging on that mass does so in the radial direction ? My experiment shows that this does indeed occurs (seehttp://www.thermal-force.com/Copper.htm and http://www.thermal-force.com/Alumin.htm).
Then there happens to be the Tully Fisher relation where L~V^alpha and the fact that there is direct correlation between the mass of a star and its luminosity.
I could go on and on repeating some of the things that I have already commented on to some of your blogs concerning the dark energy problem.


Peter Fred

Do you really think that more and more experimental work will resolve the dark energy problem. I am sure it has crossed your mind that there is quite a similarity between the need for the ether and for the dark energy (and dark matter as well). The ether was needed to patch up the some of the problems associated with the electrodynamic and gravitational field.

I am also sure you are aware that what finally resolved the ether problem and its failure to be detected was not more and better experiments but a pure insightful theoretical solution provided by Einstein where in his 1905 Special Relativity article he wrote: " The introduction of 'luminiferous ether 'will prove to be superfluous...."

But I doubt whether it is possible for a thoroughly trained professional to be capable of such a simple appropriate solution that Einstein came up with regarding the ether when his mind was not so inculcated with the shared beliefs of his profession.

However, I do not think it was a mere coincidence that both Copernicus and Darwin were "sophisticated" amateurs and not professionals in the field that they made lasting contribution too.

Due to the fact that I was a “sophisticated” amateur or started out as one and always have had a bent for theoretical work, I felt it was almost my duty--having a little money to sustain the effort--to tackle the dark matter problem full time starting 27 years ago. Fortunately the same solution for the dark matter turned out to be quite appropriate for dealing with the newly unearthed dark energy problem.

You know it does not take much brains to pose the question, as the all those well-trained Scholastics were apparently incapable of doing, to raise and answer the question,

“If the planets do not go around the earth, what body do they go around?”.

Likewise since artificial selection was an almost dailly preoccupation of many of the landed English gentlemen, it does not much brains or cunning to raise and answer the question

“How would nature go about solving ‘the origin and variety of the specie problem’?”

Using mass to explain gravitational phenomena found within the solar system works quite well. But boy does it flop when it comes to gravitational phenomena found within and between galaxies.

Guess what is a ubiquitous as mass, varies inversely as the square of the distance from the source in the same way that the gravitational force varies from the source and is measured in units of power which in the everyday world of applied physics is intimately and causally linked to acceleration.

But you are taught in your training that the answer—luminosity—produces only a slight repulsive force and therefore you will immediately dismiss it as a quality that could be substituted for mass to account for gravitational phenomena. Like you the Scholastic had an observational justification for summarily dismissing the more intuitive and understandable Copernican sun-centered theory. They could not observe parallax.

But as there was with parallax could the be a way to discount or circumvent the contraindication of the results of light pressure studies. Like could it be that only an attractive force can be generated in mass if the luminosity or heat impinging on that mass does so in the radial direction ? My experiment shows that this does indeed occurs (seehttp://www.thermal-force.com/Copper.htm and http://www.thermal-force.com/Alumin.htm).
Then there happens to be the Tully Fisher relation where L~V^alpha and the fact that there is direct correlation between the mass of a star and its luminosity.
I could go on and on repeating some of the things that I have already commented on to some of your blogs concerning the dark energy problem.


The comments to this entry are closed.