Interception of galaxy axis - Planets turn around? Sun errupts?

OK you're on to me. The honest truth is that you're right.

I am nowhere near qualified to be theorizing about astrophysics. Although it should be noted that I didn't receive any rebuttals that I considered convincing or even relevant to my idea. But I guess you would argue that I am not in the position to judge that.

Still, I do believe that the earth is about to endure global disaster within the next couple years, not mainly because of the science I was proposing, but because of all the other (circumstantial) evidence that I've been noticing. My idea was simply an educated rationalization to support my conclusion. For me, everything seems to be pointing towards a global disaster very soon.

And since you admit that you are not able to detect conspiracies in the science realm, I believe that I am much more qualified than you or most people here in that regard.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You did get rebuttals. If you were right we'd see things happening to other stars in the galaxy and in other galaxies. We don't. Further more you propose a bunch of entirely unjustified things about the behaviour of gravity. You not only don't have any evidence to justify that, you don't understand current models, the current experimental knowledge about gravity and cosmology and you make claims utterly outside any phenomena ever observed.

It's one thing to make claims that things behave slightly differently from what we current think but you're proposing a complete discarding of huge areas of science based on your claims on a topic you know nothing about. Tell me, did you bother to learn any cosmology or try to find out any astronomy observational data? Because you'd be very very stupid to make claims about astronomy or cosmological phenomena when you haven't looked at a single shred of data.

If you didn't even try to find out any astronomical data please explain why you think you have any justification other than delusional egotism that your random guess about something you know nothing about is in some way superior to everyone and anyone, including those who study this stuff for a living and have done for decades.

You aren't proposing any science. You have made up a completely unjustified claim without even considering whether evidence exists to contradict it (which there does) and proclaims yourself as having some insight into phenomena you literally know nothing about. Then you just off handedly denounced geology and palaeontology. You clearly have no idea what science is about.

aka made up stuff.

How can you possibly say that when you haven't made any attempt to educate yourself at all? You didn't look at any books for current models. You didn't find out any experimental data on which to base your claims. You didn't find out even basic information about the galaxy which can be found on Wiki in a matter of seconds. To say your position is 'educated' is simply a lie. And as for rational, I hardly think proclaiming a global disaster is coming from the Sun exploding and the Earth turning upside down is 'rational'. Its hard to think of anything more irrational!

And why's that? You obviously haven't studied science and you obviously don't know any and you obviously don't communicate with people in the scientific community much. Again, you make claims about things you have no information on.

I happen to be in the science community, I am paid to do physics research and teaching. As a result I know plenty of people also in the community, spanning most continents of the globe. My father has been in academia for close to 4 decades and also works with people all over the world. And there is no massive conspiracy. There's plenty of cliques and plenty of people who dislike or distrust one another but those generally prevent conspiracies. Scientists almost never all agree, there's always someone arguing with someone else. That's how scientists work, by checking one another's results for mistakes.

You claim there's some kind of conspiracy involving dark matter. There isn't. The observational data is freely available, the research is published and freely available. I've said it before, its ironic you whine about supposed restriction of information when its clear you have no interest in accessing such information. Instead you seem intent on proclaiming conspiracies simply because you don't know or understand something. If you bothered to actually find out things and learn maybe the world would seem a less confusing place to you.

But go on, explain how you're in a better position than most to know about conspiracies in physics. Its just I'd like to know who to contact so I can get my share of the hush money. After all, if I'm in the physics community surely I should be getting kick backs to keep my mouth shut?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree. I don't think that we would notice very much change of distant stars and planets as they pass over my hypothetical plane. Most of the superficial changes(relatively speaking) would only take place on the outer crust of planets. I highly doubt that even our most advanced telescopes can see that clearly, that far away. We can barely see Uranus and Neptune from where we are.

On a side note, I think that the tilt of Uranus might also be explained by my idea.

I did do some research on the matter, but obviously I never went so far as to delve into all the hardcore science. I did the best I could. I'm sorry to have offended you with my ignorance. I was only asking questions, and proposing ideas- just as a student might be encouraged to do in a school environment.

Also, I don't believe that my idea is necessarily incompatible with known physics. I was only proposing that some physical effects produced by our galaxy might be new to scientific understanding, especially considering that there is a super-massive black hole in the center of it.

I never said anything about the sun exploding as it passes the plane.... although I wouldn't rule out massive ejections and flares which might affect our planet.

And I don't think I made any specific claim that the world would turn upside down, but I wouldn't rule that out either.

Science is full of conspiracy when money presents a conflict of interest. For example, the pharmaceutical industry and the health industry in general.

As far as physics goes, I imagine that censoring such information would be a lot more difficult to do. So I hope you're right. But it does seem to me that the invention of dark matter would make a perfect decoy, with all the math and theoretical physics involved- that would keep the nerds busy for a while.

As for those scientists who discover the real truth, here's an example of what might happen:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/01/23/andrew-lange/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The thread title includes 'Sun erupts'. I'd say that's pretty obvious when it happens.

Don't you see how utterly ad hoc your claims are? You're proposing gravity magically changes but only for the crust of planets. Why does gravity know only to alter for planets and not stars? How does the galactic plane affect things? You not only provide no evidence or rationale for your claims you are having to be highly irrational in order to accept that your claims are baseless. Gravity doesn't pick and choose what it affects. A kilogram of lead weighs the same as a kilogram of feathers, the only thing which is important is the mass.

How? Wouldn't all the other planets be affected to? Why would it result in Uranus altering its axis of rotation by a huge amount but still stay in orbit about the Sun?

You are doing the usual crank thing. You come up with some idea and then go hunting for particular things which in some way seem to justify your idea. The problem is you ignore all the things which contradict it. A model of gravity which explains the motion of Uranus perfectly but fails to explain any other planetary orbit is simply wrong. Its easy to come up with models which explain one specific thing. The problem is finding a model which is consistent with all relevant phenomena.

I take it by 'research' you mean 'Spent an afternoon on Google'...

You're doing more than 'proposing ideas', you're proclaiming mass conspiracies in physics pertaining to well known areas of intense research, ie dark matter. Its one thing to say "I don't understand dark matter" and its another to say "It's the product of a global conspiracy". And you weren't even asking any real questions, you just wanted to post your pet theory, irrespective of how much evidence was against it. In a school environment children learn that when experiment contradicts a model then the model is wrong. You're sticking to it.

You believe wrong. Surely you can see that its silly for you to claim your idea is compatible with known physics when you don't know either theoretical models or experimental data.

But you're not getting these physical effects from observations, you are simply claiming they exist. If you'd done experiments and found new data then you'd be worth listening to but you aren't doing experiments, you're simply claiming a phenomenon in the galaxy exists. The closest you've gotten to doing relevant observations or data collecting is looking out your window into the night sky.

Still haven't provided a mechanism by which this magically happens. If gravity deviated from expected behaviour as much as you seem to be implying it does we'd see it. Some of the most precise data in science comes from cosmology, such as nanosecond variations in pulsar motion. You're proposing gravity suddenly behaves differently without accounting for the fact we can measure such things and also that you haven't provided a mechanism as to why it occurs.

I would. The 'polar flip' is not a physical flip, it is the slow decay and growth of the Earth's magnetic field over many hundreds thousands of years, each time pointing in a different direction. For the Earth to physical rotate 180 degrees would require such staggering force it'd rip the planet apart. Given we know magnetic pole changes have occured about 3 times every million years for the history of the Earth it means there's no physical flip. That sprouted from people not understanding the difference between the Earth's magnetic pole and its rotational axis.

There is simply no mechanism in the solar system by which the Earth could be turned like that. And even a passing neutron star can be ruled out as it would alter the orbits of the planets long before it got into the solar system itself. Plus it'd take centuries to even get through the solar system. It won't be turning up any time soon.

And the business practices of drug companies has anything to do with dark matter in cosmology because....?

There's a big difference between privately funded research and publicly funded research. Work done in universities is generally freely available. Results are only kept private when a private company has funded it and they want to maintain such things as patents. Your example of dark matter is entirely independent of private business, its done in the theoretical physics and astronomy communities.

Just because some people are secretive sometimes doesn't mean everyone is all the time.

No, because the 'nerds' would see through doctored work. You make it sound like the theoretical physics community is handed their experimental data by someone and told to go away and work on it. The 'nerds' do their own experiments and observations and thus can quickly see if someone made up results. Further more they actually understand the physics they work on and don't just mindlessly accept someone else's word for it. If I had the time and the inclination I could get ahold of all the data relating to such things as variations in the CMB, gravitational lensing and the bullet cluster, read through the proposed models for dark matter such as the MSSM and then construct the physical predictions of such models before comparing them to the observational data. Its all freely available and can be checked by anyone who has the time and know-how to do it. And supersymmetry, the leading explanation for dark matter, is something significant numbers of theoretical physicists know a fair bit about.

You seriously underestimate how much bickering and disagreement goes on in the physics community. If someone doctored work again and again to make a claim for the existence of dark matter they would be spotted by peer review. Too many people know the relevant physics. And I count myself as one of them.

I don't follow what you mean. What 'real truth' are you talking about? Are you implying there's a conspiracy which either drove him to suicide or had him killed? His work, according to the article, was on the CMB power spectrum. There's a perfectly mainstream well accepted area of research. He was hardly 'fighting the man'. And you've got to bear in mind that there are many tens of thousand of physics lecturers in the world and they have the same ups and downs as anyone else. Him killing himself doesn't imply it was to do with his research at all. There's plenty of other things to get upset about in life. So can you provide some explaination as to what your point is?

 

You still do not understand my idea. Everything you've said to me or asked me so far seems like you're referring to an entirely different discussion.

I never said that this magical plane would only alter the crust of planets. In my last post I wrote: "Most of the superficial changes(relatively speaking) would only take place on the outer crust of planets", and "I wouldn't rule out massive ejections and flares which might affect our planet." This is a perfect example of how you and others here choose not to really read what I write, but instead skim over my words and churn out your own meaning.

To clarify:

I have an idea about the galactic plane that I believe could be true. I believe it's possible that the black hole in the center of our galaxy is so powerful that it actually severely warps part of it's gravitational field. I don't think this idea necessarily conflicts with conventional physics, although the degree of warping might be a matter of debate. I believe that a certain part of it's gravity field is completely flat and extends the length of the galaxy. The implications of this flat gravity field is that all stars within the galactic disc would continuously oscillate above and below the galactic plane in it's trip around the galaxy. Science breaks down when it comes to understanding the point of a black hole's singularity. So, why is it such a crazy idea that some of these unknown effects might not only be directed inwards towards the singularity, but also outwards towards the galaxy?

So, for the moment, let's assume that my crazy idea is actually reality. In terms of gravity effects, how do you think planets and stars would be affected as they pass through the galactic plane? Also, what signs would we be able to see or infer from our earthly vantage point in order to verify any of these distant changes on planets and stars?

Actually I am. The perfect up and down motion of the stars is what lead me to believe that there must be a dedicated source of intense gravity making this happen. I don't believe that the collective gravity of the galactic disc could explain this motion.

 

Anything could be true if you make it convoluted enough. Believing something could be true is different from believing it to be true. I believe there could be a God. I do not believe there is a God.

Black holes and normal objects actually have the same gravitational profile. If you replaced the Sun right now with a black hole of equal mass the orbit of the planets wouldn't change. The only difference is the region around the black hole which is closer to the centre than the Sun's surface was. As such its irrelevant to the galaxy whether its got a black hole at the centre or just lots of heavy stars, from a distance the gravitational field is identical.

This is an experimentally justified statement since the GPS system is designed using general relativity which says the gravitational field of the Earth above its surface is the same as a black hole the mass of the Earth.

This is contradicted by all experiments and observations on galaxy dynamics.

As I said, from a distance a black hole and a star of the same mass provide exactly the same gravitational field. As such the nature of what is inside the black hole's event horizon doesn't actually matter in terms of gravitational fields produced by the black hole.

For the reasons I just gave.

How can I possibly make any predictions about 'your crazy idea' when you haven't provided any details with which I could work out the predictions.

For instance, people work out what relativity says about gravity by solving the equations which define gravitational curvature, the Einstein Field Equations. Without the equations you can't work out what GR has to say about things. You have provided no model so you can't make any claims about what your 'crazy idea' implies.

So what data have you looked at? Provide a link to the galaxy star catalogues which includes position and velocity of the stars relevant to your claims. But you and I both know you haven't looked at any, you haven't looked at any evidence.

 

If you don't mind explaining, how are foreign gravitational fields detected and measured?