Nicholas Kang

Dear timo, I understand what you mean. But it seems like today`s Physics are restricted to Maths. Should we let Physics take a breath for a while? I mean, really, all Physics must based on Maths? Do you know of any Physics that can be explained without Maths?

Should you blame this forum because of your software`s interface is very similar to it? Or from a different perspective, what would it be if I say I am suggesting we should get some ideas to give your software it`s own little unique touch? It depends. It is relative. My personal idea is to check out which software plagiarise/looks the similar to the other first, depending on the date where the interfaces are used by the software developer, both the SFN and your software. Addendum: This is my personal point of view, not representing the SFN administrators`. I used to look matters in a different perspectives and used a lot of straightforward message style, so I apologize if I actually hurt anyone, including the poster, Mr. Asterisk Propernoun, feelings. Thanks. Regards, Nicholas Kang Zheng Tien

I actually looked up my Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary International Edition to search for the meaning of "sunshaker", sadly, I couldn`t find it. I respect people who have autism. They are like savants and genius. Understanding Maths is the key to understanding Physics, but there is a limit. Physics should based on Facts upon observations that have been done, and Maths just acts as a secondary tool to help in calculation and counting, but it should not restrict Physics. From your words, I can extrapolate that you are dealing with consciousness and the mind. If you are a Kaku fan, I recommend you to read his book "The Future of The Mind." BTW, what do you mean by:

Thanks. Going for Piano class now. Bye.

I hope that Maths assists but not resists. You Lorentz Transform to calculate Maths involving Einstein`s Theory of Relativity but it resist you from going beyond c, speed of light. So, the only possible solution is working out new Maths. So, what if new Maths couldn`t be found? How far are we from the new Maths? It seems to me that physicist work more on Maths instead of experimental physics. Maths somehow have "captured" Physics. I don`t mean not to learn Maths, it helps us a lot in calculations but you see things always have both sides-pros and cons. Maths have prons but cons are not less too. So, Maths, somehow, it s power should be restricted to prevent outpacing Physics. I mean physicist are more focusing on Maths than logic Physics now a days. I hope that you don`t mean I am part of them(y).

Oh My God. Wrong. Yes, the paper is too short, just 4 pages. I have never read such a short article before. Thanks for sharing. I have always wanted to find his article about grey hole theorem. This is the one. Thanks. Finally, what is the difference between a theory and a theorem?

Quantum Entanglement is used to deny the fact that black hole exist. Quantum entanglement only allows one particle to interact with one particle at the same time. So, if a particle falling into the event horizon is entangled with a particle leaving the black hole, then it cannot be entangled with another particle leaving the black hole. This mean untangling particles must be done. Thus, we suppose that a hot wall of particles exist around the event horizon because untangling particles require enormous energy, violating Einstein`s Theory of Relativity which states falling into black hole is as "relaxing" as free fall in space. Believe it or not, Hawking then propose an alternate version of grey hole theory.

Examples?

How do hydros join together?

Consult a qualified medical officer or medication source would be (I think) a quadrillion times better than asking for identification in this forum. Why you don`t want to send it to biological labs around your residental area, maybe experts there can provide you an even detailed report. ps. I ignore the fact that you are a biologist in this context. But if you are a biologist, then you may share this problem with members in this forum, but the actual sample, in my opinion, is always the best evidence. So, double checking the actual sample would be the best way instead of posting the picture in this forum. (Just my suggestion )

Almost all physics we learnt in high school and university rely on Mathematics formulae and principles. Can Physics exist as a pure complex idea without Maths but just visualization?

I am just 15 years old. How old are you? I think you can`t be younger than me, can you? Dear Endy0816, What/which transition do you mean? Can you clarify it? Of course, we should take hawking radiation into account EVERYTIME dealing with black holes. One thing, why is it that Mr. Endy0816 still use the word black hole but not grey hole. You don`t trust hawking`s new theory?

I think you are just speculating, Phi for All. You haven`t meet an alien, it is hardly possible to extrapolate their character by simply treating them as human. I mean thinking of alien behaves like human.

It should look the same. No, I still don`t get it. What aspects of the universe look the same?

Have any experiments been done for testing and verification purpose in this context? (Including measurement of light being a straight line.)

I mean here is because we cannot say anything about photons do in time before we detect them, so there is a possibility in which photons may lie in a probability sphere, this mean photons, when traveling, may not in a straight line because the first photon that leads the beam would be in position A, say the influence sphere is 1mm. Position B is the next photon`s probably-exist-region. Then, photon C would have another probability to exist in a different area within the light beam. So, the photons` probability wave aren`t on the same straight alignment, instead they vary in a light beam. Although the light beam is straight from the outside but actually it seems to be not very straight if observed carefully. Moreover, quantum leap/tunneling allows photons to leak out of the light beam and further diverge the light beam, maybe allowing the photons to cross through a barrier like the air particles.

If I shine a torchlight towards the moon, 90% of my light beam would be filtered by the atmosphere. Only 10% would reach the moon. Then, the light actually dispersed due to Heisenberg`s Uncertainty Principle. If so, does this mean light doesn`t travel in a straight line because there is a probability in which photons actually exist because it has a very high probability of existence? I mean photon may exist in anywhere within the probability region but not in a straight line motion then.

Dear MonDie, Your proposal is making my mind even complicated because I have no idea of what does homogenous and heterogenous mean and the cosmological principle was a new stuff to me. And one thing. I think both principles deal with the mind and philosophy, as in The Future of The Mind but nothing to do with the universe. Maybe Kaku have thought too much about both principles or he don`t even understand what they mean.

You have answered my question. Thank you, Dr.swantson

I think you like humour a lot, Ophiolite. Too much humour in your live, Mr Ophiolite. Relationships and communications will first depend on the way you talk seriously. not humour, in my opinion. You don`t expect an alien on earth will first smile and joke with you or talking with humour upon first arrival, do you?

That is why we need new Physics. Yeah, I hate Physics calculation but I like the theory and visualization. What do you mean? We are posing the same question?

What, you mean either Einstein or Planck and his team was wrong? Then, I should be in a dilemma now. I think they share the same properties. You see, they are related to expansion and explosion. One is space, another one is death of star.

Mass is a form of energy means we have mass energy? But not mass-energy? (Note the dash sign)

What do you mean? I am correct or you ignore my statement? Sorry, I am not good in English. I have seen this sentence for a few times but still can`t get the meaning. Anyway, if possible, please come back to the topic, Science and religion at least not touching sex and porn issues. Please. I beg you. Please... You know how bad my reputation is since most of you posted sex and porn issues in my topic. Hey! i am not involved in these things, but being affected by them because most of you posted them in my topic.

I have violated my own statement-No reply to this topic. Sex education is ok but your topic seemed to focus on debating with nasty sexual words and contains more porn elements than sex education.