#‘Isaac Newton discovered gravity as scientific phenomenon’

[rainbow-sunshine-unicorn]

Anthony at debuts, balls, engagement parties, weddings etc:

because no matter what the occasion, the main event to him will always be his wife

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

Einstein’s equations collide with the mysteries of the Universe

A French-Swiss team tests the famous physicist’s predictions by calculating the distortion of time and space

Why is the expansion of our Universe accelerating? Twenty-five years after its discovery, this phenomenon remains one of the greatest scientific mysteries. Solving it involves testing the fundamental laws of physics, including Albert Einstein’s general relativity. A team from the universities of Geneva (UNIGE) and Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier  compared Einstein’s predictions with data from the Dark Energy Survey. Scientists discovered a slight discrepancy that varies with different periods in cosmic history. These results, published in Nature Communications, challenge the validity of Einstein’s theories for explaining phenomena beyond our solar system on a universal scale.

According to Albert Einstein’s theory, the Universe is deformed by matter, like a large, flexible sheet. These deformations, caused by the gravity of celestial bodies, are called ‘‘gravitational wells’’. When light passes through this irregular framework, its trajectory is bent by these wells, similar to the effect of a glass lens. However, in this case, it is gravity, not glass, that bends the light. This phenomenon is known as ‘‘gravitational lensing’’.

Observing it provides insights into the components, history, and expansion of the Universe. Its first measurement, taken during a solar eclipse in 1919, confirmed Einstein’s theory, which predicted a light deflection twice as large as that predicted by Isaac Newton. This difference arises from Einstein’s introduction of a key new element: the deformation of time, in addition to the deformation of space, to achieve the exact curvature of light.

Theory vs. Data

Are these equations still valid at the edge of the Universe? This question is being explored by many scientists seeking to quantify the density of matter in the cosmos and to understand the acceleration of its expansion. Using data from the Dark Energy Survey—a project mapping the shapes of hundreds of millions of galaxies—a team from the universities of Geneva (UNIGE) and Toulouse III – Paul Sabatier is providing new insights.

‘‘Until now, Dark Energy Survey data have been used to measure the distribution of matter in the Universe. In our study, we used this data to directly measure the distortion of time and space, enabling us to compare our findings with Einstein’s predictions,’’ says Camille Bonvin, associate professor in the Department of Theoretical Physics at the UNIGE Faculty of Science, who led the research.

A Slight Discrepancy

The Dark Energy Survey data allow scientists to look deep into space and, therefore, far into the past. The French-Swiss team analysed 100 million galaxies at four different points in the Universe’s history: 3.5, 5, 6, and 7 billion years ago. These measurements revealed how gravitational wells have evolved over time, covering more than half of the cosmos’s history.

‘‘We discovered that in the distant past — 6 and 7 billion years ago — the depth of the wells aligns well with Einstein’s predictions. However, closer to today, 3.5 and 5 billion years ago, they are slightly shallower than predicted by Einstein,’’ reveals Isaac Tutusaus, assistant astronomer at the Institute of Research in Astrophysics and Planetology (IRAP/OMP) at Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier and the study’s lead author.

It is also during this period, closer to today, that the expansion of the Universe began to accelerate. Therefore, the answer to two phenomena—the acceleration of the Universe and the slower growth of gravitational wells—may be the same: gravity could operate under different physical laws at large scales than those predicted by Einstein.

Challenging Einstein?

‘‘Our results show that Einstein’s predictions have an incompatibility of 3 sigma with measurements. In the language of physics, such an incompatibility threshold arouses our interest and calls for further investigations. But this incompatibility is not large enough, at this stage, to invalidate Einstein’s theory. For that to happen, we would need to reach a threshold of 5 sigma. It is therefore essential to have more precise measurements to confirm or refute these initial results, and to find out whether this theory remains valid in our Universe, at very large distances,’’ emphasizes Nastassia Grimm, postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Theoretical Physics at UNIGE and co-author of the study.

The team is preparing to analyse new data from the Euclid space telescope, launched a year ago. As Euclid observes the Universe from space, its measurements of gravitational lensing will be significantly more precise. Additionally, it is expected to observe about 1.5 billion galaxies within the six years of the mission. This will enable more accurate measurements of space-time distortions, allowing us to look further back in time and ultimately test Einstein’s equations.

IMAGE: Gravitational lensing of distant galaxies by the galaxy cluster Abell 2390, observed by the Euclid satellite. © ESA/Euclid/Euclid Consortium/NASA, image processing by J.-C. Cuillandre (CEA Paris-Saclay), G. Anselmi

[lawofattraction112]

Regulation of Attraction : Cooperative Reality

the law of attraction There is an enormous amount of dialogue lately about the Legislation of Attraction, you may say that the Legal requirements of Attraction comes with gained celebrity condition as the personal progress tool of the minute, the current popular means for manifesting your aspirations. What most people don't understand is that the Laws of Attraction is not really a new idea, in truth it's not even a past idea in the sensation that there has been a point in time as soon as somebody coined that phrase and abruptly everyone began deploying it like some innovative appliance. Someone not surprisingly did invent this phrase Law with Attraction, but in the identical way that Mister Isaac Newton devised the word gravity. Regulations of Attraction enjoy gravity, just is usually, no one owns your rights to it, plus its impossible to avoid utilizing it. the law of attraction The Law of Selling point is one of many legislation by which mankind may be operating consciously and unconsciously since the start of time. Most people are blissfully unaware of precisely how these laws have an impact on their lives together with equally unaware that power of these legal guidelines can be gathered and used to terrific effect on a daily rationale.

Since the release in the movie The Secret, regulations of Attraction provides come to the attention in peoples heads as the ultimate product for changing your daily routine and that is a good thing. As i find however that a lot of people after viewing and reading information regarding the Law of Attractive force are still somewhat lost as to how the idea actually works. There is a number of talk about holding graphics in the mind, delivering thought vibrations available to the universe, having a state of requirement and gratitude, and additionally waiting for the galaxy to respond by way of the Law of Drawing card and provide that with which you have focussed ones intention, and so on. These things are very delightful and I have found these useful in my own personal learning, but non-e of these ideas available me with really satisfactory answers precisely how the Law of Destination actually works, both spiritually and scientifically.

Today if you're anything such as me, blind confidence just doesn't slice it, most people just like at least to have an decent explanation for why jointly get involved with the Law involving Attraction, otherwise people tend to reject the main idea outright, which will be a unfortunate really.

Vital Knowledge

The difficulty that I think a lot of people have is they will hear about unbelievable success stories relating to the Law of Selling point, amazing tales of folks that have gone with having an average types of existence to experiencing a life that a lot of people only dream of, and then set out with good faith to obtain similar results. Undoubtedly not everyone defines the results they had expected, why is this? Maintain a pool of Law of Attractive force failed? Are all associated with the success reviews bogus? Are people just clever ploys to get us to own books and flicks about how to use what the law states of Attraction?

There are plenty of individual claims regarding the Law of Drawing card bringing great wealth and the fulfillment from great dreams, in addition to there are also charlatans holdings and liabilities area of life, strict, secular, scientific, but it surely would be a great misstep to reject a notion of such probable because of a few people, you might as well give up all personal advancement right now.

As for the primary idea that the Law with Attraction has by some means failed to work, mine experience tells me that the is simply not possible, legal issues of Attraction is absolutely not a business approach, or a clever program that is subject to marketplaces or the moods of individuals, it is since constant and foreseeable as the sun increase, all that is required is a appropriate level of recognizing in order to leverage it's potential.

This I do believe is where a great number of confusion exists, how come do some people are generally able to apply legislation of Attraction using great affect whilst others struggle to see the littlest things manifest? The result is knowledge, you will find there's basic lack of realizing about how the Law involving Attraction works. A lot of people however seem to be capable to easily apply regulations of Attraction and find results even though they also have no more knowledge of precisely what is actually happening ın comparison to the next person, how come this? It is because a lot of people have a mental pre-disposition to accepting what the law states of Attraction, her requirements and effects without question, some others don't and involve further instruction concerning fundamentals of the regulation of attraction in advance of being able to apply independently properly.

Its a tad like being offered a kit to get a model aeroplane without worrying about the assembly instructions, most people may have a natural comprehending about how to assemble items, they may have seen their father putting together model aeroplanes in earlier times, but for others it's going to an almost impossible process, time consuming and irritating.

It is my encounter that with a fundamental increase in knowledge about the Law associated with Attraction and the fundamental principles that control it, any individual start to see real ends in every area of their lifetime almost immediately. Which means that let's now check it out at some of that will useful knowledge that will aid us in increasing a better understanding of ways to apply the Law from Attraction to excellent affect.

The Most Important Thing

The very first thing that I would like to claim is that the Regulation of Attraction is simply not the most powerful legislation in the universe, not like popular opinion, web site of underlying basics that govern that the Law of Destination works, and that is the place we shall get started.

I want to start by creating this statement; when we use a Law of Selling point, we do not get things! this is additionally contrary to popular viewpoint. There is not a racecar with your vibration on it waiting for want you to believe that it's your own property before it appears inside driveway. This may sound a ridiculous proclamation, but there are many coaches of the Law with Attraction that condition exactly that, it can be about manifesting elements, well it's not.

What the law states of Attraction can not work by you applying out a imagined vibration to the world and somehow a universe, through the process of the Law involving Attraction, responds compared to that thought by giving you the thing that suits that vibration, nevertheless unfortunately this is what is actually taught. Some people just accept this examination and get on by means of using the Law associated with Attraction to superb success, you could telephone that blind hope, and I have no issue with that at all, nevertheless it won't work for absolutely everyone, and that does issue me because it can perform for everyone.

The most important thing you certainly will ever understand for the Law of Attractive force is that that always involves some others, other minds, many other realities, not important things. I call the following underlying principle Cooperative Reality and examine it in detail across my book.

To put it differently, Cooperative Reality advises that in order to employ the Law of Drawing card you require the synergy of other people realities. Understanding that concept has been that single greatest help my own personal increase, when I came to this approach realization it altogether revolutionized my practical experience in using the Legislation of Attraction. The idea provided me along with meaningful direction with the application of all the options I was ignorantly using to apply legal issues of Attraction.

I have already been asked many times to describe my success within using the Law from Attraction, and My partner and i discover that it's not straightforward to summarise the concept of Cooperative Reality, and that is so why I decided to generate my book worthy Law of Destination - Cooperative Truth of the matter. I will however make an attempt to summarise the booklet in order to give you at the least some idea of the strength of this concept with regards to the Law of Selling point. I must state nevertheless that there will be ideas that may seem really unusual, but We assure you there does exist solid scientific signs for everything My organization is putting forward, ever again, explained in detail all over my book.

That Quantum Field

For a start we need to ask this question "what is normally reality? " along with I will begin by using a brief look at a perception within Quantum Physics called super job. Briefly stated tremendous position is mentioning sub atomic dirt appearing in a few place at the same time, the truth is the same electron, just may use this particle as an example, may well appear in as many as 3000 different or possibilities locations simultaneously, this particular phenomenon is known in Quantum Physics as a wave purpose. So the entire market being made up of abdominal muscles tiny world with sub atomic dust exists in extremely position, or several potential locations, for a universal scale Quantum Physicists call the following the Field involving Potential.

This is modern for us all, it indicates that your reality is not necessarily fixed, it is accommodating, changeable, it can be improved from one form even to another, but who does your transforming and the way in which?

The Observer

The following brings me to your second point I want to consider, also an idea used in Quantum Physics called The Onlooker, and this principle straightaway affect and changes the Field associated with Potential. So what could be the Observer? Well, you will be the Observer, and ever other sensitive individual on the planet. Together with what does a Observer do? This Observer is responsible for that collapse of the send function. What will do that mean? Basically this in essence means whenever you consciously take notice of the Quantum Field people snap your truth of the matter into a single setting in time and breathing space. Scientists conduct sophisticated experiments with debris that bare released this concept therefore certainly aligns by using my own experience.

Then when we observe the Quantum Field, the world, this universe, what standing do we fall the wave performance to? Where does indeed our reality finish off? Well that is figured out by what you believe, together with I'm not making reference to your religious allegiance, I'm talking about genital herpes virus treatments believe your truthfulness should be with just about every fibre of your increasingly being, which is taught around the Law of Attractive force, it's just not typically explained that properly. Now you are not the only real Observer collapsing your wave function setting reality by what everyone believe, everyone is a great Observer, and that is from vital importance to learn. To properly use the Law of Drawing card we need to somehow switch the way other people see reality, and we will examine that shortly.

Rewiring The Mind

Finally we should instead consider how it can be that we change some of our fundamental beliefs approximately ourselves and within the world. Fortunately for individuals, the construct in our belief systems are in existence within the mind, within the complex structure with neural pathways that define the different instances the brain. I express fortunately, because current discoveries in neuroscience have revealed that this neural structure with the brain is really flexible, not strict and fixed when scientists first idea. You are not destined to remain locked in to manners and attitudes for the past, ways of considering and patterns involving belief that have been neurologically passed down to you from your ancestors through ones own DNA, you possess the capability to reconstruct a neural pathways inside your brain and generate a brand new construct associated with reality in your mind.

This can be a vital area of know-how that most Law from Attraction publications don't go into, most of the common Law with Attraction methods which include, focussed intention, and additionally holding an image inside the mind of a brand-new reality do receive an affect on the nerve organs construct of the head, but the affect may be temporary, because i am not taught methods to solidify the new generate for use above the long term. The people mind processes estimated at 100, 000 items of information per minute, yet we are just consciously aware of available 2000 bits of which information. What we should do is begin to figure out how to permanently alter that construct of our sensory net in order to see a new reality, being aware of things that everyone had never deemed before and for good change our serious beliefs about which we are and precisely what we are doing these.

Putting it all Jointly

So what does that all mean in connection with using the Law involving Attraction more properly? Your first purpose when attempting to fill out an application the Law of Destination must be to improve your fundamental certain principles about what your own the truth is in order to begin collapsing the quantum discipline to that new truth, but as I outlined earlier, you are not this only one that packages reality through confidence, and this is the location where the Law of Selling point really comes into its very own.

As you apply most of the methods around the Legal requirements of Attraction, visual images, intentions, gratitude or anything else, you create a more powerful reality for yourself, and therefore reality connects using corresponding vibrations inside minds of those approximately you. You will alter other most people beliefs in relation to most people, and they also set out to collapse the quantum field in position with your new actuality. Basically you produce a stronger personal truth of the matter that affects people around you, it's no game associated with chance, but with the Law of Attractive force properly does come to feel a little like stacking the chances in your favour. To look at first began to truly understand and submit an application the principles already mentioned, all the small information on my life began to switch, my life went because of 80 percent within the things that happened in my opinion being a disappointment to help 80 percent from things becoming definitely positive and miraculous virtually overnight.

[okayideas]

Tungsten (chemical symbol: TNGSTN) is the most important metal of transition metal group 4, the group which also includes gold, dolomite, and certain kinds of metallic frog. Tungsten can be found everywhere from drinking fountains to drinking straws, yet it is actually one of the rarest metals in the known world. Only eight molecules of tungsten have been scientifically confirmed to exist, although some renegade scientists theorize there may be as many as sixteen or even fourteen. These eight molecules can be recycled endlessly into an infinite number of items, as tungsten is the most environmentally conscious mineral known to man or God. A sample of tungsten actually only contains tungsten for about one sixtieth of a millisecond per second, but we are nonetheless able to perceive the tungsten as though it were there continuously. This phenomenon is known as "persistence of tungsten", or "POT".

So, why do we use tungsten? Mostly, it's because of one man, Benedict of Tungsten. Benedict was a monk of the Marianas order, and between illuminating pages of the famous Marianas Bible, he performed experiments breeding dandelions with mules. None of the crossbreeds were viable, but in the course of the experiments, Benedict discovered the many fascinating properties of the metal which, by an incredible coincidence, bears his name: Benedictite. Centuries later, Sir Isaac Newton's experiments with artificial gravity proved that benedictite was actually composed of two different metals, anti-tungsten and tungsten. Anti-tungsten is illegal, for obvious reasons, and so we now use pure tungsten where the ancient monks would have illegally used benedictite.

But, what does tungsten do for us that another metal such as wood or plastic could not? The key lies in the interaction between tungsten and another very important mineral: water. Tungsten is the only metal known to man that is detectably afraid of water, unlike cesium, which is terrified of water but too polite to mention it. This is why the tungsten molecule never stays in one place for long, because as proven by Dr. Samuel Coleridge's famous albatross experiment, there is water, water, everywhere. And as the tungsten molecule flees to a new location, its kinetic energy is transferred to that very water in accordance with Bernoulli's second principle, increasing the pressure of the water. If it were not for tungsten, plumbing would not exist. It's no wonder the ancient Roman word for plumbing was "tungstus".

How are tungsten products manufactured? The strange fact is, they're not. Tungsten products are actually grown in vats, like tortillas. A tungsten garden hose takes two years to grow from a seed before it is ready for market. During much of this time, the hose is in a larval form, subsisting on berries, rodents too small to be seen by the naked eye, and very rarely a single molecule of tungsten. Over time, the tungsten becomes acclimatized to the hose and less likely to flee. Once the tungsten content reaches the magic "POT" value of one sixtieth of a millisecond per second, the hose is humanely, if possible, slaughtered.

The largest and most famous tungsten vats are found in the city of Zeppelin, Italy. Zeppelin has been the world's largest center of tungsten production since Roman times, when it was known as La Siesta du Dirigible. During peak season from September to November, the world's tungsten is in the city of Zeppelin as often as one tenth of every second, passing through literally scores of larval garden hoses, nymph faucets, and toilet flush mechanism eggs. These are watched over by a work force of about five thousand tungsteners. Tungstening has been in many of these peoples' families since before they were even born. And yet, tungstening is in danger of becoming a dying art, for as water tables lower and sea levels rise worldwide, we may reach a point when tungsten plumbing is simply inadequate to the needs of our largest urban centers.

What will we do when the Earth's eight or even sixteen molecules of tungsten are no longer enough? Some scientists have made the shocking suggestion that we legalize anti-tungsten. This is clearly laughable, but the fact that such proposals have been made with a straight face illustrates just how seriously the threat of a potential tungsten crisis must be considered. Scientific consensus has not yet been met on a proper solution to the problem, but one interesting proposal is to train unemployed ozone molecules to moonlight as tungsten. This would create jobs for at least half a million scientists, tungsteners, and ozone jugglers, and might have the additional benefit of actually ameliorating the tungsten crisis, although it would take sixteen quadrillion ozone molecules to do the work of one tungsten molecule.

Peak tungsten is at least a decade away even by the most extreme scientific estimates, so for now we still have time to enjoy our tungsten novelty drinking birds and our tungsten miniature golf hazards. One should always be careful around those miniature golf hazards, though, as some less scrupulous miniature golf courses have been known to use illegal golf balls with anti-tungsten cores, and if one of those golf balls were to fall into a tungsten water hazard, well, you know what would happen then. You should only play miniature golf with balls that have been certified legal or kosher.

Tungsten is truly one of the foundational minerals of society as we know it. Respect tungsten. Love it. Tell it you love it. Sing to it. Make tungsten happy to be here, and maybe it will stick around you a little longer before fleeing from the seventy percent water that your body is composed of. Give it a good hard think and remember: Science is always watching you, no matter how many layers of underwear you might have put on this morning. Have a good night.

[mmmimomoko-blog]

Journal of Gravitational Play

Student Number:354819 Course Title/ Year: Creative Practice1 Module No And Title : 01 Module Tutor: Chris Lewis-Smith Title:Journal - Gravitational Play Date:26.01.2018 Word count:

"Sometimes you have to fly high enough to understand how insignificant I am and I'm going home now." Felix Baumgartner, the ultimate skydiver in Austria, dropped from 39,000 meters above sea level in New Mexico, On the jump. This jumped lightly and broke two world records of take-off height and airborne speed and easily refreshed Youtube users while watching the highest record of a video show. On October 14, the world's first successful supersonic free fall Skydiver has become the highest flying person and the fastest moving person in the world at the same time. The flow of water, the raindrops falling from the sky, the people walking on the road, the ball bouncing off and falling, all of this behavior that we are accustomed to, does not seem to matter much, but apparently we crashed on this planet and all acts are based on The Law of Universal Gravitation.Nowadays, we are flying into the sky and doing a series of extreme sports such as skydiving. We enjoy the feeling of skying in the sky before falling to the surface, enjoying the joy of gravity under gravity. All of this gave me great curiosity to explore the crashes in life, the ups and downs in the universe, and the gravity in my life.

Young Isaac Newton was sitting in the garden of his own home, an apple falling to his head, and suddenly he was inspired to come up with the law of universal gravitation.Newton further developed his ideas by comparing the falling apple with the falling moon, and Newton learned that if the moon did not fall toward the earth, it would do a linear movement and eventually escape So he thinks the moon is falling around the earth (the moon is a very serious drop), so the moon must fall below the one that should go without it.Newton boldly assumes that the moon is at Attracted by gravity, it is merely a projectile rotating around the Earth. As for how the moon's tangent speed comes from, it may be a bolt from the universe and the time of creation, and the moon's tangent speed will determine Its orbit around the Earth is circular, oval, parabolic, hyperbola or hit the Earth. Newton did not find gravity, he found that gravity is "all." Each object will attract other objects, and the size of the gravitation depends only on the quality of the object and the distance between objects.Newton's law of universal gravitation, Each object attracts every other object, and the magnitude of the attraction between the two objects, in proportion to their mass, decreases with the square of the distance between the centers of the two objects.Newton, in order to prove that only the sphere can " The total mass of the ball converges to the center of mass of the ball. "To represent the total effect of the gravitational pull of the entire ball, calculus is developed. However, no matter how far from Earth the Earth's gravity will never become zero, even if you are taken to the universe The Earth's gravity will still act on you, and although the effect of gravity on earth may be obscured by the massive objects near you, it still exists. No matter how small or how far, each object will be gravitationally affected , But also throughout space, as we call "all things."

To the question "why there is gravity between any two objects”, so far there is no uniform conclusion among physicists.Newton's exploration of the causes of gravity began in 1664, starting with the idea of "gravity rays" and "gravity-causing matter," saying that "gravity-causing matter must pass through the pores of everything." Between 1674 and 1684, the reason for the gravitational force was that the pressure difference between the two was too small, suggesting that "the attraction of the earth's gravity is caused by the continuous agglomeration of some other things, such as ether," and that the etheric particles between two objects in close proximity , Subtle through the pores of the object, the formation of negative pressure, so that the outside of the ether into the object on both sides into the formation of pressure difference, so that the two objects approaching, the performance of gravity. After August 1684, Newton gave up his exploration of the causes of gravity and repeatedly said, "I have not yet revealed the cause of gravity, I have not agreed to explain it, because I can not understand it from phenomena." It is also impossible to know from this phenomenon The law of reason. "" So far I can not find the cause of gravity by the phenomenon. " Until later years, Newton still made it clear that the cause and nature of gravitation are not yet known, and the future generations will have to explore and find out. We've all heard of Newton's story of the existence of gravity because of an apple, which reminds me of a very practical material with gravity and an apple. How to use this apple to show the existence of gravity? Falling is a very practical and intuitive way, I try to put the apple's material at the beginning of the movie to make a gravity guide. The next apple drop screen will make the viewer quickly think of my research theme to some extent.

Einstein proposed the theory of universal gravitation in 1913 and completed the general theory of relativity in 1916. In general relativity, Einstein expanded and revised Newton's gravitational theory, proposed a new theory of gravitation, explored the cause of gravitation, and gravitation was the protagonist in Einstein's new gravitational theory. Similar to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, Einstein's theory of new gravitation holds that there is a gravitational field around any object, and that there is space for gravitational field to be curved. Einstein inspired Maxwell's theory to predict the existence of gravitational waves because electromagnetic fields propagate through electromagnetic waves and gravitational fields can also propagate through gravitational waves. Electromagnetic forces interact with objects through photons, and gravitation should be gravitationally induced Objects attract each other.

In addition to some scientific theoretical research and experiments, I found that the daily existence of gravity is based on the manifestation of objects in the air. The stability of the space is very important for the movement and deformation of objects. The theory of gravitation eventually introduced by Newton did not require any additional movement of matter, nor did it relate the gravitational forces of the cosmic celestial bodies to their special movements. Gravity is a universal phenomenon of matter, there should be no restrictions on the material category, Einstein's plan to find gravitons has the requirements of the material category - "steel bar"; Einstein's search for gravitons also requires that the program will have a large mass The monster quickly revolves around the axis. If only the huge mass of steel is rapidly rotated about the axis to produce a graviton that leads to gravitation, then gravitational attraction is not a universal property possessed by the relatively static material, but rather that this massive mass of steel results from the rotation of the shaft The physical result.A comparison of Einstein's and Newton's early perceptions of the origin of gravity suggests that there is consistency between the two: first, both consider that the cause of gravity is the movement of some sort of micro-mass. Second, there are commonalities with the idea of microscopic substances that lead to gravitation, which are considered as tiny microscopic particles with plastids, which Einstein calls gravitons, and Newton calls them "atoms" , "Etheric particle". Einstein's hypothesis is that graviton waves produce and propagate gravitational fields due to graviton motion, which is inspired by the electromagnetic field phenomenon. It is assumed that the gravitational gravitational field phenomenon of gravitational waves should be the same as that of the electromagnetic wave electromagnetic field. Newton believes that the gravitational material must pass Pores of all objects, suppose that subtle atoms or etheric particles penetrate the pores of the object, rendering the object appear gravitational.

Based on this research principle, I tried to do some ball-related experiments, but due to my practical ability to achieve the precise goal of completing scientific experiments, the next more experiments I chose to use a more intimate life Gravitation activities as experimental subjects.

Although people are studying the gravitation discovered during the movement of celestial bodies, gravitation actually exists between any two objects in nature and is closely related to people's lives. Without universal gravitation, the universe can not be imagined , Below to see the following gravity in daily life embodiment. In our daily life, there is a very important phenomenon, that is, all the objects thrown into the sky will eventually fall to the ground. Everybody is familiar with this phenomenon, but because of being too familiar, few people noticed this phenomenon. Why do objects fall on the ground without flying into the air? Why does the table chair in the house always stand on the floor instead of on the ceiling? This is an interesting and very important fact in nature . We have to study these issues, we must first understand the law of gravity. The law of universal gravitation The law of universal gravitation is one of the most important laws in the universe. It not only dominates the life of mankind but also dominates everything in the universe so that the days, moons and stars in heaven will look like the present. This law is one of the great cornerstones of modern physics and an important pillar of modern astronomy.

Based on these experiments, I still had this idea if I could invert the space-time and the space, and whether or not I could show an idea of "floating in the air," but the vacuum environment is too hard for me to draw on Create a "floating" illusion. So I chose to use the camera directly to reverse the sense of visual bias. The picture below is what I try to use inverted lens to switch angle to make picture material.

It can be seen from the figure that gravity and buoyancy are very interesting and different from the conventional one. In fact, a series of games of real gravity sensing and confrontation are also now very popular because people can experience the weightlessness and floating feeling they have not experienced in the game. Since I'm talking about the feeling of floating, my mind suddenly immediately remembered the existence of another scientific force of buoyancy. Where did you find buoyancy to counter my gravity experiment and make a comparison? The pool became a good choice.

Why does the boat not sink in the water? Why can people swim? Why do whales weigh more than elephants flutter in the water? Today I read the "interesting physics book," which made me understand a lot of knowledge of everyday scientific phenomena, the original problem is the buoyancy in physics, let me share with you:

Summer vacation our family travel to Hainan, sitting a large ship, but the travel is fast, I carefully observed that the hull is made of iron, I played in the basin of the magnet, put it down will fall to the bottom. It turned out that when the thinned iron was cast as a ship floating on the water, it would float deeper than the iron itself when it floated on the water. Because of the greater buoyancy, the ship would not sink .

We can swim because of buoyancy, because of buoyancy, our body can float on the water. The book says seawater is more likely to float than in the river, because the buoyancy of the sea is greater. I refer to the book approach, personally did some experiments, the eggs in a glass of water, eggs sink to the bottom of the cup, sprinkled with a few tablespoons of salt fully dissolved, the eggs really slowly floating up, the original is the buoyancy of salt water Larger than water.

So, why the "giant" whale in the water can flip lightly in water? It turned out that because of the buoyancy, if the whale ran aground on the beach, it was more difficult to turn the body. It reminds me of Kieu grabbed the crabs in the summer. I found an interesting phenomenon. The big boulders outside the water were very heavy. The boulders were very strenuous and the boulders in the water were relatively light, all because of buoyancy.

As long as carefully observed, life is full of science, scientists use these amazing physical phenomena, created a lot of miracles, science for our human use, such as the submarine is the use of the principle of buoyancy, the submarine has A device called a ballast tank, filled with ballast water tanks, the submarine will become lighter, filled with water in the submarine, the submarine will sink into the water. People also use the pressure of water to turn the generator to generate electricity.

If you lose gravity In life, each one of us, every object, and even an insignificant pile of hair, are subjected to a force that eventually brings everything to the ground. This is the magic of the earth. It attracts various kinds of objects and produces Force, this force is gravity. Newton's discovery proved the existence of gravity, or that gravity is everywhere, gravity really good, ripe apple falls, so that people do not have to move the ladder, but bending over. However, some people complain about the fall from the second floor, light legs and broken, severe disability, if really lose gravity, the world will be: the car flew in the air, can not move; people in the air, can not; people in the room can only swim. Water, a symbol of life, will lose its flow if it loses its gravity, and will be dried up by the evaporation of water. A person can easily lift a heavy object; if you love jumping, you fly away from the earth, then However, human effort spent so many years in order to achieve the dream of entering space, all of a sudden became a reality. If we lose gravity, the environment around us will only be worse. People and all sorts of objects are swimming in the air. This is terrible. In summary, we can not lose gravity, the existence of gravity, is our human beings in the ball can survive.

[scepticaladventure]

15 Gravity and Inertia 26Aug17

Introduction

This is a blog essay about two of the most fundamental aspects of the Universe – gravity and inertia. It is written to provoke some fresh thinking in an area of physics that I think has worked itself into a morass of complicated rubbish. Gravity and inertia are fundamentally important but still quite mysterious.

Three centuries after Sir Isaac Newton argued for the existence of absolute space and time, Ernst Mach disagreed (as had Bishop Berkley previously). Mach did not agree that there was an absolute reference frame. He argued that a body only has motion relative to other bodies. He also noted that inertial affects only arose if the body was accelerating or rotating with respect to the “fixed stars” in the heavens above. Mach’s line of reasoning led to speculation that inertia itself was a purely relative phenomenon and that the stars “up there” had something to do with the manifestation of inertia “down here”.

Quote from Robert H Dicke:  “It is interesting that only two ideas concerning the nature of space have dominated our thinking since the time of Descartes. According to one of these pictures, space is an absolute physical structure with properties of its own. This picture can be traced from Descartes’ vortices through the absolute space of Newton, to the ether theories of the 19th century.

The contrary view - that the geometrical and inertial properties of space are meaningless for an empty space, that the physical properties of space have their origin in the matter contained therein, and that the only meaningful motion of a particle is motion relative to other matter in the universe has never found its complete expression in a physical theory. This picture is also old and can be traced from the writings of Bishop Berkeley to those of Ernst Mach.

These ideas have found a limited expression in General Relativity, but it must be admitted that, although in General Relativity spatial geometries are affected by mass distributions, the geometry is not uniquely specified by the distribution. It has not yet been possible to specify boundary conditions on the field equations of General Relativity which would bring the theory into accord with Mach's Principle.“

Thought Experiments

Thought experiments are a wonderful thing. They can take us wherever our minds can wonder or wander. They cost very little. They can enlarge our thinking and discipline it at the same time. And they are useful for conversations.

But before I present a few thought experiments let me propose a new (?) scientific principle.

One of the things we can observe about our physical universe is that physical relationships seem to be consistent. Nature is not capricious. Things do not change without reason. Physical laws apply equally well “here” as “over there” and they also hold true over time. They do not hold one day and not hold another. If two systems are exactly identical then (apart from quantum fluctuations) they tend to remain identical.

This suggests a Principle of Consistencyv (PoC). It could be stated in many ways, such as:

Identical physical systems will remain identical unless there is a reason for at least one them to change; and .

The laws of physics will affect identical systems in identical circumstances in identical ways.

1. The Cannon on the Mountain

Many people misunderstand what is going on when a satellite orbits a large object like a planet or star. When asked to explain why astronauts in an orbiting spacecraft experience weightlessness, many reply “because there is no gravity in space”.  Which of course misunderstands that gravity is holding the spacecraft in its orbit.

Galileo’s explanatory thought experiment still works well to explain what is going on. Imagine a very high mountain on the equator and a powerful cannon atop the mountain with its muzzle pointing horizontally, aimed towards the west. Fire a shell and watch its trajectory. The shell gradually curves down and strikes the earth somewhere west. But the earth is curving also. If you fire the cannon hard enough, the shell will sail over the horizon and as it falls the earth will keep on curving away beneath it. Get the horizontal speed just right and (ignoring air friction) the shell could go all around the earth, over and over again. Continually falling in vertical free fall under the influence of gravity, but constantly missing the earth.

Gravity is pulling the shell downwards. However, the inertia of the shell is trying to keep it going in a straight line. If gravity were suddenly to cease, the shell trajectory would become a straight line and the shell would fly off at a tangent to its previous orbit, like mud off a bicycle wheel. If inertia were suddenly to cease, the shell would hit the earth quite quickly.

So that is why astronauts experience weightlessness. They are actually in continuous free-fall. It is as if they are inside an elevator on which the cable has been cut. The only reason that they do not hit the earth with fatal consequences is that they are going sideways so fast they keep missing it.

The speed at which the orbit is stable strikes a balance between the gravitational forces on the shell and the inertial properties of the shell. Both are proportional to the mass of the shell, so this orbiting speed is independent of the mass of the shell. The speed at which the orbit persists depends only on the mass of the earth, the radius of the orbit and the gravitational constant G.

Simple as this thought experiment is, there are two things about it that should not be taken for granted. Why does the earth pull down on the shell? And why does the shell want to travel in a straight line out to space somewhere?

2. Newton’s Bucket

Sir Isaac Newton invited his readers to imagine a bucket filled with water and suspended by a long cord which is twisted round and round quite a few times and then let go (see quote below). The bucket starts to spin faster and faster. The water in the bucket will start to spin as well. Slowly at first and not nearly as fast as the bucket, but gradually catching up. The surface of the water will take on a curved shape as the water tries to climb up the sides of the bucket. (An upward opening circular paraboloid). Now stop the bucket spinning. For a while at least the water will keep on spinning and its surface will stay curved. But the degree of curvature does not have a good relationship to the motion of the bucket. Newton concluded that what was relevant in the behaviour of this system was not the motion of the water with respect to the bucket, but rather to  “absolute space”.

“If a vessel, hung by a long cord, is so often turned about that the cord is strongly twisted, then filled with water, and held at rest together with the water; after, by the sudden action of another force, it is whirled about in the contrary way, and while the cord is untwisting itself, the vessel continues for some time this motion; the surface of the water will at first be plain, as before the vessel began to move; but the vessel by gradually communicating its motion to the water, will make it begin sensibly to revolve, and recede by little and little, and ascend to the sides of the vessel, forming itself into a concave figure...This ascent of the water shows its endeavour to recede from the axis of its motion; and the true and absolute circular motion of the water, which is here directly contrary to the relative, discovers itself, and may be measured by this endeavour. ... And therefore, this endeavour does not depend upon any translation of the water in respect to ambient bodies, nor can true circular motion be defined by such translation. ... but relative motions...are altogether destitute of any real effect. ...It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motions of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space in which these motions are performed, do by no means come under the observations of our senses.   Isaac Newton; Principia, Book 1: Scholium   Translation by Andrew Motte 1846.

Philosophers have often argued whether there is any such thing as “absolute space”. In the 17th century René Descartes, supported (in part) by Gottfried Leibniz, held that empty space is a metaphysical impossibility. When one speaks of the space between things one is actually making reference to the things, and not to some entity that stands between them.

3. The Foucault Pendulum

The Foucault pendulum is named after the French physicist Léon Foucault, and is a simple device conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth. While it had long been known that the Earth rotates, the introduction of the Foucault pendulum in 1851 was the first simple proof of the rotation of the earth in an easy-to-see experiment.

Foucault pendulums are popular displays in science museums and universities. In essence, the pendulum is a weight at the end of a long wire attached to a point above in such as way that the weight can swing in any direction. If such a pendulum is set in motion, it does not just go back and forth. The plane of such motion can be seen to slowly turn around, i.e. it precesses.

The first public exhibition of a Foucault pendulum took place in February 1851 in the Meridian of the Paris Observatory. A few weeks later, Foucault made his most famous pendulum when he suspended a 28-kg brass-coated lead bob with a 67-m-long wire from the dome of the Panthéon, Paris. The plane of the pendulum's swing rotated clockwise approximately 11.3° per hour, making a full circle in approximately 31.8 hours.

At either the North Pole or South Pole, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum remains fixed relative to the distant masses of the universe while Earth rotates underneath it, taking one sidereal day to complete a rotation. So, relative to Earth, the plane of oscillation of a Foucault pendulum at the North Pole undergoes a full clockwise rotation in a 24 hour period. A pendulum at the South Pole rotates counterclockwise by the same extent in the same length of time.

4. The Ball and Ring

Imagine a massive ball surrounded by a rubber ring in an otherwise empty universe. Now set the ring revolving with respect to the ball. Which is spinning – the ring or the ball? There are several possible answers:

The ring

The ball

Both of them

We can’t say unless we surround the system with some other matter

We can’t say unless we put the system into the context of an external universe.

If the ball is spinning then it might display some inertial effects. For example, it might bulge in the middle. Or a bucket of water placed on one of its poles might develop a concave surface. If such effects are present then that could be taken as evidence that the ball was spinning. Conversely, if the ring displays some stretching then that would be evidence that it is the ring that is spinning.

Can we assume that if the ring and the ball are not displaying any inertial effects then this is proof that they are not spinning? No we cannot. We have no evidence or proof that inertial effects would be present in an otherwise empty universe.

In an otherwise empty universe, a system with the ring spinning around the ball is identical to a system with the ball spinning inside the ring. Under a Principle of Consistency (PoC), there should not be a capricious difference in the state of the system. Outcome 1 should be just as possible as outcome 2. But the PoC also says that the outcome should be well determined.

Outcome 3 has superficial merit. At least it is “symmetrical”. But now imagine the ring becoming smaller and smaller until it disappears. Does this leave the ball still displaying some signs of spinning? That would lead to a violation of the PoC when compared to another ball that doesn’t have a ring around it and shows none of the indications that it is spinning.

Outcome 4 introduces an external reference. It could a tiny little bead at some considerable distance away. Position an observer on the ring. If the bead is observed to travel round and round then the observer would conclude that the ring is spinning. The alternative is to assume that the bead is travelling along some enormous circular path at an impossible speed.

If anyone tries to argue that it could be the bead that is travelling and not the ring, thus creating an illusion of rotation for our observer, just conceive of a second ring and ball placed next to the first one, but with a relative rotation in the opposite direction. The same bead cannot create opposite delusions at the same time.

Now place the observer on the ball. If the bead is observed to travel round and round the ball then the observer would conclude that it is the ball is spinning.

This leads us to surmise that if there is an observer on the ring and an observer on the ball, and is there an another observable piece of matter nearby, then the two observers should be able to agree whether it is the ball that is spinning or the bucket.

It is strange, is it not, that such a tiny bead could be so helpful to resolving the situation? And if you do not think it is strange, then conceptually reduce the bead to the size of an electron and place it a million times further away. Keep going until you do find it to be strange.

Outcome 5 is much more familiar. It is our own actual Universe. We can expect observers to be able to agree which part of the ring and ball system is spinning. We can expect that inertial effects will be present. And we can expect that these inertial effects will be consistent with the agreement reached by the observers after observing the external Universe.

But to prefer outcome 5 is to admit that the Universe is somehow a key factor for determining which objects are spinning and which are not, and that the Universe has something to do with the manifestations of behaviors that we call inertial effects.

In other words, we have by logical analysis of a thought experiment arrived at Mach’s Principle.

5. A Rotating Spherical Universe

Now let us do one of those heroic extrapolations that thought experiments lend themselves to. Let us imagine that the whole universe is a sphere and that we are inside it. Can we say if such a universe is rotating or not? Could we even tell one way or the other?

If we put a gyroscope at rest with respect to the rest of this universe, we would not expect it to demonstrate rotational effects, whether or not the Universe itself is rotating.

There may be some possibility that the spherical universe could be rotating in some sense, and the gyroscope is rotating with it in perfect harmony. Then we would not expect any rotational effects either. The only surprise would be if the gyroscope was at rest to its universe and did show signs of rotation.

Now assume that this particular universe has all its mass (except the observer) in its outermost shell. The Shell Theorem tells us that the net gravity on a particle anywhere inside such an arrangement is zero. The gravitational pull is the same in all directions.

Would this affect our thinking in any way? If inertia were somehow connected to gravity, then the apparent absence of gravity might suggest that inertia would also be absent.

Now suppose that the universe consists of concentric shells of matter and consider an observer somewhere inside, at radius r from the centre.  The Shell Theorem suggests that the net gravitational effect from all the matter of radius greater than r is zero. If gravity were somehow responsible for inertia then we might suppose that only the matter situated at radius less than r is relevant. But then, by making r smaller and smaller, we would conclude that not only is there no large scale gravity in such a universe, there is no large scale inertia either.

All in all the idea that the some sort of net gravitational effect from the universe as a whole is somehow responsible for the locally observable phenomena that we call inertia is not proving entirely helpful.

Mach’s Universal Reference Frame

In describing a physical system or experiment it is usually simpler and less confusing to reference all time and position measurements to a reference frame in which distances and directions can be well defined and in which all the clocks are synchronized.

(A reference frame that makes the description of physics very complicated is one which is accelerating or rotating with respect to the fixed stars. Even worse would be an accelerating and rotating frame in which the degree of acceleration, the speed of rotation and/or the axis of rotation are not constant either.)

Sir Isaac Newton found it convenient to describe his observations and experiments as if there was an absolute reference frame for space and time that all observers could agree upon. 

The German physicist/philosopher Ernst Mach (after whom the speed of sound in air gets its name) argued that a body only has motion relative to other bodies. He also noted that inertial affects would be apparent if the reference frame being used was accelerating or rotating with respect to the “fixed stars” in the heavens above. He argued that everything was relative. Einstein acknowledged that these arguments influenced his development of Special Relativity.

Mach would have been very familiar with the17th century debate about the nature of space and also the Foucault pendulum. He opposed the idea of absolute space as such, preferring instead to suggest that the properties of physical systems are relative to the matter constituting the universe as a whole.

“Newton's experiment with the rotating vessel of water simply informs us that the relative rotation of the water with respect to the sides of the vessel produces no noticeable centrifugal forces, but that such forces are produced by its relative rotations with respect to the mass of the earth and other celestial bodies.” — Ernst Mach, as quoted by L. Bouquiaux in Leibniz, p. 104”

“When we say that a body preserves unchanged its direction and velocity in space, our assertion is nothing more or less than an abbreviated reference to the entire universe.” — Ernst Mach; as quoted by Ciufolini and Wheeler: Gravitation and Inertia, p. 387”

When we use a reference frame to describe a physical system, the physics is only simple if we make sure it neither accelerates or rotates with respect to the “fixed stars”.

Is it just a coincidence that the reference frame in which a Foucault Pendulum does not rotate, accelerometers read zero, Coriolis effects disappear, and the water in Newton’s bucket stays flat, is always a reference frame in which there is no relative rotation to the  “fixed stars”?

Ernst Mach thought not. The correspondence is much too exact and consistent and omnipresent to be a mere coincidence. Mach speculated that the distant stars must somehow affect or dictate the phenomenon we call inertia. A contemporary of Mach is reported to have said:  “If the tramcar stops suddenly it is the distant stars that throw you down!”

Einstein called this line of reasoning “Mach's Principle.” He tried to incorporate the principle into his theories of relativity. He thought he had some success when Lense and Thirring showed that Special Relativity implied that massive spinning objects must drag inertial frames around with them to a small extent. However, the Lense-Thirring frame dragging effect is only apparent close to massive objects that are spinning very rapidly, and it does not seem to be suitable candidate for the uniform appearance of inertial affects throughout the whole Universe.

Later on Einstein thought he could incorporate Mach’s Principle into cosmological models based upon General Relativity by applying it as some sort of boundary condition for the solutions of his equations on a cosmological scale. However, eventually Einstein himself concluded that he had been unsuccessful. Modern cosmologists are divided on the question of whether General Relativity offers a satisfactory explanation for inertia.

Does Gravity Cause Inertia?

Mach thought there must be an interaction throughout the whole Universe that affected all matter and gave it its inertial properties. The obvious candidate for this mysterious relationship was gravity, because gravity is known to affect the whole Universe.

However, as shown by the Foucault pendulum there is an obvious and fatal issue with this. The back and forth swing of the pendulum is clearly driven by the gravity of the Earth, but the round and round precession of the plane of the pendulum’s swing ignores the presence of the Earth altogether.

There is also the problem of action at a distance. If a spacecraft (say) tries to accelerate, then most of the Universe is many, many light years away. So any signal, even at the speed of light, between the spacecraft and the rest of the Universe would take eons to come back again. Unless we are prepared to admit instantaneous action over almost infinite distances then the rest of the Universe must be condemned to be a spectator of events.

The Fabric of Spacetime

Perhaps it is not the distant galaxies that are relevant to this issue, but rather something that is closer to hand – something perhaps left over from the creation, evolution and/or expansion of the Universe?

In Einstein’s General Relativity, one massive body does not interact gravitationally with another by exchanging gravitons with it, or by any other process that involves to-ing and fro-ing between the two massive objects. Instead each body affects the spacetime around it, and each massive body reacts to the spacetime that it finds itself in.

If this is good enough for gravity, why should it not also apply to inertia?

What if a massive body acquires its inertial properties from the spacetime around it? What if the inertial properties result from attempts by a massive body to break two simple rules – don’t accelerate relative to the surrounding spacetime, and don’t change your rate of spin either, unless you “buy” the change by absorbing or giving up some energy to something else?

This line of thought leads me to make a heretical suggestion. Gravity and inertia might not be consequences of the mass of material objects at all. It might be the other way around. Mass might be a secondary phenomenon, not an intrinsic fundamental property of material objects.  In other words, the property that we call mass might be a manifestation of the way that gravity and inertia affects matter.

Or, to put it another way – without gravity and inertia, a material object would not be able to exhibit those properties to which we have given the name “mass”.

Some readers may find this idea perplexing, other might find it intriguing – many will find it discomfiting, silly or perhaps even annoying. It would be a perfectly understandable human reaction to immediately adjudge it to be nonsense. Apologies to the latter group and thank you to the former for being open to strange new ideas.

What Constitutes the “Fixed Stars?”

What is the frame of reference in which centrifugal and Coriolis forces vanish, and Newton's dynamics applies in the simplest way?

Most descriptions of the meaning of an inertial reference frame point out that such a reference stem is not accelerating or rotating with respect to the “fixed stars” or “distant galaxies” or “mean rest frame of the Universe.”

But this warrants closer examination. What does “relative to the distant masses of the universe” mean exactly? It is often claimed: “Observationally, we find that a Newtonian or inertial frame is one in which the distant galaxies are not rotating.”

But this sentence has never been thoroughly tested. It is therefore an assertion and an assumption. For example, when it mentions galaxies, should it say the distant galaxies, or should it say “the Milky Way”?

Until the 1920’s the “rest of the Universe was assumed” to be synonymous with the “fixed stars” in the starry firmament all around. In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble showed that a whole lot of small “fuzzy nebulae” appearing in the heavens above were no part of the Milky Way at all.  They were in fact separate galaxies from the Milky Way, and that our own galaxy is just one galaxy amongst countless others. This was momentous news to Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein and everyone else.

The concept of “the fixed stars” then became complicated because the Milky Way, which dominates the heavens above, is not fixed relative to the rest of the Universe, but is rotating slowly within it.

All the other galaxies are also on the move as well – mostly away from us, but with a variety of sideways motions as well. Members of the local group of galaxies are in fact getting nearer to the Milky Way at an appreciable rate.

In everyday practice our own Milky Way usually makes a very good reference frame. It takes about 240 million years for our Sun to complete a galactic rotation. The practical difference between using the Milky Way as a reference frame and using the “mean rest frame of distant galaxies”, or the Cosmic Microwave Background, is almost immeasurably small.

For most purposes no-one even bothers to ask whether the local galaxy or the distant galaxies is the better reference frame. A century ago astronomers just assumed the former was true. Now they seem to have seamlessly switched to assuming that the mean rest frame of galaxies in general is the most obvious reference frame to use as the background non-inertial reference frame.

There does not seem to have been any discussion, debate, testing or argument about this big change in assumptions. And not a word of explanation.

The concept of a “Universal Mean Rest Frame” shifted one again with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This radiation is arriving in our neighbourhood in a highly uniform and isotropic way. The CMB is now assumed to be the obvious “reference frame for the Universe as a whole”, and is also assumed to be synonymous with the “mean rest frame” for the whole Universe.

It is a pity assumptions about what is the actual correct inertial reference frame in different parts of our galaxy or elsewhere in the universe are made so readily and without much discussion, debate or testing. We may be missing something very fundamental.

Is Our Universe Rotating?

Our actual Universe is almost evenly filled with galaxies and gases and dust and travelling energy in the form of photons and neutrinos. We do not know if it has an edge or not. All our experiential evidence about the distant universe arrives in the form of electromagnetic waves, neutrinos and (one day perhaps) gravitational fluctuations. At any one instant what we are seeing is the combined effect of “light” arriving from concentric shells around us, with the light from shells further away being older in proportion to its distance, and hence reflecting an earlier stage in the evolution of the Universe.

In all of this information, there does not appear to be any macroscopic effects of universal rotation. No disc like flattening. No concentration of matter along an axis of rotation – like tea leaves in a mug. No concentration of matter in a distant ring around the cosmic microwave background.

The Big Bang theory imagines that the Universe expanded and then collapsed and then expanded again. Was it rotating when the last expansion started? 

Some cosmologists have suggested that if the Universe expanded exceedingly rapidly in its early phase, any initial rotation will have by now been dissipated to almost nothing. However, I am not sure this is a good argument since it is reasonable to surmise that there would still be some evidence of the basic rotation in the gross distribution of matter within the Universe.

So it seems safe to assume that there is no gross rotation in the Universe as a whole, or if there it would not show up anyway.

The Physics of a Lonely Spiral Galaxy

Imagine a universe where a big bang resulted in just one lonely spiral galaxy, surrounded by a huge shell of dust and other baryonic matter, and that the galaxy is spinning slowly with respect to the shell of dust all around it.

Imagine that shell is expanding. Light emitted by the shell takes longer and longer to reach the galaxy. To observers on the galaxy the shell will become dimmer and dimmer, less and less dense, and colder and colder. Eventually, the shell will more or less disappear.

Now the lonely galaxy is turning silently in space, all by itself.

What then is the best reference frame to use for analysing the dynamics of the spiral galaxy? Is it one that is fixed relative to the now invisible surrounding shell of dust? Or might it be a reference frame that is somehow aligned to the galaxy itself?

The most promising way to answer this question is to work out which reference frame gives the simplest platform for understanding the dynamics of the galaxy as a whole. In general, nature prefers simple solutions rather than elaborate and implausible explanations with a whole lot of extra variables. (Occam’s Razor). Students of physics certainly do!

Unfortunately we do not have a lonely spiral galaxy to examine in isolation. But we do have a perfectly good spiral galaxy close at hand. In fact we live in one. Plus there are plenty of other spiral galaxies quite nearby.

Rotational Speeds in Spiral Galaxies

Using a reference frame aligned to the cosmic microwave background does not give simple physics for spiral galaxies. All the stars in all the arms of all such galaxies appear to be travelling much too fast. Their tangential speeds should decline in direct proportion to the inverse of the square root of their orbital radius. In practice the tangential speeds are observed to hardly decline at all with increasing radius from their galactic centers. The speed of the stars in their orbits remains roughly constant as r increases. Rates of rotation around the relevant galactic cores are very much higher than expected. Up to ten times higher.

The stars should not be where they are. They should be a lot closer to the middle. The galaxies themselves should not exist.

This problem became widely known in the 1970’s and is known as the rotation curve issue.

So what did we do? Did we keep an open mind? No. We immediately assumed there must be a lot of some new exotic dark matter hidden in the halo of spiral galaxies and that the extra gravitational pull from this Cold Dark Matter (CDM) was holding all the rapidly orbiting stars in place.

I think this idea was partly inspired by the fact that the new giant atom smashing machines of that era were frequently discovering new types of sub-atomic particles. 

Astronomers leapt to the conclusion that there must be a lot of invisible “dark matter” holding spiral galaxies together. The have been looking for this unknown, exotic, hypothetical “cold dark matter” ever since.

Forty years later we are still looking for any direct evidence at all for any Cold Dark Matter at all. I wonder how many decades of fruitless searching will it take for scientists to start to question their unshakeable belief that “exotic cold dark matter” must be out there somewhere and that its existence is the only possible solution to the rotation curve issue.

The idea of cold dark matter is itself struggling mathematically. According to some calculations the cold dark matter should distributed in one way, and for other calculations it should be distributed in other ways (refer the cuspy halo problem).

An alternative hypothesis, not popular with most astrophysicists, is that gravity itself becomes slightly weaker as the distance scale becomes enormous. (Refer Modified Newtonian dynamics, or MOND for short). The Israeli physicist Modercai Milgrom and a few open minded colleagues persist in putting up this alternative to the cold dark matter hypothesis, and they deserve thanks and respect. Not least because their idea seems to be having considerable explanatory success so far. And also because they show that not all modern scientists are overwhelmed by “groupthink” and the herd instinct. 

I suppose many physicists and astronomers are uncomfortable about the idea that so-called physical laws and relationships might not be as immutable as they like to imagine. But it would be nice to think that mankind has become more open to paradigm shifts since the wise men of the 17th century condemned Galileo for his heretical views.

A New Idea to explain the Rotation Curve Problem

In my next post I will suggest a new idea to explain the apparently anomalous orbital speeds for the stars and dust that we can see in nearby spiral galaxies.

It may be not be right but I think it is worth considering. Particularly since it accords with the everyday observations that Einstein dubbed “Mach’s Principle”.

The suggestion is that the orbiting stars are actually exactly in the orbits that accord with Newtonian/Keplerian dynamics. (And I’m being serious here).

The reason why the stars are travelling so fast is that the correct reference frame for analysing their motion is being dragged around by the rotation of their galaxy. Relative to this correct reference frame the stars in the arms of spiral galaxies are travelling at exactly the right Keplerian speed for their particular radii from the centre of their galaxy.

The inertial reference frame dragging is not as fast as the apparent rotation of the stars themselves, but is a compromise between the effects of all the rotating material in the galaxy and the background inertial reference frame that would apply in that part of the Universe if the spiral galaxy were not present.

I call this the Mixed Rotational Reference Frame Effect (MiRFFe). I can call it what I like, because it is my idea (as far as I know).

Yes there is a lot of dark matter in and around a spiral galaxy, but it is normal dark matter like gas, dust and dwarf stars, plus perhaps quite a lot of black holes. 

Exotic cold dark matter is not required. Adding a mysterious 33% extra mass to the Universe is not required, necessary, desirable or clever.

Summary

Gravity and Inertia are two absolutely commonplace and fundamental features of our Universe, from the biggest scale imaginable down to the tiniest scale possible. And yet we do not understand them very well. Furthermore, we cannot even explain the orbits of stars in spiral galaxies, including our own Sun in the Milky Way. We’ve missed something. We need to think again.