If stars repulsed each other they could not be in orbit of one another, it just simply couldn't happen.

A simple force diagram and momentum line diagram provides the proof; repulsing stars will fly apart in very quick succession, whereas an orbit can only be explained by an attractive force between the two orbitting bodies, be they a planet and it's moon or two co-orbitting stars in a binary system.

No, you are wrong here. I'm not sure if you mean the spontaneous decay of radioactive materials or the decay of subatomic particles (muons for instance), but either way you are wrong. It has been shown in countless experiments that the decay of radioactive materials is independent of temperature. Also, it's hard to give a temperature for a subatomic particle since temperature is defined by an ensemble average. So you are wrong unless you have a very creative definition of temperature.

How? What exactly do you mean by this statement.
Perhaps, but you will need to prove it.
By all particles, I'm assuming you mean even the photon, which is of course false.
Prove it. Show me the math.
Huh? What does this mean?
Maybe. Depends on what you mean by "everything."
Whether you need it or not is irrelevant since it's been observed.
This is a rather bizarre statement. What makes "star" mass any different than "earth" mass? Why is it that the earth is attracted to the Sun (a star) but other stars are not? Why is your mass attracted to the Earth so you are not thrown out into space? Besides, we clearly observe stars being attracted by other stars.
Yes, you have to prove it. This is not like a court of law (innocent until proven guilty). Actually it sort of is like a court. You have been accused of saying nonsense and you have to prove that you are correct.
This is true, but I don't see how it supports your conclusions.
So you are saying that our galaxy is unstable? How could this produce a spiral galaxy?

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

You are so wrong here.
As you might now the moon is pushed away from the earth. Are you saying this is impossible? What would in you opinion the difference be if this was 2 stars?
I´m sorry but you have to think about this again. Im not going to try to convince you that the theory is correct or not.

So the theory proposes that stars repel each other. So if stars collide, or are in large groups . . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/383901.stm

Since when is the moon being pushed away from the earth. I can only think that you mean that the moon is moving away from the earth by a couple of centimeters a year but that is due to tidal forces operating, causing the moon to steal kinetic energy from the earth. Please read this thread:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...543&forum=2&24

Orbits can only happen due to attraction, otherwise we fly off into space at a tangent, bit like a weight on a string that you have spun round your head and let go.

Anyway, on another matter, this is my 100th post, yay!

When I talk about temperature Im talking about the amount of LESA or anti-LESA extra
relative the 0-room. Not the temperature we think normally is temperature.

Ok, I dont know if you have read the theory, it doesnt sound like that.
Let say you have a flashligt towards the ground. If you could create so much light that the total amount of LESA becomes equal to the amount of anti-LESA the gravity would be neutralized. If you get netto LESA the flashlight would start to accelerate up.


Is this based on the assumption that you have read that in a book? Or can you give me some explaination to why it like this? Last time I checked this matter out the mass of the photon=0 is just a mathematical result to make some experiment fit togheter?
I will soon. I have not have time to present the math yet.

No, what you are talking about is Jupiter-objects not dark matter.

Well you have not read the theory so the answer is in the text. Read the theory and perhaps it wil lmake sence to you.
All galaxies are unstable but I cant go into every singel detail to explain everything. Just trust me. I can create with our theory the perfect velocity/time diagram that fits perfect to observations.
It will all come up on the forum.
Maybe we should have posted the theory in its finnished version.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bossieman on 2003-01-23 10:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bossieman on 2003-01-23 10:10 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bossieman on 2003-01-23 10:11 ]</font>

This sounds like a solar wind type thing here, the thing is though, you are not neutralising gravity, just providing a force in the opposite direction of an equal or greater size.

I will stop here. You think Im crazy and I think you dont see the picture here. If you just be patient the explaination will be posted at the forum. I cant answer all this questions here now. Im waisting to much time on defending the theory. That is not the idea here. The idea is to share the ideas of the theory and here what people think about it. Unlucky most people have not even read a basic course in Physics.
To fully understand the theory you have to be opened minded. If you are not, this theory is nothing for you.
And this forum is about "against the mainstream". Just the name tells me it should be open minded persons here.
You see, most people accepts that the speed of light is constant without thinking about why. Well Einstein said so, it must be so.
Still scientist question this statement and more and more evidence shows that c changes with time.

I will say pretty much the same, although i don't think you're mad. I'll reserve that honour for the Dark Lord and Nancy. And anyway I have to get back to writing my Thesis.

[spelling]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mainframes on 2003-01-23 10:30 ]</font>

Laser,
so what does this mean: a plasma of 100 m deg. ( fusion)?
perhaps he means the temperature of say a chunk of Radium ?

Can we be sure you´re not a dr. Dick alias?

LESA? What is a LESA? You say here that...

So a LESA is positive space/energy? If I "created my own description" of what a LESA really is, I might get banned.

You're thinking of radiation pressure since photons have momentum (but not mass).
If one must set the mass of a photon equal to zero to fit an experiment, what more proof is needed?
I look forward to it.
Huh? I was talking about anti-matter. Anti-electrons (positrons), anti-protons, even full anti-atoms have been created in the lab. What does this have to do with "Jupiter-objects" and "dark matter?

I read the theory, and no, it doesn't make sense.
No. I refuse to trust you. You will just have to show me. We can model observations with current understanding. Why do we need to adopt your theory? If it's not broke, why fix it?

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

so here we shall see photons annihiliating gravity. somehow like in matter/anti-matter . right ?
what would be the by-product of this annihiliation ??

Yes, if you heat a plasma, that can start nuclear fusion, but that is very different from nuclear or subatomic decay. What I meant is that temperture is defined as an average energy over a large number of particles. The temperature of a single particle is not well-defined.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Too bad you are leaving, this discussion was interesting.

However, your expectations of this forum may have been incorrect. Did you expect that because this was in "Against the Mainstream" that people would reply with praise and approval for your theory? That no one would point out possible flaws?

I'd like to think that I was fairly open-minded about the theory BECAUSE I'm not a physicist so I do not have an education in particle physics and other such things. Your theory, at its most basic level, was easy to follow: there is LESA and non-LESA and its interactions can account for a number of phenomena. I pointed out that your website just shows how your theory fits things we know about the universe and you needed to provide some testable predictions and hypothesis. I don't need to know physics to know how a theory must be structured, just the scientific method.

At least you provided some predictions, some were rather ethreal (gravity increases entrophy) but I was glad to see the "stellar repulsion" prediction. It shows that you were willing to put your theory to the test with concrete predictions, although you never stated exactly why they repulse (both LESA?)

It took all of an AltaVista search on Stellar Collisions to find some evidence that your prediction is potentially wrong. Therefore your theory is likely either incorrect or just needs revision to account for the phenomena.

Criticism of the theory is the only way to ensure that you are on the right track with your work, and through reworking the theory you can make the theory better (or discard it if the evidence against the theory is too strong). Many great theories have had to be revised over time, Newton comes to mind.

When you are ready to have your theory go under scrutiny again please let us know. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Bossieman,

here at this forum, if u get a look at other topics in this section, u will find physicists, scientists, engineers ...

u don't waist u time if u listen, and correct some points/concepts.
BUT u may waist u time if u continue ignoring others, especially when they are specialists of the field.