NASA discovers brand new force of nature

I think I saw one or two people hinting at the most obvious, yet highly overlooked possibility: human error. When things don't exactly as expected, it's usually due to a mistake. Mistakes are most often something simple, yet overlooked. That being said, the dust in the kuiper belt link pretty much dusted this one for me. I did enjoy reading this thread, but I have to ask, what was with that text-to-speech voice-over in that video about anti-gravity machines in the bible? Was it supposed to sound like Stephen Hawking? The pitch and timbre were somewhat close, but not quite cigar-worthy.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


But where was the dust between Earth and Pluto? But I do agree, those probes could have went through 1 of billions of stellar clouds and whatnots. I just think NASA has to be smarter than that. They must have ruled out stellar resistance as basic as dust.

reply to post by Lovemaster9000


NASA never makes mistakes.

reply to post by spikey


Good point and understanding of physics in your post.

However -- I think it would be interesting to LOOK FOR, differences in the force around the Solar System -- meaning, I EXPECT there to be places of uneven distribution where objects would be pushed in or out faster from the solar system.

IF gravity behaves as current theory holds -- then particles being "hoovered up", would do so at an even rate.
>> Also, we'd have to consider a "vacuum force" to keep the particles from being sucked up by the stars -- as pulling more out of space and making particles "more diffuse" requires energy of some sort -- which of course, would be gravity. Either all particles would be falling towards all large gravity objects -- OR, there is a "vacuum force." There might be some misunderstanding here about "vacuums" because when you "suck things" into a vacuum cleaner -- it's really the force of the gas in the atmosphere pushing them into the LOWER pressure area.

However, in outer space -- it's really gravity itself that creates the vacuum. You don't have an atmosphere pushing down on a lower density area (a vacuum) -- it's really the combined force of all the atmosphere above you attracted by gravity to the earth. Space is not "sucking up air" -- it has to be light enough to achieve escape velocity. In standard Physics, there is no Vacuum force that would explain particles moving towards the sun beyond Gravity (AFAIK).

Due to the magnetosphere of the earth, more particles are added to our planet than lost as highly charged Neutrinos and solar winds hit earth's upper atmosphere and knock them away.


>> The PROBLEM with your theory, however, is that we already have particles PUSHING OUT from our Solar System -- it's called a "solar wind." So even if 'empty space' is getting hydrogen and helium particles sucked into the Sun -- there are MORE particles moving outward -- which is measurable. Likely NASA has already taken the general flow of particles into account.

The OTHER explanation which might fit your theory, is that the solar wind is much more limited on the outer edge of the solar system, and the "sucking in of particles" might be recycling the solar wind -- however, this would imply an influence of a solar Magnetosphere and NOT gravity or a "vacuum force."

Originally posted by Lovemaster9000
I think I saw one or two people hinting at the most obvious, yet highly overlooked possibility: human error. When things don't exactly as expected, it's usually due to a mistake. Mistakes are most often something simple, yet overlooked. That being said, the dust in the kuiper belt link pretty much dusted this one for me. I did enjoy reading this thread, but I have to ask, what was with that text-to-speech voice-over in that video about anti-gravity machines in the bible? Was it supposed to sound like Stephen Hawking? The pitch and timbre were somewhat close, but not quite cigar-worthy.

Good point.

But there might be another effect going on as well; The motion of the solar system may be moving particles "in it's wake." So once you get outside of the "wake" -- particles are not acting as stationary or in the vector we assume them to be -- so the probes are drifting, because they are hitting particles that are NOT under the influence of the motion of the solar system.


>> That's one possibility, which would NOT introduce any new physics force or theory into the mix -- just something that they didn't take into consideration before because we've never tracked an object actually entering or leaving the solar system to KNOW there were other currents.

>> Myself, expect that we might find Gravity currents -- but I'm just throwing out a NORMAL physics explanation as well to describe what is being observed.

reply to post by theAymen


I'm confused as usual but correct me if I'm wrong. Scientists claim 98% of matter can't even be seen. What we see makes up about 2% of all matter. Not sure about the percentages but I know it's really lopsided. So my question would be this. Did they just discover something that has already been discovered but not confirmed? Someone mentioned it before. Dark matter or dark energy. I would imagine one or both is not constant throughout space. Maybe there was a high concentration of one or both of these that the probes went through.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


BEST

VIDEO

EVER!

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Isn't the Sun basically a nuclear reactor? Therefore, it doesn't require refueling? Once it runs out of fuel it collapses on itself? Insofar as, it wouldn't be sucking anything in but releasing tons of energy per millisecond?

Oh, one other thing that NASA should account for; The probes are mostly metal.

Objects coming and going that we observe are NOT mostly metal -- so if the solar system has a magnetosphere, then the MIGHT be more influenced by magnetic fields than the normal comet or rock that we observe.

Nothing esoteric or weird -- just an effect when an object is traveling over a LONG distance, and it's momentum is not enough to overcome it.

>> it's kind of like the perpendicular spinning blade on the back of a helicopter or what is called a "trim tab" that a single prop airplane uses to overcome the rotation of their single propeller -- the fact that a helicopter and a single engine plane have a blade spinning in one direction, tends to TURN a plane or a helicopter in the opposite direction (or, in the case of the airplane, to 'roll' it). The magnetosphere of the Solar system might TURN objects that are metallic.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


I believe the current theory on moving an asteroid involves parking a large metallic object just off the asteroid. Just that little mass should move the asteroid provided we had enough time. Basically, who knows what kind of mass these probes encounterd on their voyage.

This would answer some of my previous concerns. As far as I know, an asteroid or large object we put into space does not have a magnetic field. So mass must be the primary cause of gravity.

Oh wait, I wonder if parking a large object just off an asteroid affects the solar wind? So now I'm back at square one. More wind or less wind on one side of an asteroid would tend to move it in another direction.

Originally posted by Come Clean
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

Isn't the Sun basically a nuclear reactor? Therefore, it doesn't require refueling? Once it runs out of fuel it collapses on itself? Insofar as, it wouldn't be sucking anything in but releasing tons of energy per millisecond?

Yeah, sure. All part of the "solar system building" model. However, when a star first ignites from a compressed "gas cloud" -- it blows out a lot of particles. A lot of those eventually come back to it. The solar wind strips off a lot of the lighter particles and gravity brings them back. Lot's of frozen "gas/ice" in the distant cloud of debris surrounding the solar system.

But the sun is a "fusion reactor" -- it doesn't REQUIRE refueling, because it starts with a lot of mass, and hydrogen merely burns first because it is most common. The heavier elements burn later because the "force of light" pushes them outward (as gravity tends to PUSH heavier elements inward). The last thing that stars burn (theoretically) I believe is Iron. After that -- they go Nova -- and in that blast, even heavier elements are burned. Most of the elements necessary for life on earth, are created at the END of a star's life.

>> The particles that are being "sucked up" by the sun right now, are pretty miniscule. It burns for a LONG time, because Fusion reactions create a LOT of energy -- and only a small portion of the sun's mass is used up to create all that energy. How much, I'm not sure. But it might be like trying to empty the ocean from your water faucet -- that stream of water might take a ten billion years to run out.

The REST of the star is NOT burning -- it's just a charged plasma from the Fusion reaction. For instance; Oxygen and Hydrogen can BURN on earth -- and it forms water vapor and heat. But Oxygen on the Sun is pretty rare and is NOT combining with they hydrogen because it is TOO HOT to "burn" --- which is really a fusion of atoms into molecules in a chemical process. --- Not an expert, but I believe that there are NO CHEMICAL PROCESSES on a star. It's all gravity and electromagnetic forces fusing hydrogen nuclei at its core. The output of most stars is relatively stable, because the "force of light and heat" pushing out against the mass of the particles is a result of the fusion process -- more fusion means more outward force which expands the core and thus reduces the Fusion. So every nano-second, the fusion core of the sun is balanced between being crushed to a solid and exploding outward.

The Sun only changes output by a few degrees -- and over time, it's pretty dang stable. If it weren't; we'd have no life on earth.


>> Planets in the solar system are losing and gaining a little mass all the time. Mercury is probably LOSING mass over time with the force of the solar winds and no magnetosphere. The earth -- I THINK, gains about 10,000 tons a year. Mars, on the other hand, might have lost it's lighter elements over time (like oxygen and water) that were not trapped in the soil because it has no magnetosphere. It's believed it USED to have oceans -- but could not maintain an atmosphere and those dried up billions of years ago.

reply to post by Gazrok

That paper makes a strong case for it actually (i.e. being effected by the Keiper Belt).

And this paper, makes a good case against it. Affected...maybe, but not enough.
astro.berkeley.edu...

This tells me, that without knowing the specific force, that there is some kind of containment in our solar system and that any attempt to break through the outer line is forbidden. It took 40 years to experience this phenomenon and until we find a way to get out quicker, there is no true way of knowing for sure what this force is?

Could unknown forces hold us where we are to form a contamination field? This might in fact show that indeed we do need a gate/hole free from the power of the Sun to break free, one that goes where we direct it to go, and to inevitably leave.

I have said for years that most likely there is a sign or detour at the edge of our solar system that warns all who enter of the blue planet. A planet that turns to violence and murder for study, rather than joining brothers in the galactic neighborhood. Perhaps, some outside influence has programmed containment of our area of space - specifically because of us! But not that we are the only source for the reason of direct containment. This could be a Universal law held to every solar power.

What is this force - if not gravity or some other natural known force we know of - could our solar system indeed be alive electrically? The question itself is strange - Could our Sun keep all that it has created in a force of specifically directed power and control over what it has created (like a mother). It seems as if the Sun must keep an elemental boundary of containment on its own creation? Any Universal Sun rules its own - any developed solar system, (The Source) a life giving power that both contains and controls - even to the darkest regions and depths of its strength - all the way to the edges of its direct system. For these probes to go for this long and be directed out to explore, it senses these minute craft and pulls them back in?

Very strange indeed! My mind is about to explode at the possible theories and possibilities.

What about Voyager I and II? Are they experiencing this as well? I will be waiting for a future news article telling that they to are being slowed and pulled back.

Great post - I have so many ideas now - this enhances the Hoagland 19.5 degree analysis and the fact that our entire solar system including the Universe is indeed electric, alive and now a proven unknown energy field to contain its direct elements. There is "SOMETHING" to it all.


We have no idea what being alive really means - it has now even more variables including electical life. Great post, star and flagged!

I must include that I feel our entire system is sick - a system cold - I don't know why, but all our direct related planets and every mass force around us are connected. To keep everything in tune - at some point I feel soon - it is going to have to be corrected to balance itself again. That has proven in the past to be very destruction.

reply to post by arizonascott

The Voyager spacecraft perform occasional maneuvers to keep their antennas pointed at Earth. Because of this, and because the Pioneer anomaly is so small, the data from them is not usable.

Does this discovery mean that everything in our solar system is slowly orbiting the sun, getting closer with each revolution? Sounds like the sun is just there to eat up the terrestrial bodies in the system after a certain amount of time. Maybe it means that humans have to get off this planet soon or risk a world getting hotter from closing into the sun.

Originally posted by tauristercus
If there is a genuine "slowing down" effect coming into play, and because there are no significant gravitational masses at that distance to play a significant role, I'm just wondering whether what we're seeing is indications that space itself is not homogenous.
Instead of assuming that the regions of space that the probes pass through are all of the same "density", what if space does indeed possess a property similar to "density" that affects the velocity of the probes by imparting a "impeding or drag" type of force ? The fact that virtual particles are being created/destroyed continuously in otherwise "empty" space immediately implies that space is not completely and totally empty and therefore must exhibit "density-like" properties.

This could very well be an additional indicator that space stretches and has an effect on time.

I have had a theory for some time that if Einstein's theories of relativity are correct and red shift is interpreted correctly, that time has to speed up as space expands, so if the direction these probes are going is towards the origin of the BIg Bang, then space would be compressing and time would be slowing.

Jaden

Originally posted by Come Clean
reply to post by theAymen

 

I'm confused as usual but correct me if I'm wrong. Scientists claim 98% of matter can't even be seen. What we see makes up about 2% of all matter. Not sure about the percentages but I know it's really lopsided. So my question would be this. Did they just discover something that has already been discovered but not confirmed? Someone mentioned it before. Dark matter or dark energy. I would imagine one or both is not constant throughout space. Maybe there was a high concentration of one or both of these that the probes went through.

I think you are mixing up TWO different things;
There is a lot of gas and dust between objects in the Universe -- obscuring things. When the dust is illuminated by charged particles -- it is called a "Nebulae." These are considered the breading grounds of new stars. The mass of planets and "hard" or cold objects is minuscule compared to the mass of stars.

>> The "invisible matter" is a theory used to try to explain why Galaxies don't just fly apart. Their speed of rotation and the "blue shift" of the light from the stars, should give us an indication of about 98% of the mass of the Galaxy. But there isn't ENOUGH mass to keep them in such tight orbits with such a fast spin. If there were NORMAL MATTER, that was NOT emitting light (like a star), then it would be occluding the light (like lot's of little rocks). So the concept of most every galaxy having a large black hole in the middle came about. It still isn't enough mass, however.

So "Dark Matter" is a theory where we've got an invisible particle that only adds mass but does NOT absorb light or smack into planets (which would cause solid objects to glow from collisions -- right?).


>> My own theory is that Gravity is about a thousand times stronger than current theory holds -- but it does not DIRECTLY interact with matter. It both pushes objects away and in short range, pulls them together -- kind of like why all the atoms in the world don't just collapse into one huge particle -- the FORCE pushing them apart is stronger than the "ionization" force attracting them together. Physics uses more than one force to describe this -- but it's all theory because the forces cannot be SCENE -- only measured.

IN MY THEORY; there is only one force in physics; "space/time" and due to a 12-diminensional matrix and plane old geometry -- it appears as if there are many forces opposing one another. So light is the inverse of gravity, and an electric charge is a difference of "time" of particles occupying the same space. Nuclear forces are just the "parallax" of the same force creating gravity, electron shells are "acoustic domains" or resonances of the 3 distinct dimensional "branes" that interface at a particle. Only one type of particle as well - - more of a "torus" that makes up these things called quarks -- which make up the electrons and protons and neutrons but they are all the same except for geometry of how the same particle is combined or it's "resonance" in space/time. The fundamental particle is MERELY a fold in space-time created at the misnomered "big/bang." So, basically; 12 dimensions (upper and lower with "space/time" in-between), one particle, one force.

The Universe, according to me, will also NOT spread out to infinity or collapse into a singularity -- it will "invert" after resonating at one frequency. Physics will also drastically change in stages as the universe ages. But each "age" is about a thousand times longer than the one before in "time." But that's all relatively the same -- it's hard to make this easy to understand;

But basically, a galaxy has an upward limit on size because of LIGHT SPEED. When you are in a large gravity well, time slows down -- but LIGHT still moves at light speed. As more mass collects, however, it takes more acceleration to escape the mass.

When the Universe was "young" time would be SLOWER internally, because there was more acceleration due to "hotter particles" and there was LESS SPACE between objects. So if an object is vibrating at a very fast rate, BUT time is slower -- is it really hotter? If the Young Universe was so much denser (less pace between particles), then it must have also experienced slowing of time for objects in that space. Hence, even if a certain stage wold be clocked by us as being 10,000 seconds in length, or 100,000 years -- it might have "internally" lasted for the same length as our age.

Ah -- the confusion of Relativity.

Anyway, this crazy perspective of twisting dimensions and such seems to come naturally to me. I seem to have no problem with some of the esoteric "physical" understandings of Quantum or string theory. And once you get beyond the math that makes them so very complicated -- there seems to be a lot of fundamental problems. Like I understand the "split light" experiment where a photon interferes with itself -- but it DOES NOT, prove to me that light is both a particle and a wave -- it proves to me that light is a wave riding on "a thing called SPACE" and that it can only transfer as a DISCRETE PACKET of energy. Quantum physics is all about "discrete packets" and it's much easier for me to understand that it's ALL WAVE FORMS that can only exchange energy at acoustic points. I.e.; if everything is a wave -- it will look like everything is particles because ONLY at discrete boundaries can things interfere with each other. If everything however were made of particles, the sub-atomic world would behave in an analog fashion, because the ANGLE of incidence of the particles would influence the energy output.

Quantum (or Particle physics) does NOT explain why everything is in exact and discrete packets -- except by adding in many more special particles and things like "not being able to test for speed and location" of a particle -- it just APPEARS in one place or another -- never between, which flies in the face of Light Speed. Hence -- a Universal theory that combines Newtonian, Special Relativity and Quantum Physics cannot be found, because they are looking at it the wrong way. Relativity is broken all the time -- but things that don't "mesh" don't exist and things that do "fit" the laws of physics remain. The Quantum Effect is a byproduct of resonance. So, we've got a consistent, ordered universe and Quantum Probability (all things possible create a new Universe) coexisting. The Universe is ordered and rational and appears to behave the laws of physics because all the un-ordered events annihilate each other. Subspace is infinitely energized, and what we think of as "reality" is the eye in the storm. We are motes of "nothingness" that separates absolute chaos.

Think about this; the size of an electron compared to an atomic nucleus and the "space" taken up by an atom, is pretty similar to the size of Jupiter and it's orbit around the Sun. An atom, is MOSTLY vacant space.

What stops one solid object from moving through another? Well, solid objects have ionic of covalent bonds -- links between charges in their atoms. Liquids are nearly as dense as solids but do NOT have charged atomic bonds. However -- why do the charges of one atom prevent another atom moving through it? Two rocks, might INTERNALLY have ionic bonds -- but how do those bonds prevent the two rocks from overlapping?

That's where we get all these "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces that are supposed to solve these conundrums of very, very tiny particles. But I contend that "space" itself, is what is being influenced by the atoms, and that the SPACE of both rocks is out of sync -- resonating for each and every atom inside -- and THAT is what prevents objects from occupying the same space. So yes; I predict "force fields" are possible. That we can eventually make SPACE itself solid.

Space itself is the discrete OBJECT (better know as the aether), and what we think of as particles, are merely folds in the Universe that spew out space/time. When they form lower-energy structures with other particles, they influence that space internally. When an atomic field contracts, it throws off what we call "photons" -- but internally, these "photons" are resonating all the time, effecting space itself. We ONLY see the contraction. We DO NOT see the expansion of space -- and that's what I call "gravity." Anyway, I've tried to describe this a lot of ways, and that's about the simplest I can come up with. I'm not throwing out things that are arbitrary -- any theory should be able to be disproven or to predict what we see in an experiment. The Universe did not always have these "solid" structures -- it was too energetic right after the big bang. It did not have "light" at first, because there was no contraction of "space/time" yet. All these changes in physics are fundamentally a GEOMETRIC relationship between the 3 groups of "branes" that create the underlying structure of the Universe. As one grows and another shrinks -- the proportions and rate of change influence the laws of physics. Until it reaches a critical "state change" -- much like when a gas becomes a liquid, or water becomes ice, the forces seem to be very consistent. I speculate, however, that all these "state changes" happen everywhere at once; NOT starting in one area and spreading to another.

I could make a LOT of predictions and experiments to prove or disprove that -- but I'm NOT in any way a person that gets listened to, nor am I in any position to spend my life doing science. I have all the insight and none of the practical skills to actually accomplish much of anything.

Originally posted by Masterjaden

Originally posted by tauristercus
If there is a genuine "slowing down" effect coming into play, and because there are no significant gravitational masses at that distance to play a significant role, I'm just wondering whether what we're seeing is indications that space itself is not homogenous.
Instead of assuming that the regions of space that the probes pass through are all of the same "density", what if space does indeed possess a property similar to "density" that affects the velocity of the probes by imparting a "impeding or drag" type of force ? The fact that virtual particles are being created/destroyed continuously in otherwise "empty" space immediately implies that space is not completely and totally empty and therefore must exhibit "density-like" properties.

This could very well be an additional indicator that space stretches and has an effect on time.

I have had a theory for some time that if Einstein's theories of relativity are correct and red shift is interpreted correctly, that time has to speed up as space expands, so if the direction these probes are going is towards the origin of the BIg Bang, then space would be compressing and time would be slowing.

Jaden

>> Actually, your THEORY is already considered to be correct. You are just CORRECTLY understanding Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Generally, the more MASS is in an area, the slower time flows. If there is LESS MASS (i.e., Vacuum of space), the reverse would be true; time moves 'quicker.' Mass is the same thing in terms of gravity as acceleration, so if the same mass were MORE ENERGIZED -- like in a burning star, it's going to slow down time even more.

"Red Shift" and blue shift are merely a byproduct of the SAME frequency of light, being "stretched or squeezed" but arriving at the same speed (light speed). Blue light, however, has MORE ENERGY than RED. And certain atoms always release light at a specific Frequency. So the "shift" of a hydrogen-rich star is detected by how out of phase it is with what a hydrogen atom would release (in color frequency) if it were at rest.

Astronomers use devices with a very fine grill or comb with a prism (can't remember the exact term right now) to break up the light from a star into bands. Then they calculate the effect of dust, retransmission, and the motion of the star and even what the star is made of, by how the light bands in different frequencies. And under Quantum Theory -- atoms can ONLY emit very specific frequencies --- so an ORANGE light is perhaps a mix of yellow and red or a red light being shifted by a difference in motion.

Originally posted by theAymen
reply to post by XPLodER

 

i love the way you described our region of the milkyway..

do you think that this "bubble"- magnetic field- controls that of the sun as well.
or does the suns magnetic field create its own bubble encompassing/controling this solar system.

by saying "creating a drag" r u saying there was a change in the "localised" spacetime continuum...only for those four satelites?

ok so i have been up late and got up early to return to this thread so........bear with me

there is a super massive black hole at the centre of our galixy
it EATS matter and produces energy but this energy is contained within the event horizon
it cannot escape the gravity from the black hole but must be released somehow
this energy is forced into the surrounding spirals and manifests at any point that allows large scale energy release (suns)
so this energy becomes trapped in the fabric of space evenly distrubuted in the sphereical influence of the black hole
certain elements are excited by this energy feild and display this backround feild by giving of feilds or energy
like radiation magnetic flux ect
why does all mass have gravity? well the mass bends space time fabric and concentrates the surrounding fabric to a sphere around the object creating a more dense energy feild
the suns job as the most massive object in our solar system is to fold the fabric inside out ie the unrestrained release of energy at its core (originated from matter being destroyed in super black hole)
this creats a local sphere of magnetic energy of suns heliosphere that initself causes another density of the fabric change and at this boundry there is energy created from travelling through the original feild created by the black hole
this creats a frequency responce to the frequency emitted from the black hole and induces release of energy as a wave back to the black hole

energy travels from the centre to the boundry evenly and objects draw this energy where mass exists at suns
the local solar system is a semi closed loop for energy changed into frequency and projected to our sun
this powers some of the heliosphere as well in a simpathetic manner

been up most of the night

xploder