... Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 53: Sep-Oct 1987 Issue Contents Other pages Home Page Science Frontiers Online All Issues This Issue Sourcebook Project Sourcebook Subjects Has the second law been repealed?" From the largest to the smallest scales, the universe is evolving. Matter, in the form of galaxies, is undergoing a colossal expansion. Gas, condensed into stars, is radiating thermonuclear energy out across an infall of matter, drawn by gravity. The simplest of chemical reactions and the most complex of biological activities are occurring on the surface of the earth in a state far from equilibrium; they are heated by the sun and cooled by the vacuum of space. This pervasive cosmic imbalance is the driving force in producing an environment conducive to the formation of structure and complexity." This sweeping statement seems to apply to the entire universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, however, insists that, on the average, for the entire universe, the above paragraph cannot be true. The article introduced by this unqualified assertion about the evolution of the universe is really about self-organizing chemical reactions. We classify it under biology because the authors imply that some biological phenomena are self-organizing. The famous Belousov-Zhabotinskii reaction is used as the prime example of chemical self-organization. First, one takes a shallow dish filled with a solution of bromate ions in a highly acidic medium. Here's what happens: "A dish, thinly spread with a lightly colored liquid, sits quietly for a moment after its preparation. The liquid is then suddenly swept by a spontaneous ...

... Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 69: May-Jun 1990 Issue Contents Other pages Home Page Science Frontiers Online All Issues This Issue Sourcebook Project Sourcebook Subjects Gravity-defying gyros come down to earth It didn't take long for physicsts to rush into their labs to repeat the Japanese gyroscope experiments. The thought that a spinning mass might lose weight was just too horible to contemplate. Two replications of the Japanese experiment have been reported so far. "James E. Faller and his colleagues at the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics in Boulder, Colo., repeated the Japanese experiment by looking for signs of weight loss in a spinning gyroscope consisting of a brass top about 2 inches in diameter sealed in a small plastic chamber. 'We conclude that within our experimental sensitivity, which is approximately 35 times larger than needed to see the effect reported...there is no weight change of the type...described.'" (Anonymous; "An Absence of Antigravity," Science News, 137:127, 1990. Cr. F. Hanisch) "Now T.J . Quinn and A. Picard of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres Cedex, France, have repeated the experiment. They find changes in the apparent mass of their gyroscope that depend on the speed and sense of rotation, but they amount to only about 5 per cent of the effect reported by Hayasaka and Takeuchi." (Anonymous; "Experiments Weaken Japanese Gyro Claim," New Scientist, p. 32, March 3, 1990.) The French scientists think ...

... 175-gram gyroscope lost about 10 milligrams. The balance's sensitivity was 0.3 milligram. This is a very large effect; and the weight loss increased linearly with increased speed of rotation. Obviously, the physicists are most perplexed by this "antigravity" effect. Perplexity has been accompanied by outright disbelief. R.L . Park, a physics professor at Maryland, remarked: "It would be revolutionary if true. But it is almost certainly wrong. Almost all extraordinary claims are wrong." R.L . Forward, an Air Force consultant, con-curs: "It's a careful experiment. But I doubt it's real, primarily because I've seen so many of these things fall apart." (Anonymous; "Anti-Gravity Effect Claim by Japanese," San Francisco Chronicle, December 28, 1989. Cr. J. Covey. Also: Anonymous; "A Gyroscope's Gravity-Defying Feat," Science News, 137:15, 1990.) Comment. The amazing thing - the anomaly - is that such "misguided" research got funded at all and the results published. But then, maybe Japanese research proposals do not have to get by 7 (that's seven) reviewers, as required by the U.S . National Science Foundation! From Science Frontiers #68, MAR-APR 1990 . 1990-2000 William R. Corliss ...

... 55-centimeter-thick layer of glassy debris. Approximately 25% of this stra tum consists of 1-6 -millimeter particles of tektite-like glass. Most of the glass particles are spherical, but a few have the splash-forms and dumbbell shapes of bona fide tektites. The thickness of the Haitian deposit and the large sizes of the particles suggest that the smoking gun must be nearby. Ironically, the Haiti stratum was originally classified as of volcanic origin; and we must add that we are presenting here only the conclusions of the asteroid school. But where oh where is this crater? The Manson crater in Iowa (now buried) is of the right age but too small. The best candidate so far is buried in northern Yucatan. The Chicxulub crater is discernible on gravity- and magneticanomaly maps and is probably of the right age. Only drilling will confirm the guilt of the suspect. Even if Chicxulub is the culprit, much debate prevails over exactly how the dinosaurs were done in. Was it a "cosmic winter" due to dust intercepting sunlight? Or perhaps a "cosmic summer" resulting from a super-greenhouse effect caused by: (1 ) impact-released methane trapped in sediments, and (2 ) the CO2 from zapped carbonate rocks. (Smit, Jan; "Where Did It Happen?" Nature, 349:461, 1991, and Sigurdsson, Haraldur, et al; "Glass from the Cretaceous/Tertiary Boundary in Haiti," Nature, 349:482, 1991.) Reference. Section ETC in catalog Carolina ...

... Science Frontiers ONLINE No. 104: Mar-Apr 1996 Issue Contents Other pages Home Page Science Frontiers Online All Issues This Issue Sourcebook Project Sourcebook Subjects Men Like Gods With the theft of the title from one of H.G . Wells' novels, we attend to an article that appeared in the London Times last summer. The article was based upon a paper written for the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society by Prof. E. Harrison. If, said Harrison, some properties of the universe had been just a tad different, our universe would be barren of stars, light, and of course life itself. He mentions such properties as the strength of gravity, the charge on the electron, and the speed of light. Why, he and many others have mused, are these critical properties so precisely adjusted so as to permit the existence of life -- and us? Harrison lists three answers: oThis is the way God wanted it to be. Further inquiry is unnecessary. oIf the universe were constructed any other way, we wouldn't be here to ask such silly, anthropomorphic questions! Some find this "anthropic principle" to be no answer at all. oOur universe was actually created and its properties fine-tuned by nonsupernatural entities of superior intelligence living in another universe. [These beings apparently get a kick out of manufacturing other universes, or perhaps it's a religious imperative for them!] Before you crumple up this issue of SF and hurl it at very high energy into a wastebasket, consider these two paragraphs from the ...

... is controversial about Pedra Furada; it is the 595 pieces of quartz selected by French archeologist N. Guidon. These bits of stone closely resemble humancrafted choppers, scrapers, and cutting tools. Indeed, if they had been found in more recent deposits, they would have been judged "man-made" by everyone. The trouble is that Guidon has dated them at 50,000 BP - a date mainstream archeologists cannot swallow. Any New World dates earlier than 12,000 BP, maybe 20,000 BP for a few daring souls, have to be erroneous. How are the Pedra Furada chipped stones explained by mainstream archeologists? They are "geofacts, not artifacts. They were created when quartzite rocks were released by erosion and fell off cliffs to be smashed upon impact below. Gravity and not the human hand broke the quartz into pieces that just happen to look like prehistoric tools. F. Parenti, a coworker of Guidon, has tried to exorcise the geofact argument, which is used wherever tools are "too old", by showing that the 595 pieces of quartz have characteristics quite unlike those created by natural flaking. The doubters are unswayed. You see, despite Parenti's analysis, there remains a minute chance that a falling rock will fracture into pieces, one of which will look human-made. Maybe only one falling rock in 10,000 will fracture "unnaturally;" make it one in 10,000,000; it doesn't matter. Anthropologist D. Meltzer writes: "Of course, no matter how rare the chances ...

... shortage of carbon-based life forms elsewhere in the universe. In fact, there seems to be a great dearth of small, cool, solid, water-and-carbon-rich planets circling beneficent suns. Can it be that we are looking for extraterrestrial life in the wrong places? Life may have originated and prospered on the multitude of sun-less aggregations of matter drifting through the void, some doubtless quite close to us. Myriad nomadic planets may be roaming our Galaxy free from the clutches of parent stars. Two teams of astronomers think they have detected 25 of these free-floating planets, and say there could be hundreds of millions of them wandering the Milky Way. These free-floaters or "drifters" were created when small clouds of gas and dust coalesced under gravity's urging. If such collapsing clouds were less than 80 times Jupiter's mass, they would not be able to sustain nuclear reactions and become long-lived stars. Many would be-come "brown dwarfs." Still smaller aggregations -- less than 14 Jupiters -- would never shine at all. These would remain warm for a while as they dissipated the gravitational energy that created them. Such small objects would be temporarily detectable by infrared telescopes. Hundreds of such infrared "point sources" turn up in sky surveys. These are the only "drifters" we can detect. "Drifters" that have already cooled off are certainly out there by the hundreds of millions. (Muir, Hazel; "The Drifters," New Scientist, p. 14, ...

... follows: Mars has surface features that are not seen on inner planets or moons. These are hemispheric asymmetries, idiosyncratic surface fracturing, localized vulcanism, altitude differences, chains of pits, and the nature of dry river-like channels. Other features include extensive loss of an early atmosphere and liquid water. There is interest in the lower-altitude northern region, with its surface formed after the period of heavy bombardment, as a possible ocean basin. The evidence for this is very sparse: no river deltas, no river networks, little debris at the ends of the catastrophic flow channels. The surface is consistent with the stripping anticipated by a Roche-limit encounter. The low-density Martian moons appear to be unconsolidated material of higher density; they appear to be from low-gravity aggregation of that part of the Martian debris that went into orbit as a short-lived ring. A Roche-limit encounter is invoked as a reasonable hypothesis to explain these features. Earth, Mars' nearest planetary neighbor, may have provided that encounter. The Roche limit is 2.9 Earth radii. The Roche limit is that distance within which Mars would begin to be torn apart by the gravitational pull of nearby Earth. (Day, Richard A.; "A Roche-Limit Encounter Explains Martian Features," Society for Scientific Exploration paper, 2000.) Comment. Anomalists with long memories will see immediately that Day's theory is displaced Velikovskyism. Velikovsky had Venus straying close to Earth in recent times to account for historical and geological evidence of terrestrial catastrophism. Another ...

... lately by the discovery of planets wandering aimlessly through outer space apparently without the guidance of a central sun. (Ref. 1) Planets, you see, are supposed to have been formed in the discs of dense dust orbiting newly created stars. They have no business wandering through the void unattended. No problem, says R. Frost of the University of Melbourne, "They could be in orbit around Invisible Stars! (Ref. 2) If we can have Missing Matter, we suppose that Invisible Stars are not as ridiculous as they sound. It is postulated that Invisible Stars are composed of Mirror Matter, a new construct of astronomers who are desperately trying to explain their burgeoning files of celestial anomalies. Mirror Matter is strange "stuff." It interacts with Ordinary Matter only through gravity, it doesn't emit light. It is palpable but invisible. (This sounds weird, but no weirder than quantum mechanics!) Foot also pointed out that stars composed of Ordinary Matter may be orbited by Mirror-Matter planets. Expanding along these lines, whole star systems could be 100% Mirror Matter, and we'd never see them at all. How about Mirror-Matter asteroids and meteors zipping around our solar system -- invisible but palpable and threatening? As a matter of fact, it has been speculated that the still-mysterious Tunguska Event of 1908 (lots of energy but no crater) was an encounter with a Mirror-Matter meteor. (Ref. 3) References Ref. 1. Osorio, M.R . Zapatero, et al ...

... 138: NOV-DEC 2001 Issue Contents Other pages Home Page Science Frontiers Online All Issues This Issue Sourcebook Project Sourcebook Subjects The 8 Greatest Mysteries of Cosmology Such is the title of a lengthy article in the June 2001 issue of Astronomy. It is always dangerous to employ superlatives; "greatest" is particularly hazardous. Anyway, it is useful to review what mainstream astronomers consider to be their major unsolved problems. Naturally, we shall add a few that we think should have been on the list. How multidimensional is the universe? For example, gravitons, which are believed to exist in a fifth dimension, are supposed to transmit gravitational force. This dimension is barely separated from our well-known four. The thin barrier separating us from the graviton universe seems to leak a bit therebyallowing gravity, the weakest of all our universe's forces, to exist. Sounds pretty far-out, but not as bizarre as string theory which requires many more dimensions! How did the universe begin? The cosmic microwave background is much too smooth. If it was smoothed out by a sudden expansion of the universe (so-called "inflation"), what caused the inflation? Why does matter fill the universe? in other words, where is all the antimatter that we think must have been created in equal amounts? (This equality is a human philosophical requirement. The universe can do anything it wants!) How did galaxies form? What is cold dark matter? This "substance" seems to be filaments threading the surfaces of cosmic bubbles (voids). It ...