Question About Gravitation Part II

"Perdamaian akan dicapai oleh umat manusia apabila setiap dari mereka mempunyai rasa kasih dan pengertian"

~Arip~

Edited and Added By:

Arip Nurahman

Department of Physics 

Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, Indonesian University of Education 

& 

Follower Open Course Ware at MIT-Harvard University, M.A., U.S.A.

Q: But don't we know all about the gravity of Black Holes and how even light can't escape?

A: No. This often-repeated error is based on a clear oversight. Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear energy andphysically collapses. But starlight only shines from intact, functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to  expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out, smashed light bulb. This is a commonly repeated error in plain view that is intended to showcase and dramatize our scientists' deep understanding of Black Holes and gravity, but which actually exposes how little is truly understood about either.

Q: How can scientists be so mystified by gravity yet also claim to explain it?

A: This is a basic conflict in our science. It is the function of our educational institutions to teach the beliefs of the day and to stand by them no matter what. This often means justifying or defending theories that are actually indefensible upon any serious close inspection. Take a good look at these examples of fatally flawed explanations related to gravity in plain view, which are commonly taught as correct in physics classes around the world today:

1) Gravitational Perpetual Motion:

As we all know, perpetual motion machines are impossible, and claims of such devices are a clear sign of bad science. No device (or natural phenomenon) can expend energy without draining a power source, and certainly cannot operate with no power source at all. Yet our science states that an object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would be accelerated to the center by gravity, then decelerated as it approached the other end, only to be accelerated down again, over and over – endlessly.

Even our most elementary physics states that it takes energy expenditure from a known power source to accelerate and decelerate objects, yet there is no power source in site here, let alone adraining one. Despite detailed atomic theories and even having split the atom, science has never identified a gravitational power source. This describes an actively operating mechanism that never ends and never drains a power source – an impossible perpetual motion scenario, according to today’s physics.

2) The Work formula:

When all else fails, we are told not to worry about the gravitational power source because gravity never does any work throughout the universe. According to today’s science, all of the gravity-driven dynamics in our universe occur without any work being done, therefore there is no reason to expect energy expenditure from any power source – no power is required for any of it. We are told that objects are pinned forcefully and continually to the planet by gravity, but since they just sit there, even though forcefully pinned down, no energy source is required to explain this.

How can such a claim be justified?

Simple – ignore the physical gravitational energy expenditure and recast it as a formal Work scenario.

Why does this suddenly seem to solve such a deep physical problem?

Because the formal definition of Work in physics is: (force applied) x(distance moved).

Note: this is not the form of work that we all relate to, where expending energy is doing work. Instead, Work, by definition, ignores all energy expended unless it happens to move something. While this formal Work definition does calculate the energy expended to move objects it will also obviously give a zero result whenever an applied force cannot move an object, such as when we push on a wall or when gravity pulls on an object that is already on the ground. Of course this does not mean no energy was expended, but simply that the Workequation was only designed to deal with a very limited energy scenario where the applied force happens to move something.

It is an extremely grievous elementary abuse of physics to borrow the formal Work formula and misapply it to a scenario where no motion exists just to claim that the "zero work" result means no energy source is required to forcefully pin objects to the ground. Part of the reason this explanation has been allowed to slide for so long is because this very limited Work definition has the same name as the actual concept of energy-driven work that we are familiar with.

So when an authority figure presents a formal "Work" equation from a physics textbook and does a calculation that gives a "zero work" result, apparently resolving enormous questions about gravity in our science, it is difficult to resist the "no work, no energy" assurance from a teacher, which everyone else seems ok with, never to seriously question it again. And so it goes, generation after generation, leading to the current mess we have over common gravity in our science today.

Even the forceful constraining of the moon in its orbit is said to require no energy, since the Work equation is also defined to give zero when an object moves perpendicular to the applied force. So the fact that gravity pulls downward on the passing moon is said to free science from acknowledging the enormous energy that must be required to constrain the moon in orbit.

Not only is this just as grievous and elementary an error as shown above for all the same reasons, but it further mistakes the motion of the passing moon as pertinent to the calculation. In actuality, the moon already had a pre-existing coasting motion past the planet that has nothing to do with gravity’s pull. It is the continual motion of the moon downward due to the downward pull of gravity that keeps its coasting constrained to circle the planet rather than proceeding off into deep space.

Once the thinly veiled "zero work" excuses are removed, it is clear to see that none of today’s gravity theories can answer even the simplest physical questions about gravity, which is why the Work equation diversion technique is used over and over in classrooms around the world when such questions arise, since the only alternative is to admit "I don’t know".

Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity endlessly without draining a power source? 

A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to today's science.

It certainly takes tremendous energy to cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge magnet clings endlessly to the fridge bymagnetic energy. And, as both our science and our experience tell us, such an expenditure of energy requires that a power source be drawn upon to support such effort.

Yet a permanent magnet not only maintains its strength indefinitely (no theory or textbook shows the power drain characteristics of a permanent magnet as it clings against the pull of gravity), but there isn’t even a power source in sight! Endless magnetic energy apparently emanates from permanent magnets without any explanation in our science.

The only explanation that any physicist will give for this mystery is that there is no mystery since the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if you plug this into the Work equation – a severely flawed diversionary tactic that was exposed above. No physicist will acknowledge the error of applying the Work equation to deny the ongoing magnetic energy expenditure, nor agree that a power source is required to cling energetically against gravity.

This excerpt from an article on magnetism in Discover Magazine, Dec. 2002, further makes this point:

Moreover, asking that question [why some non-metallic objects are magnetic] inevitably lets you in on a surprising secret: Physicists are also a little fuzzy about those bits of iron alloy attached to your refrigerator. "Only a few people understand -- or think they understand -- how a permanent magnet works," says Makarova [a Russian physicist working at Umea University in Sweden]. "The magnet of everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a quantum- mechanics thing ... I'm just working as an engineer, trying to find out where the magnetism comes from."

Q: How can freezing water expand, even bursting metal pipes, with no energy input to explain it?

A: According to today's science, this is impossible. Every output of energy requires a balancing energy input in order to remain within our laws of physics. A balloon left in the sun will expand and burst, in the process doing work against the surrounding atmosphere and its elastic skin, which is balanced by the energy input from the sun, so it is no mystery.

However, freezing water has no energy input in fact, just theopposite. Energy continually drains from the water as it cools toward freezing. So, how does the water suddenly expand with such force from within that it easily bursts metal pipes? No solid answers to this mystery can be found from today's scientists only confused hand-waving diversionary responses that still do not answer this clear energy balance violation.

Q: How do heavy objects rest on a table without its molecules giving way, collapsing the table?

A: Science has no viable explanation for this today. This mystery is similar to the mystery of the fridge magnet. Atomic bonds are said to result from electromagnetic energy attracting and holding atoms together. Yet, there is no denying that tremendous ongoing energy expenditure is required to hold the structure of a table together under the weight of a heavy object. Where does this energy come from? How quickly does this subatomic power source drain as it expends all this energy? Today's science has no explanation for this everyday occurrence, so such questions are never discussed.

Q: Light slows as it passes through water or glass, causing it to bend, but how can it return to light-speed on its own once it exits?

A: This is impossible in today's science. No object in nature can speed up of its own accord after being slowed. A bullet doesn't spontaneously speed up after it is slowed by passing through a wooden block, so how does a photon of light mysteriously return to its original speed once it exits a glass block? Also, continuously shining a light beam through a glass block will heat it, creating the further mystery that the beam actually loses energy as it passes through the glass, yet still manages to accelerate to its original speed upon exit. Today's science cannot explain this mysterious everyday occurrence.

Here is another related mystery: Bounce a light-beam between two parallel mirrors at a slight angle so that the beam bounces along the mirrors in a zig-zag pattern. How many bounces will it take before the light beam loses energy and slows down appreciably? 1000 bounces? 10,000? Of course, we know that the light beam will never slow down no matter how many times it bounces back and forth, despite the well-established fact that light imparts a small momentum punch when it bounces off objects (the principle behind solar sails). So, how does a single beam of light impart countless momentum punches as it zig-zags between the mirrors, yet still manage to emerge afterward at the same unchanging speed of light?

According to today's science this is an impossible energy-for-free event.

To Be Continued  

Sources:

1. http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Astrobiology and Space Exploration

"Keinginan umat manusia untuk menemukan kehidupan yang lebih indah di luar sana selalu mendorong kreativitasnya"

~Arip Nurahman~

4. Origins of Cell Membranes and the RNA-First Hypothesis

 

Stanford University Course

 

In January of 2011, David Deamer returned to lecture on his current publication Non-enzymatic transfer of sequence information under plausible prebiotic conditions, with Feliz Olasagasti et al, Biochemie (ePub Jan15, 2011) and review his previous work on the self-assembly of protocells, and single-strand RNA detection with a nanopore derived from staphylococcus.

Watch Professor Deamer’s latest lecture from January 2011playlist:
The first of five parts is embedded below:

Below you will find a list of recommended resources. If you would like to learn more about the Big Bang, check out these books, videos, and articles.

In February of 2009, David Deamer lectured on “Self-Assembly Processes and the Advent of Cellular Life” and was joined by Eric Devor, who lectured on “Genomic Dark Matter: The Emergence of Small RNAs.” You can view both of these lectures at the Astrobiology 2009 class of Stanford on iTunes

Eric Devor is affiliated with Integrated DNA Technologies and researches microRNA.

Further Resources:
Singh, Simon. “The Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe”. New York: Fourth Estate, 2005.
Riordan, Michael and William A. Zajc. “The First Few Microseconds”. Scientific American Magazine: May, 2006.
Roos, Matts. “Expansion of the Universe – Standard Big Bang Model”. UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Supporting Systems, 14 Feb. 2008.

Sumber:
1. Stanford University
2. NASA

Ucapan Terima Kasih:

1. Bapak. Prof. Dr. Ing. H. B. J. Habibie.

2. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional

3. Kementrian Riset dan Teknologi

4. Lembaga Penerbangan dan Antariksa Nasional




Disusun Ulang Oleh:

Arip Nurahman

Department of Physics, Indonesia University of Education

&

Follower Open Course Ware at MIT-Harvard University, Cambridge.USA.

Semoga Bermanfaat dan Terima Kasih

Para Peraih Nobel dari California Institue of Technology I

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom. The glib supposition of utilizing atomic energy when our coal has run out is a completely unscientific Utopian dream, a childish bug-a-boo. Nature has introduced a few fool-proof devices into the great majority of elements that constitute the bulk of the world, and they have no energy to give up in the process of disintegration."

 ~Prof. Robert A. Millikan, 1928 at the Chemists' Club (New York)

ROBERT ANDREWS MILLIKAN (1868–1953)

 
Robert A. Millikan was Caltech’s first Nobel Prize winner. He was awarded the physics prize in 1923 for isolating the electron and measuring its charge. 

An impressive experimentalist, Millikan is also credited with the verification of Einstein’s photoelectric equations and with the numerical determination of Planck’s constant. 

He also initiated serious study of cosmic rays, and in fact gave them their present nam.

Millikan left a professorship at the University of Chicago to become director of Caltech’s new Norman Bridge Laboratory of Physics in 1921. 

With George Ellery Hale and A. A. Noyes, Millikan formed the executive council that molded the Institute into a preeminent research university. Refusing the presidency of Caltech, he instead served as the chairman of the council from 1921 until his retirement in 1945. 

In his will, he left one-fifth of his estate—$100,000—as an endowment fund for one of his favorite campus organizations: the Caltech Y.

THOMAS HUNT MORGAN (1866–1945)

 
Thomas Hunt Morgan won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1933 for his chromosome theory of heredity. On the basis of experimental research with the fruit fly (Drosophila), he demonstrated that genes are linked in a series on chromosomes and that they determine identifiable, hereditary traits. 

An embryologist by training, Morgan turned his attention to Drosophila in 1908. On the basis of fly-breeding experiments, he developed a hypothesis of sex-linked characteristics, which he theorized were part of the X chromosome of females.

In 1928, he came to Caltech to organize work in biology. 

The most influential biologist in America at that time, Morgan pioneered the new science of genetics, the essential science for the future of biology. In 1930, he also established a marine biology laboratory at Corona del Mar (the lab is still in use today). 

By then, Morgan had left Drosophila genetics and had returned to his earlier interest in developmental biology.

He often spent weekends at the marine station working with an organism called the sea squirt. He remained on the Caltech faculty for the rest of his career. 

CARL DAVID ANDERSON (1905–1991)

 
Carl D. Anderson was a corecipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1936, when he was only 31 years old and still an assistant professor at Caltech. 

Anderson won the prize for discovering the positron, the first empirical evidence for the existence of antimatter, in the course of his cosmic-ray researches. (He shared the physics prize with Victor F. Hess of Austria, the discoverer of cosmic rays.) It was Robert A. Millikan, Anderson’s graduate advisor, who had steered Anderson into cosmic-ray research.

Anderson arrived at Caltech in 1923 as an 18-year-old freshman, and never left. He discovered the positron in 1932, using a cloud chamber. 

Shortly thereafter, Anderson and his graduate student, Seth Neddermeyer, discovered mu-mesons, or muons. During World War II, Caltech scientists produced and tested land and aircraft rockets for the United States Navy. 

Anderson supervised the testing of aircraft rockets at China Lake and later visited the front lines in Europe to observe how the rockets performed. 

He served as chair of the Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy from 1962 to 1970, and was named emeritus in 1976.

EDWIN MATTISON MCMILLAN (1907–1991)

Edwin M. McMillan won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1951 for his discovery of element 93, neptunium, the first so-called transuranium (heavier than uranium) element. He shared the prize that year with Glenn T. Seaborg.

McMillan received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Caltech in 1928 and 1929, respectively, then earned his doctorate at Princeton University in 1932. 

He then accepted a faculty position at the University of California, Berkeley, where he was named professor in 1946 and director of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory in 1958. He discovered neptunium, a decay product of uranium-239, in 1940, while studying nuclear fission. 

In 1945, he made a major advance in the development of Ernest Lawrence’s cyclotron, when he synchronized the device’s electrical pulses to allow atoms to accelerate indefinitely. McMillan served as president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1968 to 1971.

LINUS CARL PAULING (1901–1994)

 
Linus Pauling was the only winner of two unshared Nobel Prizes in different categories. He is also considered by many to be the greatest chemist of the 20th century. 

He was awarded the 1954 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on molecular structure and chemical bonds, and he won the Peace Prize in 1962 for his efforts to prevent the testing and use of nuclear weapons.

Pauling came to Caltech as a graduate student, receiving his PhD in physical chemistry in 1925. 

He then joined the faculty, becoming a full professor in 1931 (at the age of 30), and chair of the chemistry and chemical engineering division six years later. 

In addition to his research on chemical bonding, he made important discoveries in molecular biology, such as identifying the genetic defect in the hemoglobin molecule that causes sickle-cell disease. 

In 1951, Pauling and Robert Corey discovered the alpha helix structure that serves as a universal structural building block for protein molecules. 

In the 1970s, Pauling provoked controversy by suggesting that large doses of Vitamin C would promote good health. After leaving Caltech in 1963, he was a member of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, a professor at Stanford University, and director of research at the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine in Palo Alto.

WILLIAM BRADFORD SHOCKLEY (1910–1989)

William B. Shockley shared the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics with John Bardeen and Walter H. Brattain for their development of the transistor, which largely replaced the much-larger, less-efficient vacuum tube and made possible the construction of microelectronic devices.

Schockley received his BS degree at Caltech in 1932; he then earned a PhD at Harvard. In 1936, he accepted a position on the technical staff of Bell Labs, where he began the work that ultimately produced the transistor. He served as director of research for the Antisubmarine Warfare Operations Research Group of the U.S. Navy during World War II. 

Schockley returned to Caltech in 1954 as a visiting professor of physics, then worked for a year as deputy director of Weapons Systems Evaluation for the Department of Defense. 

He joined Beckman Instruments, Inc., in 1955, and founded the Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory there. In 1958, he went to Stanford University, where he became the first Poniatoff Professor of Engineering Science in 1963. 

He retired in 1974.

Sumber:

California Institute of Technology

http://www.pma.caltech.edu/GSR/physics.html

Nobel Prize