Speculations

Please consult thoroughly with it. links deleted

Brief Outline of a New Theory. I was planning to write two articles, one more serious, the other styled in a less serious tone. Here, however is the brief outline of an article that outlines a theory of mine. We may examine a point in a System to be displaced. In going across or going up of a point B to point A it causes a force of displacement to A (therefore, if F=ma is correct, each point which has a mass and acceleration can be the cause of motion as a "force"). The functions can be moving up or across, but they have to be calculated simultaneously to occur; a hypotenuse is implied in the equation so changes in the formula for Area (1/2 bh, or 1/2 of the area …

Hi everybody, The topic was about the process of evolution being a scientific method, but the real questioning was about the theory of evolution being a scientific method. I find the topic interesting as it is, so I risk a question about it even if it is a bit off topic, and you tell me if I should start a new one. Evolution is a trial and error process, and to me, scientific method too, otherwise, we would not be natural, because we would be able to predict any future, thus to predict our own evolution, and to drive it the way we want. If, like me, you think that we are not, why are we making a fundamental difference between the scientific evolution process and any o…

I follow the many attempts on science forums, to provide an understanding of the nature of gravity or gravitation; also such phenomena as the nature of the known forces. Because there is a requirement that a discussion on subjects such as mentioned above must not involve speculation, I am left to wonder why such subjects are allowed in the general physics category. Mainstream science has an almost religious belief and for practical reason for the General Theory of Relativity. Even so, and despite the statements made by GR regarding gravitation being an illusion, and gravity only existing because matter has the ability to warp space, there is a lingering belief that grav…

As I understand it, an electron is hard to get a good read on because it is appearing/disappering very quickly and also appears to be jumping orbits indiscriminately. I was wondering if there was any possibility that electrons could be in stationary orbits around a nucleus, which acting something like our sun, was throwing out flares in all directions. Once these flares hit an orbiting electron it would briefly "light it up" (something like an aurora borealis, for lack of a better example) allowing us to see/read the electron for the brief time it was "lit up". Now I am more than likely misunderstanding how an electron/nucleus interact, as well as seeing patterns …

. Like nada OR -1 + 1 = 0.

[( Any theory topologically similar to this silly crap (Serial instantiated existance in a real, physical discrete space), would allow for everything and complement most others without conflict (almost). )] "Multiverses"; could be multiplexed with ours by space and/or time. Or, the vacuum energy could be like our carrier wave among many. Or, maybe there's a universal backplane/ground somehow, that our infinitely-small "goes" to, a place that connects to and supports other universes. Likewise infinitely far away. Our little universe would be part of God's cat's cradle. (imagery) One thing is for sure, if data ever shows that an other Universe exists, then comm…

In twin frame gamma=dt/dt' and in twin' frame gamma=dt'/dt It all says that gamma isn't a coefficient of relative slowing of time , gamma is here a coefficient of non-simultaneity.

Even i am a layman , that has shallow knowledge about physic, i found it interesting like something new approach.One question: in nature we observe only spherical surfaces., except mirrors created by humans and some peaceful lakes. How can you use your ideas in objects like particles? Sorry to tell but mathematical surfaces created by mathematicians , are for me, fantasy.

Initial Conditions; Inflation by head-start with 10-to-the-80 (+/-) incompressible neutrons, having no "unoccupied" discrete spaces between them in a volume the size of the horizon of a black hole were it to have that mass, whose equilibrium then gets disrupted (bang). Such a mother-of-all black holes would have the lowest possible "Hawking temperature". (Keeping in mind that heat is not a form of energy, but energy transfer.) By itself the knowledge that all the "stuff" in the early universe was in an extremely small space doesn't really say anything about its early microscopic kinetic energy. Its temperature could have been near zero followed by a massive …

Are these virtual particles but universes many orders of magnitude smaller than our own, To us blinking into existence in a time span to short for us to observe, But universes just like ours, with all the physics/science and life that exists within ours. Our own universe but a virtual particle in another universe many orders of magnitude larger than our own. Perhaps each universe expanding until meeting/touch another expanding universe that touch and then annihilate each other like particle pairs.

is it possible for something like the universe, consists of many stages of formation,atoms,elements,compounds, biological systems, to exist by one single bang?

The universe creates energy by creating life. Regards, Jason Kemp

The theory of rotation within rotation: "Every object moving in a circular path, or even a curve , will possess internal motion, particularly regular one (rotation), the law of directions is simple, counterclockwise circular path will give counterclockwise rotation, clockwise circular path will give clockwise rotation, for objects on the surface of earth, north the equator will give counterclockwise rotation, south the equator will give clockwise rotation. The rotation of earth around its axis is due to such effect, and direction law applies for the earth and the other planets and the moons. This rotation has constant speed, an object starts at rest and continues at …

I am going to post a summary of what I've written here which is in bolded words (just in case everything I've written here is too long for you to read and that you only have time and patience to read the summary itself). But everything I've written here is very interesting and important. So I would recommend reading all of it. Summary: God only exists in the form of a concept and this concept exists in the form of the functioning of the neurons in people's brains that have created this concept (and possibly in other objects based on their grouped atoms, but I am not too sure on this). But God does not exist at all in any other sense (whether it be supernatural or in…

After a previous thread got closed "Earth as a living organism", I thought I would look more into the beginning of life on earth. I see this "soup" proteins/rna/dna as earths stem cells, containing all the building blocks for life that was to come, But there is also the theory that life began near heated sea vents It seems to be at the moment take your pick which you prefer, Whichever one or neither still leaves us with life "evolved on earth", Can life adapt to new worlds?. What I was thinking if we do start colonizing other planets, And stem cells react differently to different gravities and environments from the word go, There will come a tim…

This is just a part of a larger article. I cant post the article link but It is posted in the comments if you are interested in reading more. How I Look at the Earth Earth is not just a floating rock in space, it is a living organism. Like all organisms on our planet, Earth need water, air, energy from the sun and symbiotic lifeforms living within it to survive. In order to survive all live on Earth must have water, air, energy from the sun, reproduce and have other symbiotic lifeforms living inside it. The planet Earth is no different and to start off with I should explain where this idea came from. I was sitting in geography class about two years ago and my ins…

Using genetic engineering could a human control weather ?

The following is a continuation > of my original doodling 1994(?) > that led to my discovering that all primes-- except 2 and 3 ---. To better understand the sequence of this sine-wave evolution, and my latest resulatants here at top of page, it is best to start at bottom of page. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I see another sine-wave possibility based on 3's ergo triangulation i.e. 0, 3, 6, 9, 15, 18, 21, 24, and that is the inner concave aspect between top and bottom tubes ergo our observed reality may have a basic/root/core str…

It appears that some people here in this site do not believe that video data is enough to make any scientific consideration, that video data is not even enough to merit any further study of something for which there is only video data. The security people monitoring many video feeds 24/7 may disagree with that assessment, many life and death decisions are taken using exclusively that kind of data, but for this people video data is insufficient to make any kind of actionable "decision". I would like to hear your opinions regarding that: Is video data enough to make any "scientific" consideration?

..."Physicists have obtained important new evidence showing that the structure of the carbon-12 nucleus – without which there would be no life here on Earth – resembles that of an equilateral triangle."... Carbon nucleus seen spinning in triangular state - physicsworld.com 1 equalateral triangle + 1 equlateral trianlgle = 4 equlateral triangles ergo 2D area > 3D volume via synergetic process/operation. Biologicals/souls are creatures with a resultant, synergetic access to metaphysical-1 mind/intellect. r6

I consider this entry as a follow-up to a previous thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85807-the-reality-of-atmosphericnear-space-anomalies/ As was mentioned on that thread what are presented here are observational claims about the existence of non mundane autonomous objects that can be observed consistently in our atmosphere. As I have been unable to have physical contact with any of these objects, they usually move at high altitude, what I can present here are the result of direct observations where the "anomalous" nature of these objects is more "evident". The following footage was recorded 10/17/14 at 5:20 pm EST, as I mentioned in the previous …

Have any of you guys ever asked the question: "How big is the Universe?" Of course you have and so did I, and after groumbling on the problem for a while, it became clear to me that ever since Copernicus, scientists have been looking at some aspects of physics from the wrong point of view. Successfully I might add, but some problems we have had huge difficulties actually understanding, such as, why the speed of light is constant to all observers and why quantum mechanics works the way it does. We just accept it as a given fact. I think the problem is, that scientists have worked on reconciling time and motion of third party objects, and have considered "…

An idea about life in our wonderful, immensely, majestic, and powerful universe. I was pondering human emotions and I com paired them to thunderstorms, and idea hit me. Thunderstorms are much like emotions. There are sad storms ones that cast a light and gloomy rain. Angry storms they cause destruction with tornados, hail, high winds, lightning striking everything. Some are bursting with exuberant lightning storms and static electricity In the air, just like a joyful human bursting with what feels like electric in there veins. We all know now that we are just particles shot out from all over this universe by stars going supernova even when the first star went…

New Math The big problem for mathematics is that infinity is not a number. In the interest of symmetry, perhaps infinity needs a real partner rather than a clone multiplied by negative one (-1), infinity far verses small. Infinitiny; Infinitely small, greater than zero, everywhere, a real omnipresence. Its essential quality: It must be equally as incomprehensible as infinity. Doing away with the numeral '0' does nothing, but zero has to go. Coordinate axes which do not intersect, perpendicular but separated by some planck-length might allow that. For computation it could be said that infinity multiplied by infinite small equals one (1). (Logically okay becaus…