Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_5/V16NO503.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 20KB

Date: Sat,  1 May 93 05:08:03
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #503
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat,  1 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 503

Today's Topics:
                "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
            Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they. (2 msgs)
           Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?
                            HyperKnowledge
                         Vandalizing the sky
                         Vandalizing the sky.

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 93 16:58:38 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review)
Newsgroups: sci.space



          (Book Review):


          "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North
          Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed,
          hardcover.


               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to
          most ALL astrophysical mysteries.

               This book is Volume III of a revised and enlarged
          edition of "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", 1959.
          Volume I is "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979), and Volume II is
          "THE BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988).

               Most books and journal articles on the subject of
          astrophysics are bristling with integrals, partial
          differentials, and other FANCY MATHEMATICS.  In this book, by
          contrast, mathematics is conspicuous by its absence, except
          for some relatively simple formulas imbedded in the text.
          Larson emphasizes CONCEPTS and declares that mathematical
          agreement with a theory does NOT guarantee its conceptual
          validity.

               Dewey B. Larson was a retired engineer with a Bachelor
          of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State
          University.  He developed the Theory described in his books
          while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the
          properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements
          they contain.

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" describes the astrophysical
          portions of Larson's CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED, COMPREHENSIVE,
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, a kind of
          "grand unified field theory" that orthodox physicists and
          astro-physicists CLAIM to be looking for.  It is built on two
          postulates about the physical and mathematical nature of
          space and time:

               (1) The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE
          component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE
          units, and with two RECIPROCAL aspects, SPACE and TIME.

               (2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of
          ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its primary magnitudes are
          ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN.

               From these two postulates, Larson was able to build a
          COMPLETE theoretical universe, from photons and subatomic
          particles to the giant elliptical galaxies, by combining the
          concept of INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS with
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and rotational-
          vibrational motions.  At each step in the development, he was
          able to match parts of his theoretical universe with
          corresponding parts in the real physical universe, including
          EVEN THINGS NOT YET DISCOVERED.  For example, in his 1959
          book, he first predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES,
          several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them.  They
          are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his comprehensive Theory.  And
          when quasars were discovered, he had a related explanation
          ready for those also.

               As a result of his theory, which he called "THE
          RECIPROCAL SYSTEM", Larson TOTALLY REJECTED many of the
          sacred doctrines of orthodox physicists and astrophysicists,
          including black holes, neutron stars, degenerate matter,
          quantum wave mechanics (as applied to atomic structure),
          "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass
          increases, relativistic Doppler shifts, nuclear fusion in
          stars, and the big bang, all of which he considered to be
          nothing more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES.  He was very
          critical of the AD HOC assumptions, uncertainty principles,
          solutions in principle, "no other way" declarations, etc.,
          used to maintain them.

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" is divided into 31 chapters.
          It begins with a description of how galaxies are built from
          the gravitational attraction between globular star clusters,
          which are formed from intergalactic gas and dust clouds that
          accumulate from the decay products of cosmic rays coming in
          from the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe.  (Galaxy
          formation from the MYTHICAL "big bang" is a big mystery to
          orthodox astronomers.)  He then goes on to describe life
          cycles of stars and how binary and multiple star systems and
          solar systems result from Type I supernova explosions of
          SINGLE stars.

               Several chapters are devoted to quasars which, according
          to Larson, are densely-packed clusters of stars that have
          been ejected from the central bulges of exploding galaxies
          and are actually traveling FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT
          (although most of that speed is AWAY FROM US IN TIME).

               Astronomers and astrophysicists who run up against
          observations that contradict their theories would find
          Larson's explanations quite valuable if considered with an
          OPEN MIND.  For example, they used to believe that GAMMA RAY
          BURSTS originated from pulsars, which exist primarily in the
          plane or central bulge of our galaxy.  But the new gamma ray
          telescope in earth orbit observed that the bursts come from
          ALL DIRECTIONS UNIFORMLY and do NOT correspond with any
          visible objects, (except for a few cases of directional
          coincidence).  Larson's explanation is that the gamma ray
          bursts originate from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER
          HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "cosmic
          sector".  Because the anti-matter universe exists in a
          RECIPROCAL RELATION to our material universe, with the speed
          of light as the BOUNDARY between them, and has THREE

          dimensions of time and ONLY ONE dimension of space, the
          bursts can pop into our material universe ANYWHERE seemingly
          at random.

               Larson heavily quotes or paraphrases statements from
          books, journal articles, and leading physicists and
          astronomers.  In this book, 351 of them are superscripted
          with numbers identifying entries in the reference list at the
          end of the book.  For example, a quote from the book
          "Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey", by William K. Hartmann,
          says, "Our hopes of understanding all stars would brighten if
          we could explain exactly how binary and multiple stars
          form.... Unfortunately we cannot."  Larson's book contains
          LOGICAL CONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS of such mysteries that are
          WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION by ALL physicists,
          astronomers, and astrophysicists.


               For more information, answers to your questions, etc.,
          please consult my CITED SOURCES (Larson's BOOKS).


               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          IMPORTANT Book Review is ENCOURAGED.


                                   Robert E. McElwaine
                                   B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC


------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 1993 08:03:11 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters.  WHere  are they.
Newsgroups: sci.space

Well, I seem to have struck an  interesting discussion off.  Given that I
am not an astrophysicist  or nuclear physicist,  i'll have to boil it
down a bit.

1)  ALl the data on bursts to date,  shows a smooth random distribution.

2)  that means they aren't concentrated in  galactic cores, our or someone
elses.

3) If the distribution is smooth,  we are either seeing some  ENORMOUSLY
large phenomena  scattered at the edge of the universe  said phenomena
being subject to debate almost as vioent as the phenomena
    OR
we are seeing some phenomena  out at like the Oort cloud,  but then it needs
some potent little energy source,  that isn't detectable  by any other
current methods.

4)  we know it's not real close,  like  slightly extra solar,  because
we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.

5)  the bursts seem to bright to be something like black hole quanta or
super string  impacts or something like that.

So everyone is watching the data and arguing like mad in the meanwhile.

what i am wondering,  is this in people's opinion,  A NEW Physics problem.

Einstein got well known for solvingthe photoelectric effect.

Copernicus,  started looking at  irregularities in planetary motion.

Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics?
just a little speculative thinking folks.

pat

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 1993 13:31:32 +1000
From: Walker Andrew John <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

[e-mail] (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Keith Harwood) writes:



>   In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David M. Palmer) writes:
>   > [e-mail] (Pat) writes:

>   > >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?

>   > >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are
>   > >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?

>   > >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?

>   . . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,
>   'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or
>   part of the Oort cloud.

>   Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge
>   of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there
>   isn't a mechanism for the others either.

>What on Earth is the "gravisphere"?
>Anyway, before it's decay the Pioneer Venus Orbiter
>had a gamma ray detector, as does Ulysses, they
>detect the brightest bursts that the Earth orbit detectors
>do, so the bursts are at least at Oort cloud distances.
>In principle four detectors spaced out by a few AU would
>see parallax if the bursts are of solar system origin.

>_The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely
>no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have
>to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to
>"conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching
>by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at
>least it was a good try...

>*  Steinn Sigurdsson               Lick Observatory          *
>*  [e-mail]        "standard disclaimer"      *
>*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict            *
>*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*

    Also,if they did come from the Oort cloud we would expect to
see the same from other stars Oort Clouds.
Andrew Walker

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 1993 07:38:29 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec.
|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call
|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that
|much energy in one second?
>                                                -jeremy


big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor.

pat

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 93 20:08:41 +0100
From: Georg Tuparev <[e-mail]>
Subject: HyperKnowledge
Newsgroups: sci.space

ANNOUNCEMENT:    The "HyperKnowledge" PROJECT for NeXTSTEP

Motivation

We are a heterogeneous group of scientists and students who feel that our
work is continuously hindered by computer environments dominated by
incompatible scientific tools and monstrous software packages (too often
claiming to do everything).  Rather than being able to use different tools
together in a flexible, interactive system, we find ourselves spending too
much time converting between different data formats, writing throw-away
tools and I/O parsers, and worrying about how to get to a particular goal
rather than what it means to have attained it.

What we need is an object-oriented scientific environment where the tools
we choose to use are integrated without being parts of a closed system,
highly interactive, and extendable (both by the addition of our own
specialized objects and by combining the available tools - graphically).
The use of such an environment should be a natural extension of our work,
requiring a very short learning phase and practically no
user-documentation.  The user should feel encouraged to explore different
possibilities, testing his/her own scientific ideas without worrying too
much about whether the system is able to cope (within reason, of course).
By building an open and object-oriented system, each user should be able
to draw upon and combine those tools necessary or conducive to a
particular task: we all need to organize and archive our data, display
results, and combine information from many different sources.

Currently, the group consists of people from very different fields:
Molecular Biology, Computer Science, Physics and Astronomy, and Geography.
While many of our needs for such an environment diverge, the underlying
motivation is the same: no matter what you want to call it, we need a
system which helps rather than hinders the organization of our scientific
data and daily work.


Why NeXTSTEP?

What else is there?  No other system offers the same power, a totally
object-oriented developers environment, UNIX-compatibility,
highly-interactive and standardized user-interface.  With the advent of
NS486 and the expectation that NeXTSTEP will soon appear on a broad range
of hardware platforms, such a system will soon be nearly universally
available.  Classical workstation vendors (SUN, IBM, HP, and the rest) now
have little to offer, no similar tools exist for the standard X-Windows
GUI, if Apple had a system it would only run on their hardware, and the
mass-market Windows/DOS world is a developer's nightmare (either despite,
or more probably because of, OLE).

In order to progress, we need an open discussion of how best to develop
such an environment.  In NeXTSTEP parlance, do we simply have to put
together a set of scientific protocols and a common API for our
"Hyper-knowledge" servers? Should be use distributed objects?  What
minimum set of tools do we need in order to start working with the
environment?  What tool-needs do we all have in common and which ones are
best developed by specialized sub-groups?  How many already existing tools
can/should be integrated into the system (e.g. Mathematica)?  Do we need
an "AVS"-like tool for data-flow manipulation?


Mailing list and Anonymous ftp

In order to take part to the project or to push the discussion forewords,
you are invited to subscribe to: [e-mail]
All (interesting) suggestions, projects and sources will be archive and
soon available (anonymous ftp).
For questions send mail to [e-mail]

Acknowledgments

The European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Heidelberg, Germany) has
consented to provide the computer resources for a mailing list and
anonymous ftp services.

Rick Hessman    <[e-mail]>
Georg Tuparev   <[e-mail]>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 93 18:25:04 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky

Dale sez;
>Mr. Hathaway's post is right on the money, if a little lengthy.  In short,
>an orbiting billboard would be trash, in the same way that a billboard on
>the Earth is trash.  Billboards make a place look trashy.  That is why there
>are laws in many places prohibiting their use.  The light pollution
>complaints are mainly an attempt to find some tangible reason to be against
>orbiting billboards because people don't feel morally justified to complain
>on the grounds that these things would defile the beauty of the sky.

I don't buy it.  If the things had no value at all, people wouldn't
spend money to make them. So their lack of value is just your
opinion, not an actual fact, which is neither a philisophical or
legal basis for prohibiting them.

On the other hand, I lived in OakBrook IL for a while, where zoning
laws prohibit billboards, as you mention above.  I think it was a
fine law, despite it's contradictory basis.

I would guess that the best legal and moral basis for protest would
be violation of private property.  "I bought this house, out in
the boondocks, specifically to enjoy my hobby, amateur astronomy.  Now
this billboard has made that investment worthless, so I want the
price of the property, in damages."  It wouldn't take too many
succesful cases like that to make bill-sats prohibitively expensive.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 1993 08:11:17 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vandalizing the sky.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George F. Krumins) writes:
|I say:
|What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably,
|would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating
|at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and
|would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and
>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild
>and unspoiled things, including the night sky.


Sorry that's an aesthetics argument.  maybe this string shoudl mofe to
sci.space.aesthetics.

Planes  ruin the night sky.  Blimps ruin the night sky.  Radio towers
ruin the night sky.

Like i said,  get a vote, and create some more national parks.  which
include onobstructed air space.

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 503
------------------------------