Speculations

My point here is very simple: What if relativity and all of its implications, were just the product of context? What if we shifted the very notions and axioms that physics rests upon. Why is time important? How is then and now different? What if we did consider distance in a different context? With a different deffinition? Making such claims as: there is no difference between point A and point B, even though A=/B, the difference might be just... how we think of it. Why is distance importat? Why is distance relevant? On what do we base any given proposition for its relevance? What is distance? (in a spatial sense) My point is not about trying to rebute relaitvi…

There is a simple solution for the Universe enigma. This solution is based on Darwinian approach. In the past it was believed that the life on Earth had started by some sort of a blast. Darwin showed us that this assumption is incorrect. Same concept should be applied to the evolvement of the Universe. As the variety of life had been evolved step by step, the Universe also had been evolved step by step without any need to create the whole mass of the universe in the first step. Darwin gave us a simple explanation for the evolvement of life from the first ameba, without giving us a full explanation how this first ameba had been created. This solution is based on the same …

After 15 years of following a chain of thought I was surprised to read in a post the other day an idea which seemed to gel with the concept of Earth formation that I had independently developed. I had contemplated that the Earth and Theia had formed at opposite sides of this torus of matter that orbited the protosun at the approximate radius of the Earth's current orbit. In my concept there were fewer planets than the hundreds of planets sometimes proposed, but within the torus there would be many (thousands) planetesimals. They would be formed but they do not need to jump from torus to torus for they are gravitationally bound within their own region. I thin…

The gravitational redshift is described in the literature in two ways: (1) the phenomenon is explained through the behaviour of atoms that emit radiation of lower frequency (or clocks that run more slowly) the deeper they are located in a potential well, while the frequency of the light (or photons) does not change with height. (2) the phenomenon is alternatively discussed in terms of an energy loss of a photon as it overcomes the gravitational attraction of the massive body. In this case, the frequency of the light (or photons) decreases with increasing height. Alternative (2) is rooted in Newtonian physics and it has often been repeated that it is inappro…

Well, I thought I would make a post to the Speculations category which I myself see as speculation. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics awarded in 1971 by Vanderbilt University. I went into graduate study in physics because, from my experiences, it seemed that only mathematicians and physicists were the only authorities who made any serious effort to explain the basis of their assertions. Clearly mathematics was pure logic and had nothing to do with reality (the issue I wanted to understand). Physicists gave me answers which seemed well reasoned out. Whenever they could not explain some aspect of the accepted theory, they would say "well y…

Hi I want to talk about my theory, my theory is actually we will experience everything, we will be different persons we will taste everythink we will be killer and also a victim, we will experience all of bad and good things. think about big bang we were not exist, but something happend and now we are alive, we have consciousness lets think about end of the universe everything will be destroyed not matter how,there are a lot of theories but eventually same result, and now think after trillion years or more in someday another big bang and new universe and another end, after trillion of ends and starts eventually we will have consciousness again maybe as a animal or human a…

The science has an explanation for those galaxies which are located at almost 14 billion light years away from us. However, if one day we will discover a galaxy at 50 (or 500) Billion light years away (or at infinite distance) – is it going to set any change in our understanding about the age of the universe?

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.