Speculations

If you have some background in physics or you read with some frequency popular scientific articles you sure had hear about a so called "Theory of Everything"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything), some physicist think that a set of equations, beautiful equations, can describe "in principle" all fundamental forces in nature, some even try to write equations that describe the "Universe" as a whole, equations that pretend to give an idea of the evolution past, present and future of the real world where we live. Let me point out that I am not against the never ending struggle to fully understand in its fine details each natural phenomenon that is relevant to …

Let's consider that time is an illusion, and since time has such an intimate relationship with space, so space is an illusion as well, so is motion.... I believe the Universe is 'Dimensionless' and it is a closed Universe. Black holes cruch time and space down to nothing, gives evidence that my theory is true, this along with quantum interconnectedness.. The concept of universal wholeness points to a universe where geometry and dimensions are abstract concepts. The map of the territory but not the territory itself...

The lack of contact with reality is an almost sure recipe for failure for any theory that pretends to describe reality and today we have a perfect example of that failure in the scientific world in String Theory. A theory that Mathematically is very rich and had produced very deep results in various branch of higher Mathematics, but as a Physics theory of reality had been a failure. And the reason for that failure is clear: When compared with two great Physics theories of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory we can see that the genesis of Quantum Mechanics was the synthesis of multiple and consistent observational/experimental data and in Relativity Theory was a…

Hi Everyone, this is my first time on here, but I love the subject and so would like to share my thoughts, although I'm not sure it's going to answer the question. It depends on whether you believe in the multiverse theory or not. Personally I do. I think it's more then likely that the big bang happened many many times before and after the one that created our own universe and is still happening over and over again like bubbles in boiling water. Our own universe, although very very big, has an edge, a skin if you like, that is expanding. It now seems that it is expanding faster, the further out you go, giving rise to the question why? The answer (so far) seems to be…

It has been suggested by many that we as humans are at the pinnacle of our growth to stature. Could it be that it is not coincidence that we have reached this condition RIGHT NOW . Everything appears to be coming together at this moment in time. For most things in the universe there is a beginning ,a first. As scientists we nearly all accept there was a FIRST around 13.7 billion years ago ( singularity, inflation, Big Bang ) a first point in time for the start of the material universe. Currently many space orientated projects are involved with looking for another life supporting world . There has to be a first . What if our world is the FIRST . ( for Sentient …

I find the article relating to the discovery of monopoles in spun ice intriguing. It appears that those scientists have overlooked one very obvious fact, that has essentially been proven by the creation of an artificial monopole magnet by the talented individuals involved with that project. Monopoles may simply be mutated elements; such as rubidium, that have reacted with other elements which has caused the atomic structure of the key element (in this case rubidium) to change and develop a singular magnetic pole. Therefore; one could assume that the monopole mutation can only occur naturally, when specific elements react with each other in the right conditions…

Simplicity is a result of equilibrium, and seeking simplicity is a human specific preference Simplicity is that a relative few theories and mathematical models can explain a number of phenomena. While complexity is the opposite where there seems to be an unending need to invent new theories. By this definition, physics and astronomy are in the former camp and social science and biology belong to the latter. Why is the universe is even understandable? This itself is hard to understand according to Einstein. I propose a line of reasoning here. Simplicity is a result of long term evolution in a close system. The resulting equilibrium gives rise to simplicity. The infini…

I understand how it can be concluded heavier elements than iron don't fuse. Seems to me the ability to form heavier elements would be proportional to the size of the star. Baryonic mater has quantititave propperties, therefor there is an upper limit to atomic neclitides size. I postulate that once this upper limit is achieved, dark matter becomes a product of the fusion process. It's easy for me to concieve dark matter production, correlates to super novae episodes. At best I have a rudimentary understanding of thermo-dynamics, can't substantiate this hypothisis, its a gut feeling...

I would be willing to believe that there is no such thing as a finite value in reality, and this might lead to some linguistic paradoxes, or misconceptions anyways. I'd be interested in any example of a finite value in reality, not an abstract or mathematical one, but a natural example of anything that maintains a distinct finite identity. I don't think it actually makes any sense to describe something this way. Therefore I don't think it makes sense to expect Zenos Paradox to be anything more than a linguistic misinterpretation.

this site is a place for a punch of crazy people think that they get pleasure by talking about a story of a photon going and coming back , crazy people, how do get pleasure by talking about things that are invisible ? we get pleasure by our senses!! regarding my thread energy producer, I successfully generated energy from nothing, what do you feel about that basic physics is wrong? you get pleasure from something invisible and wrong this place is exactly a Sanatorium. swansont , imatafal , hyper _valent idione , klaynos , I WOULD LIKE TO BE BANNED.

With the moderators permission I would like to reintroduce this single topic, because I believe the question was not fully answered in the previously closed thread. We observe and agree that there are two kinds of charges positive and negative and we agree that matter in general is made up of particles carrying both kinds of charge, and we agree that there exists an electrical potential difference when two objects have differing amount of charge. We can think of this as having two bowls, A and B, each containing an even mix of black and white marbles, so we can say that the colour mix is the same and therefore no potential colour difference between the two bowls. …

The horizon program on Thursday casts doubt on the existence of gravity waves; as the ripple could be cosmic dust generated. Anyway, this is just as well as gravity is attractive not expansive so would makes balancing the universe even more difficult. Dark energy should in my opinion be renamed dark force as we are looking for a repulsive force to push the galaxies apart. A sort of repulsive accelerator.

I have spent many years trying to understand gravity. I know very well the current theories and their flaws, which is why I do not believe any of them are correct; not even the much praised General Relativity. And after much research, and nearly every scientific undergraduate classes offered by the good college of USF. I have found a way to understand gravity that fits in very well with almost all of the observed experimental data that I am aware of anyways. And hence created this theory I call Dynamic Gravity. Here is a video of me doing my best to explain it and show some of the reasons behind it: Dynamic Gravity Video Now, why do I post this theory on these forums…

I meant if there was nothing before big bang how did big bang occured without any energy?

How do we calculate the force of gravitational attraction between co-orbiting planets? Take 2 planets both the same radius from the Sun and have them start off at the L3 lagrangian position with respect to each other. (That is directly opposite each other on different sides of the Sun.) Now if for some reason one or the other is perturbed and and they get off the L3 Lagrangian Spot and hence over time they get pulled around the orbital circumference toward each other, but at the same time both are still orbiting the Sun. This is definitely not the same as two bodies separated by a distance 2 times the radius, because that was where they start from and they didn'…

I claim that relativity of simultaneity, as presently understood, is most likely inconsistent as a very concept. On the Nature of Time and Simultaneity Author(s): Benjamin Palan Abstract What is time ? Which properties are emergent and which are intrinsic ? Time is discussed, with special emphasis on properly discriminating the hypothetical outside perspective from the time of a world itself. This leads to a single, relatively simple model of time which is thought to encompass all others. Applying it to simultaneity, a conjecture is made which could turn out to be of great importance to proper definition and discrimination of relativity of simultaneity and of ab…

Hi I am wondering If there is an end of the universe, because I think even the whole universe get destroy, one day a new big bang may occur because It is infinitive maybe after trillions of years or more but It might be? am I wrong? Is that impossible to occur a new universe in a number of infinitive years? Sorry for my English, and Thanks.

Theoretically, if it were possible to increase the speed of an electromagnetic wave beyond the speed of light, would it then be possible to encode some form of basic binary data into said wave to send that data to the relative location of where the earth was, say, a month ago? Assuming that the destination of this wave was to a device capable of intercepting it and relaying the encoded data, that is.

Everyone is now familiar with the problem of galaxy rotation curves, and how it has given rise to speculations about galaxies containing dark matter. The problem was first announced by American astronomers Vera Rubin and Kent Ford in 1975, who collaborated to show that galaxies displayed a flat rotation curve and did not exhibit the expected Keplerian motion. Unable to explain such flat rotation curves, theoreticians proposed that there had to be additional matter to what was visible in the galaxy in order to account for the flat rotation curve, and it was coined "dark matter". Keplerian orbital velocity follows the function; [latex]v = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}[/latex] …

What is the real age of Earth? By wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth "According to evidence from radiometric dating and other sources, Earth was formed around four and a half billion years ago. Within its first billion years,[37]life appeared in its oceans and began to affect its atmosphere and surface, promoting the proliferation of aerobic as well as anaerobic organisms and causing the formation of the atmosphere's ozone layer." Is it possible that in just one billion year from its creation, the Earth was cool enough to sustain ocean? The temperature at the center is as follow: "At the center, the temperature may be up to 6,000 °C (10,830 °F),[78] and the…

. EULER's DISC Parts of the heavy steel disc, keep falling under gravity towards the level mirror surface ( 90 degrees to radial gravity field line towards centre of the Earth ) . See picture. The disc keeps falling around its circumference , but never makes it. So the disc continues to spin a long time. Only the surface contact resistance uses up the potential and kinetic energy , for it to eventually stop. ( Not really a spin , more a slow turning as the fast falling oscillations occur. ) I have made a related observation : occasionally if china dishes are haphazardly laid on a hard granite surface , one plate will occasionally , rock back and forwar…

Now most of us have heard of black holes and how they (in the common knowledge I've come across) have mathematical properties that should make them tiny in comparison to the event horizon if not infinitely so from the fact that it's gravitational pull is so great that it trumps over the other forces keeping it from being defined 3-dimensional, but I have to ask," Why does it have to be so different from the common model of our other heavenly bodies?" I've looked at the possibilities of what a black hole must be since i was the age of nine and the more i learned about forces and the capabilities of atoms the more unlikely it seemed to be anything like the infinite speck t…

Recent comments by an Astronomy orientated Researcher Dr Paul J Abel (Patrick Moore Sky at Night Fame ) (see ajb blogg), has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue), which it is, in string theory and other maths orientated research., Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothesis, to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. ! Post script. P.S. . hypothesis : " a suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or . …

Supply and demand dictates they are already here. The rich, seekers of prolonged life - why not if your rich enough - will have been sold the potential of organs that their immune systems will routinely accept decades ago. The earliest of the clones could be in their 30's, right?

The entire universe is expected to decay at approximatly one google years(10100). At this time, every planet, star, black hole, etc. will be broken down into their basic particles. These particles will never again interact with one and other. Seeing that time relative, once all of the universe's components have been broken down, time itself will be destroyed along with it. Thus leading to an occurence where a non-physical dimension is destroyed.