Speculations

In 2011 on the link: : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26262175/SagitariusBRprogramDescription.pdf was presented a friendly computer program which explicitly showed that the observed the uniform orbital speed of stars in spiral galaxies, may result from the natural distribution of mass of the stars and gas halo in these galaxies. This contradicted the current claim of the existence of dark matter (non-baryonic) in these galaxies, as the dominant component of their gravitational mass, and the perpetrator of that uniform speed of stars. It turned out that the calculations of that program have been fully confirmed in 2012 by recent discoveries of astronomers (brief remin…

If I am able to turn off all Magnetic Poles inside the Metal of the Magnet,would the particles transform to earth or my hand? Question to anyone who has Knowledge of the Magnet.

Life is the reason for being; the living carry the burden of life. The burden of life outweighs the burden of proof – a man need not prove he exists to exist, for that he needs only life. While we are alive we can answer many questions, but we cannot answer the question “what is life?” The question “what is life?” is too complex. There are many reasons for this; one reason is that we cannot travel to the far ends of the universe to retrieve the knowledge we require to build the correct answer, and another is that we cannot access another being to experience life from its perspective; humans cannot create the correct answer. There are many more reasons why. Life’s co…

I wanted to start a new thread, ancillary to the last one I started here on what amateurs actually have to do to make meaningful contributions (see http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75040-on-unknowns-making-meaningful-contributions/#entry744966 ), about another very common annoyance I see in the speculations section, which is so very, very often the speculators refuse to admit they make mistakes. Back in 2006, solar scientists announced that the next sunspot cycle was going to be unprecedented. See http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml There are some good quotes in here: and In 2009, this prediction was scaled back some (see http://s…

I invented this new term today and provided a definition. Here it is. Unarbitrated Time- (1)The instantaneous access between identical units and the prompting (or contextualization) of proximal units. (2)The physical flow of realizable objects without appealing to a numerical measurement between moments. This term is being used in the technical sense, specifically, at the moment, for computational linguistics.

I've come with a theory of particle movement through the third dimension. And another on particle movement through through a 'paused' fourth dimension. I want to find out how particles would act in these conditions I would really appreciate some help on this. Kind regards, Osborn

The reason this is called a semi unified force theory is because it eliminates the nuclear and gravitational forces then splits the electro-magnetic force into two forces, electric and magnetic. The universe is made up of two things, matter which produces the electric force and energy which causes the magnetic force. Matter gives an object substance while energy gives it structure. The natural state of matter is the neutron. The neutron is not a neutral particle but a subatomic molecule with both a negative and positive charge. The support for this hypothesis is that both the creation of the neutron and its decay into a proton, electron, and gamma ray are exotherm…

Dynamic Absolute Space : explanation of the null result of Michelson- Morley experiment Henok Tadesse e-mail: email and telephone removed by moderator The beloved idea of relativity (Galilean invariance and Einstein's two postulates) with the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment at first seem to bring an end to the problem of absolute motion once and for all. It is when one considers Sagnac's and Michelson-Gale experiments equally supporting the validity of absolute motion that one realizes relativity is not the whole story. For anyone who is unbiased and who seeks the truth, it is impossible to settle in one view (either relativity or absolu…

Is there such a thing as a past, present and future? If there is Einstein was wrong. And if there isn't, there is also an implication of the past and future in such they become complimentary. Albert, Aharonov, and D'Amato (ADD) came together (around 25 years ago) to write a paper in which science seems to have generally forgotten about. You can violate the uncertainty principle! So how do you violate a cornerstone princple of QM? Remember, in short it means that we cannot know everything about the future, because physical states in the present are represented by complimentary observables, If anyone is interested in the mathematics of observables, obser…

! Moderator Note The paper linked in this OP, 'http://physicsworld....rons-in-a-twist http://phys.org/news182957628.html external ref. The origin of the Planck scale may be attributed to as [math]\frac{c^4}{G}[/math] It is the classical or upper limit of both the gravitational and electromagnetic force, it is the grand unified force of black hole physics. [math]F_P = \frac{c^4}{G} = 1.21027 \times 10^{44} N[/math] http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant I also noticed, that if one wants full analogies of equations in Gaussian units, it changes the definition of the classical gravielectric fields. I have noticed in…

Fermions (s = 1/2) have a total magnitude, of angular momentum, directed through the three standard spatial dimensions (xyx) of [math]S^2 = \hbar^2 s\left(s+1\right)[/math] [math] S = \hbar \sqrt{s\left(s+1\right)} = \hbar \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}[/math] Such suggests, that spin-half Fermions have another half-unit of spin, directed through a fourth, "hyper" spatial dimension (w), of the "thickness" of the fabric of space-time. I.e. Fermions are actually four-spatial-dimensional quantum wave-functions, having a total actual magnitude of angular momentum, equal to one unit of [math]\hbar[/math]: [math]S^2 = \hbar^2 = S_w^2 + S_{xyz}^2 = \hbar^2 \times \left( \l…

Regarding great circle planes( GrCP's )--- i.e. axi of great tubes imho ---I've arrived at two possible scenarios that add to the desired 206 mass differrence between the electron and the muon electron. (8 * 25 ) + 6 = 206 I like/prefer this option above, because, it allows for only using the GrCP's of 3-fold and 4-fold polyhedral systems and not the 5/phi-fold. 450.11A 25 GRCs ergo, this means that were using the VE/cubo-OCTAHEDRON,and that we're in the neighbor hood of my considerations of an electron particles association with the OCTAHEDRON and specifically the its 3-GrCPS, that are found in the contracted VE/jittebug cubo-octahedron ergo double-valenced as 6 GrC…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_hypercharge the Weak-hyper-charge, of right-handed Fermions, is one-charge-unit larger (in magnitude), than their regular left-handed cousins... looking at the table provided on the page, the only way of conserving hyper-charge, as well as charge & spin, in transitions, from L <----> R... is to emit a spin-less pion = L-quark + R-antiquark (or vice versa)... only L/R quark/antiquark pairs, have no spin, and no charge, but a unit of hyper-charge, to carry away the unit of hyper-charge "lost", when (say) some R-electrons ----> L-electron so, can electrons expel pions, in transitioning from R ----> L hande…

Has anyone ever considered what the universe would look like to an observer that was not trapped in space/time? Try this: Picture two balloons at some distance apart inflating at an accelerating rate, one observer is receding at the same accelerating rate the other is stationary. What can we say about their observations?

Approximately stated, photons carry no EM charge... so, photons cannot become sources, for the creation, of new photons Thus, photons are emitted by EM'ly charged particles... and then stream away thru space, essentially in fixed, constant, unchanging number... and, thereby, (virtual) photons flight-paths trace out the "field lines" of EM fields... so accounting for [math]F \propto \frac{number \; field \; lines}{area} \propto \frac{number \; virtual \; photons}{area} \propto \frac{constant}{4 \pi r^2} = \frac{q}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 r^2}[/math] But, gluons carry "color" charge... and thus gluons can create new gluons... so, as gluons propagate away f…

@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