Speculations

What do you think is outside of a universe?

In my view, the secret to understanding science is through variables, math and the logic that governs language. For example, if you consider the statement "The ball fell down" You get a scientific scenario, whoely provable by exact science that There was a ball existing in t1 And t2 through t3 it executed the scientific process of falling down, obeying the laws of gravity. But the statement 'Fall the ball' doesnt make sense So language and variables it incorporates makes perfect scientific sense and indeed the groundwork for further scientific research. I contend scientific laws are parallel to the variable logic inherent in language. Now th…

I personally think that human intelligence/complexity is a double edged sword, it's allowed us to become advanced, but the next stage of human evolution is space, and space is the most extreme environment there is, it seems impossible to practically get humans out out the solar system, too much energy, we need stimulation, prone to disease, food, water, vitamins etc... Its this reason I think the next "branch" on the tree of life won't be a more advanced version of us but more of a devolution, just basic life forms, microbes that we send of towards planets in habitatal zones, after that I think the next branch will be new civilisations. What do you think? Do y…

Here's an interesting idea. The undersea is full of space. It is also full of sodium chloride. Now what happens when you pass Carbon dioxide over sodium chloride? You get a beautiful reaction full of carbonated results that sealife and seaweed find very useful to grow and reproduce. (There's one type that doesnt mind greenhouse gases at least. Imagine that, Al Gore the jellyfish. Haha.) OK, so carbon dioxide UNDERWATER doesnt cause greenhouse gases, or any kind of harm to the natural envioronment, but rather it does good all around. Is that an argument in favour of starting underwater factories? One way this could be done is through oil …

ABSTRACT Topic is centred in Relation of Riquelme de Gozy that is part of relations fulfilled by electrons excited (LAN Theory). Article exposes a new concept of excitation lines based on orbital quantum number and, after relativistic effect inclusion, progressively increases sensitivity in energetic values of electronic jumps to be able to predict said values and discern possible errors included in the references. KEYWORDS: Excited electron, Energy level, Relativistic effect, LAN, Relation of Riquelme de Gozy. SUMMARY 1) Central or Main Line Excited states of electron are born referenced to central line, always originating in Electronic Origin S…

If we used gene editing to quickly replace someone's DNA (I'm talking of an adult person) with DNA from another person, what would happen to him/her? Since everyone's biochemistry is slightly different, would ut kead to significant physical changes?

One of my many theories deals with the creation of the earth. I contend it happened inside the sun as a bal of unsynchronous energy parameters relative to the suns own energy spectrum, and was consequently cast into orbit. What do you think of this idea?

The proposed method, explaining the 11-year solar cycle, is based on an unusual theory, according to which some fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in vacuum c , which we consider universal for the entire Universe, have different values in the spheres of influence of other stars, planets or space objects. Analyzing this theory, I assumed that for any two space objects that have gravitational attraction and revolve around their power centers in accordance with Kepler's laws, their speeds of light c1 and c2 , and gravitational parameters µ1 and µ2 are interconnected by the following relationship: (1) According to this relationship, t…

One of the results of SR is time dilation, TD. Check for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation There and in all other books I read about SR there is a relationship between the time t' from S' and t from S. S and S' are two inertial reference systems that move relative to each other at constant speed v. Here I indicate this relationship: t' = tγ where γ = 1/(1-v2/c2)1/2 is called the Lorentz factor, LF. My question to you: Is it true that the concept of time dilation is depicted with this formula? Yes or No.

I am working on an essay regarding what we can say about what form alien life might take. My thesis is there are things we can plausibly say because life—and if such life achieves sentience, any technology they might develop—will be constrained by the same 94 naturally-occurring chemical elements we have at our disposal. Some scientists seem convinced that the first evidence of intelligent life elsewhere we come across will be their artificially intelligent, robotic avatars. Barring science-fictional biological entities that secrete *unobtanium* from their pores to fabricate spaceships, it seems to me they will have to somehow extract pure metals from the ores contai…

I dunno if it is the artificial sugar or natural sugar that does the trick. But if you don't believe me, just start taking or if you already did stop taking sugar for a week and you will know what I am talking about. Other food suggestions are welcomed, like lemon? I am not sure if lemon does the trick as mentioned in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

I have been working on modeling my "proto-particle" some of you are familiar with it... as it turns out my proto-particle is actually a graviton, so I have been doing some reading on that. It is encouraging to see the same problems with math that I have encountered (recently I believe I found a basis for math describing the graviton, more on that later). Can someone explain to me why a graviton must be a spin 2 entity?

When something doesn't have time, gravity, and 3D ..what makes you think spacetime is involved? I'm talking about QM objects when they are unobserved and are considered waves (the unobservable). Have you considered QM might not exist within the fabric of spacetime until observation? The Wave function wouldn't result in probabilities if it was possible to include spacetime. QM waves do not need anything from spacetime to continue existing. Entanglement is obviously not a property of Spacetime. Spooky action at a distance can happen because QM doesn't have time like we experience and the particles are likely connected via a QM wave that could stretch to infinity i…

You can see on the website, https://quantumfrontiers.com/, scrolling down the page, it mentions tiling the plane aperiodically. If you can tile it correctly, you can make a turing machine out of it. What I was noticing that when they make aerogel, the least dense commercial prouct, they put the gel into an autoclave, and the pressure combines a liquid and gas into one. I was previously thinking that you need two things to make something interesting, when really it's just about the one thing. It's a little bit complicated, but I made an X-shaped cellular automata, you can hit play on the first post in this thread: http://www.conwaylife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11…

Do you have a paypal account? Ever think of renting out your brain? I would need you to read my grunts, pretend that you think it's possible, and write an equation smart enough to pacify another physicist just as angry as you to new ideas. Here's the hypothesis: The QM/Spacetime Divide Spacetime = classical/relativity QM = waves Our singularity (big bang) initiated in an existing Quantum Field of virtual particles. If everything in the beginning was waves, does it help explain the insane expansion rate right after the singularity? Spacetime didn't exist until after inflation? ..maybe when the singularly became large enough to be observed? Was the ver…

I was wondering if you could selectively combine the normal jpeg compression with fractal compression. To make a metallic glass, I thought it was the fractal part of glass that made it unique, but actually it's combining a solid and a liquid into one. I believe this has something to do with the sudden change in temperature in water at a certain depth. I believe that when combining two things, that it creates a unique area of "very low disorder", because when you bounce a metallic glass ball, it continues to bounce, so that little is lost to random vibration, that is, when bouncing, the low disorder aspect of it comes through to maintain an almost perfect bounce bac…

I noticed that tap water is smooth to drink, but I don't like the chlorine aspect of it, although chlorine makes it smooth to drink. I believe there is an atomic substitute that would be good to replace chlorine once the chlorine treats the bacteria, it can evaporate and the new molecule substitues. You can see how chlorine salt affects soil, it makes the soil larger balls, and decreases the surface area, so it's an antifractal, chlorine is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038080616300099. If gas pollution is an irritant, then burning woods or charcoal paradoxically can improve the air quality if it's not too much, because it's a coarse particle in t…

Could an object around the size of Ceres or even the size of the Moon achieve a stable orbit around the Earth along with our own moon? Would some sort of orbital resonance make this possible?

Quantum objects are not large enough to inhabit spacetime. When a particle is in a state that can only be described as math ..it is not part of spacetime. If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things. The math says the physical object remains 3D when in superposition, so the only avenue left to detach is spacetime. In math, it is waves, in reality, it has lost a dimension. Something that has lost a dimension is crazy to us. What is the Uncertainty Principle telling us? Is it saying the power of observation/measurement of a quantum object is not enough to make it a genuine 3D + 1 space-time object? If something…

Is the universe still accelerating? Sometimes I read articles that argue against it, so I'm not totally sure anymore! But if it is, I have a conjecture that might explain it. It is based on quantum fluctuation. (1) I might not be the first to think of it, and (2) it might be mathematical impossible, but here goes: Quantum fluctuation is (as far as I know) considered a come-and-go phenomena. Hello, goodbye. 2 - 2 = 0. But what if it leaves a vacuum? A tiny tiny vacuum? If so, there must be gazillions of tiny vacuums made every second. Speeding up the cosmos? (Sorry if this is wrongly placed! Feel free to move it to Speculation if needed.)

‘Mental Momentum’ is a collection of ideas about mind and brain. I treat thinking as a perpetual flow of thoughts to study where they come from and where they will go to. There'll be short essays reflecting on how our brain tackles the commonalities and oddities of everyday life. Hope you’ll find them interesting. LINKS DELETED Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Now I am not a creationist, but I have a bit of different view, this is because believe I have a framework for a theory of everything. Now I could be wrong, fair enough, but if I am right, there is going to be a paradigm shift in physics and a dramatic reinterpretaion of the cosmos. Now we once believed the sun revolved around the earth, it is easy to think that, it feels like there earth is not moving and the sun looks like it travels across the sky. You could forgive early folk for making this mistake. It looks like the sun is going round the earth so they modelled it that way, they assumed it was that way. The thing is, someone came along and said this is not corr…

The two sides of the coin run perfectly fine on their own. My point is that when we zoom into a large object, those atoms bonded together are not going to display quantum weirdness. If we separated a single atom from that object, I claim that atom has become 2D, but is 3D while we are observing it. So to unify, we can write an equation that says Relativity is 3D and QM is 2D or less. Quantum field theory and Quantum Electrodynamics obviously haven't unified the two yet because we get guys like this still saying they are not unified, from a couple days ago (see the 3:10 mark) https://youtu.be/dW7J49UTns8?t=190

"Blessed is he who believes". Do not substitute physics for mathematics. Any matter has some limiting resource, which we call "energy" (or "mass"). Therefore, if matter creates a gravitational field, then it cannot be infinite. I am sure that you make a mistake by comparing gravity with electromagnetic waves (or light), since we can screen electromagnetic waves, but gravity cannot. For example, according to the theory that I develop, the gravitational fields of the big planets of the Solar system reach the Sun. Therefore, the orbits of these planets are close to a circle. But the gravitational fields of small objects of the Solar system (asteroids, plutoids, and also …

Nothing is unstable. If you try to quantize nothing, you will find that anything less than the Planck Units of spacetime would still be considered nothing, since it has no detectable influence on the universe. A point-like particle at rest could exist inside of the Planck Units of spacetime and still be considered nothing, because it would have no mass and energy. There would be nothing to compare it's frame of reference to, so it could assume that it is traveling at any constant speed due to relativistic theory. Therefore, it could then have mass and energy in another reference frame. It could then interact with itself in time-like loops due to being in a state of s…