Welcome to NRICH.

 
Beyond Maths
[Editor: This largely unedited thread is about various philosophies, ancient and modern]
By Yatir Halevi on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 05:50 pm:

I know that it is not exactly (actually not at all) a 'Onwards and Upwards' question, but I wonder if any of you do creative things like writing (stories and/or poems) other than math...

Yatir

By Arun Iyer on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 06:09 pm:

sure...
i write poems both in english and in vernacular languages like hindi,marathi(both indian languages)

i have only one bad habit...i create a poem in a surge of inspiration,recite the entire thing and then just forget it....i don't have the habit of writing poems down in a notebook or any thing...

i don't write stories though i have this thing of writing theories which are my own sea of ideas bottled in one....i have written my own theory
of structure of atom,my own theory on nature of light and my own theory on evolution of earth...i don't know why but i do patiently write these down in a diary...

i am also interested in psychology and philosophy in my free times i do like to think on some general topics and try to analyse myself on these issues....

there are many more things which i do but i think if i write anything more than this my message will turn boring...

love arun

By Yatir Halevi on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 06:18 pm:

Actually it wouldn't be boring.
I asked that question because I was wondering If dedicating yourself to math entirely has any effect on your math performance.
I write poems as well, although in hebrew, (archaic Hebrew fits me better), I haven't tried writing in english, maybe because I'm afraid that I wont be able to express my self the way that I want to.
I do keep a notebook of my poems, I find that it helps...
I do arts and crafts (interested in ancient technology) and also very interested in philosophy...

Yatir

P.s.
I would very much like to hear your theory about the evolution of earth...

By Arun Iyer on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 06:34 pm:

as a student of computer engineering i don't think i can dedicate myself completely to maths,so i don't know whether it affects math performance(my guess is it sure must have some effect).....

i only follow maths because my dream is to do research in both maths and physics...though these may remain as unrealised dreams...

about the thoery of evolution of earth...
well its actually theory of evolution of "life" on earth....
continued....

love arun
P.S->the spelling is actually "archaic"...

By Arun Iyer on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 06:36 pm:

i actually thought of putting up the theory but then the theory is little big so i will try to post it tomorrow...

love arun

By Yatir Halevi on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 06:39 pm:

Exactly what I thought (about the evolution), I've long thought that there is something crooked (Once again I apologize about my spelling) in the current evolution theory and it amazes me that none is done to make it better...
I really would like to hear your theory...

Yatir

P.s. If your dreak is to do research in math and physics, why then (If I might ask) did you pick Computer engineering ($$?)

By Yatir Halevi on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 06:44 pm:

I'll be looking forward....

Yatir

By Arun Iyer on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 06:53 pm:

actually BIG BANG theory which is the one proposed recently seems to be an accepted theory...the recent theory of Mr.Stephen Hawking i.e the string theory seems to approve of the big bang theory...

however,i am with you in saying that the theory needs a little improvement...

love arun
P.S->as for why i opted for computer engineering...
i actually wanted to do PhD in both maths and physics...however in India it seems that this degree seems to have no value...engineering has good value for money here....this along with my financial constraints have forced me to do engineering....

as to why computer engineering....it is hot right now and i wanted to grab the opportunity when it knocks..also i have an indepth interest in robotics.....

love arun

By Yatir Halevi on Friday, December 28, 2001 - 07:12 pm:

I would like to think that I wouldn't fall into money's charm, but who knows, afterall I still need to be in the army for 3-years (a law is Israel) before I'll be able to go to higher education...
It is quite sad that math doesn't have the prectiege it once had...

Yatir

By Arun Iyer on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 06:07 pm:

here goes my theory,

The theory is based upon the Newton’s Law of Gravitation…..
According to newton’s law of gravitation,
“Every particle attracts every other particle by force which is proportional to product of their masses and inversely proportional to square of distance between them”

By this law,
F a [ M1*M2]/R2
F=[G*M1*M2]/R2
Where G=universal gravitational constant
M1,M2=masses of two bodies
R=distance between two bodies

(Now,I hope you have some knowledge on circular motion)
Earth revolves around the sun..
The centripetal force is provided by the force of attraction between two bodies…
Therefore centripetal force = [G*ME*MS]/R2
Where ME = mass of earth
MS=mass of sun

Now we know the fact that mass of the sun is reducing ….
Also,we know that velocity with which the earth is moving is provided by the centripetal force..
As the mass of sun reduces,to maintain the velocity i.e indirectly the centripetal force,the distance between the earth and sun must increase…i.e earth will slowly move away from sun (this is obvious from the above formula)..
This proposition is true for every planet in the planetary system…and not just for earth..

It is now but obvious that due to lack of sun’s light and heat, life on earth will soon cease to exist…

Here is the real kick,the actual theory…
I suppose that our entire milky way system is like a metal block…and the planetary systems(like our solar system) are atoms of this metal block whose central nucleus is sun and the extra nuclear part consists of planets & etc.

We know that the orbits of the atom in a metal block overlap with each other ,in the same way I assume that some of the orbits of one planetary system overlaps with the orbits of other planetary system…

If so then the planets which are moving away from the sun(mentioned earlier)may come into the orbit of some other planetary system i.e come under the influence of a new sun…

Then according to the velocities they already posess(assuming that there is no alternation in velocity of the planets), they will rearrange themselves around this new sun. The distance between planets and the sun can be easily determined from the equation I mentioned earlier…

Above we see that there is transition of planets from one planetary system to another…
This transition occurs due to reduction of mass of sun
During this transition there is a possibility that planets may undergo (rapid/slow) atmospheric changes…
This change may be suitable for the development of life..
Thus there may be formation of new life on that particular planet…..

RESULTS
1.Position of planets would have been something else some millions or billions or trillion years ago.So there is a possibility that earth might have gone through many transitions before it has reached the place where it is now…
2.I can give a logical explanation for the meteor showers which caused extinction of dinosaurs.
3.I can a logical explanation for the development of human life on earth..
4.This theory may eventually lead to the fact of evolution of earth…
5.Existence of aliens might be a possibility…..( a very strong possibility)


love arun

By Arun Iyer on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 06:19 pm:

i don't know how well i have presented the theory but i do hope everyone reading it gets the general idea..

the theory is now open for any criticism or any suggestions for improvement....

love arun

By Graeme Mcrae on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 06:55 pm:

It's an interesting thing in science that a theory can never be proved true; only disproved. By presenting your theory, and opening it up for criticism, you are inviting attempts to disprove your theory. That takes courage, and I admire you for that. I imagine you will read the messages that disparage your theory, and use the information they provide to improve your theory.

In that spirit, I would like to begin by questioning one of the results you obtain from the theory. I question it not because I think it doesn't follow from your theory; rather because it does follow from your theory but it is at odds with current interpretation of observations that have been made.

Result 1 suggests that Earth may have been captured by our sun after having flown away from another star that "lost its grip" on Earth. Yet geologists have measured the age of Earth and found it to be about 4 or 5 billion (billion=109) years old, which is the age predicted by the accepted theories of solar system formation.

Moreover, if Earth came from a point many lightyears from the sun, and was accelerated by the sun's gravity, then it would have adopted a very eccentric orbit from the beginning, much like the orbit of comets. In order to form a nearly circular orbit (one almost perfectly aligned with the other 7 (yes, 7; Pluto isn't a planet) planets) something would have had to put the "brakes" on as Earth came in for its landing.

The universe has been in existence for how long? 12 billion years? 15 billion years? Something like that. How long will it take for a sun like our sun to lose its grip on a planet like Earth, allowing it to wander free? I worry that your theory has a weakness here.

Evidence that a star can lose planets this way -- evidence that would support your theory -- would be the discovery of very large -- planet sized -- chunks of matter flying through space. Our sun will likely lose its grip on Jupiter before it loses its grip on Earth, so why haven't we seen Jupiter-sized rocks in space? Maybe because they're very dark. Now that I think of it, cosmologists have been searching for the missing "dark matter" that glues the universe together. Maybe the dark matter consists of homeless planets.

By Arun Iyer on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 07:23 pm:

its quite happy to see such a good response...

anyways,BTB,
let us take your first point...
it doesn't matter what the age of earth is!!!
it would have formed somewhere else and moved into our solar system just a few years ago...(when i say few it could be in millions)
This i say as to be a "distinct possibility"..

let me take your second point...
this is a question which requires some more detailed studies...i think my knowledge is quite limited to answer that..

let me take your third point..
we neither know how many suns have been lost by the universe nor how many suns the universe has...Actually to think that universe has come into existence just 12-15 billion years ago seems quite absurd to me...OK!!Even if this is the case..then we must be at the initial part of the transition phase i described...i.e this must be the second or third position that the earth has taken....

Now,Let me take your fourth point...
remember...the transition phase i described is quite a slow process...(the word "rapid" used by me in my earlier post is just a relative term)..
mass of sun reduces at a very slow rate..so it loses its grip very slowly....so maybe that is why the motion of planets is not quite obvious Come to think of it,we do see chunks of matter flying through space say for that matter "a comet"

love arun

By Yatir Halevi on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 07:57 pm:

Very Interesting Theory...
I too have some comments.
First, about the 'dark matter' Graeme mentioned, what I think he meant was matter, that didn't produce 'Light' and didn't have any close light source so light could be reflected from them and hence Could not be seen.

Second, We must remember that there are gravitational forces between the planets themselves, and this forces must not be taken lightly, so if one planet frees from our solar system it will effect the rest of it, and vise versa..

Third, I actually read a book by a scholar named "Zecharia Sitchin" He writes books that interpet the ancient scriptures (mostly Sumerian) as is, That is gods exist, and he claims that the sumerians claim that their Gods where somekind of space Astronauts, And their planet got hooked to ours by the Solar System's Graviatational Pull (very close to your theory)... I highly recommend you read it, it is called: "The Twelfth planet".
And he found a clay tablet which has a drawing of the solar system, Pluto, Uranus and Neptune Included. Scientest claim that the ancients didn't know of those plantes, but there they are. I could add a picture of the drawing if you would like..

Yatir

By Graeme Mcrae on Saturday, December 29, 2001 - 11:08 pm:

Re Arun Iyer's comment that 12-15 billion years is an absurd age of the universe. Perhaps "yesterday" would be less absurd. I'm not kidding. How can I know the universe is older than one day? It's possible that the entire universe, myself included, was formed yesterday, with every particle in the proper motion to give rise to "today". What about my memories, memories of my childhood, etc.? Those could have been created in my head along with the rest of the universe on Creation Day (yesterday, or one minute ago, perhaps).

Einstein once said, "Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." So is it simpler to imagine that the universe was created 12-15 billion years ago? Or is it simpler to imagine that it was created yesterday? Or is there some other simpler explanation (but not one that is "too simple")?

Re Yatir Halevi's comment that we shouldn't neglect the mass of the planets or the forces between them... If you add up all the mass of all the planets, asteroids, and other space debris that orbit the sun, the total would be about one five-hundredth of the mass of the sun. Just to put it in perspective.

By Arun Iyer on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 09:14 am:

Graeme,
i think you "misunderstood" my use of the word "absurd".
infact whatever you said in the last post is exactly what i meant by the word absurd.If we don't know what the age of the universe exactly is,till then we cannot criticise that particular point in my theory.

i hope i am quite clear to you..sorry if i am sounding a little offensive..

love arun

By Arun Iyer on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 09:15 am:

Yatir,
thanks for your recommendation of the book..though i am not sure if i can spend enough time reading it..my schedule does get hectic these days..
if you have read the book and have some suggestions,you may go ahead and post it.

love arun

By Arun Iyer on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 09:17 am:

To everyone reading the theory and taking interest in it..
i would like to say something..

the theory is a rough prototype of my ideas..it has many missing links i.e the theory is still incomplete...

it is not mature enough to handle any number works(i.e any problems related to numbers)..so let us keep the numerical facts aside for a while..

when i said criticism i said i would like to have criticism on my line of thinking,my ideas put up here(i.e if anyone finds fault in it)
if anyone feels that my ideas are...OK! but it needs some improvements then they can go ahead and post their suggestions...

My vision::
if this theory is good enough then it will develop into a fundamental foundation for future experiments...
if this theory ain't good enough then we will just have to dump it and move ahead..

love arun

By Yatir Halevi on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 12:23 pm:

Scientests still don't know the precise date of the universe and are still have many answers to that question...

Graeme,
What I meant was that for the outer planets (and some of the inner) the gravitational pull from closer planets will be felt because as you must know the distance from the other math affects the magnitude of the gravitational force much more than the mass (propotional to the square of the distance)...

About that ancient solar system knowledge.
First think of our solar system this way:
current

Next look at at drawing of a sumerian clay tablet
old

See the resemblence.
Notice that pluto is beside saturn and that there is a new planet between mars and jupiter.
What the author of the book does is decipher the ancient sumerian epic: "Enuma Elish" which describes the formation of the universe, world.
He deciphers it as the formation of the solar system.
To make a long story short, What happens is that an alien planet gets attracted into the solar system (at the begining of its formation), shifts pluto to its current position, and collides with the planet between mars and jupiter, divides it into two parts one becomes the astroid belt and the other earth (and the moon). This explains the astroid belt. And it also explains the misplacement of earth in its position between venus and mars. All the planets are distanced in a single ratio from the sun, except for earth, and it also implies that there should have been a planet between jupiter and mars.
You might also have noticed, that the old testement also speakes of god dividing the heavens into two parts, one made the earth the other the heavens (In hebrew RAKIA, which means the hammered braclet: The astroid belt)...
I really do suggest the book...

Yatir

By Yatir Halevi on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 12:27 pm:

If you didn't find it, the ancient depiction of the solar system is in the upper-left corner of the clay tablet

Yatir

By Arun Iyer on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 06:18 pm:

Verrrry interesting ..... very interesting indeed.

yatir,
does the book give any info on how the sumerians might have drawn that diagram...
if it has then it might be a vital clue...

love arun
P.S->i am trying catch hold of that book...it is not available in any store nearby..i am trying few different sources though...(also cost does matter)

By Graeme Mcrae on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 07:31 pm:

Yatir,

Thank you for taking the time to explain more fully the Sumerian depiction of the solar system. The collision of a rogue planet with the BetweenMarsAndJupiter planet does explain one of my other problems with Arun's original theory: what put the "brakes" on earth as it hurtled through space towards the sun? Such a collision could be the very explanation that is needed. It would also explain how a planet much older than 4 billion years could appear to have been formed 4 billion years ago. The collision would have substantially heated and reshaped the rogue planet, which would have then cooled, as geologists have discovered, between 4 and 5 billion years ago.

Arun, don't worry; I didn't take offense at having the generally accepted age of the universe called "absurd". In fact, it is absurd, in the sense, "having no rational or orderly relationship to human life" (http://m-w.com)

By Yatir Halevi on Sunday, December 30, 2001 - 08:37 pm:

This book is one of a collection named "The earth chronicle", all written by Zecharia Sitchin.
You should start with the first one "The twelfth planet", it summerizes the theory in a very good way.
I know you can find it in amazon, although I do not know the shipping to India.
It's Ironic, since I summerized all the solar system formation section from this book, in hebrew, for a class work I had to do, So I have it on my computer, about 9 pages, BUT they are all in hebrew. So unless you have any magical Hebrew-to-English full text translator...
The sumerians themselves claim they got their information from their gods. Their gods, meaning, the "Aliens". Actually all the mythologies of the ancient world were originated from the sumerians...
If I remember correctly, what happend is the the alien planet had some life molecules on it when it crashed to the planet between mars and jupiter (named Tiamat), tiamat was a watery planet, and so life could easily have developed on Tiamat after the crash (from now on Earth). But life developed quicker on the alien planet since it had a further start-line. So the 'Gods' are actually "Aliens" from the alien-planet, which re-enters our solar system every 3600 years (called a 'shar' in sumerian). What makes things interesting is that a lot of the technological leaps in the ancient world took place about 3600 years apart...
Very Interesting Theory....

Yatir