About Me

My photo
I look at life with detachment and distance, like a window shopper. Not only I study the window but also my own reflections in it.

Voyager Shortchange

Sunday, October 23, 2005 0 comments

Analysis of past Telemetry data of Voyager I and II show that they are about 8000 miles short of their calculated positions. What gives? Who is shortchanging Voyager Scientists? Scientists say that there are many possibilities:
1. There is a theory that in far out spaces, speed of light has a miniscule acceleration. Therefore the Voyager is in fact at correct position as per calculations, but the radio signals are covering that distance at a faster than uniform speed of light would warrant.
2. Newton's laws of gravity, duly modified for relativity, still require further modification.
3. Something else like action of dark matter in intervening space or curvature in space-time.
Gotcha! What gives, is that we loose our certainty of knowing the laws of physics. There is lot to be still learnt when scale of distance and time is too large or too small.
Oh! I have a better exlanation: Please read my following post Square The Cube

Read full post >>

Who Bankrolled The Big Bang

Thursday, October 06, 2005 3 comments

Big Bang is the accepted theory of cosmological origin of our universe.  How could a very small singularity in space time generate a whole universe?   Why is there only matter without much anti-matter in our universe? One explanation is that the Big-Bang singularity created two different universes - one of matter (that we are part of) and another matching one of anti-matter.   Thus a pair-production out of energy of photons/bosons would have taken place.
Discounting that such a anti-matter universe has not been detected (nor seriously sought out), from where did so much energy come for whole mass of two universe to be created.   How could such huge energy be concentrated in a small area?  Theoretically, what is the maximum energy density possible?
  Big-Bang is good theory and has excellent fit with the observations, but the big question is who bankrolled the energy of this big-bang?

Read full post >>

Elephant = Monkey X Chimpanzee Squared

Tuesday, October 04, 2005 0 comments

Just because energy and mass are equivalent as per Einstein's famous formula E = mc2, it does not mean that a transformation of a Hippopotamus (or one monkey and a chimpanzee) into an elephant is possible.   The mechanism of transformation (biological, chemical and physical) must also be scientifically correct.   It should not violate other laws of Physics including the law of entropy. I think, because of the famed equation, scientists are lulled into mute acceptance of the bizarre phenomenon of pair-production and pair-annihilation.
Pair production is emergence of say an electron and positron out of the energy of a photon.  Pair annihilation is reverse of this.  This is true of any particle anti-particle pair.
For these phenomenon to be explained the mechanism of transformation has also to be understood.
What about the laws of physics being followed, including the law of increasing entropy (second law of Thermodynamics).   Pair-production immensely decreases entropy - thus violating this law.
Moreover as argued in my earlier posts, only those particles that have an internal structure can transform into one another.   Or else the two particles on either side of transformation must actually be same with only difference in charge-flavour.   We cant have a fundamental particle just disappearing and have another entirely unrelated fundamental particle(s) in its place - even if conservation of mass/energy is not violated.
In pair-production or annihilation, either the electrons (and positron) must be having same constituent entities as the photon.   Or photon and electron must be same particle but with different charge-flavours.
Such particle transformations is a very serious blind-spot in present standard-model. What do you think, please leave a comment?

Read full post >>