Translate this blog

Thursday, June 13, 2019

Post #102 MASS and 3,6,9.

Actually there is only 3 and 6 or ENERGY and FORCE. When these jon together we get MASS. Every form of MATTER is available to 3D beings on earth in th MASS form. 9 is sum of 3 and 6 or ENERGY and MASS. We can see the graphical explanation of this in Vortex Maths. I hope the Physics connection added by me is not wrong.
#BT

Saturday, June 8, 2019

Post #101 Theory of Relativity is all about FORCE and its interaction with ENERGY and MASS.

When you travel faster through SPACE, you travel slower through TIME. When you travel slower through SPACE, you travel faster through TIME. That's RELATIVITY.
Previously I said Relativity is all about FORCE and its interaction with ENERGY and MASS.
Let's see whether the above definition of RELATIVITY has any relation with FORCE, ENERGY and MASS.
Travelling faster or slower through SPACETIME depends on FORCE applied by the object, it's ENERGY and MASS. TIME moving slower or faster depends on the effects of FORCE, ENERGY and MASS on the object and the surroundings. Here 4 fundamental FORCEs and its interaction with ENERGY and MASS related to the case. You don't need a concept called RELATIVITY, anything can be explained using 4 FORCEs and its interaction with ENERGY and MASS.
#BT

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Post #100 More on Gravity

Albert Einstein said gravity bend light near stars. Today I said temperture has effect on gravity. What if temperature around stars made the spactime to expand and resulted in the bending of light near to stars ?
#BT

Post#99 Gravity in my view

I think in some cases gravity is about energy content, sometimes about mass and sometimes both.
I think temperature is the factor which decides if it's energy or mass.
Will a 5000 kg molten iron ball and 5000 kg iron ball at room temperature have the same gravity ?
Isn't the excited atoms capable of excited energy to give different gravity than non-excited atoms and it's gravity ?
Excited atoms pulls energy outwards to give effect of gravity more outwards than non-excited atoms where it shows gravity interns of its mass.
#BT

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Post #98 Observer and existence of reality

An observer is not needed for reality to exist. An observer is just another possibility in the reality defined by space and time. An observer doesn't exist means reality with infinite possibility is existing with just another possibility or reality with observer in another state. If that observer is dead, then still reality exist as observer is present there in another state of energy giving another possibility of reality defined by a different spacetime. Only that observer as a full blown system cease to exist. But still the atoms of the observer's dead body is still conscious in its own rights and capabilities. Reality always exist, only possibilities ceast to exist inside it or differ as it has infinite permutations and combinations. This is my version.
#BT

Post #97 Version of realities

What if there is another superior life form on earth above humans with a better and advanced conciousness gives better version of reality ? Then the version of reality given by humans will be not be seen as an ultimate version of reality. Then why particles dont have conciousness in their own rights and capabilities and have their on version of reality ?
#BT

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Post #96 Expansion rate and Age of the Universe under dispute due to latest developments




The universe is expanding faster than it used to, meaning it’s about a billion years younger than we thought, a new study by a Nobel Prize winner says. And that’s sending a shudder through the world of physics, making astronomers re-think some of their most basic concepts.

At issue is a number called the Hubble constant, a calculation for how fast the universe is expanding. Some scientists call it the most important number in cosmology, the study of the origin and development of the universe.
Using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, Johns Hopkins University astronomer Adam Riess concluded in this week’s Astrophysical Journal that the figure is 9% higher than the previous calculation, which was based on studying leftovers from the Big Bang.
The trouble is, Riess and others think both calculations are correct.
Confused? That’s OK, so are the experts.
They find the conflict so confounding that they are talking about coming up with “new physics,” incorporating perhaps some yet-to-be-discovered particle or other cosmic “fudge factors” like dark energy or dark matter.
“It’s looking more and more like we’re going to need something new to explain this,” said Riess, who won the2011 Nobel in physics.
NASA astrophysicist John Mather, another Nobel winner, said this leaves two obvious options: “1. We’re making mistakes we can’t find yet. 2. Nature has something we can’t find yet.”
Even with the discovery, life continues on Earth the way it always has. But to astrophysicists trying to get a handle on our place in this expanding universe, this is a cosmic concern.
NEW MEASUREMENTS
To come up with his measurement of the Hubble constant, Riess looked to some not-so-distant stars.
Riess observed 70 Cepheid stars — stars that pulse at a well-observed rate — calculated their distance and rate, and then compared them with a certain type of supernovae that are used as measuring sticks. It took about two years for the Hubble telescope to make these measurements, but eventually Riess calculated an expansion rate of 74.
Using that 74 figure means the universe is somewhere between 12.5 billion and 13 billion years old. That’s much younger than the established estimates of 13.6 billion to 13.8 billion.
“Hey, it’s good news. Everybody likes to look younger,” Riess said.
THE OLD MEASUREMENT
In 2013, the European Planck satellite helped scientists come up with a much slower expansion rate of about 67, but that was done in an entirely different, more complicated and less direct way and by looking at a much earlier time, when the universe was just a toddler.
The Planck team studied background radiation from a time just 370,000 years after the Big Bang. By examining cold and hot spots in that radiation, scientists figured out how big the spots were, which helped them determine how far away they were looking.
That team then fed those calculations into the standard model that astronomers use for the universe — based on Einstein’s general relativity, among other things — factored in the known acceleration of the universe and came up with the smaller expansion rate. The end result: a 13.8-billion-year-old universe.
Riess calculated the odds that the disparity between the two calculations was an accident at 1 in 100,000.
FUDGE FACTORS
While there is a chance either the Riess team or the Planck team is off, astronomers are talking about both being right.
Both calculations make sense and “nobody can find anything wrong at this point,” said distinguished University of Chicago astrophysicist Wendy Freedman. Other outside experts praised both teams’ research.
If that’s the case, astrophysicists need to make adjustments in Einstein’s general relativity theory.
“You need to add something into the universe that we don’t know about,” said Chris Burns, an astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution for Science. “That always makes you kind of uneasy.′
In the past, astronomers added hard-to-fathom dark energy and dark matter to explain why calculations didn’t add up, borrowing from a once-discarded Einstein theory. Now they’re saying they need to do something similar again.
It could be there’s an extra “turbocharge” from a past odd pulse of dark energy — an unseen expansion force that fits well in Einstein’s theories — that caused the speeded-up expansion, Riess said.
Or there could be a new particle of matter that hasn’t been discovered, Burns said.
“We have this dark sector that already has two ingredients, and maybe we’re discovering a third,” said Planck team member Lloyd Knox of the University of California, Davis. “That’s a scary prospect. Are we just going to always be introducing fudge factors?”
A THIRD APPROACH
Astronomers at the University of Chicago, led by Freedman, spent five years looking at different stars than Riess to come up with a third calculation of the expansion rate. They just submitted their work to the same journal. Freedman wouldn’t reveal her number but said it is between the two other figures.
Twenty years ago, Freedman was part of similar debate about the Hubble constant, when there were few measurements to work with.
“It’s an exciting journey to try to understand what the origin of the universe is,” she said.