Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Question About Gravitation Part III

 "Rasa Keingintahuan umat manusia akan mendorong munculnya penemuan dan penciptaan mahakarya abadi" 

 Edited and Added By:
Arip Nurahman 
Department of Physics Faculty of Sciences and Mathematics, 
Indonesian University of Education 

"Gravitasi tidak bertanggung jawab terhadap orang-orang yang sedang jatuh cinta"

~Albert Einstein~

Q: Why is Einstein's Special Relativity Theory so bizarre? Is our universe really that strange?
A: Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake. Not only can clear errors be found in all supporting experiments and thought experiments, but even Einstein's own mathematical support for his theory has clear fatal errors. One of the flaws is so striking that two key lines were omitted from Einstein's published Special Relativity derivation found in his own book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, published in 1961. 

A closer look at this derivation shows a large leap of logic that cannot be properly followed unless several missing lines are filled in. There is only one mathematically viable way to fill in these missing lines, which is shown below in simplified form: 

Line 1: x = a + b — note: speed-of-light term, c, has dropped out entirely by this point 
Line 2: x = a + b * (c^2/ c^2) — the undefined symbol, c, is artificially re-introduced

Now, let the symbol y stand for the expression (b * c^2) Line 3: x = a + y / c^2 — the symbol, c, is kept from cancelling by hiding it within y in the numerator The two missing lines, now added above as lines 1 & 2, show that the speed-of-light term drops out of the derivation entirely and should never have appeared in the final equations. 

The above improper mathematical operations are the only way to add it back in, yet do not actually add the speed of light back at all, but only the meaningless letter C from the alphabet. 

Any letter from A to Z could have been chosen, showing how meaningless and arbitrary it was to choose the letter C, which was used to represent the speed of light earlier in the derivation before it dropped out completely. See if you can spot this yourself around lines 6 and 7 in.
Einstein’s own derivation

Further, this is not the only fatal flaw in Einstein's derivation, but one of many. Variables are arbitrarily assigned and reassigned different values, then expressions from earlier in the derivation, which were only valid prior to these arbitrary value changes, are re-used as if they were still valid. In actuality, there is no viable mathematical support for Einstein's Special Relativity Theory at all. 

Don’t believe it? Again, look for yourself at the link above. Einstein's reputation has grown to such heights and his theories have become so deeply ingrained in our science today that few scientists, if any, are willing to seriously investigate this matter and see the errors that are in plain view.

Q: If our universe isn't the bizarre place Einstein claimed it is, why is there apparently so much experimental support? 

A: Examine the support for yourself and you will see it vanish. Einstein was a creative thinker who made great contributions to our science, but it is very dangerous to allow his reputation to blind us to the clear logical flaws and highly questionable claims in the apparent support for his theories. Below is a famous thought experiment frequently used to support Einstein’s Special Relativity theory, yet a little critical analysis shows that it not only fails to support this theory, but it actually disproves many of the core claims of both Special Relativity andGeneral Relativity theories.

Don’t believe it? Who could blame you, given the supposed mountain of support for Einstein and his theories, so read on and judge for yourself!

The Twin Paradox Thought Experiment

This famous thought experiment claims than an astronaut who speeds off close to light speed would return to find his twin far older than him, due to the mysteries of ‘time dilation’ in Special Relativity theory, where time slows down the faster you go. Yet this same theory shows this claim is impossible. Since all speed is relative in Special Relativity, it is just as valid to consider the twin on Earth to be speeding along while the astronaut sits in space, making the astronaut the elder twin in the end.

Two completely different unresolvable outcomes occur simply based on how we think about the situation, which is clearly impossible. Many physicists will either volunteer this famous thought experiment to demonstrate Special Relativity or will sit quietly while others do so, but point out the obvious fatal flaw above and they will immediately retract it, denying the flaw by pointing out that the astronaut was the only one physically accelerating, so there is only one way to look at the situation.

Then they will claim that this accelerated scenario actually puts it in the realm of General Relativity, which verifies this time dilation claim beautifully. At this point everyone usually agrees that it was silly to question Einstein anyway, and the discussion ends.

But wait!

Have you spotted the numerous problems already?

Problem #1: 
This thought experiment famously appears in nearly all introductions to Special Relativity ever presented, as evidence for the bizarre truths of this theory, yet it is always retracted when challenged (and usually only when challenged).

Problem #2:
The basis for the retraction is that a clear logical flaw was demonstrated in the very concept of ‘time dilation’ in Special Relativity – a core feature of the theory and an effect often claimed to have been experimentally verified in support of this theory. It is frequently claimed that satellite GPS systems rely on corrections for ‘time dilation’ according to Special Relativity, or that atomic clocks flown on airplanes have verified ’time dilation’ according to Special Relativity. So the retraction of this famous Special Relativity thought experiment in favor of General Relativity, is no small detail, wiping out enormous theoretical and experimental pillars of support for Special Relativity, in one fell swoop. Yet this fact just sails right past as the focus is nonchalantly switched to General Relativity.

Problem #3:
As the discussion usually ends once the expert claims that General Relativity solves the problem, there is often no burden of proof on the expert to back up even this claim. It is usually sufficient to reference this even less understood theory by our greatest known scientist in order to save face even if the ’expert’ actually knows little or nothing about General Relativity.

Problem #4: 
General Relativity doesn’t solve this problem either! A core concept of General Relativity is that it is fundamentally impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity on Earth from that of accelerating through space at the rate of 1g. This is known as the Principle of Equivalence.

So, even according to General Relativity, the astronaut could accelerate to even 99% of light speed and travel for as long as he wished, and upon return to Earth there would be no mysterious ‘time dilation’ effects whatsoever; his twin would be the same age as him. That is according to both Special Relativity and General Relativity – no ‘relativistic time dilation’, no ‘relativistic mass increase’, and no ‘relativistic length contraction’.

Further, as stated earlier above, General Relativity fails so completely to explain the motion of stars in galaxies that concepts as wild as mysterious ‘Dark Matter’ filling the universe must be invented to try to retain the theory. So, what exactly is going on with all the claims about Einstein’s Relativity Theories by our scientists?

Q: Are there really such elementary problems even with General Relativity?

A: Yes, those mentioned above and more. Consider the central concept of General Relativity itself -- 'warped space-time'. We have all seen the graphic of a rubber sheet ("space-time") deformed by a heavy sphere (the sun), with the planets "following the warp". There are, of course, many serious problems with this notion (neither actual empty space nor proposed "space-time" are physically even remotely like a 2-D rubber sheet, gravity must mysteriously pre-exist to pull the sphere down to cause the warping that is said to cause gravity, what does it even mean to pull the sphere "down" into the "sheet" once this simplified analogy is extended by another dimension to actual 3-D space or 4-D "space-time", etc.) But even allowing this to be a mere visual aid just to capture the imagination, there remains a further glaring problem.

Such a "space-time grid" permeating the universe is an absolute universal reference grid no different than the flawed ether theory it replaced over this very issue. This leaves it as yet another theory of absolutes and not one of relativity at all according to "General Relativity", all motion is in reference to a fixed, absolute 'space-time' grid permeating the universe.

So General Relativity's basic definition completely undoes its very reason for existence, just as shown earlier with Special Relativity. Yet, despite the many serious conceptual flaws at the very core of both relativity theories, such discussions are not even open for sincere consideration in our educational system or science media. Einstein's reputation has been elevated to such god-like heights over the years that to sincerely point out even such clear flaws in plain view is considered unthinkable heresy by many who see themselves as members of the scientific community. Perhaps now, more than ever, we need to heed this quote:

     "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"
 ~Albert Einstein~

Q: Since particles never exceed light-speed in accelerators, doesn't this prove Einstein right?

A: No, this simply reveals the true nature of electric and magnetic fields. These experiments claim that tiny subatomic particles gain so much mass near light speed that they are impossible to accelerate any further, even if the entire power output of a city were put to the task.

Sound far-fetched? Yes, of course it is! The only reason particles can't be accelerated past light speed is because that is the limit of the method used to accelerate the particles. If the electric or magnetic fields used for accelerating particles have an inherent speed-of-light acceleration limit themselves then more energy will only make each push more solid, but will never accelerate particles beyond this built-in speed limit of the machine itself. But today's scientists don't truly understand the nature of electricity or magnetism if they did they would be able to explain how magnets cling endlessly to refrigerators.

Q: What about atomic clocks flown on jets, which seem to show Einstein's Time Dilation Effect?

A: Even Einstein’s own theory shows this is impossible! As shown above in the Twin Paradox explanation, Einstein's Special Relativity Theory has a logical flaw, initially appearing to predict such effects, but a closer examination shows that they should not occur. We could consider either the airplane or the Earth below to be in motion since everything is relative, giving totally opposite results. So, even according to Einstein's own theory there should be no absolute time difference when an atomic clock is flown on a jet. This is a theory that clearly displays its own futility, which should be expected from any theory whose basic mathematical support is propped up by clear errors and improper hidden mathematical operations.

So why do we hear reports of success in these atomic clock experiments? Since we have no rational or scientific reason to expect such effects, it stands to reason that these reports are either erroneous or they reflect other effects such as turbulence or acceleration effects on the plane and instruments. Note that although it is commonly stated that atomic clocks operate by reading the inner oscillations of individual atoms, in actuality they are very cumbersome, delicate instruments that operate on the external properties of clouds of atoms as they are accelerated and irradiated by various fields. One could imagine many ways in which the delicate machinery of an atomic clock might be affected by a variety of environmental influences that might occur on an airplane flight.

Again, Einstein's own relativity theory states that we could look at the situation from either perspective a moving atomic clock on a jet or a stationary clock and jet as theEarth moves instead invalidating any claims that one absolute result was experimentally observed.

Q: Isn't there still further evidence that appears to support Special Relativity Theory though?

A: Yes there are still further lab experiments and thought experiments that are commonly touted as proof, each of which can be readily shown to either have clear logical flaws or simple commonsense explanations other than "time dilation", "relativistic mass increase", or "space-time contraction".

Q: Did it really all begin with a "Big Bang" where all the matter in the universe was compressed to a space smaller than an atom?

A: Of course not. Today’s belief in the Big Bang / Expanding Universe theories has even led today’s astronomers to claim that some type of mysterious antigravity force is pushing the galaxies apart -- faster and faster the more distant they are. Such a force has never been observed in any experiment or explained by any scientific theory, and it even violates our most cherished laws of physics.

Where does this mysterious force come from and how is its ever-accelerating effect powered? Even the term "Big Bang" first arose as a disparaging reference to this theory from the noted astronomer Fred Hoyle.

The only reason this concept ever arose is because light from distant galaxies is Red-Shifted i.e. it arrives with its colors shifted toward the low end of the visible spectrum where red light resides. It was assumed that this was the same as the Doppler Effect for sound, which describes the shift to lower frequencies in sound waves from objects that are speeding away.

However, sound waves are completely different from light. Sound is not pure "sound energy" but compression waves within an atmosphere of air molecules, while light is considered to be a very strange form of pure energy, full of "quantum-mechanical" mysteries and paradoxes.

Not only is there no clear scientific reason to link the Doppler Effect of sound with the Red Shift of light, but it is well known that light is easily red shifted by simply passing it through gases or plastics. The Compton Effect is a very well known cause for shifts in light frequency, and has nothing to do with motion of the light source.

And as any astronomer knows, distant starlight passes through billions of light-years of various gases, plasmas, and fields before arriving at our telescopes. Is it any surprise that the further away a galaxy is, the more Red-Shifted its light?

Q: OK, so scientists are still struggling to even explain gravity, but isn’t this just academic? Doesn't today's science still function fine?

A: Absolutely not! As just mentioned, we have no explanation for the power source for gravity, we have numerous theories of gravity in our science right now (Newton’s, Einstein’s, Quantum Gravity, MOND, TeVeS, etc.), and all these theories have impossible physical implications that overturn everything we know about matter and energy, violate our laws of physics or simply fall apart upon serious critical inspection. The recent "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" inventions are prime examples. This is no small failure of our current science!

Q: It is often stated that Quantum Mechanics is one of the most accurate and elegant theories in science. Is this correct?

A: Given our lack of understanding of so much in nature today,we have no choice but to invent theories and refine or even hammer them into experimental agreement. There is no doubt that something very different occurs within the atom (and in the phenomenon known as energy today), and it shouldn't be surprising that we are resourceful enough to invent some sort of explanation, but we have mistaken models for reality.Quantum Mechanics is merely a very bizarre, mysterious mathematical model that has undergone tremendous work by generations of scientists straining for experimental agreement. As a result, it makes all manner of counterintuitive, bizarre claims about our world, when in actuality ours is a very simple, commonsense world when seen from the right perspective. To quote from the article:

by staff writer and editor George Musser, Scientific American, Sept 2004:

"As Einstein was among the first to realize, quantum mechanics, too, is incomplete. It offers no reason for why individual physical events happen, provides no way to get at objects' intrinsic properties and has no compelling conceptual foundations."

And from "The Master's Mistakes" by Karen Wright, Discover magazine, Sept 2004:

"In the 1920s quantum mechanics became the rage, and it advanced by leaps and bounds, thanks in large part to Einstein's persistent efforts to discredit it."

Q: Is light really sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle (the photon)?

A: The true nature of light has been hotly debated for centuries. Today's science states light is mysteriously both a wave and a particle, depending on the detection method. This bizarre belief even leads to the conclusion that detecting starlight as either a wave or a particle then instantly reaches back billions of years in space and time to determine the corresponding form in which the light was originally transmitted. Such impossible time travel beliefs show just how lost today's science is due to its blind belief in quantum-mechanical theory as the truephysical description of nature.

In fact, it is very easy to debunk even our simplest beliefs about light today. For example, it is currently believed light-waves somehow "cancel" in "destructive interference" when they meet out of phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the valleys of another.
Yet, a simple experiment crossing 2 light-beams from common laser pointers shows that it is impossible for light to vanish into thin air simply because 2 beams are mis-aligned (out of phase). In fact, it is a violation of the Law Of Conservation Of Energy to even expect this to occur. Light is not a mysterious quantum-mechanical wave-particle entity, but something much simpler to understand.

Q: But don't the famous Double-Slit experiments verify both the wave theory of light and its bizarre quantum-mechanical particle nature?

A: No. In fact, quite the opposite. For generations this erroneous belief has simply been repeated without thinking it through. The wavelike interference pattern in this experiment is always equated to water waves interfering. But water waves are not "waves of pure water energy" in the same manner that we think of waves of light energy; they are a wavelike group behavior of countless particles (water molecules). Interference patterns between water waves are the result of interaction between groups of particles, not "waves of pure water energy".
So, why is this analogy used as proof that a similar interference pattern between light-beams is an interaction between "waves of pure light energy"? Simply because our instructors merely accept and repeat what they’ve been told, mentally locking themselves and us into the flawed science legacy that we have inherited. In actuality though, the Double Slit experiment is clear evidence for an interaction between groups of countless particlesof light, just as the water-wave analogy would imply.

But what is meant by "particles of light"? This is not a reference to today's even more mysterious quantum-mechanical photons, but something much simpler that arises from the same sub-atomic principle that runs throughout The Final Theory. Also, this new perspective solves the mystery of why an interference pattern appears even when individual light photons are shot one by one through the slits.

The answer is really quite simple and straightforward, removing all the mysterious and bizarre "quantum-mechanical" myths we are taught today. Further, with the new understanding that this experiment shows group particle interaction and not individual energy wave iinterference, it is now easy to see why experiments with beams of electrons also show a similar interference pattern.

Far from proof that even matter (electrons) has a bizarre wave-particle dual nature (as Quantum Mechanics states today), this merely shows straightforward particle interaction, just as we would expect from electrons. 
But what does this all mean?

To Be Continued



Friday, 23 September 2011

A Unified Physics By 2050 Part IV

"Aku hanya ingin menanamkan benih-benih cinta kasih kepada sesama" 

  A Unified Physics by 2050?


By: Prof. Steven Weinberg, Ph.D.

Outside of Space-time

Two great obstacles stand in the way of this task. One is that we do not know what physical principles govern the fundamental theory. In developing general relativity, Einstein was guided by a principle he had inferred from the known properties of gravitation, the principle of the equivalence of gravitational forces to inertial effects such as centrifugal force. The development of the Standard Model was guided by a principle known asgauge symmetry, a generalization of the well-known property of electricity that it is only differences of voltages that matter, not voltages themselves.

But we have not discovered any fundamental principle that governs M-theory. The various approximations to this theory look like string or field theories in space-times of different dimensionalities, but it seems probable that the fundamental theory is not to be formulated in space-time at all. Quantum field theory is powerfully constrained by principles concerning the nature of four-dimensional space-time that are incorporated in the special theory of relativity. How can we get the ideas we need to formulate a truly fundamental theory, when this theory is to describe a realm where all intuitions derived from life in space-time become inapplicable?

The other obstacle is that even if we were able to formulate a fundamental theory, we might not know how to use it to make predictions that could confirm its validity. Most of the successful predictions of the Standard Model have been based on a method of calculation known as perturbation theory. In quantum mechanics the rates of physical processes are given by sums over all possible sequences of intermediate steps by which the process may occur. 

Using perturbation theory, one first considers only the simplest intermediate steps, then the next simplest, and so on. This works only if increasingly complicated intermediate steps make decreasingly large contributions to the rate, which is usually the case if the forces involved are sufficiently weak. Sometimes a theory with very strong forces is equivalent to another theory with very weak forces, which can be solved by the methods of perturbation theory. This seems to be true of some pairs of the five string theories in 10 dimensions and the field theory in 11 dimensions mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, the forces of the fundamental theory are probably neither very strong nor very weak, ruling out any use of perturbation theory.

Image: Johnny Johnson

COUPLING STRENGTHS OF INTERACTIONS are not truly coupling "constants" and slowly change value depending on energy, a process that is accurately described by quantum field theory and verified by experiment up to 200 GeV. Theoretical extrapolation shows that the three Standard Model forces (the strong force and the unified weak and electromagnetic forces) have roughly equal strength at very high energy (a), and the equality is improved by allowing for supersymmetry (b). Curve thickness indicates approximate uncertainty in the coupling strengths.

Recognizing the Answer

It is impossible to say when these problems will be overcome. They may be solved in a preprint put out tomorrow by some young theorist. They may not be solved by 2050, or even 2150. But when they are solved, even though we cannot do experiments at 1016 GeV or look into higher dimensions, we will not have any trouble in recognizing the truth of the fundamental unified theory. The test will be whether the theory successfully accounts for the measured values of the physical constants of the Standard Model, along with whatever other effects beyond the Standard Model may have been discovered by then.

It is possible that when we finally understand how particles and forces behave at energies up to 1018 GeV, we will just find new mysteries, with a final unification as far away as ever. But I doubt it. There are no hints of any fundamental energy scale beyond 1018 GeV, and string theory even suggests that higher energies have no meaning.

The discovery of a unified theory that describes nature at all energies will put us in a position to answer the deepest questions of cosmology: Did the expanding cloud of galaxies we call the big bang have a beginning at a definite time in the past? Is our big bang just one episode in a much larger universe in which big and little bangs have been going on eternally? If so, do what we call the constants of nature or even the laws of nature vary from one bang to another?

This will not be the end of physics. It probably won't even help with some of the outstanding problems of today's physics, such as understanding turbulence and high-temperature superconductivity. But it will mark the end of a certain kind of physics: the search for a unified theory that entails all other facts of physical science.

The End

Further Reading:

1. Unified Theories of Elementary-Particle Interaction. Steven Weinberg in Scientific American, Vol. 231, No. 1, pages 50-59; July 1974.

2. Dreams of a Final Theory. Steven Weinberg. Pantheon Books, 1992.

3. Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime. Edward Witten in Physics Today, Vol. 49, No. 4, pages 24-30; April 1996.

4. Duality, Spacetime and Quantum Mechanics. Edward Witten in Physics Today, Vol. 50, No. 5, pages 28-33; May 1997.

5. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. Brian Greene. W. W. Norton,1999. 

The Author

STEVEN WEINBERG is head of the Theory Group at the University of Texas at Austin and a member of its physics and astronomy departments. His work in elementary particle physics has been honored with numerous prizes and awards, including the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979 and the National Medal of Science in 1991. 

The third volume (Supersymmetry) of his treatise The Quantum Theory of Fields is out from Cambridge University Press. The second volume (Modern Applications) was hailed as being "unmatched by any other book on quantum field theory for its depth, generality and definitive character."

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

Belajar Kepada Para Fisikawan Legendaris

15–16th century

16–17th century

17–18th century

18–19th century

19th century

19–20th century

20th century

20–21st century

Theoretical physicists in pop culture

Sunday, 18 September 2011

Question About Gravitation Part II

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

Edited and Added By:

Arip Nurahman

Department of Physics 
Faculty of Sciences and MathematicsIndonesian University of Education 



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.


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  



Saturday, 10 September 2011

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.

1. Stanford University

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

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

Para Peraih Nobel dari California Institue of Technology I

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

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 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 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 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 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 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.


California Institute of Technology

Nobel Prize

Sunday, 4 September 2011

Menyusun Visi Industri Antariksa Indonesia

Visi Misi Program Langkah Strategis

Practical techniques

Further information: List of orbits

Transfer orbits

Transfer orbits allow spacecraft to move from one orbit to another. Usually they require a burn at the start, a burn at the end, and sometimes one or more burns in the middle. The Hohmann transfer orbit typically requires the least delta-v, but any orbit that intersects both the origin orbit and destination orbit may be used.

Gravity assist and the Oberth effect

In a gravity assist, a spacecraft swings by a planet and leaves in a different direction, at a different velocity. This is useful to speed or slow a spacecraft instead of carrying more fuel.
This maneuver can be approximated by an elastic collision at large distances, though the flyby does not involve any physical contact. Due to Newton's Third Law (equal and opposite reaction), any momentum gained by a spacecraft must be lost by the planet, or vice versa. However, because the planet is much, much more massive than the spacecraft, the effect on the planet's orbit is negligible.
The Oberth effect can be employed, particularly during a gravity assist operation. This effect is that use of a propulsion system works better at high speeds, and hence course changes are best done when close to a gravitating body; this can multiply the effective delta-v.

Interplanetary Transport Network and fuzzy orbits

See also: Low energy transfers
It is now possible to use computers to search for routes using the nonlinearities in the gravity of the planets and moons of the solar system. For example, it is possible to plot an orbit from high earth orbit to Mars, passing close to one of the Earth's Trojan points. Collectively referred to as the Interplanetary Transport Network, these highly perturbative, even chaotic, orbital trajectories in principle need no fuel (in practice keeping to the trajectory requires some course corrections). The biggest problem with them is they are usually exceedingly slow, taking many years to arrive. In addition launch windows can be very far apart.
They have, however, been employed on projects such as Genesis. This spacecraft visited Earth's lagrange L1 point and returned using very little propellant.