Speculations

The light is the wave and the particle at the same time because of the colour. There is no colour in the nature, it's a product of a human conscience. The light becomes particle when colour is created in the brain.

Attached is my Newtonian research into building a new type of flight transportation system. I am using Newtonian principles such as the scientific method, Plasma Cosmology, and Pilot-Wave Theory. Anyone who "trolls" my design - or claims it doesn't take relativity or space-time into account - will be ignored. It involves a new methodology for making graphene/silicene. The design also potentially includes a way to generate non-thermal hydrogen plasma as a sheath around the entire device. Have a look - it includes about 50 construction & CAD pictures. There is a 1-page summary attached. The entirety of the research notes can be found …

The (Earth's) free_fall gravitational_acceleration at the Earth's surface (radius r1=6378135*[m], equatorial sea_level), is (ruffly (approximated (by me) to), simply) g1=~π^2*[m/(s^2)]-ac1 where π^2~9.8 is multiplied by the (proportionality constant of) units [m/(s^2)] (& then) minus its (=the_Earth's) centrifugal_acceleration -ac1=(vc1^2)/r1, with circumferential_speed vc1=cir/T=2*π*r1/T for a sidereal_day period T=23*[hr]+56*[min]+4*[s], T=23*[hr]*60*[min/hr]*60*[s/min]+56*[min]*60*[s/min]+4*[s], T=82800*[s]+3360*[s]+4*[s] T=86164*[s] & barely produces (a meager loss (from π^2~9.8), of e.g.) -0.34% at the equator.…

When we make a measurement of a physical phenomena, we can only do so by taking advantage of an attribute inherent in the phenomena itself. For instance, we use a rod to measure length. The rod has markings that allow us to measure lengths that are within its boundaries. We use a voltmeter to measure electrical potential differences between two points. The voltmeter uses attributes inherent in electricity and magnetism to make its measurements. This leads us to measurements of time as provided by a clock. All clocks use oscillations of known intervals to measure time. This can be demonstrated in the fact that a sun-dial uses the oscillations as provided by the rotation cy…

Here my attempt to create another model of how the world of waves and particles work (JAM). No math is involved, as most formulas don't actually change. It's just a different, and in my opinion more realistic, way to look at things. It breaks down most physical forces into simpler forces, especially space/time distortions, instead of just calling them a (magic?) property, as in the Standard Model. The same forces which cause gravity may also be responsible for all else: magnetism, electricity, and so on, just as different ways of waves to work out. Discussions are welcome, as long as they are fact based, not based on authorative or other such rhetoric. I belie…

If I were to convert Electricity into average_momentum e.g. & average_forces, then this is how I would (mathematically) proportion (it, algebraically). To deflect its needle, a D’Arsenval meter’s average (e.g. steady state) electromagnetic_force Fai=I*(R^0.5)*Ki, I=V/R & 1/R=1/(R^0.5)*(R^0.5) is proportional to the current I & rooted_resistance R^0.5 & the proportionality constant Ki=Fai/(Pe^0.5)=1*[N/(A*(Ω^0.5)] which is 1*[Newton/(Ampere*rooted_ohm)] (&) that (can be determined by) the average electromagnetic_force Fai divided by the rooted electrical_power Pe^0.5=Piv^0.5=(I*V)^0.5 .…

Some people “boldly” say: 1 degree is 60 minutes (& DON’T think much about it). But I find 4 minutes is better & would have been more reasonable to make more sense, considering that shortcut used for ship navigation in the midevil ages. An Earth’s (solar) day is a complete revolution (cycle, (e.g.) angle wrt the sun), in 24 hours (time). (Note: Unfortunately (now) I find that definition of a day bound to both time & (cycle, e.g. 360°) angle. E.g. Instead of only time.) A cycle is 360° (angle). Wrt the sun the Earth’s angular_speed f=(angle/time)=1*[c…

I was always stunned by the complexity. Proportionality constants exist (almost) everywhere (in Physics), & their complexity has always stunned me; but (peculiarly) I have NOT seen (a textbook) anywhere on how to make (=derive) them (as though (derivation (of their units) is) avoided); so I thought I would give it a whirl (=try) (on my own, as DIM =Do it myself). (It’s only common sense. Dealt with intuitively, due to the(=my) confusion.) Recap: 1 of the most basic (& yet easy (but tricky)) concepts (rarely found in text books) is deriving (=how to derive (them)) proportionality_constant’s “units…

Inspired by the YouTube video: Why Is 1/137 One of the Greatest Unsolved Problems In Physics? https://youtu.be/RCSSgxV9qNw?feature=shared Is an electron a container or is it just a cloud of photons? If you are saying an electron emits photons, then are you also saying that an electron is something more than a cloud of photons? If it is a cloud of photons, then depending on how you measure the energy level of the "electron" wouldn't you be measuring the sum energies of the photons or are you saying electrons have more parts than photons? I have not studied these things. Would it be wrong to think of atomic "particles" as containers? If photons move in wave…

A Disproof of the Principle and Theory of Relativity Galileo’s ship thought experiment: Consider a light source emitting a light pulse from some point in the Earth's frame, at t=0. At the instant of light emission, an observer/detector is at distance D from the source and is moving away from the source with velocity v, in the Earth's frame. We know that the light will catch up with the observer/detector at t = D/ ( c - v ) . This is a well-known and accepted fact even in the Special Relativity Theory SRT and has been confirmed by experiments. Now I will use this in my argument against the principle of relativity. Consider Galileo's ship thought ex…

Let me start with the math. Sine of a degree is just how you get number degree of any radius. Just x-x^3/3!+x^5/5!... I actually wrote a geometric proof of this. For spheres, you can fit 9 together at a time with 8 touching the surface of the one in the center, cubes fit 26 more cubes around the center cube all touching which ultimately makes a larger cube unlike the sphere arrangement. With the spheres you make a circle with sine(xdegree) of 1, and then you find the centers of the surrounding spheres by tilting .707 by 45 degrees in all four axes and add or subtract .707 from 1 and add or subtract the result to 1 for the new radii. Anyway that's technically on a fla…

The speed of Light is infinite. Light is the speed limit of reality itself. The Universe expands at the same speed as light, and the speed of Light varies depending on the gravitational forces affecting it, slowing it down tremendously. The speed of Light around our local gravitational field here on earth, our solar system, galaxy, and all gravitational forces in the Universe, slow down Light here on earth to what we know as that common measurement of 300,000,000km/s. True light speed needs to be measured in a vacuum and without any gravitational forces acting upon it, which is impossible, and the actual task of measuring it is simultaneously impossible. The one way speed…

V1 = H0 + V0 / 𝛄 This is my equation for the increasing size of a closed universe. It is explaining that V1, or the velocity of the universe, is equal to V0, or the last velocity of the universe per second per megaparsec. The H0 is the Hubble constant, and the expansion of the universe. Gamma, is the Lorentz factor which is used in incorporating special relativity into the equation and using the laws of special relativity. I am open to criticism. Remember, this cannot be used on an open and infinite universe, it is only for a closed universe, which we do not know if our universe is or not.

Hello Everyone, I would like to propose that the universe might not actually be expanding but only appear to be expanding. Let’s set aside the redshift information for moment and let’s assume that the universe is relatively static and roughly uniform in composition throughout. And let’s also assume that the universe much much bigger than we currently believe it to be. If the universe was as described above, wouldn’t the collective gravity of outer universe cause light to redshift from our perspective on earth thus creating the illusion that the universe is expanding? Perhaps the more distant the light source is, the more of the universe’s mass acts o…

I am posting this new topic as I don't see any existing topics in this forum. The topic I would like to discuss is that of Time (with a big T). My ideas are a bit new, at least I couldn't find much existing on forums. And surprised by this. In essence it deals with what existed before the "Big Bang". Living in the real world much is based on scientific evidence and it would be hard to "see" before the Big Bang as everything would be compressed right? But based upon an experience I had, it seems that time has existed for a very very very long time. This long time I call Time. Extending way back before the Big Bang. An potential question is, is this the first eart…

The object around a larger one depends on the gravity waves of the larger object. Every celestial object has gravity waves. Looking at Einstein's theory you can see it is true. It looks like the earth is actually in a groove of a gravity wave around the sun. The grooves are caused by the gravity waves of the sun. They are ripples that look like circles around a celestial object. Please tell me what you think.

Hello, I have constructed a theory. And before you question why I called it the Rumpelstiltskin theory read this: The Rumpelstiltskin theory is called the Rumpelstiltskin theory because he ripped himself in half. My theory states atoms like to do the opposite. If you can think of a better name tell me. Anyways lets get to the theory: The Rumpelstiltskin theory states that atoms are, in a sense, a "Living" organism and o things to stay "Alive". If you don't believe me compare these things. Electromagnetism/Metabolism. Photon emitting/Reproduction. Vibrations from heat/homeostasis. If you still don't believe me, there are way more examples you can find everywhere…

Theory is not the digits in pi are altered it is the idea we created all else around it. I will be a simple as I can to not provide any wild ideas only those that I can explain. Google Docs Here: (Not heavily explained and is very much a work in progress please forgive the roughness) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fFOQhdagny6PT6LUKSW6KcG-UbfrkMakRN8eFykDGQU/edit#gid=0 Now In the spreadsheet I have placed the first 100 decimals of pi in vertical stacks of 10 then placing those stacks side by side from left to right so the order of decimal expansion are maintained... I do not know how to define what I have found except as logic beyond the concept …

Experimenters can entangle particle pairs and hold them in isolation at remote positions and not observe collapse for an arbitrary time. Can a remote positioning of entangled particles exist in a natural sense? Does the universe, as an observer, have a plank level collapse period that would prevent any pairs from attaining any real distance from each other before collapse? I see this question arising from the instantaneous collapse of virtual particle pairs in space, and wonder if there is no "distant" collapse possible without a deliberate act of a particular experimenter's intentions.

Quick recap; I believe that the interference pattern on the wall of a double slit experiment is the 2D cross section of a 4D Torus. And that when we observe this 2D cross section, it produces a 3D shadow. Just as any 4D shape would to a lower dimension observer Spoiler Experiment This experiment pushes Mankind's intellect to the extreme. It is the equivalent of holding a Cube, to make out the shadow of the Cube it projects on a flat surface. Quantum Hall effect experiment - Quantum Entanglement (The Freedman-Clauser experiment) - Double Slit Experiment …

Hello everyone, I will present my speculation about black hole interiors. There is unambiguous evidence for the existence of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at the center of galaxies. They range from millions to thousands of millions of solar masses. Accretion (infalling matter into the black hole) and black hole merger estimations are not enough to explain the observed SMBHs masses. Another mechanism of growth for black holes (BHs) will be proposed based on an alternative non-singular description of their interior, which violates energy conditions inside by proposing a consistent shift to negative energies and gravitationally repulsive negative masses at the e…

It is known that the one way speed of light cannot be measured under normal circumstance, however there are a few special interesting cases. Let's consider the situation of the twin paraoxon, except we assume the world is shaped like a cylinder thus having a finite length in one direction. In this unique settings we can still discuss the twin paradox within special relativity where the two twins travel exclusively in inertial frames, yet are able to periodically meet each other since geodesics around the circumference of the cylinder form closed loops. These meetings allow to make age comparisons locally and logic requires that there must be a uniquely determined, frame i…

What would aliens look like? Many people seem to think they would be more less human in appearance, "humanoid" is the term often used. But what does that mean and how likely is an alien to be "humanoid"? I guess defining humanoid is the best way to start, a head, a torso, two arms, two legs? By that definition a gorilla is humanoid. Stephen Jay Gould, is his book "Wonderful Life" Gould suggested that rerunning the "movie" of life would not result in the same organisms we are familiar with, even something as basic as vertebrates might not exist if the tape of life was rerun. This would suggest that aliens that resemble us at all would be highly unlikely. …

I tend to think, we do NOT need (kinetic_)Energy(_difference)’s (redundant) syntax. Let’( u)s face it. Energy is NONSENSE! E.g. 1 Astronomer’s have been complaining for a long time. Now(adays, or a_daze) you (also) have “dark” (=unknown) Energy to cover up that problem. E.g. 2 The output of a NON_elastic collision is always less than the input. I.e. NO matter how (much) you (want to) “guess” explaining its (NON_elastic) loss (e.g. with deformation (dents), acoustic noise (produced), & heat (warmed)); instead of knowing & measuring. Mathematically that loss is calculate_able…

In Einstein's theory of general relativity, the interior Reissner-Nordstrom metric (also interior Reissner-Nordstrom solution or interior Reissner-Nordstrom fluid solution) is an exact static solution for the gravitational field in the interior of a non-rotating charged spherically symmetric body of mass M, which consists of an incompressible fluid and constant density throughout the body and has zero pressure at the surface. This is a static solution that does not change over time. [math]\;[/math] [math]\eta_{\mu \nu} - \text{perturbed non-dynamical background metric}[/math] [math]\color{blue}{\text{General Relativity Minkowski flat spacetime metric:} \; (\text{ref…