Donate to JF Business Ventures

If You Love The Content Provided On The Rational Theorist and You Want To Contribute, then feel free to donate money, which will help get my company "JF Business Ventures" up and running and thereby the goal of bringing future innovation and technology to the masses. Not only will your donations be greatly appreciated, they also will go to the excellent cause of making the world a better and more hi-tech place for all humanity one project at a time. However, regardless if you donate or not, I must say thanks for taking the time to read/listen to my blog and hopefully you’ll learn many valuable things from it which will stimulate your thoughts and ideas about the world. $-]
Note: Click banner for my Tutor profile on WyzAnt

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

On Fusion, Antimatter, and Micro-Black Holes in Stars



Note - This is a compilation of my comments about the subject matter.

Fusion does not always occur at extreme heat as conventional wisdom says, it has been demonstrated to occur in extreme cold as well, as in Einstienien Bose Condensation, and probably it can occur in between those extremes of hot and cold as well, such as in “Cold Fusion”. In order to understand the many different types of fusion reactions, scientists need to determine what subatomic particles or atomic nuclei they are attempting to fuse together, at what energy levels or temperature-pressure values those reactions take place, and what atomic byproducts and particle-waves are being produced as a result. Actually, it is still the case that research into the many different possible atomic and subatomic reactions is a relatively new frontier being explored within the sciences. That research is just beginning to be applied to the various other physical sciences, such as geology and astronomy for instance, as well as being implemented into new technological innovations such as power generation, advanced propulsion systems, plasma and cutting tools, teleportation, and, rather unfortunately, in weapons systems too. There is so much yet to be discovered about the physics of high energy collisions and subatomic particles that it still remains premature to discount new hypothesis in many other areas of scientific research.

For instance, contrary to conventional geological wisdom there might actually be fusion regularly occurring within the core of the Earth and in other planets, but scientists might simply be unaware of that given the present state of knowledge. There may even be fusion generated Super Atoms that exist in the cores of the planets and the stars as a result of some combination of hydrostatic and electrostatic pressure buildups in between their fault lines and core layers similar to what occurs in Bussard's Fusor, for instance. Also of interest in particle physics and other physical sciences is the recently observed fact that lightning storms generate anti-matter in our own atmosphere on a regular basis, and very likely occurs in lightning storms on Mars and in Jupiter, likely even on our own moon as well. Given this, it is probably no surprise at all if the sun is constantly generating it's own lightning and matter-antimatter annihilation reactions in the corona as well.

According to the traditional model of the sun, fusion occurs at some depths as a result of hydrostatic and electrostatic pressures, and it is not such a surprise that hydrogen fusion occurs in the hot coronal arcs as well. More specifically, I hypothesize that the internal less-energetic nuclear fusion reactions of the denser atomic elements occur due to significant hydrostatic pressures from gravitation providing the activation energy which thereby generates the great ionic arcs of the outer corona which are bent back toward the sun by the great magnetic fields. There are much more energetic fusion reactions that occur within those gigantic arcing coronal bolts of lightning, and also anti-matter is constantly being generated and annihilated there as well. That hypothesis suffices to explain why the sun is much hotter at the corona than below the surface and down in the core, which may be composed of dense molten metals, perhaps dense fissionable metals similar to what is believed to be in Earth's core, and possibly even denser superatoms are found there as well.

Of particular interest about the sun is the magnetic solar cycle and the periodic formation of sunspots and subsequent release of coronal mass ejections and solar flares. Not much is very well understood with the conventional theories, however perhaps there is a phenomenon in high energy particle physics that can better explain what is happening. During the solar cycle, the sun acts as a giant RLC circuit, an inductor against the capacitance of the vacuum of space. The greatest time-rate-of-change of the sun’s magnetic field, when the magnetic field is inverting it's polarity which occurs every 11 years, occurs at the “solar maximum” which is when there is a maximum of sunspots being observed. I hypothesize that when the magnetic field is changing most rapidly it causes particles to begin colliding with each other at tremendous energies, with far greater energy than the Large Hadron Collider produces, and that causes thick clouds of micro-black holes to form, and thus creating sunspots that block out large portions of the sun. As those sunspot micro-black holes decay via "hawking cavitation", each hole randomly popping with huge energies, that creates the coronal mass ejections that are associated with sunspots, and thereby supplying the ionic conduit which Birkeland Currents can thereby travel through. Those microblack holes in the sunspots might in fact be launching the particles and photons they consume through time itself and thereby reappearing in the corona as solar flares or Birkeland currents at other points in time.

It shouldn't be any surprise if it is found out that all stars, in acting like oscillating LHC circuits against the capacitance of space, experience periodic star spots at their stellar minimums and maximums as well. This probably occurs at a wide range of frequencies varying greatly from our own sun's 11 year cycles that we're familiar with, and likely occurs within stars of all different masses and sizes from massive supergiants down to magnetars and pulsars and even at the event horizon boundaries of supermassive black holes in the centers of the galaxies as well.

Monday, January 24, 2011

ON ELECTROMAGNETIC SPACE WEATHER

Note - This is a compilation of my comments about the subject matter.

Earth's magnetic field is very weak and can't be invoked as a source of anything with sufficient mass orbiting around the Earth, although the paths of ionized material such as from solar wind and Birkeland currents from the sun are affected greatly by Earth's magnetic field interacting with the immense velocity of the charged particles.

Atmospheric Plasma Convection

How do these currents between the Sun and the Earth and other planets work? Perhaps the Earth’s mantle acts as a positive terminal of a battery that is ground which emits electron holes thereby attracting electrons from the sun, and then perhaps deeper down in the Earth core holes are attracted and electrons (perhaps there are fusion/fission reactions occurring in the Earth's core) repelled toward the mantle as well. Given the incredible strength of electricity, can extremely intense Birkeland Currents from the sun cause Supervolcanoes or perturb the Earth on it’s axis, or change the orbital path of the Earth?

The moon is thought to have no atmosphere because there is no hydrostatic pressure due to insufficient gravitation, but that doesn't preclude it from having a dusty ionosphere due to static charge build up from the ionizing radiation of the sun. Is it thereby possible that the moon is losing mass to the Earth or other locations in space (comets, asteroids, and planets) via magnetic birkeland currents due to ionization of it's surface?

A 27 day thermosphere cycle, as observed in the earth's atmosphere, could be due to ionizing UV radiation hitting and thereby ionizing the Moon at different angles during the lunar month, which might actually be causing secondary Birkeland Currents from the Moon to the Earth in addition to the primary Birkeland Currents from the Sun hitting the Earth.

The sun, via Birkeland Currents and solar wind, supplies the Earth with fresh hydrogen (protons) and other elements (beta and alpha particles, He-3, etc) to regenerate the particles that are escaping from the Earth due to weak gravity, atmospheric gas concentrations probably have been in equilibrium due to that process for billions of years. Cation-anion binding probably occurs in significant proportions in the Birkeland currents and solar wind while en route to the Earth, and since those particles are neutral they become subject solely to the forces of gravitation and thereby pass through unaffected by the magnetic fields. My bet is that electrons in the solar wind, due to high velocity beta particles periodically being shot out of the nuclear furnace of the sun, act as the "leader" to those Birkeland Currents which provides the electro-conductive path that the positive nuclei travel through to get here.

According to this article, the energy flux from solar radiation alone in space near Earth is about 1365 watts per square meter (that's about 13.5x100 watt lightbulbs all being lit in 1 square meter area...If you have you ever put your hand near just one 100 watt lightbulb before, then you realize that 13.5 of them is equivalent to a lot of heat from electromagnetic radiation being crammed into a relatively small volume of space...this has great implications for the efficiency of solar panels and solar heating in space, and also allows for the possibility of large arrays of solar panels satellites that could beam down microwave energy to power base stations on the Earth's surface, or also for constructing an accidental weapon, or unfortunately maybe also a death ray too).

NASA explains that some significant proportion of the trajectory perturbation anomalies of their spacecraft orbits are caused by photonic pressures from the sun and also due to the heat buildup on the side and back panels which results in intense infrared rays reradiating back out into space thereby causing significant secondary path altering pressures as well. Might that photonic radiation pressure from the sun also have a significant impact on the paths of asteroids, comets, and meteors as well? Might that cause space rocks to charge up like a capacitor, and possibly even explode when they enter an atmosphere or are struck by stellar lightning bolts?

Take a look at this galactic picture here:



I don't think gravity even comes close to explaining what's on that picture. Dark Matter!? Wimps!? Machos!? Please, give me a break, at least give the tremendous strength of electrical forces a whirl. I know the problem is that obviously empty space has an electrical resistance value that drops off the voltage potential of a given charge in proportion to the inverse square of the distance from that charge, however suppose those giant plumes of plasma-gas were superconducting in the near zero temperature conditions of the vast intergalactic space, then ionized particle currents might travel the vast galactic distances between voltage potentials with ease. And so might spacecrafts, human, alien, and droid-bots alike could travel the vast vacuous seas of space on a superconducting lightning bolt.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

On Gravitation, Black Holes, and Space-Time

Note - This is a compilation of my comments about the subject matter.

Isaac Newton's experiments with the torsion bar and the lead weights demonstrated a gravitational field and the warping of space-time by masses. Gravitational fields are equivalent to acceleration when it comes to exerting forces on masses, and hence gravity causes a bending of the fabric of space-time. Mass and relativity theory have their validities as far as explaining the behaviour of gravitation, at least the mathematics of it in Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" looks sound enough.

The mass density by volume of the Earth is non-uniform and thereby creates a non-uniform gravitational field near the surface (variations ranging at +/-60 mGal whereby 1 milliGal is 10^-5 m/sec^2) that is more defined at close proximities than further away. Actually, at a far enough distance all planets look to be or can be more appropriately approximated as point masses at their center of mass (the point about which all unhinged mass distributions rotate).

Computationally, you can model the mass density by volume distribution of a given mass-body by discretization via breaking it up into cubic grid sections and then approximating the mass for the centroid of the individual equal volume segments, and then summing the gravitational field from each volumetric segment at any point in space to get the total superposition of the gravitational field at all points in the model. If the density of the mass-body is uniform, or varies linearly then you could use an analytical integration of the density over volume method instead of a finite element approximation method.

The hydrostatic distribution of many small masses that make up a fluid is determined by a statistical energy distribution based primarily on gravity, and second more locally on temperature and pressure, and in some cases electrical fields certainly can play a role in that distribution as well. (note - photon absorption and thereby electromagnetic heating is what causes thermals and wind currents in our atmosphere. At small scales, Brownian motion, electrostatic intermolecular forces, and the mean free path also plays an essential role in weather) Buoyancy is a result of gravitational energy and mass density distributions also.

In a planetary ring system, gravitation dictates that the lower ring masses orbit a planet in a faster time period than the higher ring masses. In conventional Newtonian physics, masses are held fixed for doing the calculations of the gravitational forces between them, and computing orbital trajectories is simple for a 2 body problem, however gets quite complicated for a 3 or more body problem. It takes complex differential equations or computational iterative simulations (like Euler's Method or Runge Kutta with boundary IC's or initial state IC's) to compute the multiple trajectories of the stars using Newton's or Einstein's equations, and at that they may or may or may not be completely correct either. Here is an interesting video on the situation:

Symmetry and Simulation: How Geometry Affects Scientific Computing from the Solar System to your Microwave Oven

According to quantum gravitation theory, gravitons are responsible for the presence of a gravitational field, however this phenomenon hasn't been experimentally documented, nonetheless Richard Feynman hypothesized this to be the case in his "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" series. The main theory (until demonstrated otherwise) is that mass exerts a force-field with an intensity that falls off as an inverse square law, just like any other type of particle-wave radiation. Currently, there is perhaps evidence that gravitational fields can be warped by intense magnetic fields. Are Dark Matter and Dark Energy true entities or are they just made up entities to force the stars and galaxies in the observable universe to fit with Einstein's gravitational theories and an expanding universe? Is the gravitational constant ‘G’ really a constant or does it depend on electromagnetic fields or on other things too?

There are no known experimental demonstrations of anti-gravity that are unclassified, however according to one hypothetical theory, an anti-gravity device would be driven by anti-mass, such that a gravitational field exerts the exact opposite direction of force than it does with regular mass. In such a system, like masses would attract each other and opposite masses would repel each other.

Black Holes might be created by intense mass collisions in particle accelerators, or by intense magnetic fields that warp gravitation, or by some variation of strong-weak nuclear interactions. Perhaps the space-time anomalies generated by miniature black holes, or the evaporation of them thereof, could spawn anti-mass which would be repelled by ordinary gravitational fields. (all in hypothetical speculation at this point, but perhaps those huge jets of particles escaping black holes are anti-mass)

Minkowski space-time can be curved by using a linear transformation matrix on the basis vector (x,y,z,t), which may be used to represent gravitational lensing as well as Non-Euclidean Geometries. This can be used to reflect reality, say if the coordinates of space-time aren't flat but instead elliptical or hyperbolic and using a linear transformation in order to correct flat Euclidean measurements, and also can be utilized to explain the apparent uniform expansion and contraction of the universe via a cosmological constant as well, assuming that constant actually exists.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

A New Definition of Greed (Wealth, Middle Class, and Poor)

Some thoughts about a post A New Definition of Greed over on ATS. (that post alone is definitely worth looking at from a moral and economic standpoint) To summarize, greed should no longer be considered "the excessive desire to keep what you earn", but rather a new definition is provided that makes better sense, in the sense that all scams stem from greed, yet all honest business is non-greedy: Greed - The desire to take the fruit of other people's labor without having to work for it.

I define "wealthy" in a mathematical sense, which is making more money than you spend (which is actually the old definition of greed). I define "poor" as spending more money than you make. You're middle class if you make an equal amount of money as you are spending. The desire to make more money than you spend, ergo to be wealthy, is good IMO.

...note - If you are wealthy and you have the desire to give back, there are two ways of doing it. First, you can open or expand a business and pay more people to work for you, which usually brings in even more abundance if done properly, if it's not a loss leader or a "charitable loss investment" then it's a wise business investment. Second, you can donate your excess money to a charity. Third, the government can take it from you (possibly against your will depending on how you voted) and then implement probable loss leaders or donate to a charity of their own (or help the politician get reelected by paying the lobbyists), which does employ or help people some of the time, but of course is likely to be a much less wise investment than you would have made yourself.

The main challenge of the rich is to convince people that they are wiser than the government. Are they? It's a case by case basis. (note - The government, by these standards, falls into the objectively poor and foolish category because the debt is growing at an expanding rate, consequently most rich people are thereby wiser than the government with their own money.)

This is not a political definition of wealthy or poor, but rather a numerical analysis of it. If the time rate of change of your bank account is positive then you are wealthy. Perhaps we can even look at concavity, if that curve is concave up and the t-roc is positive then you are wealthy and wise. If the curve is concave up and the t-roc is negative then you are poor yet wise...etc. Concave down = foolish, no concavity = inflection point or line.

A moral point here is that it all works assuming people are honest about their contributions to progress instead of becoming greedy and scamming others out of their dues. Another thing to think about is that people shouldn't take a loan if they can't pay it plus the interest back. Greed typically leads to debt, which thereby ultimately leads to enslavement. There is no such thing as a free lunch in nature. (I might revise this last paragraph later on, there is more to add here since it is not thought out rigorously enough yet)

Sunday, January 16, 2011

An "L" Stance on Guns and Gun Control

"L" means Libertarian

Guns are morally neutral. Sometimes guns are used by the villains and other times guns used by the heros. Guns exist, they can't be gotten rid of either since there are millions of them in the world, and typically once a gun is made it has a very very long lifetime, getting passed down through the generations, being refurbished and such. The vast vast vast majority of gunshots are merely practice shots, with no intent to kill whatsoever. Guns get more sophisticated all the time, there are a large variety of them as well, and have multiple applications.

Some people use guns for hunting, some for protection (like police officers or guarding against home intruders and vandals or for personal protection against threatening individuals), and others for recreation (shooting cans and targets helps some people concentrate better, others get a thrill out of doing it, target practice, paintball/airsoft, robot competitions, etc). The cops don't always show up in time, and in dangerous neighborhoods people are often times left to fend for themselves, but outlawing guns won't make them go away, the criminals will still get them, and regulation of guns still won't keep them out of the hands of thugs. In fact, outlawing guns will only make it safer for thugs to knock over stores and banks, or to burglarize your home, it will probably start happening more frequently than they do now.

Thugs can get their hands on guns regardless of what the law says, very easy to do, just like how they can get their hands on illegal drugs. Outlawing guns would be tantamount to funding a war on guns, similar to the war on drugs it would be lost merely because there will always be a demand for the gun trade, and furthermore gun companies would just go underground like prohibition, I'm pretty sure people would figure out a way to make their own guns and ammo if they couldn't purchase them or know where to get them.

I think what I am saying here is true, don't you agree? Wouldn't it be much more costly to regulate guns with tax dollars, and then to lock people up just for owning firearms? Aren't our jails already too full as it is? Why make criminals out of all gun enthusiasts just because there are a few criminals in the world whom are way out of control and probably could get guns anyhow? Why sacrifice freedoms in the name of safety, when there isn't even a guarantee of safety even if expensive laws were to be implemented in the first place?

I realize that other countries that prohibit guns have a much lower instance of gun violence, however, they merely don't have the public demand for guns that we do in the US. They spend a lot less in taxes in their gun regulation merely because of this lack of demand for firearms, but in the end it still is a repressed freedom in those countries, their gun enthusiasts probably just move here instead to satisfy their activities. Their criminals merely find other means of killing, such as poisoning or knives or clubs, yes more primitive means to their end, but they achieve it nonetheless.

More Discussion at the ATS Source Article - An "L" Stance on Guns and Gun Control