Notices
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: A dream about planetary motion and light

  1. #1 A dream about planetary motion and light 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    72
    This dream last night suggested planets radiate light as does the sun and for this reason they repel each other when close -- does this idea have any merit or is it utter madness and the stuff of science fiction?
    In a better universe, all solid objects such as planets absorb radiation and there are no radiating stars or planets at all? And space itself radiates with a steady glow at all points between the planets? Then the warmth of a planet depends only on the space around it and not on a central sun. Planets would then be like light focusing glass prisms, concentrating the light and causing warming.

    Every scientist should try and design an alternative universe, in my opinion. This this one seems to be imperfect.

    The virtue of not knowing:
    The Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein is an example and mentor. His ideas there only thought-provoking experiments and were not intended to be considered as science. I believe this because he said the speed of light was a constant regardless of the relative movement of observers, but he obviosly knew that the speed of light is not the same for all observers but depends on the medium surrounding the observer such as water or heavy atmosphere or less dense.
    With his 'thought experiments' and social message, this is what I think he was saying (among other things):
    We should not be quick to assume, should not be quick to "swoop on prey"; and should stay aloft indefinitely, leaving our options open, our future full of possibilities. Sometimes to 'not know' is a virtue.

    It means that if we assume we know the universe, then we limit our future, hence to say the universe is this way or that way can either be expanding our potential for progress or closing up our potential for progress: limiting our possible futures. That is why it would be good to 'get artistic' with science and produce worlds and universes to our liking, and not get heavy and limiting and say: this is the only possible universe.

    eg: 'the virtue of doubt' a chapter in 'Voltaire's bastards; the dictatorship of reason in the west' by John Ralston Saul.

    Does the sun actually shine for example or do we merely imagine it shines? Lightning appears to bolt down from the sky, for example, but we know a faint tracer shoots up to the sky first. (Is sunlight actually due to the curvature of space, or any light is somehow the curvature of space. A light flicked on in a room is actually the bending of space, and then we imagine the light darts out, but oscillations nearer the source are just more intense -- ?)

    Sea waves appear to move in toward the coast and crash on the shore, but we know that the water underneath is merely circling in one spot. In the same way, does the wind really blow at all or are we merely sensing local osscilations on our skin? Are there 'jet streams' in the upper atmosphere or they really waves? It is much more efficient that the wind is really a wave not air moving randomnly.

    Does sunlight blast away from the sun's surface at all or is that merely the product of local oscillations as well? Perhaps a feint tracer speeds down to the sun as well?

    In the model*, the universe is an equipotental matrix and which then focuses in parts to produce planets and stars, to concentrate the energy producing warmth and light and life.

    *(What I am saying above is that keeping everything a true hypothesis is better than firm limiting knowing. Unless knowing unleashes possibilites rather than limits possibilities. A useful theory is not enough, but how useful is better.)

    The universe is a nest in which galaxies "float"? The denser floating in the less dense. Nests floating in nests: fewer ringed in more ringed.

    Do plants actually need the sun for photosynthesis? Or only the lesser evolved plants need the sun and the more advanced do not? In Peter Tompkins and Christopher Birds book the secret life plants, a man has a plant in a copper pot in a cellar with a wire leading to an aluminium sheet in the sun outside, and the plant still grows and stays healthy. A suggested change to the experiment, put the sheet directly under the copper pot -- will the plant still grow? That is, is the earth a radiator? Do all planets shine?
    Note conifers in the upper northern hemisphere do not have leaves that deliberately face south to the sun, on the contrary they grow perfectly symmetrical as if they dont need the sun at all. The pointed leaf tips are "pulling" charges out of the earth?

    *To produce a number of different possibilities in the brain and then wait to see which one "surfaces" is the correct way to arrive at a conclusion?


    Last edited by Joshua Stone; September 29th, 2011 at 07:59 PM. Reason: additional thoughts
    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Stars produce light (and heat) as a byproduct of nuclear fusion which they then radiate away.

    Planets reflect light to some degree depending on their surface and atmosphere.

    Planets "weigh" so much that no amount of light will alter their course in any way.

    Some 85 years ago, Eddington gave a temperature of 3.K for space from heating due to "starlight", so not a lot from trillions of trillions of stars over billions of years.

    Why would all planets not be the same (low) temperature if they were warmed by space around them? Space itself actually has no heat but only the radiations travelling through it. And apart from any internal heating and atmospheres holding in the heat as in Venus, their temperatures are based on how close they are to the sun.


    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Translating circular motion to linear motion
    By zollen in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 31st, 2011, 01:55 AM
  2. Quasar jet stream Faster than light FTL motion data needed
    By kevinmorais in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 1st, 2009, 02:07 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 20th, 2009, 06:45 AM
  4. Heliocentric planetary groupings
    By ricci70 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 16th, 2008, 08:21 AM
  5. Planetary rotation
    By sak in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2007, 02:24 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •