So you didn't like looking for and classifying Galaxies. Then how about solving some of these, 13 Unsolved scientific puzzles.

One of them if the WOW signal, so maybe it should be in Seti Science?

So you didn't like looking for and classifying Galaxies. Then how about solving some of these, 13 Unsolved scientific puzzles.

One of them if the WOW signal, so maybe it should be in Seti Science?

I see #12 and #13 as being the same thing.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Solutions to some of the 13 mysteries

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=50790&nowrap=true#844988

All stable forms in our universe are spherical in shape and moving in some kind of

orbit, the view these days is that the universe is flat and gaxalies are

accelerating ,suppose all the galaxies with there black holes were actaully

orbiting a massive dark body would we be able to tell that at great distances and

since we are in a plane of motion would it not appear that the universe is flat

because 1) flatnessof universe is not stable 2)galaxies appear in motion.3)most of

the universe is missing


Objects moving in an ellipitical orbit have phases of acceleration an deceleration, most of the universe is actually at the centre far away an invisible to us right now, galaxies that are so far away and seem to disappear from view are actually at the edge of an ellipitical orbit, the pioneer anomalies are actually caused by an angular force directly towards the centre of the universe ?.

---

We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy

Hi kasule

I think that sometimes confusion arises from what physicists’ mean when they refer to a ‘flat’ universe. They don’t mean flat, like a sheet of paper, or the spinning disk of a galaxy.

Here is a pretty good lay-persons explaination that I found:

OK, first of all, when astronomers and cosmologists refer to the universe being "flat," they don't mean that it has only two dimensions. They mean that its geometry appears to be Euclidean (planar or "flat") rather than being Riemannian (elliptical) or Lobachevskyan (hyperbolic). In layman's terms, that means that in our universe, it appears that two parallel straight lines are the same distance from each other along their lengths. In an elliptical universe, straight lines would eventually meet; in a hyperbolic universe, parallel lines would have one region of closest approach, and diverge in both directions from there. The distribution of mass in the universe after the Big Bang is a matter of current investigation. There is no reason to expect that the distribution of matter will be perfectly uniform; if you throw a water balloon at the ground, the splat is not a perfect circle. Very small variations in the distribution of matter shortly after the Big Bang would translate into larger "clumpings" billions of years later. Even if galaxies are traveling away from each other, their gravitational fields still act on one another. In fact, though, current observations indicate that galactic clusters are actively colliding with, engulfing, and re-forming galaxies all the time. Gravity is a very important part of the cosmos.

Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D.
Assistant Director PG Research Foundation,
Darien, Illinois

And the link to the quote

---

Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas.

Albert Einstein

Forgive me for constantly bringing up this topic ,but its just i truly like unsolved puzzles and i wish many could join in trying to dissect this issues. So as you said that in a flat universe two parallel lines never meet, thats fine as long as the universe is empty, but we should remember that it has physical mass which has a property of distorting space and time ,and more still it has had plenty of time to reorganize its mass distribution .So would the imaginary lines parralel to each other still hold when you introduce the notion of mass in it or not , or are we supposed to take parralel lines as a model and totally leave out the contents which i believe have a direct effect.

---

We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy

Thank you for the link. It was pretty entertaining. I thinking a lot of the topics in the article were over stated to help increase entertainment though.

---

MOST OF THE UNIVERSE IS MISSING

No it’s not! There are 4 types of matter solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Plasma makes up 99% of the universe. Contrary to popular believe the laws of plasma physics (electricity and magnetism) govern the universe not gravity.

Today’s astronomers have no training in plasma physics and are trying to explain the universe in terms that they understand and getting it all wrong. Every time they come up against something they can’t explain they invent something new such as dark matter, dark energy and black holes, etc, etc.

Sorry, no big bang and expanding universe.

Franz

Have you any evidence that it is possible for an electric charge to sustain itself over the time and distance scales which are necessary to a force that controls the physics of the universe as a whole? It is, of course possible to scrutinize certain phenomena and claim that electrified plasma is responsible for them, but that is merely the first step, an hypothesis. It needs testing, and confirmation. You are aware. are you not, of the mass of contradicting evidence, which indicates that electrical charges tend to be neutralized as they spread outward from their source? Michael

Have you any evidence that it is possible for an electric charge to sustain itself over the time and distance scales which are necessary to a force that controls the physics of the universe as a whole? It is, of course possible to scrutinize certain phenomena and claim that electrified plasma is responsible for them, but that is merely the first step, an hypothesis. It needs testing, and confirmation. You are aware. are you not, of the mass of contradicting evidence, which indicates that electrical charges tend to be neutralized as they spread outward from their source? Michael

Michael:

You may want to check out the following links for a starter:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html

Franz

Plasma is made up from ionized atoms, that is atoms that have lost their electrons. Now, the only atom which is made up only from the electromagnetic interaction is the hydrogen atom. Both deuterium and tritium have nuclei held together by the nuclear glue of the strong interaction. So even if the universe were made only from plasma (and it is not) you still need the strong interaction to play.
Tullio

---

neutrons being neutral what strong interaction/ attraction are we talking about.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The nuclear force is a short range force which holds nuclei together, otherwise protons would repel each other by the electromagnetic force. It is 137 times stronger than EMF but only at short range and determines the shell structure of nuclei. Both neutrons and protons are fermions and obey the Pauli exclusion principle.
Tullio

---

Looked into Dr. Scott's Electric Cosmos site. A great many complex claims there. We might focus on one of his Electric Sun claims to start with. He claims that electrons enter the Sun from space and that positive ions leave the sun, conferring a net positive charge to the Sun. If this is the case, why are both electrons and protons observed leaving the Sun in the form of the solar wind? Michael

The Sun also emits a stream of neutral particles, the neutrinos, produced by the weak nuclear interaction and observed all around the world by underground detectors to shield them from the solar wind. So the Sun is a complex system where all 4 fundamental interactions (strong nuclear, EM, weak nuclear and gravity) play their role. To reduce all this to EM is nonsense.
Tullio

---

There’s a lot of information on the subject in the 3 websites mentioned and Dr. Scott is not the only scientist to support this theory. I recommend that you read it all first before trying to dissect it. Mind you, there are some quacks that have latched onto this subject with some strange ideas but they are pretty evident. Then again they can be found in any discipline.

I’m no plasma physicist or astrophysicist but from what I’ve read so far the “Plasma Universe” makes a whole lot more sense than what today’s astronomers are peddling. A lot of which is also unsubstantiated.

The computer generated photo of the mass distribution in the universe seems to support the “Plasma Universe” theory better than the current “Big Bang” theory. See the link below.

http://www.spacedaily.com/images/cosmology-virgo-universe-desk-1024.jpg

Franz

What I know is that there are 4 fundamental forces at play in the universe; you cannot describe it using only one of them. Of course the physics's main goal is to find a unifying relationship between them (a Theory of everything). Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism, Einstein tried to unify gravity and electromagnetism and failed, because he ignored the nuclear forces. Recently the nuclear weak force has been unified with electromagnetism in the electro-weak interaction. Attempts are still made to integrate it with the strong nuclear force (strings theory, supersymmetry, etc.). A relationship between quantum physics and gravity (quantum gravity) is still missing, despite many attempts. Personally I do not believe in dark matter and dark energy, I am convinced.that the laws of gravitation in Einstein's General Relativity should undergo some modifications, but this is only my opinion. The astronomer Fritz Zwicky had spoken of "missing matter" already in the Thirties and he is a better astronomer.
Tullio

---

You are quite right Tullio, you have to take everything into consideration. Unfortunately, today’s astronomers and astrophysicists are completely ignoring plasma physics. Since the universe is composed of 99% plasma, trying to explain the universe based on the laws governing the remaining 1% is highly irresponsible. That’s usually how rumors and fairy tales are started.

Franz

You are quite right Tullio, you have to take everything into consideration. Unfortunately, today’s astronomers and astrophysicists are completely ignoring plasma physics. Since the universe is composed of 99% plasma, trying to explain the universe based on the laws governing the remaining 1% is highly irresponsible. That’s usually how rumors and fairy tales are started.

Franz

Plasma has mass, and so is subject to gravity. At high temperature hydrogen nuclei can fuse and produce helium nuclei by the strong force, with the excess energy giving rise to EM radiation, as in stars. Today an effort is going on to exploit nuclear fusion reactors by the deuterium-tritium reaction in Tokamak toroidal chambers, like the big Iter in construction at Caradache, France. This reaction produces neutrons at 14 MeV energy, which should be used to warm water, produce vapor, active turbines and generators to produce electricity. I am not underestimating plasm physics. But black holes exist, and they were not predictable before Einstein's general relativity.
Tullio

---

You are quite right Tullio, you have to take everything into consideration. Unfortunately, today’s astronomers and astrophysicists are completely ignoring plasma physics. Since the universe is composed of 99% plasma, trying to explain the universe based on the laws governing the remaining 1% is highly irresponsible. That’s usually how rumors and fairy tales are started.

Franz

My goodness, what is all this talk about "99% plasma"? There is nothing magical about plasma. It is simply electrically charged "atoms", some of which are not atoms at all, but free electrons. It still exhibits and obeys the forces that are quite familiar. Of these, the only one that has any effect at interstellar distances is Gravity. Just as the nuclear forces diminish to nothingness outside the radius of the nucleus of an atom (fortunately! otherwise we would all collapse into a black hole!), so to do the EM forces rapidly diminish to nothing with distance (fortunately! since otherwise we would all blow up as like charges repel each other or else we would collapse as opposite charges attract, or more likely we would do both and would thus be in a constant state of flux, much like the solar wind).

There can be Electrical forces between objects, yes, but while Gravity is always attractive, the Electrical forces are repulsive as often as they are attractive, thus, in the aggregate, a galaxy is electrically neutral. So, unless you propose a large electrically charged core at the center of the galaxy, with a charge opposite from that of the star at the edge of the galaxy, the electrical force is not going to keep the star in orbit about the galactic center. And, should that charge be the same as the star's . . . well, . . . that galaxy will explode as all the like electric charges repel each other. Right? Unless of course the Electrical force is over powered by the Gravitational force due to distance between the charges, which brings us back to the fact that Gravity is dominant at interstellar distances.

---

I am not a physists so i will ask for some forgiveness in case i say something absard, what i was wondering is, einstein put an equation that relates energy and mass. It has been found that there is missing mass in the universe , has any one done an audit of the total energy in the universe and have they actually found any missing energy because not all energy is in the form of mass.It could actually be a better approch than doing an audit on physical mass alone.

---

We choose to go to the moon and to do other things, we choose to go to the moon not because its easy but because its hard. kennedy