Speculations

@sceptic 1 : A possible contribution to what you are saying, with the earth as example, could be my following idea. ( speculation, (but interesting?) ) : The earth does not pull objects towards it's core, it is force-particles pushing the object towards the earth's core. Why ? Because there is no such thing as 'pulling particles', particles can only push things, plain and simple. So what happens is that in the 'force-steady' atmosphere, the earth is an objekt disturbing this statusquo. Like a ball in water experiencing force from the water all around equally. (If gravity of the earth were excluded) So if a smaller object get's near theearth, it will experienc…

CONTROVERSIAL: The limit extent of electric charge’s field. Theorists say that the field of electric charge is extended in infinity. Doesn’t this statement contradict the other statement about fix quanta of minimal energy? Let suppose we have two unity electric charge divided by a distance: D = [ ( C*1) / (2*pi/α) ) + Δ] here Δ is a space segment “plus” Let suppose we have static situation. The potential energy of two particles will be: E = e^2 / ( 4*pi*ε0 * D) < 6.626068777*10^-34 J or < h * 1 I suppose that in the point of space where the potential energy becomes less than unity quanta, electric field c…

There is not a force of gravity coming from the sun. There are thousands. There is a separate force for every object in orbit around the sun. These forces behave the same but are independent and do not affect other gravitational forces. The force of gravity between the sun and Jupiter does not affect the planets orbiting between the sun and Jupiter and their forces of gravity. When there is a lunar eclipse the moon produces two different forces of gravity, one towards the earth and a stronger one passing through the earth to the sun. The moon-sun force does not effect the earth. This is different from all other forces which are uniformly produced and decrease in strength…

Very true. In fact, the full Poincare group associates spin, in general relativity, it arises as torsion. For instance, the torsional energy of a particle is [math]- \frac{1}{2}\hbar \cdot \Omega[/math]

in a metal, the many many electrons' wave-functions overlap, at least when you take their modulus-squared = (charge) density distribution... so, why don't such electrons repel, according to PXP ? seemingly, if you propelled pairs of electrons at each other, then their wave functions would slam into each other, and of necessity overlap, at least for some mere moments in their interaction... would PXP apply ? or, is the PXP appropriate, to constant-energy stationary states, which are themselves "orthogonal", i.e. [math]\int d^3x \Psi^*_1(x)\Psi_2(x) = 0[/math] ? And, does that say, that (simplistically), the electrons' wave-functions never actually overlap,…

The theory you propose is exactly what.i came up with I call it the dual universe time mirror black hole theory it's on u= tube the idea of the big bang is a mostly baseless and erroneous concept the universe did arrive through a black hole. Black hole anomalies are and have been happening on earth for millennium I.e. localized time shifts . I will in the future give a detailed version of my time differentiation modulation and the black hole mechanics involved . A great topic indeed !!!

The 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics and gravity not being fundamental http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics a. The universe is fundamentally built up of nothing, a beginning and an end; b. The universe is fundamentally built of something and nothing and no beginning or end; c. The universe is fundamentally built up of something and no beginning or end; d. None of the above, but……… These are logically all possibilities. We know that we don’t know which. So, for sake of the argument lets choose b. If it is indeed b then the question arises what this somethi…

real? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7T6vK3TEQE

I think gravity is actually a pseudoforce

if photons, in super-conductors, acquire an effective mass (by "bouncing between pairs of electrons")… then can such photons start to spin sideways, in the (S=1, M=0) third polarization state, w/ the projection of their spin, onto their path of propagation, equalling zero ?

Since the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html a parabolic function) wouldn't it follow that if we try to look back to the "Big Bang" we would see a false horizon? If you view a parabolic curve with limits of infinity at x=1 (y=x^2) there appears to be a right angle. Is the "Big Bang" actually at x=1? If so, the universe has no beginning and the "Big Bang" is an illusion. If we could travel back 13.7 billion years, we would still perceive a "Big Bang" that occured 13.7 billion years ago!

The WMAP teams 10 year investigation has proved that the standard model based on relativity is totally inadequate in explaining the balance of the universe as only 4.6% of the matter necessary to balance it is there. What you see is what you’ve got! To balance there has to be dark energy force [which I presume is magnetic repulsion] of 22.2 times our gravity{G} that is pushing the galaxies apart Why the WMAP team should further hypothesize that there is five times more dark matter than real baryonic matter is a complete mystery if the solar system is anything to go by. Anyway, to balance we need a force that attracts all matter inside each stars system together of 5{G}[…

A few testable questions based on a scientific procedural must, given an alternative scientifically viable speculation : Simulation for a dynamic crystal:If we take a very strong computer and simulate as many and as highly conductive and identical as possible perfect spheres each traveling at identical speeds in random directions in a large as possible cube with as high as possible conductive walls, will these balls then go to order in the centre forming a dynamic crystal? Accuracy being more critical than speed. A dynamic crystal being that each ball will remain in its virtual cube by hitting its neighbor exactly on the virtual wall of the cube. If so would it the…

The Big Bang theory has always seemed to be a scapegoat theory. There’s no other explanation for the birth of the Universe and, by default, is the best available given observational data. But to me it just doesn’t pass the common sense test….all that we can see resulted from the explosion of something very, very small. Hubble has now seen Galaxies that are billions of light years from earth. All told, there are hundreds of millions of galaxies which contain hundreds of millions of stars and untold number of planets, moons and asteroids. And all of this came from a minuscule explosion? If not a Big Bang, then how did the Universe form? Well, here’s my shot in the d…

Lately it seems to be popular to speculate that life may have originated on Mars through transfer of microbes through impact debris. Part of the mindset is that Mars cooled sooner than the Earth and may have been the source of life on Earth. http://www.space.com/22577-earth-life-from-mars-theory.html If this is true then this could explain the Cambrian "explosion", there are multicellular organisms tough enough to make the journey from Earth to Mars and by the time of the Ediacara life forms the Earth seems to have dominated by weird organisms with no modern counterparts. A meteor holding desiccated specimens of some tough creature or creatures, already the result of…

So I'm new here, I came because I have an interest in quantum physics. I want to ask a question about a theory because I admittedly have not been to college or anything, and don't know all of this stuff in depth, and want to know if it is potentially valid. Any criticism will be appreciated very much. Basically, my theory is as follows. If the four dimensions build on each other, logically the fifth dimension would be taking a step back from time. Based off Feynman's theory (I don't know if it is readily accepted) of multiple histories, the universe is adding up all the possible probabilities of the next time and moving on to the one that is most likely. Does that mea…

Quantum entanglement is studied with proposition for instant communication at any where. If we can consider inaformation transfer why do not consider energy transfer? Information transfer consider one single atom while energy will require a net of atoms in Quantum entanglement. If it works we can transfer instantaneously energy directly from sun to any where? And more if we can transfer energy why we cant think in tranfer a atom?

Is Newton's third law of motion wrong? Could the other ones be? Perhaps the original energy doesn't disappear when something impacts something else. Perhaps extra energy is gained and then dissipated as heat. This would be when the two objects that hit each other are different shapes or maybe different sizes or maybe when they are of different springiness/hardness. I thought this one up or realized it about a month or two ago, but forgot, so I am posting it now. Examples of scenarios: two magnets/electromagnets Foot hitting pavement or arm hitting a couch or bed frame makes the secondary object really warm, but walking or running for 30 entire minutes is…

If that really is Saturn or Venus in the western sky, I think it's 20 to 45 degrees off of the ecliptic. I mean, the sun sets more or less vertically. The only planet off of the ecliptic is supposed to be Pluto, but Pluto is not visible with the naked eye (I don't think it is).

Hi , Ive had a hypothesis for years about the start of the universe, nice and simple. Recently I found out about the cosmological redshift and speculation in the press about whether the antihydrogen produced at Cern ? had negative gravity [ too small a quantity to check, apparently] . Both those things come out in my hypothesis and this also becomes obvious that the Universe is a singularity . As Bohr stated , 'its crazy , but is it crazy enough to be true?' , has it ever been thought of and what was the conclusion?

Through quantum entanglement can transfer information instantly anywhere in the Universe. We can have atoms in quantum entanglement and maybe one day build structures of atoms in quantum entanglement. If we built two rings, using the easiest atoms to produce quantum entanglement like Iridium or Berilyum and if we put these rings in magnetic resonance like used in WIFI energy, can we think to transfer something more than energy? Like a atom?

For example use of camera in order to whatch real estate experiments via internet with sponsor banner, selling of partial research? What else? Can we produce knowledge this way? Currently we would not be doing this however in a more political way? In a more beautiful to way to show?

welcome to my wormhole.iii def: topspin the side rolling into the relative headwind! newton.001 def: n a measure of force and mass acceleration syns: i and m and a and g bernoulli.007 fluent flowing faster over a horizon means lower pressure and vice versa Airmass streams downwards behind slippery shiny topspinning bowling balls. Does lower pressure over accelerate fluent airmass downwards? newton.102 fluent airmass departing upwards forces spinning ball mass down Topspinning stitches and dimples drag airmass around and under and upwards. Do satin surfaced underspinning ping~pong balls demonstrate lift? inertial pressure differential.001 newto…

We've basically had the same tech for 20 years or longer, just smaller. And why don't they understand my claims? They make perfect sense to me. Especially electrons in electricity. A piece of plastic or a balloon can stick to or repel something easily for a minute or so, but a battery that can power a lightbulb for a day and a half doesn't attract or repel anything? How does this make sense?

Before anything else, forgive me for my limited use of and knowledge of English language.. "Dark Glove Theory" Multiverse Behaviour, Black Holes, Inflation , The Nothing by Simone Mancini, Ravenna , Italy My Theory is the following , its not essential to inject new mathematical codes like the Inflation inside the Standard Model of Cosmology in order to explain the accelleration boost of outer galaxies and matter in general, the conclusion I reached is that the 'Nothing' , this non visible nor quantifiable entity which composes Black Holes , in facts , It's the same entity which upholsters the universe. Exactly like Black holes do attract Matter to itself, following…