Speculations

Force is mass acceleration and curvature is equal and opposite reaction to inertial pressure differential. Mathematical calculations based on curvature are alphanumeric images of force. Images are easily misinterpreted. Is "That might be the most meaningless nonsense I've ever read in a single post." a kind and well reasoned response? peace ron (:I see through the empress` new cloak:)

I have been thinking about this question for quite a while and want opinions from mathematicians, programmers and others. http://denninginstitute.com/pjd/PUBS/AmSci-1990-2-thinking.pdf I want to specifically discuss about this question. We know mathematicians prove theorems, for example Alan Turing proves that no algorithm exists to solve the halting problem and he arrives at an algorithm which shows what algorithms cannot do but my question is did he arrived at that algorithm in a computable way or to put it in an another way is there an algorithm which generates other algorithms or did he just discovered it in a non-computable way. Even programmers come up with n…

Ruv -(1/2) Rguv=Guv given true statement Ruv -(1/2) Rguv+Lambda guv=Guv Guv+Lambda guv=Guv false statement Going to be giving a web lecture on this next month to those interested in alternate theories, what is required to make the false statement true and what it means physically. Questions more than welcome here.

First off the Michelson and Morley experiment, if there is an aether and light is already traveling on it then why would putting light in a different medium be a viable experiment. Also if there is an Aether, it doesnt mean light has to have it to travel. I'm sure when you slap a wall the energy from your slap still travels as if you slapped a body of water. The water just shows you the disturbance infront of your slaps energy. Right? I'm not saying there is an aether, I just want to brainstorm and talk about it.

Here below a picture from the Wikipedia article about redshift: So I made a screenshot of this picture and imported into a Cad program. Then I joinded graphically the end of the absorption lines, as accurately as possible, and ended with the following graph: So I thought the Wiki picture is not good. I found this other one from Brian P. Schmidt Nobel lecture page 5 ( http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/schmidt-lecture_slides.pdf ) . And I did the same thing, importing in Cad, joigning the lines, and obtaining this below: Then I did something else: i scaled the image down and put it above the original …

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moved through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both. In a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.

First, the Relativistic energy equation: E2 = p2 + m2 treats rest-mass like a "hyper-momentum", in an extra spatial dimension: E2 = pxyz2 + pw2 That extra "w" dimension can be construed, as the hyper-spatial "thickness" of the fabric of space-time. The fabric of space-time may have an "inside surface", and an "outside surface". And, the wave-functions of quanta may reside in between both said surfaces, like ice cream between the wafers of an ice cream sandwich. In reduced-dimensional visualization, in (1+1)D, the space-time fabric of our universe may resemble a "vase". In this hypothesis, that "vase" would have some "hyper-thickness", and would n…

I was amazed to read about scalar, longitudinal electromagnetic waves as I have never heard of them before. However, I was casually looking through the web and found this: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/Beard_wmod.htm My questions are: Do such waves exist? If they do, what sort of properties would they show and how could you detect them?

This is one point constant accelerated expansion model. Observer line calculation t_current=t+L/C t_current=t+(L_initial +vt)/C v=(Ct_current-L_initial)(1/t) -C t_current; current time, 13.75billion year L_initial; initial Supercluster distance from the Earth In the case of constant acceleration Observer line calculation t_current =t+L/C t_current=t+(L_initial +(1/2)vt)/C where (1/2)v is average velocity value from Big Bang to a point. Solve above equation to the v. v=(2C t_current -2L_initial)(1/t) -2C one point expansion, Linitial=0 v=(2C t_current )(1/t) -2C v; speed of expansion(1x1022km/billion year) C; speed of light(9.46x1021km/billion year) t; time(billio…

20th century cosmological conjectures have reached a self-destructive stage due to: 1) Excessively far fetched implications (e.g., entire galaxies at the edge of the known universe are proffered to travelling faster than the speed of light in vacuum); 2) Gross internal inconsistencies (e.g., per very definition of explosions, the big bang would require the universe to be empty for about 13.7 billion light years from Earth, with galaxies then decreasing in speed, in dramatic disagreement with astrophysical evidence, while the background radiation can be easily proved to have been absorbed by galaxies and intergalactic media billions of years ago); and 3) Large failures …

What is a problem in my calculated result? By my calculation, we can not see 13 billion years ago. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/70250-shouldnt-the-universe-be-slowing-down-in-expansion/page-2#entry713048

Let me first start out by saying that I have never taken a physics class but am intrigued by the topic. With that being said i believe I still have an interesting theory... It can be said that the 4 known dimensions can be represented by a line. With our 3 spatial dimension extending an infinite amount left, right, fowards, back and up down. Our 4th dimension being time, stretching linearly and infinitly into the past and into the future. Now let's consider the dynamic of size to be a dimension and look at this in the same way. A linear with the smallest known measurments of existence (strings) to the largest known measurments of existence (super clusters) as poi…

Gravity is probably caused by the electrical interactions of all matter. And relativity is obviously bullshit.

Light can travel through the space. But we have not obtained the maxmum limit value of it's flux( energy / (time .unit area) ) yet. So, to define the limit value, MLLFS(maximum limit of light flux in the space) will be useful for the future researcher. I hope someone will obtain the exact value from the experiment.

Take a taste! The introductory part of a comprehensive treatiseSocrates vision of kvarton universe Socrates hypothesis ofkvarton's universe, I hope that a sufficiently credible solves centurycontroversy éterists with relativists. Age-old rivalry of the two camps hascreated an ideological trench mutual misunderstanding of reality: Relativistsnever failed to causally explain the existence of such as limit velocity, norknown dielectric properties of "emptiness" - the vacuum. In contrast,supporters of the ether are unable to causally explain its two apparentlyantagonistic properties: the ability to transmit electromagnetic waves also thehighest frequency w…

The description of probability waves being related to all particles whether very small like neutrinos or very large like the earth under the wave particle duality, appears to make the wave aspect relevant at neutrino size but not relevant at earth size. ( De Broglie ) This I understand relates to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle being currently discussed in the Quantum Physics Forum . One aspect of probability has connotations of " one moment here" probably or " one moment in TIME " there probably. IF ( SPECULATION ) we were to take ourTime Out of the aspect of probability, then surely the particle would or could be everywhere that the probability wa…

ok i have an hypothesis and i don't have any way to test it nor do i have the right kind of know how. however i think i may know why the stars ext are speeding up away from the 'big bang' to use the most simple term ok first i will set out the asumtions i am using (based on papers i have read writen by peaple much more knoligeble than i 1. the universe is expanding 2. the stars and outer matter is speeding up 3. the higs field give's the matter mass 4. the energy of the higs field is finite so my hypothesis go's like this:- as the universe expands the higs participial that make up the higs field are sped thinner this has the effect of lowering the ma…

The connections between number theory and physics are too powerful, too certain, to be ignored for much longer by the mainstream scientific community. At some point surely we will realise physics can be investigated through the analysis of number theory, and the implications of this are - well, interesting doesn't really cover it. The universe is clearly and unambiguously mathematically consistent. There can only be, by definition, one sum total of existence. And at that scale, the only value we can ascribe to the sum total of existence is that it = 1. If then everything within the sum total of existence is composed of parts of that sum total, it's not illogical to su…

After spending the last few months analyzing commonly available data in an effort to mathematically substantiate a particular theory of mine, I've stumbled upon a number interesting realizations that may merit further consideration. The specifics of which (thus far) I've summarized, due to length, on the following website: https://sites.google.com/site/sifrtheory/ I must mention that it is merely a different interpretation of the basics and not always congruent with the popular unproven theories of today.

The page with the full video http://www.youtube.c...k8&feature=plcp Hello could you mene help promote technology and can my film about cold fusion will help prodvezhenii technology. Are you concerned about Rasulov Alexei V., for what reason. I spoke at the International Congress in 2010 http://www.physical-....ru/2010rus.asp on the problems of cold fusion. Can you assist me in advancing technology, to find like-minded people on this technology, here's another article in the newspaper about it to each other Kursk http://www.dddkursk..../planet/002055/, and the red star http://www.redstar.r...1_01/3_05.html. There is also an article in the Journal of the inventor an…

This post was cancelled

My simple theory.. I am not a scientist, I am not a theoretical mathematician, andI am someone who had a lot of potential to be both, but took a path ofpopularity, athletics, and a good time……. I have a thought, and that thought I find personallyprofound. To those in the aforementionedfields it may be but a laugh, but nonetheless I find it compelling in thenature of shared wisdom to share. My father would be proud in that neither of us could evermake a square cut, but could mathematically make seemingly round objects out ofinfinite straight lines. In that spirit Ioffer a new jab of thought on how our physics may behave. Credit where credit is due, I l…

According to the vicious circle principle (VCP) the evolution of humans generally, and the development of Homo sapiens in particular, differ from what is the case for other species in that we are the only species to develop technology. Paradagmatically this development occurs in a situation of scarcity, and turns that situation into one of surplus. This surplus allows the human population to grow until it runs into the problem of scarcity again. And then, in certain cases, a new form of technology is invented/discovered, and the scarcity is once again transformed into a surplus, with subsequent population growth. And so on. This explains, among other things, why the human…

Which part we can see in the Universe at the present ? We can see the limited part of the Universe. The light comes from the near star was passed in the past. And, the light comes from the far away star will be passed in the future. How to estimate that area we can see at the present? We can estimate by using this Figure. In the figure, we are on the AOL(astronomical observer line). Observer line calculation method In the case of constant velocity acceleration. tcurrent =t+L/C tcurrent=t+(Linitial +(1/2)vt)/C where (1/2)v is average velocity value from Big Bang to a point. Solve above equation to the v. v=(2C tcurrent -2Linitial)(1/t) -2C one poin…