Red Leicester?

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

<Wallace> What's wrong with Wensleydale??</Wallace>

Psi-less

__________________
"Given only the ships and right sails for the heavenly space, there will also be men unafraid of the terrible distances."--Kepler, to Galileo

[John Cleese voice]
Venezuelan BEEEEaver cheese?
[/John Cleese voice]

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

I did not know this…wouldn’t this focal length of most stars be much to long to return a significant photon count? I am of the impression that the frequency at which lensing is actually observed is greater than predicted, but I have only touched on the subject, and as always, may be wrong.

It is a jump, but a necessary one. In order to change the speed of light, light must be interacting with an electromagnetic medium: A medium that has a high enough cross section to interact with photons.

That is why I hypothesize that there is a natural Wien limit violation, an extremely high frequency field. I need this to answer questions that are unanswered using the limits imposed by General Relativity: How is the energy we observe in cosmic rays created, and how do cosmic rays travel such great distances?

Cosmic Rays are a critical observation, and pose a major, an unanswered hurdle for Einstein-deSitter physics: Cosmic rays contain enough mass, enough energy to interact with photons – even the very weak photons of the Cosmic Microwave background. The problem is: How do cosmic rays travel cosmic distances without colliding with background photons and being destroyed? The ZKG limit places a stringent limit on the distance that cosmic rays can travel, and it is analogous to the penetration limits of alpha, beta and gamma rays. Cosmic rays have a high enough cross section that they should be colliding with the Cosmic Microwave background – inverse Compton scattering. The theoretical limit – the ZKG limit - means cosmic rays cannot travel intergalactic distances without colliding.

For decades it was argued that cosmic rays must originate in or near our own galaxy. In the last two decades, studies have clearly, statistically demonstrated that cosmic rays are truly cosmic. So how do they get here?

At first I hypothesized that they started out at extremely high frequencies – beyond the Wien limit, and it was a survival of the fittest thing, but that does not work: Greater cross section means more collisions, you might squeeze a few kpcs more out of them, but not enough.

But look what happens if there is a mass-energy field with a high enough cross section to interact with photons: Now the observation that light curves near massive objects has nothing to do with time dilation: Light slows down! If you take your atomic clock to the sun with you, whatever vibrations in your clock you are counting will also be slowed by the increasing magnitude of this field.

The light from two approaching train does not Doppler shift because time is changing, the light slows down proportional to the compression of the wave structure of the object moving toward the source of the light. Maxwell’s equation is correct: The speed of light is the square root of the permeability of space times the permittivity of space: but these are determined not by some Dark Energy-like ether: The permittivity and permeability of space are a function of the total electromagnetic content of any given space.

When you move toward a source of light, there is a displacement in the standing wave associated with your mass. The light moving towards you is slowed by this displacement. These displacements are extremely small, but the faster you move, the more light approaching you will be slowed and blue shifted. The local limit to the speed of light is dictated not only by your motion, but also by the “mass fields” associated with the Earth and Sun.

Mathematically, this effect is functionally equivalent to time dilation. Conceptually, it introduces causal relationships, and by realizing that the velocity through space of everything is a function of the mass content of local space we can answer questions General Relativity cannot. For one hundred years we have been stuck with this peculiar concept of time dilation and space distortion that doesn’t explain anything beyond the orbit of Mercury.

Now we can explain why quasars, and the light from dense new galaxies is intrinsically redshifted: Light leaving these systems must travel through the same type of standing wave as any light leaving any object, but the magnitude of this wave is much greater because the mass is greater, effectively increasing the cross sectional area of the background radiation: Photons traveling away from very dense objects are redshifted, not only because of greater-than-GR ‘gravitational redshifting’ but also because the local space has such a high cross section that radiation transfers rates between photons and matter are much higher than predicted by Einsteinian physics.

Now look at our own galaxy: If the speed of light is impeded by reactions with standing waves, radiation transfer rates are much higher than predicted as well. The visible light in our galaxy is constantly interacting with, and sustaining, the local microwave background.

This is why, contrary to BB theory, we have detected a local directional flow and hemispheric asymmetry in the Cosmic Microwave background. It is not cosmic, it is primarily local, created by radiation transfers involving light from local stars. The background is much weaker outside of our galaxy, and even weaker still outside the local clusters. (This has been recently confirmed and is interpreted as ‘cold spots’ between ‘clumpy’ areas of the local cluster.)

Now cosmic rays can travel through intergalactic space without colliding with the Cosmic Microwave Background because the Cosmic Microwave Background is extremely weak in intergalactic space: It is primarily local product, caused by photon-field interactions, and mirrors the blackbody energy function of local space.

Since both the photon density of space is less than predicted, and the speed of light is greater, Cosmic rays zip through intergalactic space with far less impedance than Big Bang cosmology predicts…(Although like all types of photons, there is a redshift budget in traveling through space. We identify this as the Hubble constant.)

Is this theory completely correct? NO! It is a rudimentary model, probably more wrong than right. But look what happens when I bump it up against the list I posted about twenty pages ago:

1) The Pioneer anomalies – As the path through space shortens, the probes move faster relative to the earth, but so does the speed of light, at very close to the same rate. Since we are using the two-way path of light to calculate the relative motion of the probes, we measure a net decrease, an apparent acceleration towards the sun, rather than an increase in the velocity of the probes away from us. (Notice that there is only a trivial energy exchange here: The probes do not gain kinetic energy, the path through space is “less hilly” and therefore shorter.)

2) The high frequency of ‘microquasars’ observed in our own galaxy
(This is a maybe, as Gerbil pointed out…actually they are all maybe’s,,,)

3) Apparent proper motion in many quasars - Quasars are intrinsically redshifted, and therefore closer than their redshift distance. This is also true of the galaxies surrounding quasars – the intrinsic effect is an extended, local atmospheric effect based upon the mass of the system.

4) The Tully-Fisher relationship – the exacting ratio of mass to luminosity in galaxies
I haven’t fully explained this here, but the greater the mass, the higher the differential between the speed of light near the edges of the galaxy and the center.

5) Intrinsic biases in the Tully-Fisher relationship - Same principle as quasers: More massive objects are more intrinsically redshifted.

6) The ‘fingers of God’ – the apparent proper motion of stars in nearby galaxies towards our own. Same mass/redshift effect.

7) The age of the universe
No limit – see 9)

8) The size of the universe
No limit same as 7

It wasn't that long ago that mainstream cosmologists were holding up pictures of distorted galaxies, looking into the past, and saying "See how different galaxies used to look compared to now, and this is evidence the universe is changing.

But now it has been determined that galaxies are deeply distorted but nevertheless unchanged - very similar to local systems.

So forget the infant galaxies, these images prove the existence of forces we don't see in our local environment - Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

Balderdash! The distortions are because the bending of light is greater than relativistic predictions, greater than what we measure between the orbit of the Earth and the Sun, because we are not taking into account the fact that the speed of light continues to increase long past the orbit of the Earth - No dark matter and dark energy required.

9) The heavy metal distribution in the most distant quasars

No single point violation of 2d law of thermodynamics – this law was made to be broken. We have recently observed huge clouds of hydrogen gas, blown from the centers of galaxies like birthday balloons. There is a regenerative mechanism for compressing and combining matter not into black holes, but into primal hydrogen, and expelling it jets. Hey, I am only describing what we observe – somebody come up with a mechanism, please.

10) The heavy metal distribution in the most distant galaxies
Same as seven - 7)

11) The very old galaxies found by the Spritzer telescope in the very old universe
see 7)

12) The (apparent) periodic distribution of quasars and other brilliant objects
Radiation transfers create periodic effects described by Jacques Moret-Bailey as the CREIL process. Creil explains how light is redshifted without being completely scattered (a coherent mechanism).

13) The peak in the ‘epic of quasars’ near the current epic This is a statistical artifact caused by intrinsic redshifting.

14) The corresponding peaks in Wolf-Reinert stars and AGN – (Same as 14)

15) The recent peak in the distribution of ‘blue galaxies’ (Same as 14)

16) The Butcher-Oemler effect: The propensity of ‘blue’ galaxies to be ‘field galaxies’ in local space, then becoming cluster galaxies with increasing redshift distance.

This is one of the best evidences that there is intrinsic redshifting in Blue galaxies. It makes no sense whatever for a particular type of galaxies to dominate the centers of galaxy clusters for eons in the past, then suddenly launch out on their own in the latest epic. Locally, blue galaxies are just as nucleated as they are cosmicly, but since they have intrinsic redshifts, we assume they are field galaxies. This also explains why the only blue galaxies in close proximal space appear to have extreme variability in the relative motion of stars: The outer (redder) stars in these galaxies all appear to be streaming towards us. No! the bluer cores are intrinsically more redshifted than the older stars in the less dense areas. This also provides a vital clue in understanding both the aging and synthesis properties of galaxies.

17) The Wilson Beppu effect: The blurring of spectral lines with increasing size and mass of stars that exceeds Einstein’s predictions: The speed of light varies more than Einsteins predictions, which are based upon the assumption that we observe the speed of light as unity near earth orbit: it is not.

18) The Baldwin Effect: An effect virtually opposite the Wilson-Beppu effect, the narrowing of the width of some spectral peaks with increasing red shift distance. This may be a combination of CRIEL and incorrect ‘K’ corrections for time dilation.

(I did not know about the Baldwin effect, until I realized that if ‘K” corrections are incorrect, this corrections would cause a narrowing of spectral lines with increasing redshift distance. The Baldwin effect is consistent with this prediction. Likewise, I did not know about the Wilson Beppu effect until I realized that there would have to be excessive spectral blurring if my concept of variable light speed is correct.)

19) The power function of cosmic rays:

When a supernova explodes, the energy in the ‘standing wave’ associated with the supernova contracts: When the collapsing ‘gravity wave’ intersects the expanding supernova, all hell breaks loose –creating a knee in the power spectrum. The extension of matter into space implies that there is more energy in a nuclear explosion that we normally account for: the energy in the collapsing ‘gravity wave’.

When we detonate a small nuclear warhead on earth, this wave feature is not measured in the bomb calometrics, because it is peripheral to the testing chamber. In very large detonations, these effects may have been observed, but not understood.

20) The apparent ZKG-effect violation of cosmic rays as is introductory essay.

21) The source of gamma rays in supernova explosions - see 19

22) The mechanism for gamma ray focusing in supernova explosions
A collapsing ‘gravity wave shell’ will varying speed, depending upon the position of nearby stars and the surrounding galactic plane – this is especially true if there is a binary companion. The degree of focus of the cosmic ray is a function of the local mass symmetry – (this concept is where this theory originated.)

23) The reason supernova expand into radiating rings, rather than shells see 22)

24) The failure to observe ANY super-luminous hypernova at great distances:

We actually do observe them – in fact, they are about all we do observe. The Attenuation of space is greater than predicted and normal supernova fall right off the radar. With increasing distance, We detect more and more of these hypernova with very long light curves. When an erroneous correction for time dilation is placed upon these light curves, they look like normal-to small supernova.

25) The reason galactic reddening is (incorrectly) not included in the calculation of the light curves of distant supernova:

This is an attempt to prove the Wilson hypothesis is true: by assuming no reddening, researchers are able to effectively stretch the light curves of distant supernova, creating an illusion of time dilation. Bad Astronomy.

26) The reason it is necessary to (incorrectly) normalize supernova at a mid-range redshift to linearize supernova light curves, thus ‘demonstrating’ time dilation: Same as 24, 25 – the bogus data reduction tools used by these researchers are down-right embarrassing.

27) The lack of time dilation effects in the observe power function of quasars:

Time dilation is not observed because it does not happen – recessional velocities are all due to radiation transfer.

28) The reason the CMB anisotropy and polarity are hemisphereically asymmetrical. The CMB is dominated by local radiation.

29) The distribution of hydro bubbles and jets near the centers of galaxies-

Ok I don’t have a mechanism, I can’t build one without violating the laws of thermodynamics – I’m not quite ready to take on Lord Kelvin…yet. It is worth stating that the Big Bang is a point violation of the second law, so there is precedent. Somebody else is going to have to fix this.

30) The MOND or Dark Energy effect:

We expect the “G” constant to be universal, and Ironically I think it is.

Near the edges of galaxies, where there is far less mass than in the center, the path through space approaches unity. Greater masses move with greater velocity than Newtonian predictions, not because G has changed, but because the path through space is 'shorter'.

But there might be another limiting factor: Masses with ‘escape’ velocity relative to a galactic center moving outward find themselves in an environment where the speed of light is greater and greater.

I am not sure what effect this has on the intrinsic stability of atoms and molecules, or upon matter to sustain motion, but I think matter on these boarders may radiating energy – this is the microwave signature or halo we observe surrounding galaxies – it is not dark energy that contains these stars, but a fundamental limit to the velocity at which an object can move relative to the ultimate speed of light.

(When this thread was started, I was leaning heavily upon this interpretation, now I am doubtful that it has merit.)

31) The attenuation of galaxies relative to the Tolman surface brightness test: Same fuzzy answer as 30) Somebody needs to figure this out.

32) The inability of astronomers to determine the beginning of the “Hubble flow” :

Since many objects have intrinsic redshifts, determining the baseline for where ‘deep space’ redshifting becomes constant is very problematic. Even though the redshift is not due to time dilation, it is a fairly good distance estimator, once corrections are made for intrinsic redshifts.

33) The general lack of agreement (outside the error bars) of different methods for calculating cosmic distances (Ho): Same as 32)

34) The ability of electric charges to separate (actually form) in similar clouds:

This gets into a new subject, the interaction of materials on and near the earth with the ‘standing wave’ of the sun. In turbulent systems, or systems where electrically isolated shear planes exist – and these do exist where rain drops are forming within clouds – these very high frequency gravitational waves can be heterodyned across these planes.

Raindrops are a special case, because as each raindrop falls, there is a displacement vector in the raindrops ‘own’ wavefield. The summation of these field displacements leads to the actual creation of point charges, with some of the force withdrawn from the local gravity wave. (Hamlet calls this word salad, but it is much less hairy than the math behind it.)

These spot imbalances in the local magnetic field are no different from the imbalance you create when you jump up of the ground, but with falling raindrops, the charge imbalance increases until there is a dielectric breakdown. These forces are also the principle cause of chaotic turbulence. They increase dramatically approaching dense objects like the sun, and this is why probes entering the atomosphere of Venus have been repeately zapped by lightening, while none is likely to be reported from Titan...we'll see.

35) The distribution of +/- particles in the solar wind:

(Same principle as 34) Ultimately the total charge count balances out, but the ability of space to spontaniously create charges is a function of the underlying field strength, not magic.

36) The source of the magnetic field causing the heating of the solar corona:

The sun is converting matter to energy, and the gravitational field about it is in a semi-permanent state of collapse. As this field strength falls into the sun, it is exactly like the spark coil of a car – the returning gravity waves create the solar corona. This is why comets, returning from deep space have such a profound effect upon the solar cornea – they are ‘coils’ full of gravitational energy.

37) The source of the X-rays and magnetic fields associated with neutron stars:

Gravity waves – they are electromagnetic, and that is how we see them -

38) The size of ‘accretion disks’ :

What black holes? I really don’t know what is happening here, but the energy mechanisms of galaxies cores – at least initially – must be regenerative. (This may or may not be true of old galaxies, such as our own.)

39) Gravitational polarization of light. General Relativity has an explanation for this, although it is a strange one – they use Maxwell’s field equations to predict the polarization – just as we do in optics, and it works. And it should: emf is emf, including gravity.

40) The difficulty we have using star trackers in solar exploration:

This is really a prediction; which should be verifiable by Cassini: If the speed of light decreases with increasing distance from the sun, the displacement of stars we observe using General Relativity should be magnified when we try to make these observations from deeper in the solar system. Will the Deep Impact probe succeed in spite of this theoretical limitation? I hope so.

41) The ‘over-performance’ of the Viking parachutes:

Mars is about 114% as massive as we think it is. Viking used accelerometers to measure parachute performance. The velocity upon entry was higher than expected. Since there was more energy to brake, the parachutes handled greater loads.

42) The ‘under-performance’ of the nearly identical Pathfinder parachute:

Pathfinder was not equipped with accelerometers, but they did measure the descent velocity. Since Mars is heavier, the probe fell faster, and even though the parachute used a nearly identical design to the ‘over-performing’ Viking parachutes, the higher than expected velocity lead to the conclusion that the parachute under-performed. A satisfactory descent profile of the Pathfinder has never been completed. (Actually they did paste one together when modeling the parachute for Huygens, but they had to allow a Monte Carlo similator to rattle down a three-sigma path to do it.)

43) The rapid descent of many Mars probes - and the failure of two thirds of them – If the engineering safety margins for these probes runs between 1.3 and 1.4 – the failure rate is very predictable given the 1.4 mass factor.

44) The rapid descent of the Galileo Jupiter probe:

Last year NASA declared victory when someone finally came up with a plausible model: but It requires about a 400km/h down draft in the upper atmosphere. Jupiter should suck itself to death in no time.

45) The lack of ionization during entry to the Martian atmosphere:

This is a fun one: with increasing distance from the sun, the magnitude of the standing wave diminishes, and this also reduces the energy in the ‘atmospheric shear zone’ . Smaller standing waves, less gas compression, less turbulence and less ionization. The turbulence observe in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn should likewise be less than we would predict, given the same wind velocities on the earth. Don't expect any lightening on Titan!

46) The excessive Ionization and static found in the atmosphere of Venus:

Just opposite of the planets further from the sun, missions in Venus’s atmosphere are subjected to severe turbulence and lightening effects.

47) The unexpectedly soft landings on Venus:

Much lighter planet – we actually landed a probe that was supposed to crack up on impact.

4 The unexpectedly hard landings on Mars - Brutal, that extra G force:

Mars 3 landed at twice the calculated velocity. The Viking probes had to thrust a about twenty percent longer than expected, and all of the air bag landers have experienced near maximum velocities – attributed, of course, to unexpectedly high winds and low atmospheric pressure.
48.5) The unexpectedly shallow craters on Titan. Geologists have indicated that the crater depth is more consistent with a much more massive planet – (Ironically, they are comparing the depressions with the depressions on venus – Which I think is lighter than textbook.)

49) The deficiency in Neutrinos emitted by the sun:

If the true speed of light is greater, the energy of a nuclear explosion could also be greater. It therefore takes only about a third as many reactions to create the energy we package in nuclear events on earth. (I don't think that neutrinos are actual particles, I think they are gravitational nodes.)

50) Navigational difficulties in close encounters with the moons of Jupiter and Saturn:

Approaching the moons, the local mass effects have greater differentials because the moons are more massive than Newtonian predictions. This is why Galileo kept going into ‘safe mode’ every time it swung near a moon: the capacity of the inertial wheels to keep the probe stable was exceeded, and it started to tumble. We have observe similar effects in Cassini – Both during the Jupiter pass, and during the Saturn tour.

51) Navigational difficulties in getting to Mars, the deep space probe, etc.
Ya – anytime we try to use a star near the sun on extra-earth orbit missions for celestial navigation – look out.

51) Bode's law: There may be nodes in the ‘standing wave’ that lead to integer islands of stability – just like magic numbers of neutrons – that is something to work on.

52) The discrepancy in the orbital period of Saturn, as measured by Cassini verses the Viking probes:

The Vikings did close fly-bys, and if the acceleration during the fly-by was greater than expected, the orbital period calculated for Saturn would be off – and it is.

53) The discrepancy in the orbital period of Pheobe, as observed by Cassini
Same as 52, and for exactly the same reason.

54) The two peaks in the neutrino counts measured after the explosion of supernova 1987a:

The second peak occurs when the collapsing gravity wave collides with the matter exploding outward – the sudden change in the ‘standing wave’ density releases a ton of radiation from the somewhat stable matter, which escalates even more because more gravity waves are collapsing – a thermal-nuclear runaway fuelled by a thermal-nuclear runaway.

55) The ‘failure’ to detect a gravity wave from the explosion of supernova 1987a: By the time it got to us, it was redshifted into an intense gamma ray. So we have observed it - they just cannot explain it.

56) The failure to detect gravity waves from binary neutron stars and other galactic horizon events – X-rays, gamma rays – these are gravity waves.

57) The lower-than-expected turbulence in the atmosphere of Jupiter Hey, why make a prediction that isn’t already true?

58) The root cause of chaotic turbulence:

Maxwell would love to tackle this one with a supercomputer. If there are standing energetic waves around us, when there is fluid movement, there are shear zones where energy can be hetrodyned and passed to and from these chaotic waves.

59) Triboelectric effects – the separation of charges in storm clouds:

Yes, you heard it here first: it is possible to create a point charge by heterodyning the standing gravimetric wave about us in insulators. Shocking.

60) Piezoelectric, and other crystalline point-charge effects – again, wave heterodyning effects.

If you do not like hetrodyning, think of beat frequencies generated when two acoustic instruments are slightly out-of-pitch with each other. If someone blew a dog whistle at a frequency that was just out of phase with a flute, it would cause a detectable flutter - an alias frequency, in the tone of the flute - this is how the 'standing gravitational wave' interacts in shear zones - causing lightening, stuff like that.

61) Dielectric breakdown in solid rocket propellant:

These materials are especially sensitive in cold, dry environments: propellant grains contain metal particles isolated in non-conductive polymers – a real recipe for actually creating powerful point charges within the grain.

62) The disruption of the ionosphere in association with earthquakes and volcanic eruptions:

Anything that moves a large amount of mass causes ripples in the ‘standing gravity wave’ This low frequency ripples as arcs and sparks in the ionosphere.

62.5) Volcanoism on Io, and other, more distant moons in the outer solar system: True Volcanoes with molten lava similar to the earth and mars.

63) The more-distant-than-predicted destructive power of massive thermal-nuclear explosions. The distribution of a field caused by matter from any mass in space well beyond the physical limits of the matter involved in the reaction means we don’t properly evaluate the destructive mechanism and strength. Scary.

64) The thermal-radiance of planets: All tidal displacements generate gravity waves and release energy.

65)Dark Energy Like the Easter Bunny, this substance can neither be proven nor disproved. It was created to plug a hole in a failed theory.
66)Iron on Phoebe, and in the rings of Saturn More massive moons, created by the same process as the inner planets, (whatever that process is.)

And eventually:

67) The 'clang' if and when the Deep Impact probe bangs into a comet on July 4, 2005

68) The higher-than-expected iron and nickle content recovered from the probe that sampled Wild2 (hopefully landing in January of 2006).

Speaking of:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16763
.

69) The completed Entry, Descent and Landing profile and many other observations of Huygens. I’m working on this one – I still need to know when the egg-timer was scheduled to end the aerial phase of them mission, if the accelerometers and radar failed to indicate a landing was eminent.

If you plowed through all of that, you spend a lot of time in a ‘highly speculative’ universe. This is the Against-the-Mainstream thread after all. Not all of this is correct, but some of it may be a classic primer to 21st century physics.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

Jerry wrote:

OK, so I take it there is no 'Potential Threat to the Huygens Mission' then :roll:

Danish Blue anyone? 8)

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

Looks like this thread is just about to crash and burn (At least something is going to crash)

Oh, I'll take a nice simple Swiss wheel please.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

Jerry, that has to be the biggest and most death-defying bit of horse-changing I have ever witnessed. =D> =D> =D>


How about Cheddar? 8)

CJSF

__________________
Two years ago moved from my town
I was looking up past the city lights
But the city lights got in my way

See the constellation ride across the sky
No cigar, no lady on his arm
Just a guy made of dots and lines

-from "See The Constellation"
by They Might Be Giants

The usual food and beverage warnings apply!

In the spirit of the classic Bugs Bunny cartoon, What's Opera Doc? I offer Huygens at the Opera. The scene: a cold, desolate spot on Titan. In center stage, a space probe that has landed miraculously in one piece. Jerry and Lunatik take the stage, dressed in flowing robes, feathered headresses (no horns! no!) and a pair of VW hubcaps. They are each holding a spear. They burst into song!

(To the tune of "Ride of the Valkyries" from Wagner's Die Walküre)

Jerry:
I'm flogging the horsey, flogging the horsey, flogging the horsey, till it can't stand!
Instead of good science, instead of good science, instead of good science, I'll just wave my hand!

Both:
Hiya toe yo, ho! Hiya toe yo, ho!

Jerry:
Higher mass! Higher mass!

Lunatik:
Higher Gee-ee-ee-ee-ee!

Both:
Hiya toe yo, ho! Hiya toe yo, ho!

Jerry:
Higher mass! Higher mass!

Lunatik:
Higher Gee-ee-ee-ee-ee!

Jerry:
I don't have the data, I don't have the data, I don't have the data, they won't give it to me,
It's all part of NASA's, all part of NASA's, and also ESA's, conspiracy!

Both:
Hiya toe yo, ho! Hiya toe yo, ho!

Jerry:
Higher mass! Higher mass!

Lunatik:
Higher Gee-ee-ee-ee-ee!

[Repeat]

Lunatik:
G keeps getting bigger, G keeps getting bigger, G keeps getting bigger, linearly,
I can't do the math, and I can't do the science, it's axiomatic, just wait and see!

Both:
Hiya toe yo, ho! Hiya toe yo, ho!

Jerry:
Higher mass! Higher mass!

Lunatik:
Higher Gee-ee-ee-ee-ee!

[Repeat]

Jerry:
I'm flogging the horsey, flogging the horsey, flogging the horsey, till it can't stand!
Reading this drivel, reading this drivel, is more entertaining, than what you had planned!

Both:
Hiya toe yo, ho! Hiya toe yo, ho! etc.

=D>

Edited to add: No actual horses were harmed in writing this parody!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Where we setting up shop next?

"Potential threat to current physics?"
Copyright (c) 2005 Travis May

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

It was unfair. What I did not say, is that the G constant we use on the earth is NOT the true value of the G constant, just as the speed of light near the earth is NOT the true speed of light in a vacuum. How else am I going to squeeze in:

Find me matter in a true perfect vacuum, and we can sit down and calculate the baseline value of G &amp; c. Or we can extrapolate between the Earth and Saturn, and predict something close. We can also calculated the effect the mass of the Sun has on 'space', and use this in the future to properly predict the masses and densities of the planets. No more yellow "water ice" rocks.

And unless and until someone can come up with another reasonable explanation for the optical density on the surface of Titan, the small variance in the speed of sound during Huygens descent, the mystery roll of Cassini, and Huygens' thermal blanket sitting on the surface of Titan a few meters from where Huygens landed, that is just the way the universe is going to have to stay.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know.

I understand all now. G (and aparently c) are constant, it's just everything else that varies. You had me worried for a moment but we'll make 100 pages yet

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.

You guys are missing the big one: Now that Jerry has changed horses, it sets up the possibility of a Lunatik versus Jerry showdown.

Now if that doesn't make your head explode, nothing will!

Hell's teeth! We already have a case of exploding toads in BABB - I'm hibernating for the duration

__________________
By asking questions we sometimes get the wrong answers, from wrong answers we learn to ask the right questions.