13 Things that do not make sense.

[Michaelangelica]

Things that science finds difficult to explain.
13 things that do not make sense - space - 19 March 2005 - New Scientist Space

[freeztar]

Interesting. I wonder if there's been any advancement in the alpha constant problem.

Here's another list from that site:
Top 10: Controversial pieces of evidence for extraterrestrial life - space - 04 September 2006 - New Scientist Space

[Michaelangelica]

The placebo effect seems pretty obvious to me.
I don't see why that is included.

A lot of the rest involves too much physics for me.

I find the homoeopathy one scary, because if homoeopathy really does work what is happening to us while we bath in a micro-mist of over 60,000 man made chemicals and I guess a few thousand natural ones too.
Are Australians just stoned from breathing in too much eucalyptus oil?

Life on another planet. I think the discoveries on our own planet of bacteria living miles underground; of whole ecologies built around sulphuring vents at impossible pressures at the bottom of the sea; indicates that life has to be found 'off-planet' and probably in our solar system.
So, if there are more left-handed Martians than right handed, there is life? Still trying to nut that one out!

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

The placebo effect seems pretty obvious to me.
I don't see why that is included.

It's included because it's unexplainable by science.

A lot of the rest involves too much physics for me.

But if you don't have to do any math, what's the harm?

I find the homoeopathy one scary, because if homoeopathy really does work what is happening to us while we bath in a micro-mist of over 60,000 man made chemicals and I guess a few thousand natural ones too.

Much, much more peer-reviewed, experimental data is needed to support homeopathy.

Are Australians just stoned from breathing in too much eucalyptus oil?

That would certainly explain the koala-like attitude.

Life on another planet. I think the discoveries on our own planet of bacteria living miles underground; of whole ecologies built around sulphuring vents at impossible pressures at the bottom of the sea; indicates that life has to be found 'off-planet' and probably in our solar system.

I'm an optimist in this sense as well.

So, if there are more left-handed Martians than right handed, there is life?
Still trying to nut that one out!

In the article, Gilbert Levin mentions "chiral molecules".
The best description I could find upon a little digging was this:
Chirality (chemistry) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps someone has more to add to this....

[HydrogenBond]

The horizon problem can be circumvented if we shrink the size of the universe until the speed of light is not being violated.

9 Dark energy
IT IS one of the most famous, and most embarrassing, problems in physics. In 1998, astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at ever faster speeds. It's an effect still searching for a cause - until then, everyone thought the universe's expansion was slowing down after the big bang. "Theorists are still floundering around, looking for a sensible explanation," says cosmologist Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. "We're all hoping that upcoming observations of supernovae, of clusters of galaxies and so on will give us more clues."

The simplest explanation for what appears to be an accelerated expansion is a SR reference affect. Here is how to explain it. To begin, we have two references looking at a third object that is not in either reference. For example, both references, one moving near C and the other stationary on earth, are observing the sun and recording their results, independently.

If we were on the rocket ship, traveling near the speed of light, distances appear to contract. This makes the sun appear to more compact compared to someone on earth looking at the sun. If the moving reference was to slow down, this will not impact the earth reference's perception of distance, since it still see the same size sun. But the slowing reference will see the sun expanding. There are two distant observational references with the one that is slowing getting the impression distances appear to be expanding, even when they are not really changing. The logical extrapolation is our galaxy is decelerating from an SR reference, creating the impression that the distance is getting larger.

It is an SR paradox of a deceleration from relativistic speed, creating the reference perception of an expansion. The original scientists were correct with the slow down, while the new scientists are observing the resulting reference expansion. What is assumed to be mutually exclusive, is complementary via the SR paradox.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The horizon problem can be circumvented if we shrink the size of the universe until the speed of light is not being violated.



The simplest explanation for what appears to be an accelerated expansion is a SR reference affect. Here is how to explain it. To begin, we have two references looking at a third object that is not in either reference. For example, both references, one moving near C and the other stationary on earth, are observing the sun and recording their results, independently.

If we were on the rocket ship, traveling near the speed of light, distances appear to contract. This makes the sun appear to more compact compared to someone on earth looking at the sun. If the moving reference was to slow down, this will not impact the earth reference's perception of distance, since it still see the same size sun. But the slowing reference will see the sun expanding. There are two distant observational references with the one that is slowing getting the impression distances appear to be expanding, even when they are not really changing. The logical extrapolation is our galaxy is decelerating from an SR reference, creating the impression that the distance is getting larger.

It is an SR paradox of a deceleration from relativistic speed, creating the reference perception of an expansion. The original scientists were correct with the slow down, while the new scientists are observing the resulting reference expansion. What is assumed to be mutually exclusive, is complementary via the SR paradox.

Uh, we're not talking about spaceships traveling near c here. We're talking about *photons* traveling *at* c, light emission. If we were measuring anything traveling below c to determine expansion, then I would agree with you.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood your position?

[HydrogenBond]

If we assume a uniform expansion of the universe in all directions, sort of the expanding balloon analogy, then each component is moving at relativistic speeds. If the balloon expansion was slowing, the relativistic velocity of each galaxy is decreasing. The affect we will see is the rest of universe appearing to expand as the distance contracted perspective reverses.

Here is the analogy contrast. If we were on a rocket moving near C and looked at the sun, it would appear contracted in our reference. If we slowed down, the sun would appear to be expanding due to the reversal of distance contraction. There is nothing different about the actual sun, the affect is just a reference illusion. If didn't know the rocket was slowing down, but assumed we were at stationary reference, one would interpret the sun differently. One may conclude the sun was at its end because it was expanding. This is analogous to the perception of the accelerated expansion, because it also assumes we are the stationary reference.

The current assumption makes use of relative velocity. But relative velocity can be shown to violate the conservation of energy. The conservation of energy require an absolute reference scale. Here is the proof. We start at earth. We have a rocket, that we will input X energy to get it into a relativistic reference where the mass appears to double, just for a number. On earth, we set up ten observation posts to view the rocket. Using relative reference, the rocket will see all ten observation posts appearing to have the same relativity. We only inputted X energy for the rocket, yet the rocket would see 10X energy since each observation post looks the same. This is in violation of the conservation of energy. From the point of view of any of the ten posts, the energy adds up right. If relative reference was valid all references would be consistent with the conservation of the energy. If we use only two references one can avoid the appearance of the energy problem but it become clear if we use more that two. The relative reference assumption will create an energy problem, such as the horizon problem. We also have to add dark energy to help compensate to get the conservation of energy to add up due to relative reference.