Speculations

The time dilation in relativity is relative. Every observer sees that the clock of another moving observer slows down. However, the twin paradox shows that time can indeed slow down. The twin paradox is not mutual... But I think I have discovered the trick. Everything depends on who determines the distance of the trip. Does the twin who remained on Earth do that, then this twin ages faster. And vice versa: Does the travelling twin do that in his frame during the outward journey, then this twin ages faster. The difference is the length contraction. The twin who sees the route from another reference system sees this route shortened. Therefore, he needs less time to tr…

I have created this new original theory of everything it is very interesting i am working in the math of it but here are the basics. https://www.dropbox.com/s/mesi0a5eioilk1o/infiniteLoop.pdf?dl=0 infiniteLoop.pdf

ये नियम न्यूटन ने फिलॉसफी नेचुरालीस प्रिंसीपीआ मैंथेमिटीआ मे लिखे थे. गति के तीसरे नियम का उदाहरण हम दिन भर रोजाना देखते है. यदि हम इस नियम को big bang अवधारणा से जोड़ दे तो. बिग बैंग अवधारणा के अनुसार पहले सबकुछ शून्य मे ऊर्जा पिंड के रूप मे समाहित था. एकमात्र परमाणु इकाई के रूप में, big bang जिसे हम महा विस्फोट की अवधारणा के नाम से भी जानते हैं के, पश्चात एक बडा धमाका हुआ ओर एक झटके से ब्रम्हांड यानी पदार्थो का समूह ( जिसका हम हिस्सा है) फैलता गया. आज से 14 करोड़ वर्ष पूर्व यह घटना हुई थी. Physics के नियम तब भी उतने ही प्रभावी एवं सटीक थे जीतने की आज है. यदि bigbang धमाके के साथ एक दिशा मे पदार्थो का समूह फैलता गया और हमारा ब्रम्हांड बना तो जरूर दूसरी द…

Here’s an idea I’m currently thinking about. Perhaps it could help us in understanding what a photon is. To understand one thing, you have to understand other things that are affecting it, so by studying a single photon, you’ll never be able to understand it, just like if you intend to understand the behaviour of a single ant, you need to understand the colony. A photon is definitely a particle, and something causes it to have a wave nature. No photon is going in a straight line, neither on Earth nor in space, because there is always a massive celestial body or black hole that is exerting a gravitational attraction on it, which makes it bend/curve. A photon is electr…

"There is no such thing as matter. Everything is energy." Statements such as this are found in every modern physics textbook; but is energy a 'thing'? The material objects around us are manifest realities that have mass; but what do we mean by 'mass'? In general, it means that all objects near the Earth's surface possess weight, and also that they possess inertia. Mass is commonly defined as 'the amount of matter in a body', more accurately as 'the property of matter that measures its resistance to acceleration'. We can say that 'mass' is the quantification of matter that finds manifestation in weight and inertia. Both of these are observables: they can be detected, …

Please read the Summary Response to the previous thread first: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114886-there-is-no-such-thing-as-energy/ "The atom is mostly empty space." This statement has been repeated so many times by so many scholars and experts that it is accepted without question by nearly all educated people in the modern world. It is advanced as proof of the puzzling nature of atomic structure, and of the uselessness of common sense as a guide to truth and reality. Yet physical objects are made of atoms, and are impenetrably solid. The statement is obviously fallacious. To understand why requires little more than a thoughtful exercise of high school m…

In the 1940's and beyond a peculiar type of UFO was sighted by many people including some famous scientists, to this day they remain unexplained and so far have defied any reasonable explanation. The UFOs were colloquially called green fireballs and at first glance are not really compelling until you understand just how odd they really were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fireballs The "fireballs" could not be explained by natural phenomena and were clustered around US military bases and research facilities connected with Nuclear weapons, so tightly clustered around "nuke" facilities that even mainstream scientists considered them to be of…

From my limited understanding, a Theory of Everything would seek to unite both quantum physics and general relativity in one overall framework? How important is it that these two be connected? Could they not be two completely and separate things that together create the universe, instead of being two aspects of the same thing? I'm sure there's a better way I can word this, but hopefully you get the gist of what I mean?

You're on. (Unlike you) I see (vertical) gravity as a push. (But that's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.) (I see that) there are (really) 2 types of gravity: vertical & horizontal. It's rather obvious (that) the Cavendish experiment is a horizontal pull. I interpret that (pull) as vertically moving (e.g. accelerating) charges of atoms are electromagnetically attracted together. But has it ever occurred to you why you can NOT shield against gravity vertically? Perhaps because that might only be the acceleration of matter moving upwards. Thus any other reasoning is missing (as nonsense). (E.g. beca…

Clockwise, counter clockwise in space seems to be a matter of position, so I am assuming that all things turn in the same direction in space, and that this direction is determined by the objects surroundings. An object rotates clockwise, or counter clockwise depending on my position, Therefore I'm in a sense seeing a mirror image of the forces acting on the object. Since the direction of rotation seems to be dependent on my position. I seem to need a more accurate definition of the direction of rotation. Down seems to be the best I can think of at the moment. Is there a better definition?

Questions about Klitzing constant of resistance. Klitzing constant RK = 25812.807572(93) Ohm or RK = 25812.887557(18) Ohm, after sources of data constants, first attire my interest, because is a constant in space (or of space?), and is a constant that not depend by length, cross section, or material, as we common people are seeing in resistors. The second it attire my intention because: 1- RK = μ0 * c / (2 * α) is depend by another constant that has to do with mass. I find a few connections that depend by mass, radius, and C = e, but strange enough, in the result radius is eliminated. Z0 = 4 * pi * M * R * c / e^2 = 376 7303138 oh…

Non-unifying Geometrized Newton-Cartan Gravity The Fundamental Interactions I hypothesize that the quantum eraser is the only fundamental interaction. This interaction is between two boundless and inverted branes that are perpendicular to one another. Physicists seem to be thinking of Eigen values when I use the word "branes". This is geometrized Newton-Cartan gravity; vector calculus does not apply here. This is classical physics, not quantum mechanics. When I say brane I mean a conceivable geometric structure, three dimensions in the literal sense, not the metaphysics of some incomprehensible angle that forms a tesseract. View time as th…

Majority of modern quantum physicists work is to try to violate quantum number conservation rules introduced in the earlier years...

Science fiction often relies on FTL travel and comnunications being a thing. I would like to find an FTL possibility for a game I am programming that stretches what we know about physics as little as possible. I had thought about 'Tachyons', but a friend of mine pointed out that 'Tachyons' are the sci-fi way of saying 'A Wizard did it', so whatever comes up, if it involves Tachyons, it's off the table. Alcubierre-White warp drive, no matter how you refine it, requires too much power output even for a Kugelblitz to provide, and I think it still requires some kind of 'negative energy' to create the space dilation behind the vessel, which we don't know how to create. As…

Hi every body. I want to ask some questions about the Einstein’s gravity constant of space. In co. data I check: G / ( h *C / (2*pi)) = 6.707524193*10^-39 (GeV./c^2) ^-2 In fact : [G / ( h*c / (2*pi*?)] = 2.110689511*10^15 = = 1 / (2.176646105*10^-8)^2 = 1 / Mpl^2 (1 / kg^2). The mass of Planck particles ( 1 / (MPl.* MPl.)) converted in energy: 1 / [(MPl.* 10^3) * (5.60958912*10^23)]^2 = 1 / 1.490863053*10^38 (1 / giga e.V.) The questions: 1- Is it real this kind of energy? Aren’t Planck mass particles the source of this kind of energy? Aren’t those Planck mass in space since G is constant of space? …

The zero-energy Universe states that there's just as much gravitational potential energy as "normal" energy (the Standard Model particles). In other words, the "not stuff" is equal to "stuff". Not only objects (made of energetic particles) can exert mass. Massless photons for instance are attracted to black holes as well, and black holes can't be made of matter. How do we know this? Because a neutron star is the densest form of matter known, with a mass between 1,4 and 3 Solar masses (though before this state a neutron star was a normal star, with about 10 – 30 Solar masses), in which the electrons have been driven into the nuclei by reverse beta decay. Black holes of cou…

Hi All, I have developed a model of time-dilation using information theory that is almost indistinguishable from the special theory of relativity, except at the scales that can be measured by a device like a Mossbauer spectrometer, or an interferometer. My academic background is in computer theory and graph theory, so while I am confident in the soundness of the mathematics I have developed, I would greatly appreciate the insights of professional physicists in navigating this topic in a manner that is respectful to the existing body of knowledge regarding the SPR. So far I've found the physics community to be extremely helpful, and thankfully, no one has fo…

If one manages to fully comprehend how nature behaves, then consequently one can imagine a simulated universe, and therefore knows a simulated universe is not impossible. When a simulated universe is not impossible, one cannot know whether one exists in a simulated universe. In a simulated universe, any physical laws are possible by those who created that universe. Therefore, because one does not know if they are in a simulated universe, upon discovering or describing all physical laws of that universe in which they exist, one truly knows no physical laws of the real universe. Thus, I propose the following theory of everything that describes the physical laws of the real …

m [kg] = 20 * (h^2.5) The ideal body mass (ibm) in kilograms is (ruffly) the height h in meter(s) to the exponent 2.5, multiplied by the (nice) BMI (body mass index) ~20 [kg/(m^2)]. E.g. m=k*(h^exp), Both constants(' values, & (their) units): k=BMI (with per rooted meter), e.g. 20 [kg/(m^2.5)]; & exponent exp (2.5) can be varried for differences in age, sex, fitness muscle training. I don't see why we should perpetuate such an awkward system as the BMI (tables etc) when people simply want to know what they should weigh (in mass) for good health. Good luck …

i had a paper , it is called (the physical model of quantum interaction between fundamental forces of nature ) it 's at http://vixra.org/abs/1805.0280 This is a model characterized by its simplicity , it explains the events running from the big bang to the present day and scales from the planck scale to the size of the universe , all these in terms of one sub particle and a set of four fundamental forces along with their subsequent interactions This is a bottom up approach instead of the usual top down one the interaction at the planck scale level holds a determinant…

Spin and dipole-dipole interactions may not be responsible for gravity, but they may not be directly relevant to magnetism either. Why do our solar system's solid bodies with relevant gravity have magnetic fields (omitting Venus)? Aren't magnetism and magnetic susceptibility inherent properties of matter, which has the mass? They are related by potential energy because mass has energy relevant to its inherent properties. [The potential for magnetism is related to energy which is related to mass which is related to gravity. ] why does mass attract mass? Do two marbles in space fall into orbit because of their mass? Why is some matter magnetic and other forms not so…

Well, on another forum dubblesoix had posted his Gravity model and I started to use Super-gravity equations on it, what is wrong with this, it turned into something strange which I am starting to call a "Wormhole metric" upon E transformation, this has to be wrong I still think what is your opinion on this, the equations that compose it are not wrong but this just seems odd. Dubblesoix's toy model taken way too far, I think. And Before Hand thanks, I know this is a long post to read, just to tell me how wrong the three of us are I blame myself and Polymath for not just dropping it at dubblesoix's solution.

Super Nerd, This is my first time on this site. I'm probably commenting in the wrong spot, but you sound like you might be able to reality-test a thought that I just had to a question I ask myself 30 years ago. But first, some quick prefaces: A space traveler departing Earth and then nearing the speed of light will have a slower clock than us remaining on Earth. When the traveler gets back home, they will in effect have shot themselves forward in time. Or, that space traveler could travel at the speed of a Space Shuttle and approach a Black Hole. The gravity will be so strong it will produce the same time-altering effects. Now, the question I asked 3…

Photon species total effective degeneracy number: [math]\boxed{N_{\gamma} = 2}[/math] Photon radiation energy radiant emmittance Bose-Einstein distribution integration via substitution: [math]j^{*} = \sigma_{\gamma} T_{\gamma}^4 = \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \cos \phi \sin \phi \; d \phi \; d \theta \; \frac{N_{\gamma} E_{\gamma}^4}{c^2 (2 \pi \hbar)^3} \int_{0}^\infty \frac{E_t (\omega)^3}{e^{\frac{E_t (\omega)}{E_{\gamma} (T_{\gamma})}} - 1} d \omega = \frac{\pi N_{\gamma} (k_B T_{\gamma})^4}{c^2 (2 \pi \hbar)^3} \left(\frac{\pi^4}{15}\right) = \frac{N_{\gamma} \pi^2 (k_B T_{\gamma})^4}{120 c^2 \hbar^3}[/math] Radiant emmittance Stefan-Boltzmann …

My thoughts on the electromagnetic drive have always been that no known laws of physics were ever broken, rather that some apparent as yet unknown aspect could be at work. The following article and hypothetical seems to support those thoughts........ https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works What if it doesn't break the laws of physics? FIONA MACDONALD 7 OCT 2017 Ever since the EM drive first made headlines, science lovers have puzzled over how the propulsion system seems to produce…