 |
Are Gamma Ray Bursts a Reflection of New Galaxies Being Created? |
 | 4 |
|
|
Submitted by Teo Graca
| RSS Feed
| Add Comment
| Bookmark Me!
Dr. Stanford E. Woosley couldn't imagine this, so he made up some math that worked, was easier to accept by his peers, and now the unimaginative physics community has adopted Woosley's limited explanation of what a Gamma Ray Burst really could be - the biggest force we can record attributed to something relatively small. He has also made ridiculous statements on television about Einstein's formula E = MC2, and I am going to hold him accountable here.
The problem is not with the math - it is a problem with limited imagination. The premise is that Gamma Ray Bursts "must" originate within the area we can see with a telescope - this is Woosley's new theory. He said (I saw and heard him say it) that the "M" in Einstein's formula E = MC2 is limited in size. He said it as if we should accept this because he said it. Arrogance is an ugly face Dr. Woosley!
This is really just jr. high school math. M in Einstein's equation is a variable, which means it can be any number, or even beyond numbers. Infinity is a concept too Dr. Woosley - something also covered in jr. high school! Can you imagine infinity? Woosley's statements suggest he doesn't understand this concept. He said, "we know the MASS couldn't be that big because Einstein's formula E=MC2 can't support it." Dear Mr. (doesn't deserve the title of Dr.) Woosley, a 7th grader with a "C" in math would laugh you.
Much to my chagrin, Discovery Channel and Science Channel programs push Woosley's misguided theory endlessly. I wonder if he could imagine a connection between the largest known explosive force we can measure, the gamma ray burst, and a larger possible source, the formation of a galaxy. That was the first thought I had when I learned about gamma ray bursts. Too obvious?
What about the creation of Galaxies? There is no accepted theory on how galaxies are created. It has only recently been discovered that:
Stars orbit the centers of galaxies
Stars orbit at a constant speed
There are giant black holes in the middle of galaxies
The cosmological community representing some of our "greatest minds" are still presenting outdated ideas. The proof that established the Big Bang Theory has been changed and may be more applicable to the formation of galaxies instead of the formation of the entire universe. You may want to consider the question "how can they be so sure about the formation of the universe when they don't have a theory on the formation of galaxies?"
Let's have a little fun with Einstein. Although he had a great imagination, his math skills were problematic. Einstein was also generally well known as a womanizer. He left his wife for his first cousin. I have heard statements like, "Sheesh, Einstein was living the Big Bang Theory!" I heard someone else say that although he would have loved to have a beer with Einstein, he wouldn't introduce him to his sister! Love him or make fun of him - he was very human and humble (down to earth), which is why I think people loved him.
Big Bang Theory Invalidated?
Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1978 for what has been called the most important scientific find of the 20th century - this proved the Big Bang Theory by the "constant" low-level background radiation theorized to exist throughout the universe. Since then, the low-level background noise has been proven to be variable throughout the viewable universe. Based on the dispersion of the noise in relationship to the galaxies, I suggest that it is related to the formation of galaxies and not the creation of entire universe.
It seems arrogance is the rule in the scientific community and what comes down to us displays no real imagination. Physics is for the imaginative - not the conformists!
Science, to me, is supposed to be about documenting observations and then coming up with some accepted theories that make sense. Of course, these are theories, so I like to hear scientists say things like "we currently think" or "the math SEEMS to work." Although I am noticing some humility fighting its way into their presentations, I can only hope to get this level of integrity from Woosley. This guy has a lot to learn about humility and owes so many people an apology, and my respect for this guy would go way up if he did this. I saw him do a "dog pat" as if he was patting one scientist that proved him wrong on the head like he was a dog when he talked about the guy. Maybe this behavior earns him respect in other circles, but not in mine.
Small minds like Woosley's are somehow rewarded for a temporary explanation of the "way it is", just because most in the physics community will accept it. We need a better theory that makes sense. Dwarf stars are not the cause of gamma ray bursts, and his "standard corrections" that he uses to make his math work in the computer simulations are ridiculous in my view. Mark my word, his explanation of Gamma Ray Bursts will be proven "wrong" in the next few years - the math works, but is demonstrates a very limited pea-brain-sized imagination.
To be fair, Einstein had a similar problem with imagination - he could not imagine that God would create a changing Universe that is proved by his own theories. He went to his grave working on a Theory of Everything based on a non-changing Universe. He shunned the Quantum Physics. Since then, his Theory of Everything is now being successfully perused by those using both the big and the small sciences.
Stephen Hawking is generally credited for bringing cosmology and quantum physics together. He too was wrong in his best known work, and although he was not generally credited as one of the more relevant physicists of the 20th century by his colleagues, I give him a huge amount of credit for just this one thing - he set the pace for further development of the Theory of Everything by bringing these small and big sciences together.
Einstein’s successor, Ed Whitten, predicted 11 dimensions (with existing three spatial dimensions, plus time) in his “M” theory. In theoretical physics, M-theory is a new limit of string theory in which 11 dimensions of space time may be identified. It actually sets the pace to bring together the small and big theories of physics. Some say we NOW have a Theory of Everything. Some say we now have a good start on a Theory of Everything. One thing for sure, we are closer than Einstein was!
M-theory may explain the formation of the universe in terms of unlimited creation and expansion. If you can imagine infinity, then you can imagine the universe may be older than 10-20 billion years old.
There is also the relatively new P-Brane theory that could explain how we have a "rolling wave" that represents a creation of galaxies that could be compared to the waves in a sheet as you fluff it while you make your bed, and we experience a tiny part of one of the rolls in our visible universe with the older galaxies behind and the new galaxies ahead of us.
I hope you use your imagination and show disdain to someone says "This is the way it is" instead of "This is the way we currently think it is" - move your mind beyond the box, ask the right questions, and know there are some things we may never know!
Click for Details --> More on P-Branes <--
|
|
|
|
|
LinkedIn Recommendation:
 Liane Hengl - Director of eMarketing at Blue Galaxy - Teo is coaching me on communications and branding and helping with my business and social media plans. He is easy to work with and keeps me on track each and every week. He's a pleasure to work with. I recommend Teo for all of this type of work. - March 19, 2012, Liane was Teo's client |
|
Featured [Gamma Ray] Articles:
|
|
