Date: Sat, 1 May 93 05:08:03 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #503 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Sat, 1 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 503 Today's Topics: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review) Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they. (2 msgs) Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be? HyperKnowledge Vandalizing the sky Vandalizing the sky. Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Apr 93 16:58:38 -0600 From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu Subject: "The Universe of MOTION" (book review) Newsgroups: sci.space (Book Review): "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION", by Dewey B. Larson, 1984, North Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 456 pages, indexed, hardcover. "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most ALL astrophysical mysteries. This book is Volume III of a revised and enlarged edition of "THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE", 1959. Volume I is "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979), and Volume II is "THE BASIC PROPERTIES OF MATTER" (1988). Most books and journal articles on the subject of astrophysics are bristling with integrals, partial differentials, and other FANCY MATHEMATICS. In this book, by contrast, mathematics is conspicuous by its absence, except for some relatively simple formulas imbedded in the text. Larson emphasizes CONCEPTS and declares that mathematical agreement with a theory does NOT guarantee its conceptual validity. Dewey B. Larson was a retired engineer with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering Science from Oregon State University. He developed the Theory described in his books while trying to find a way to MATHEMATICALLY CALCULATE the properties of chemical compounds based ONLY on the elements they contain. "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" describes the astrophysical portions of Larson's CONSISTENT, INTEGRATED, COMPREHENSIVE, GENERAL UNIFIED Theory of the physical universe, a kind of "grand unified field theory" that orthodox physicists and astro-physicists CLAIM to be looking for. It is built on two postulates about the physical and mathematical nature of space and time: (1) The physical universe is composed ENTIRELY of ONE component, MOTION, existing in THREE dimensions, in DISCRETE units, and with two RECIPROCAL aspects, SPACE and TIME. (2) The physical universe conforms to the relations of ORDINARY COMMUTATIVE mathematics, its primary magnitudes are ABSOLUTE, and its geometry is EUCLIDEAN. From these two postulates, Larson was able to build a COMPLETE theoretical universe, from photons and subatomic particles to the giant elliptical galaxies, by combining the concept of INWARD AND OUTWARD SCALAR MOTIONS with translational, vibrational, rotational, and rotational- vibrational motions. At each step in the development, he was able to match parts of his theoretical universe with corresponding parts in the real physical universe, including EVEN THINGS NOT YET DISCOVERED. For example, in his 1959 book, he first predicted the existence of EXPLODING GALAXIES, several years BEFORE astronomers started finding them. They are a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE of his comprehensive Theory. And when quasars were discovered, he had a related explanation ready for those also. As a result of his theory, which he called "THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM", Larson TOTALLY REJECTED many of the sacred doctrines of orthodox physicists and astrophysicists, including black holes, neutron stars, degenerate matter, quantum wave mechanics (as applied to atomic structure), "nuclear" physics, general relativity, relativistic mass increases, relativistic Doppler shifts, nuclear fusion in stars, and the big bang, all of which he considered to be nothing more than MATHEMATICAL FANTASIES. He was very critical of the AD HOC assumptions, uncertainty principles, solutions in principle, "no other way" declarations, etc., used to maintain them. "THE UNIVERSE OF MOTION" is divided into 31 chapters. It begins with a description of how galaxies are built from the gravitational attraction between globular star clusters, which are formed from intergalactic gas and dust clouds that accumulate from the decay products of cosmic rays coming in from the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe. (Galaxy formation from the MYTHICAL "big bang" is a big mystery to orthodox astronomers.) He then goes on to describe life cycles of stars and how binary and multiple star systems and solar systems result from Type I supernova explosions of SINGLE stars. Several chapters are devoted to quasars which, according to Larson, are densely-packed clusters of stars that have been ejected from the central bulges of exploding galaxies and are actually traveling FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT (although most of that speed is AWAY FROM US IN TIME). Astronomers and astrophysicists who run up against observations that contradict their theories would find Larson's explanations quite valuable if considered with an OPEN MIND. For example, they used to believe that GAMMA RAY BURSTS originated from pulsars, which exist primarily in the plane or central bulge of our galaxy. But the new gamma ray telescope in earth orbit observed that the bursts come from ALL DIRECTIONS UNIFORMLY and do NOT correspond with any visible objects, (except for a few cases of directional coincidence). Larson's explanation is that the gamma ray bursts originate from SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS in the ANTI-MATTER HALF of the physical universe, which Larson calls the "cosmic sector". Because the anti-matter universe exists in a RECIPROCAL RELATION to our material universe, with the speed of light as the BOUNDARY between them, and has THREE dimensions of time and ONLY ONE dimension of space, the bursts can pop into our material universe ANYWHERE seemingly at random. Larson heavily quotes or paraphrases statements from books, journal articles, and leading physicists and astronomers. In this book, 351 of them are superscripted with numbers identifying entries in the reference list at the end of the book. For example, a quote from the book "Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey", by William K. Hartmann, says, "Our hopes of understanding all stars would brighten if we could explain exactly how binary and multiple stars form.... Unfortunately we cannot." Larson's book contains LOGICAL CONSISTENT EXPLANATIONS of such mysteries that are WORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION by ALL physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists. For more information, answers to your questions, etc., please consult my CITED SOURCES (Larson's BOOKS). UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Book Review is ENCOURAGED. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1993 08:03:11 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they. Newsgroups: sci.space Well, I seem to have struck an interesting discussion off. Given that I am not an astrophysicist or nuclear physicist, i'll have to boil it down a bit. 1) ALl the data on bursts to date, shows a smooth random distribution. 2) that means they aren't concentrated in galactic cores, our or someone elses. 3) If the distribution is smooth, we are either seeing some ENORMOUSLY large phenomena scattered at the edge of the universe said phenomena being subject to debate almost as vioent as the phenomena OR we are seeing some phenomena out at like the Oort cloud, but then it needs some potent little energy source, that isn't detectable by any other current methods. 4) we know it's not real close, like slightly extra solar, because we have no parallax measurements on the bursts. 5) the bursts seem to bright to be something like black hole quanta or super string impacts or something like that. So everyone is watching the data and arguing like mad in the meanwhile. what i am wondering, is this in people's opinion, A NEW Physics problem. Einstein got well known for solvingthe photoelectric effect. Copernicus, started looking at irregularities in planetary motion. Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics? just a little speculative thinking folks. pat ------------------------------ Date: 29 Apr 1993 13:31:32 +1000 From: Walker Andrew John Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they. Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >In article <1993Apr27.132255.12653@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes: > In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes: > > prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > > > What evidence indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away? > > >Given the enormous power, i was just wondering, what if they are > > >quantum black holes or something like that fairly close by? > > >Why would they have to be at galactic ranges? > . . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic, > 'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or > part of the Oort cloud. > Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge > of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there > isn't a mechanism for the others either. >What on Earth is the "gravisphere"? >Anyway, before it's decay the Pioneer Venus Orbiter >had a gamma ray detector, as does Ulysses, they >detect the brightest bursts that the Earth orbit detectors >do, so the bursts are at least at Oort cloud distances. >In principle four detectors spaced out by a few AU would >see parallax if the bursts are of solar system origin. >_The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely >no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have >to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to >"conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching >by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at >least it was a good try... >* Steinn Sigurdsson Lick Observatory * >* steinly@lick.ucsc.edu "standard disclaimer" * >* The laws of gravity are very,very strict * >* And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988* Also,if they did come from the Oort cloud we would expect to see the same from other stars Oort Clouds. Andrew Walker ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1993 07:38:29 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters How energetic could they be? Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes: |energetic for close by. for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec. |And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call |moderately energetic, I'd say. Any suggestions about what could put out that |much energy in one second? > -jeremy big Capacitor :-) Real Big capacitor. pat ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 93 20:08:41 +0100 From: Georg Tuparev Subject: HyperKnowledge Newsgroups: sci.space ANNOUNCEMENT: The "HyperKnowledge" PROJECT for NeXTSTEP Motivation We are a heterogeneous group of scientists and students who feel that our work is continuously hindered by computer environments dominated by incompatible scientific tools and monstrous software packages (too often claiming to do everything). Rather than being able to use different tools together in a flexible, interactive system, we find ourselves spending too much time converting between different data formats, writing throw-away tools and I/O parsers, and worrying about how to get to a particular goal rather than what it means to have attained it. What we need is an object-oriented scientific environment where the tools we choose to use are integrated without being parts of a closed system, highly interactive, and extendable (both by the addition of our own specialized objects and by combining the available tools - graphically). The use of such an environment should be a natural extension of our work, requiring a very short learning phase and practically no user-documentation. The user should feel encouraged to explore different possibilities, testing his/her own scientific ideas without worrying too much about whether the system is able to cope (within reason, of course). By building an open and object-oriented system, each user should be able to draw upon and combine those tools necessary or conducive to a particular task: we all need to organize and archive our data, display results, and combine information from many different sources. Currently, the group consists of people from very different fields: Molecular Biology, Computer Science, Physics and Astronomy, and Geography. While many of our needs for such an environment diverge, the underlying motivation is the same: no matter what you want to call it, we need a system which helps rather than hinders the organization of our scientific data and daily work. Why NeXTSTEP? What else is there? No other system offers the same power, a totally object-oriented developers environment, UNIX-compatibility, highly-interactive and standardized user-interface. With the advent of NS486 and the expectation that NeXTSTEP will soon appear on a broad range of hardware platforms, such a system will soon be nearly universally available. Classical workstation vendors (SUN, IBM, HP, and the rest) now have little to offer, no similar tools exist for the standard X-Windows GUI, if Apple had a system it would only run on their hardware, and the mass-market Windows/DOS world is a developer's nightmare (either despite, or more probably because of, OLE). In order to progress, we need an open discussion of how best to develop such an environment. In NeXTSTEP parlance, do we simply have to put together a set of scientific protocols and a common API for our "Hyper-knowledge" servers? Should be use distributed objects? What minimum set of tools do we need in order to start working with the environment? What tool-needs do we all have in common and which ones are best developed by specialized sub-groups? How many already existing tools can/should be integrated into the system (e.g. Mathematica)? Do we need an "AVS"-like tool for data-flow manipulation? Mailing list and Anonymous ftp In order to take part to the project or to push the discussion forewords, you are invited to subscribe to: sci-tools@embl-heidelberg.de All (interesting) suggestions, projects and sources will be archive and soon available (anonymous ftp). For questions send mail to sci-tools-help@embl-heidelberg.de Acknowledgments The European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Heidelberg, Germany) has consented to provide the computer resources for a mailing list and anonymous ftp services. Rick Hessman Georg Tuparev ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 93 18:25:04 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Vandalizing the sky Dale sez; >Mr. Hathaway's post is right on the money, if a little lengthy. In short, >an orbiting billboard would be trash, in the same way that a billboard on >the Earth is trash. Billboards make a place look trashy. That is why there >are laws in many places prohibiting their use. The light pollution >complaints are mainly an attempt to find some tangible reason to be against >orbiting billboards because people don't feel morally justified to complain >on the grounds that these things would defile the beauty of the sky. I don't buy it. If the things had no value at all, people wouldn't spend money to make them. So their lack of value is just your opinion, not an actual fact, which is neither a philisophical or legal basis for prohibiting them. On the other hand, I lived in OakBrook IL for a while, where zoning laws prohibit billboards, as you mention above. I think it was a fine law, despite it's contradictory basis. I would guess that the best legal and moral basis for protest would be violation of private property. "I bought this house, out in the boondocks, specifically to enjoy my hobby, amateur astronomy. Now this billboard has made that investment worthless, so I want the price of the property, in damages." It wouldn't take too many succesful cases like that to make bill-sats prohibitively expensive. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \ They communicated with the communists, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 28 Apr 1993 08:11:17 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Vandalizing the sky. Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space In article gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes: |I say: |What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably, |would move around in the sky. I, for one, am against legislating |at all. I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and |would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and >aesthetic values that make us human. This includes the need for wild >and unspoiled things, including the night sky. Sorry that's an aesthetics argument. maybe this string shoudl mofe to sci.space.aesthetics. Planes ruin the night sky. Blimps ruin the night sky. Radio towers ruin the night sky. Like i said, get a vote, and create some more national parks. which include onobstructed air space. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 503 ------------------------------