NASA discovers brand new force of nature

Originally posted by Come Clean
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.

>> I THINK the best way to move an asteroid with CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, would be to use a very large sail. Some fabric perhaps coated with reflective aluminum that would catch the solar wind -- you don't need to keep running a rocket or blast the object.

If you calculate far enough out in space that an object will hit earth, adding a solar sail to it could easily shift it's course millions of miles. However -- the bigger and faster the object, the larger the sail and more lead-time you would need.

Yeah!! It’s the bean fart with a hint of jalapeno!!

Or , somethin...

Maybe that there halodon collider thing a ma bob will get us some info...

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


I appreciate your very logical post but my primary question was never answered. Where was the dust between Earth and Pluto? I'm lead to believe the probes didn't slow down until they reached the futherest jovian planet.

Personally, I would think that much dust would hamper communications between the probes and the receivers here on Earth.

Then again, I'm not sure how they track these probes. Are they sending back signals? Then we enter a whole new realm. Are the signals being slowed down? If so, then I think the heliosphere theory might be more appropriate. There is a lot of interaction between stellar winds and solar winds. Lot's of interaction between our solar system and stellar space.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst



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.

Interesting point! But let me pick your brain. So these particles that were blown out come back to the source?

How is that possible? I thought space was a vacuum? For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction right? So if those particles were blown out then what action made them reverse course and go back to the source? The escape velocity for particles has yet to be determined. I would imagine once a star ignites those particles are moving at the speed of light. There would have to be an action inversely proportional to the speed of light to make those particles reverse course. Actually, it would have to be an action greater than the speed of light to make particles reverse course. That assumes I am correct that particles are leaving the area at the speed of light once a star ignites.

Also, how would these particles know the difference between the star that blew them out and some other star in the area?

Please don't trust the mainstream news media with providing accurate scientific accounts.

By the way, gravity has a force range of infinity.

Originally posted by die_another_day


By the way, gravity has a force range of infinity.

edit on 9/20/2010 by die_another_day because: (no reason given)

What does this mean? Are you saying Earth's gravity has infinite force range throughout the universe? If so, are you saying Earth's gravity can affect planets at the edge of the Universe?

reply to post by CynicalM


Google... Heim Theory...Tajmar....Gravity....Superconductor....gravity mirror...
gravito-magnetism...etc

Matter of fact, why wouldn't the star immediately collapse once it ignites? If the particles that were blown out returns to the source then that means light also returns to the source. Not only it's own light but all light in the immediate gravitational affects. That much mass that reverses the course of light would undoubtedly collapse the star immediately.

Originally posted by Come Clean

Originally posted by die_another_day


By the way, gravity has a force range of infinity.

edit on 9/20/2010 by die_another_day because: (no reason given)

What does this mean? Are you saying Earth's gravity has infinite force range throughout the universe? If so, are you saying Earth's gravity can affect planets at the edge of the Universe?

Precisely, the electromagnetic force also has a range of infinity. And there is no "edge" of the Universe as of now.


Also, this Telegraph.co.uk's article cited by MSN, Telegraph is a tabloid and the most bull# source you can cite for science.

reply to post by CynicalM


Tractor beam FTW!


Seriously though, how is this a new force of nature? Isnt it just gravitational pull?

NASA, it's called magnetism.

The Sun is a giant magnet. Magnets loose strength with distance.

reply to post by illumin8ed

In that case the Pioneer spacecraft should not be slowing down more than expected as they get further from the Sun, should they?

I dunno.....but I have an opinion...

Think of it this way....two teenage ET's out and about in dads "ship" playing their version...of "tip a sleeping cow" with our space junk....is there not a huge lagg time between what is actually going on, and when we/they... NASA receives it?

Riding it one armed...yelling "yeeee hawww"

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst



Well yes and no. What you are interpreting my theory to be is the current understanding of gravity's effect on time and compressed space, but it is my understanding that the pervasive theory is also that space is both infinte and uniform, EXCEPT where influenced by strong gravitic forces.

My theory is that the universe expanded in a non-uniform fashion. and as space expanded it stretched from the outer edge outward pulling the inner edge along with it.

It therefore is expanding at a uniform rate requiring no additional energy to continue to accelerate it's expansion but that instead because space is stretching and time is moving faster at the edges of expansion in comparison to the center of the universe, it appears to be accelerating the farther toward the fringe of the universe you go.

If my theory is correct and it is the stretching of space/time that is causing the sattelites to appear to slow down, they are probably traveling in a direction that would be relative to the perceived acting force.

Our noticing it would only be because the satellites have now gotten far enough away from our solar systems gravity and far enough from our own area of compressed space to show a perceivable change in speed relative to our speed of time.

Jaden

reply to post by die_another_day



I've been thinking about something along these lines lately. The celestial equator should be infinite. At some point, our celestial equator crosses paths with another planets celestial equator. They would cross paths at two points. I've been trying to figure out a way to use those two points as sort of a map of the universe. Actually, as some sort of roadmap of the Universe. Unfortunately, I can only do it for our solar system right now. But once we explore our solar system then we can determine the speed and axis of other planets. Then plug them into my universal map.

Just like Columbus did.

Found this when i was checking out space today online , another possibble expalanation ?

Is the Sun tugging at Pioneer 10? A team of planetary scientists and physicists spotted a tiny unexplained acceleration towards the Sun in the motions of the Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 and Ulysses spacecraft. About 10 billion times smaller than the acceleration we feel from Earth's gravitational pull -- the unexplained acceleration was seen in detailed analyses of radio data from the spacecraft.

Scientists have been thinking about a variety of causes, such as the gravitational attraction of planets or even unknown dark matter; radiation pressure when photons hit the spacecraft; interaction between the solar wind and the spacecraft; wobbles in Earth's rotation; and gas or thermal radiation from the spacecraft.

In the end, the engineers guessed that the unexplained changes in the accleration of Pioneer 10 may be due to heat escaping from its RTG nuclear power plant radiators.

source: www.spacetoday.org...

That's math I can't do.

If gravitons exist, and in a clump or series of clumps, create a "well" which radiates in all directions evenly (or close to evenly) the further out from the center of the well you get the steeper the incline.

Hold a piece of lycra loosely taunt, and put a baseball in the middle of the fabric. That depression is your well. Only it isn't just "down" like on the fabric. The depression around the ball radiates in all directions.

Hence, the "falling back" force isn't new. It is a new way to measure the warping of space that happens with the clumping of gravitons when surrounded by an area without that clumping. Climbing up out of the well becomes more costly as you get further up the angle of inclination.

This effect would be hard to measure here, as we live AS a gravity well, we live on a gravity well, in the close orbit of a gravity well of some magnitude.

We are fish in the fish bowl. We see the universe through the parabola of our bowl.

Not new. Just gravity.

Originally posted by Aeons


We are fish in the fish bowl. We see the universe through the parabola of our bowl.

Not new. Just gravity.

edit on 2010/9/20 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

You ever hear about the city that banned fishbowls? They felt it was wrong to have fish see the world through a warped view.

First two things that quickly came to my mind, if indeed the probes are experiencing an unexplainable (even though minuscule) counter-force to their outward momentum-

1. A "force" involving the heliosphere

2. The craft's own gravity acting on itself


Now to briefly brainstorm/elaborate (though likely not enough to suffice a very solid explanation):


1. The Heliosphere:
Since the various deep-space probes are approaching the edges of our solar system, perhaps there is some sort of force (or a decrease of force) that can account for the minute drag experienced by the probes. As the probes near the heliopause, they experience a point which is called the Termination Shock. The termination shock is the point at which the solar wind slows down. If our various probes are experiencing the termination shock (i.e. a slowing of solar wind) even to a slight/gradual degree, and if the solar wind originally had any (no matter how minute) positive effect on the velocity/momentum of the probes, perhaps a decrease in their velocity/momentum can be explained by a proportionate decrease in assistance/propulsion from solar wind.
One might also consider effects of the probes' interaction with the trickling in of the interstellar medium (essentially the trace/uniform gas/dust that fills interstellar space, sort of an ether) which may create minute amounts of drag.


2. The probes' gravitational pull:
The effects of a craft's own gravity (once again, no matter how minute) may cause a proportionate drag. I don't know the many factors/physics that goes into calculating this, and it's possible that this has already been taken into account by scientists. However, all mass has a gravitational pull, even the probes, so perhaps the gravitational centers of the probes (roughly similar to the core of the Earth pulling everything towards its center) is constantly re-centering their positions by very small amounts that influence but come nowhere near to negating the effects of their ultimate velocity/momentum. I'm sure this is probably not the case, and I imagine that the gaps in my knowledge of physics might explain this away. I also imagine that the velocities of the probes re-frames their own gravitational pull and creates a new gravitational relativity and cancellation/isolation of any effects on velocity. Hope that makes sense... I'm sure a physicist would tell me I'm speaking dribble.


Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Come Clean

Originally posted by Aeons


We are fish in the fish bowl. We see the universe through the parabola of our bowl.

Not new. Just gravity.

edit on 2010/9/20 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

You ever hear about the city that banned fishbowls? They felt it was wrong to have fish see the world through a warped view.

I don't think we could outlaw gravity.