Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V15_2/V15NO241.ZIP/V15NO241

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 41KB

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 05:01:48
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #241
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu, 24 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 241

Today's Topics:
                             21 cm rights
                             ? about SETI
               Clinton's platform on the space program
      Goldin hails Pluto mission (Re: Sayonara, Mariner Mark II)
                  Please keep attributions straight
              Spacelab-J Frog Embryology Experiment :-)
  Was Harvest Moon "serious?" (was Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun)

    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: 23 Sep 92 06:03:16 GMT
From: Josh 'K' Hopkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: 21 cm rights
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>Also, with strict property rights, you own whatever is over your
>land.  So, radio emmissions are, technically, pollution.  Anyone
>could sue for quiet in the 21cm band...in their neighborhood.

So let me get this straight.  Libertarians believe that I should be able to
sue the local TV station for broadcasting radio waves in the air over my land?
Can I also refuse to let airline pilots talk to ground control if they're over
my house?  If I lived nearer the equator, would NASA have to refrain from
talking to astronauts?  Would the Moon undergo a radio blackout once a day?


--
Josh Hopkins                 Of course I'm a solipsist - Isn't everybody?
[e-mail]

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 04:38:05 GMT
From: Jeff Bytof <[e-mail]>
Subject: ? about SETI
Newsgroups: sci.space

>        A friend and I were discussing SETI the other day and we both were
>wondering if there has ever been any non random radio signals from space
>that could not be attributed to the background radio static of space.

Yes.  The "Wow!" signal observed at the Ohio State University Radio
Telescope.

---------
Jeff Bytof
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 10:02:42 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Clinton's platform on the space program

Mike Van Pelt writes:

\In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> writes:
/>      CLINTON/GORE ON AMERICA'S SPACE PROGRAM

\Another translation from bureacrat-speak:

/>*    Maintain the Space Shuttles integral role in
\>     our civilian space program.  The Shuttle is
/>     extremely complex and will always be expensive
\>     and difficult to operate.  But we must take
/>     full advantage of its unique capabilities.

\Scuttle anything which might threaten the shuttle's position.  Goodbye
/DC-X, and barriers (for "public safety" and "environmental" reasons to
\be sure, *cough* *cough*) against any private company trying to provide
/competing launch services.

It just occured to me: would Clinton and Gore really consider scrapping
a liquid hydrogen fueled replacement for a machine that uses aluminum
percholate as the fuel in its strap-on boosters?

Gore hasn't said anything about DC-X, but he has defended ASRM.
If _I_ were a hypocrite, I might attack him about how ASRM will
destroy the ozone layer, while DC-X will not...

Of course, all that mettalic stuff can't be good for the environment.

Finally, did anyone here anything more (besides the snippet this
morning) about the SRB joint defect found on (I think) a SRB stack
from the last Discovery mission?


\--
/Mike Van Pelt                   Without objective evidence, "bell ringing"
\LSI Logic/Headland Products     is indistinguishable from "crying wolf".
/sun!indetech!hsv3!mvp              -- Steve Emmerson
\[e-mail]

Obviously you want to sacrifice effectiveness in the name of
truth. Of course without truth, I sometimes wonder what all
the bell ringers are trying to be effective about...

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 06:59:45 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Goldin hails Pluto mission (Re: Sayonara, Mariner Mark II)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen) writes:
> Bill Higgins writes:
>
>> "Small" only on the scale of planetary science, understand.  If
>> Fermilab had the 400-megabuck budget (I generously neglect launch
>> costs, as NASA always does in quoting costs) of the Pluto probe, we
>> could build our new Main Injector and still serve free champagne every
>> day in the cafeteria.  And we are "big science" by Earthly standards!
>
> That was the old NASA.  In Goldin's NASA, we fully expect the Pluto mission
> cost to include launch, and the current budget ceiling we're looking at is
> in the 400 million ballpark, including launch.  The spacecraft design is
> quite a challenge, but Rob Staehle and colleagues haven't shrunk from it.

I was going by the report in *Aviation Week*, 31 August issue, page
22, which says:

    JPL planners have been directed to design a mission that would
    cost no more than $400 million in Fiscal 1992 dollars for both
    spacecraft, not including launch vehicle costs.  The project
    currently is before NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin for his
    decision.

I had a hamburger with Rob Staehle and Jordin Kare in Georgetown a
couple of weeks ago, and of course we talked about the Pluto mission,
but we didn't discuss launch costs.

I am surprised that, in discussing Pluto, nobody has mentioned
Goldin's speech before the World Space Congress.  I missed it (a major
mistake, as it turned out!) and so I only have the tale secondhand.
If I am inaccurate, perhaps someone who was there will correct me.

Goldin was making a nice speech short on bureaucratic platitudes and
long on the Right Sentiments (e.g., we'll go to Mars, but first we'll
go to the Moon, this time to stay...).  Then he says something like,
we will continue exploring the solar system, sending probes to the
other  planets, even Pluto.

(At this point, people involved with the Pluto project are feeling
pretty good.  Hey, the administrator of NASA has mentioned our probe!
In a speech to the space-agency brass and frontline troops of all
the world's nations! Not bad!)

Then Goldin pauses in his speech and looks out across the audience.
"Rob Staehle, I know you're out there," he says.  "Don't let the
bureaucrats drag you down! Hang on to the dream!"

Needless to say, there is applause.

The Pluto mission has become rather high-profile.  (Did that *USA
Today* story ever appear?)

I've been looking for a mention of this incident in *AW&ST* or *Space
News*, but haven't seen any.  Was the Goldin speech replayed in the
NASA Select coverage of WSC?

> Oh, and the reason why launch costs weren't included in the past is because
> launch was handled by an entirely different branch of NASA.  You don't
> budget money for your branch if another branch is going to be doing the work.

I know this, Dave, and it's not unreasonable, but it means that people
often leave out launch costs when they're casually quoting mission
pricetags, which can lead to misleading comparisons.

It would be really neat to steal from our children the opportunity to
see Pluto close up for the first time.  If Staehle's probe really
launches in 1999, and takes seven years to get there, we'll see the
pictures around 2006.  In a span of less than fifty years, starting
with Lunik III, our generation will have gotten first look at the Moon
and all the major bodies of the solar system, as well as lots of minor
ones.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     [e-mail]
   -   -       Internet:  [e-mail]
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS

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

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 10:07:42 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Phil G. Fraering)
Subject: Please keep attributions straight

Excerpted from a recent post:

[e-mail] ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:

>\Is there a chance that the ion drive might pollute the environment that some
>/scientific instrument on the probe is trying to measure?  Like an instrument
>\measuring concentrations of natural ions in the area around some planet's
>/magnetic field? Sure, turn it off before you measure, but how long does it
>\take for the pollution to clear?

>Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.

Please, people, be careful about attribution. I have a hard enough
time keeping myself straight about what I really think without
people trying to confuse others.

And I'm pretty easily confused.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 02:06:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Spacelab-J Frog Embryology Experiment :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob Kanefsky) writes:
> Anyone know if they took still pictures, as well as video,
> of the frog experiment?  Those frogs would make some handsome prints.
>
>                     --Kanef
>
> Any puns expressed herein are the bad taste of the author and not
> necessarily that of Sterling Software or NASA.

        CBS national news showed a clip of one of the frogs
floating in the lab.  It was frantically swinging it's arms in legs, in an
effort to get somewhere, but instead, it revolved around in circles like
satellite.  I nearly died laughing when I saw this.  Poor thing.
                                      /\
    [e-mail]          |/  \
                                    ------
                                    |    |
    Yann Bandy                      | /\ |
    808 Abington Pike               | || |
    Earlham College                /| \/ |\
    Richmond, IN                | / |    | \ |
    47374                       |/  |    |  \|
                              | /   |    |   \ |
                              |/    |    |    \|
                              /     |    |     \
                            |/      |    |      \|
      MiGs                  |-------|    |-------|
                                    |    |
          are                       | /\ |
                                   /| || |\
             MASTERS!!           |/ | || | \|
                                 / _| || |_ \
                                 |/  =||=  \|
                                      \/

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

Date: 23 Sep 92 07:36:01 GMT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Was Harvest Moon "serious?" (was Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>>You blame Apollo's ending on "politicians", but the commercial people you
>>expect to take over didn't spend one fat dime of their own money
>>trying to turn it into a commercial operation!
>
> They didn't put in one dime because the politicians wouldn't
> let them.  There was a serious attempt to raise money for
> a short-term lunar base using Apollo hardware (Project Harvest
> Moon), but it fell through because NASA had already decided
> it wanted to do Skylab instead.  Why don't you read a little
> history instead of just spouting nonsense off the top of your
> head?

I think you're on shaky ground here, Ed.  The word "serious" is
debatable when applied to Harvest Moon.  (What little I know of it
comes from William Sims Bainbridge's *The Spaceflight Revolution*,
filtered though imperfect memory, so pardon me if I'm wrong, and
inform me if you have more data.)

After the last three Apollo landings were cancelled, a group of
somewhat flaky people led by Barbara Marx Hubbard tried to persuade
NASA to let them fly a private mission with the already-purchased
hardware.  They were going to raise money by selling a portion of the
returned lunar samples.  I think they wanted NASA to *give* them
hardware and facilities for free, but I'm fuzzy on the details.  To
put it charitably, "they ran afoul of red tape and were never able to
complete the project."

From Bainbridge's description, which may be biased, these did not
sound like people I would trust with *my* moon rocket.  Makes a neat
story, though.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | According to the doctrine
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | of natural selection,
Bitnet:           [e-mail]  | *you* were designed
Internet:       [e-mail]  | by a committee.
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | The biggest committee ever.

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


Received: from FINHUTC.BITNET by Finhutc.HUT.FI (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with
 BSMTP id 7063; Wed, 23 Sep 92 00:54:39 EET
Received: from UWECVAXA by Finhutc.HUT.FI (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id
 7052; Wed, 23 Sep 92 00:53:16 EET
Received: from uwec.bitnet (KIMERA) by uwecvaxa.bitnet (PMDF #12259) id
 <[e-mail]>; Tue, 22 Sep 1992 15:43 CST
Received: from cnsvax.uwec.edu by cnsvax.uwec.edu (PMDF #12259) id
 <[e-mail]>; Tue, 22 Sep 1992 15:42 CST
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 15:42 CST
From: "NAME \"Robert E. McElwaine\"" <[e-mail]>
Subject: LARSONIAN Astronomy and Physics
To: [e-mail]
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
X-Envelope-To: [e-mail]
X-Vms-To: IN%"[e-mail]"


                          LARSONIAN "Reciprocal System"

               Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists
          CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all
          of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single
          set of laws or equations.  But they have been systematically
          IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years!

               The late Physicist Dewey B. Larson's comprehensive
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, which he
          calls the "Reciprocal System", is built on two fundamental
          postulates about the physical and mathematical natures of
          space and time:

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

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

               From these two postulates, Larson developed a COMPLETE
          Theoretical Universe, using various combinations of
          translational, vibrational, rotational, and vibrational-
          rotational MOTIONS, the concepts of IN-ward and OUT-ward
          SCALAR MOTIONS, and speeds in relation to the Speed of Light
          (which Larson called "UNIT VELOCITY" and "THE NATURAL
          DATUM").

               At each step in the development, Larson was able to
          MATCH objects in his Theoretical Universe with objects in the
          REAL physical universe, (photons, sub-atomic particles
          [INCOMPLETE ATOMS], charges, atoms, molecules, globular star
          clusters, galaxies, binary star systems, solar systems, white
          dwarf stars, pulsars, quasars, ETC.), even objects NOT YET
          DISCOVERED THEN (such as EXPLODING GALAXIES, and GAMMA-RAY
          BURSTS).

               And applying his Theory to his NEW model of the atom,
          Larson was able to precisely and accurately CALCULATE inter-
          atomic distances in crystals and molecules.

               All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy
          complex mathematics, in his books.



          BOOKS of Dewey B. Larson

               The following is a complete list of the late Physicist
          Dewey B. Larson's books about his comprehensive GENERAL
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe.  Some of the early
          books are out of print now, but still available through
          inter-library loan.

               "The Structure of the Physical Universe" (1959)

               "The Case AGAINST the Nuclear Atom" (1963)

               "Beyond Newton" (1964)

               "New Light on Space and Time" (1965)

               "Quasars and Pulsars" (1971)

               "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979)
                    [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super
                                                            Collider".]

               "The Neglected Facts of Science" (1982)

               "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" (1984)
                    [FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical
                                                            mysteries.]

               "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988)
                    [Available from:
                         The International Society of Unified Science
                                                                 (ISUS)
                         1680 E. Atkin Ave.
                         Salt Lake City, Utah  84106 ]



          Physicist Dewey B. Larson's Background

               Physicist Dewey B. Larson was a retired Engineer
          (Chemical or Electrical).  He was about 91 years old when he
          died a couple of years ago.  He had a Bachelor of Science
          Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State University.
          He developed his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
          physical universe while trying to develop a way to COMPUTE
          chemical properties based only on the elements used.

               Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one
          reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is
          NOT A VALID REASON.  Sometimes it takes a relative outsider
          to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.  At the same
          time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX
          physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer,
          well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC
          ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC..

               Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally
          test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.
          He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER
          researchers' experimental and observational data.  And in
          many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER.

               A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX
          physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking
          for a "unified field theory" that works, but have been
          IGNORING one for over 30 years now!

               "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe
          so well.  Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of
          quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who
          agree.  And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres",
          "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED
          to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG.


               Prof. Frank H. Meyer, Professor Emeritus of UW-Superior,
          was/is a STRONG PROPONENT of Larson's Theory, and was (or
          still is) President of Larson's organization, "THE
          INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF UNIFIED SCIENCE", and Editor of
          their quarterly Journal "RECIPROCITY".  He moved to
          Minneapolis after retiring.



          "Super Collider" BOONDOGGLE!

               I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super
          Collider", in Texas or anywhere else.  It would be a GROSS
          WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific"
          value.

               Most physicists don't realize it, but, according to the
          comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the late Physicist
          Dewey B. Larson, as described in his books, the strange GOOFY
          particles ("mesons", "hyperons", ALLEGED "quarks", etc.)
          which they are finding in EXISTING colliders (Fermi Lab,
          Cern, etc.) are really just ATOMS of ANTI-MATTER, which are
          CREATED by the high-energy colliding beams, and which quickly
          disintegrate like cosmic rays because they are incompatible
          with their environment.

               A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a
          few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not
          seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE
          CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW!

               Are a few more types of anti-matter atoms worth the $8.3
          BILLION cost?!!  Don't we have much more important uses for
          this WASTED money?!


               Another thing to consider is that the primary proposed
          location in Texas has a serious and growing problem with some
          kind of "fire ants" eating the insulation off underground
          cables.  How much POISONING of the ground and ground water
          with insecticides will be required to keep the ants out of
          the "Supercollider"?!


               Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as
          proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be
          named after a leading particle PHYSICIST.



          LARSONIAN Anti-Matter

               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
          physical universe, anti-matter is NOT a simple case of
          opposite charges of the same types of particles.  It has more
          to do with the rates of vibrations and rotations of the
          photons of which they are made, in relation to the
          vibrational and rotational equivalents of the speed of light,
          which Larson calls "Unit Velocity" and the "Natural Datum".

               In Larson's Theory, a positron is actually a particle of
          MATTER, NOT anti-matter.  When a positron and electron meet,
          the rotational vibrations (charges) and rotations of their
          respective photons (of which they are made) neutralize each
          other.

               In Larson's Theory, the ANTI-MATTER half of the physical
          universe has THREE dimensions of TIME, and ONLY ONE dimension
          of space, and exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP to our
          MATERIAL half.



          LARSONIAN Relativity

               The perihelion point in the orbit of the planet Mercury
          has been observed and precisely measured to ADVANCE at the
          rate of 574 seconds of arc per century.  531 seconds of this
          advance are attributed via calculations to gravitational
          perturbations from the other planets (Venus, Earth, Jupiter,
          etc.).  The remaining 43 seconds of arc are being used to
          help "prove" Einstein's "General Theory of Relativity".

               But the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson achieved results
          CLOSER to the 43 seconds than "General Relativity" can, by
          INSTEAD using "SPECIAL Relativity".  In one or more of his
          books, he applied the LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION on the HIGH
          ORBITAL SPEED of Mercury.

               Larson TOTALLY REJECTED "General Relativity" as another
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASY.  He also REJECTED most of "Special
          Relativity", including the parts about "mass increases" near
          the speed of light, and the use of the Lorentz Transform on
          doppler shifts, (Those quasars with red-shifts greater than
          1.000 REALLY ARE MOVING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT,
          although most of that motion is away from us IN TIME.).

               In Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the
          physical universe, there are THREE dimensions of time instead
          of only one.  But two of those dimensions can NOT be measured
          from our material half of the physical universe.  The one
          dimension that we CAN measure is the CLOCK time.  At low
          relative speeds, the values of the othe two dimensions are
          NEGLIGIBLE; but at high speeds, they become significant, and
          the Lorentz Transformation must be used as a FUDGE FACTOR.
          [Larson often used the term "COORDINATE TIME" when writing
          about this.]


               In regard to "mass increases", it has been PROVEN in
          atomic accelerators that acceleration drops toward zero near
          the speed of light.  But the formula for acceleration is
          ACCELERATION = FORCE / MASS, (a = F/m).  Orthodox physicists
          are IGNORING the THIRD FACTOR: FORCE.  In Larson's Theory,
          mass STAYS CONSTANT and FORCE drops toward zero.  FORCE is
          actually a MOTION, or COMBINATIONS of MOTIONS, or RELATIONS
          BETWEEN MOTIONS, including INward and OUTward SCALAR MOTIONS.
          The expansion of the universe, for example, is an OUTward
          SCALAR motion inherent in the universe and NOT a result of
          the so-called "Big Bang" (which is yet another MATHEMATICAL
          FANTASY).



          THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION

               I wish to recommend to EVERYONE the book "THE UNIVERSE
          OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific
          Publishers, (P.O. Box 13255, Portland, Oregon  97213), 456
          pages, indexed, hardcover.

               It contains the Astrophysical portions of a GENERAL
          UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by that
          author, an UNrecognized GENIUS, more than thirty years ago.

               It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most all Astrophysical
          mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and
          multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of
          the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma-
          ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white
          dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc..

               It contains what astronomers and astrophysicists are ALL
          looking for, if they are ready to seriously consider it with
          OPEN MINDS!

               The following is an example of his Theory's success:
          In his first book in 1959, "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL
          UNIVERSE", Larson predicted the existence of EXPLODING
          GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding
          them.  They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of Larson's
          comprehensive Theory.  And when QUASARS were discovered, he
          had an immediate related explanation for them also.



          GAMMA-RAY BURSTS

               Astro-physicists and astronomers are still scratching
          their heads about the mysterious GAMMA-RAY BURSTS.  They were
          originally thought to originate from "neutron stars" in the
          disc of our galaxy.  But the new Gamma Ray Telescope now in
          Earth orbit has been detecting them in all directions
          uniformly, and their source locations in space do NOT
          correspond to any known objects, (except for a few cases of
          directional coincidence).

               Gamma-ray bursts are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of the
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe developed by
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson.  According to page 386 of
          his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", published in 1984, the
          gamma-ray bursts are coming from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the
          ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls
          the "Cosmic Sector".  Because of the relationship between the
          anti-matter and material halves of the physical universe, and
          the way they are connected together, the gamma-ray bursts can
          pop into our material half anywhere in space, seemingly at
          random.  (This is WHY the source locations of the bursts do
          not correspond with known objects, and come from all
          directions uniformly.)

               I wonder how close to us in space a source location
          would have to be for a gamma-ray burst to kill all or most
          life on Earth!  There would be NO WAY to predict one, NOR to
          stop it!

               Perhaps some of the MASS EXTINCTIONS of the past, which
          are now being blamed on impacts of comets and asteroids, were
          actually caused by nearby GAMMA-RAY BURSTS!



          LARSONIAN Binary Star Formation

               About half of all the stars in the galaxy in the
          vicinity of the sun are binary or double.  But orthodox
          astronomers and astrophysicists still have no satisfactory
          theory about how they form or why there are so many of them.

               But binary star systems are actually a LIKELY
          CONSEQUENCE of the comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of
          the physical universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey
          B. Larson.

               I will try to summarize Larsons explanation, which is
          detailed in Chapter 7 of his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION"
          and in some of his other books.

               First of all, according to Larson, stars do NOT generate
          energy by "fusion".  A small fraction comes from slow
          gravitational collapse.  The rest results from the COMPLETE
          ANNIHILATION of HEAVY elements (heavier than IRON).  Each
          element has a DESTRUCTIVE TEMPERATURE LIMIT.  The heavier the
          element is, the lower is this limit.  A star's internal
          temperature increases as it grows in mass via accretion and
          absorption of the decay products of cosmic rays, gradually
          reaching the destructive temperature limit of lighter and
          lighter elements.

               When the internal temperature of the star reaches the
          destructive temperature limit of IRON, there is a Type I
          SUPERNOVA EXPLOSION!  This is because there is SO MUCH iron
          present; and that is related to the structure of iron atoms
          and the atom building process, which Larson explains in some
          of his books [better than I can].

               When the star explodes, the lighter material on the
          outer portion of the star is blown outward in space at less
          than the speed of light.  The heavier material in the center
          portion of the star was already bouncing around at close to
          the speed of light, because of the high temperature.  The
          explosion pushes that material OVER the speed of light, and
          it expands OUTWARD IN TIME, which is equivalent to INWARD IN
          SPACE, and it often actually DISAPPEARS for a while.

               Over long periods of time, both masses start to fall
          back gravitationally.  The material that had been blown
          outward in space now starts to form a RED GIANT star.  The
          material that had been blown OUTWARD IN TIME starts to form a
          WHITE DWARF star.  BOTH stars then start moving back toward
          the "MAIN SEQUENCE" from opposite directions on the H-R
          Diagram.

               The chances of the two masses falling back into the
          exact same location in space, making a single lone star
          again, are near zero.  They will instead form a BINARY system,
          orbiting each other.

               According to Larson, a white dwarf star has an INVERSE
          DENSITY GRADIENT (is densest at its SURFACE), because the
          material at its center is most widely dispersed (blown
          outward) in time.   This ELIMINATES the need to resort to
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES about "degenerate matter", "neutron
          stars", "black holes", etc..



          LARSONIAN Solar System Formation

               If the mass of the heavy material at the center of the
          exploding star is relatively SMALL, then, instead of a single
          white dwarf star, there will be SEVERAL "mini" white dwarf
          stars (revolving around the red giant star, but probably
          still too far away in three-dimensional TIME to be affected
          by its heat, etc.).  These will become PLANETS!

               In Chapter 7 of THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION, Larson used all
          this information, and other principles of his comprehensive
          GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, to derive
          his own version of Bode's Law.



          "Black Hole" FANTASY!

               I heard that physicist Stephen W. Hawking recently
          completed a theoretical mathematical analysis of TWO "black
          holes" merging together into a SINGLE "black hole", and
          concluded that the new "black hole" would have MORE MASS than
          the sum of the two original "black holes".

               Such a result should be recognized by EVERYone as a RED
          FLAG, causing widespread DOUBT about the whole IDEA of "black
          holes", etc.!

               After reading Physicist Dewey B. Larson's books about
          his comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe, especially his book "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", it is
          clear to me that "black holes" are NOTHING more than
          MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES!  The strange object at Cygnus X-1 is
          just an unusually massive WHITE DWARF STAR, NOT the "black
          hole" that orthodox astronomers and physicists so badly want
          to "prove" their theory.


               By the way, I do NOT understand why so much publicity is
          being given to physicist Stephen Hawking.  The physicists and
          astronomers seem to be acting as if Hawking's severe physical
          problem somehow makes him "wiser".  It does NOT!

               I wish the same attention had been given to Physicist
          Dewey B. Larson while he was still alive.  Widespread
          publicity and attention should NOW be given to Larson's
          Theory, books, and organization (The International Society of
          Unified Science).



          ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION

               I heard of that concept many years ago, in connection
          with UFO's and unorthodox inventors, but I never was able to
          find out how or why they work, or how they are constructed.

               I found a possible clue about why they might work on
          pages 112-113 of the book "BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER", by
          the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson, which describes part of
          Larson's comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe.  I quote one paragraph:

               "As indicated in the preceding chapter, the development
          of the theory of the universe of motion arrives at a totally
          different concept of the nature of electrical resistance.
          The electrons, we find, are derived from the environment.  It
          was brought out in Volume I [Larson's book "NOTHING BUT
          MOTION"] that there are physical processes in operation which
          produce electrons in substantial quantities, and that,
          although the motions that constitute these electrons are, in
          many cases, absorbed by atomic structures, the opportunities
          for utilizing this type of motion in such structures are
          limited.  It follows that there is always a large excess of
          free electrons in the material sector [material half] of the
          universe, most of which are uncharged.  In this uncharged
          state the electrons cannot move with respect to extension
          space, because they are inherently rotating units of space,
          and the relation of space to space is not motion.  In open
          space, therefore, each uncharged electron remains permanently
          in the same location with respect to the natural reference
          system, in the manner of a photon.  In the context of the
          stationary spatial reference system the uncharged electron,
          like the photon, is carried outward at the speed of light by
          the progression of the natural reference system.  All
          material aggregates are thus exposed to a flux of electrons
          similar to the continual bombardment by photons of radiation.
          Meanwhile there are other processes, to be discussed later,
          whereby electrons are returned to the environment.  The
          electron population of a material aggregate such as the earth
          therefore stabilizes at an equilibrium level."

               Note that in Larson's Theory, UNcharged electrons are
          also massLESS, and are basically photons of light of a
          particular frequency (above the "unit" frequency) spinning
          around one axis at a particular rate (below the "unit" rate).
          ("Unit velocity" is the speed of light, and there are
          vibrational and rotational equivalents to the speed of light,
          according to Larson's Theory.)  [I might have the "above" and
          "below" labels mixed up.]

               Larson is saying that outer space is filled with mass-
          LESS UN-charged electrons flying around at the speed of
          light!

               If this is true, then the ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PROPULSION
          fields of spacecraft might be able to interact with these
          electrons, or other particles in space, perhaps GIVING them a
          charge (and mass) and shooting them toward the rear to
          achieve propulsion. (In Larson's Theory, an electrical charge
          is a rotational vibration of a particular frequency (above
          the "unit" frequency) superimposed on the rotation of the
          particle.)

               The paragraph quoted above might also give a clue to
          confused meteorologists about how lightning is generated in
          clouds.



          SUPPRESSION of LARSONIAN Physics

               The comprehensive GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical
          universe developed by the late Physicist Dewey B. Larson has
          been available for more than 30 YEARS, published in 1959 in
          his first book "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE".

               It is TOTALLY UN-SCIENTIFIC for Hawking, Wheeler, Sagan,
          and the other SACRED PRIESTS of the RELIGION they call
          "science" (or "physics", or "astronomy", etc.), as well as
          the "scientific" literature and the "education" systems, to
          TOTALLY IGNORE Larson's Theory has they have.

               Larson's Theory has excellent explanations for many
          things now puzzling orthodox physicists and astronomers, such
          as gamma-ray bursts and the nature of quasars.

               Larson's Theory deserves to be HONESTLY and OPENLY
          discussed in the physics, chemistry, and astronomy journals,
          in the U.S. and elsewhere.  And at least the basic principles
          of Larson's Theory should be included in all related courses
          at UW-EC, UW-Madison, Cambridge, Cornell University, and
          elsewhere, so that students are not kept in the dark about a
          worthy alternative to the DOGMA they are being fed.



               UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
          partial summary is ENCOURAGED.


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

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 241
------------------------------