Mr. Astrophysicist
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mr. Astrophysicist
-
-
Infinity is really unknown and generally unclear. It appears in several papers of mathematics and physics, and expands to such a quite large range, from size and respective fields of physics. We do know in theory that infinity is not affected by numbers, and only affects numbers.
-1 -
Infinity is generally ambiguous, but I've come up with a theory that possibly define it's numbers. So, the value of Infinity is:
Infinity = 9999999999999999999999999...
So on, so forth. Since 9 is the largest of all the numbers 1 - 10 (except for 10, which has 2 digits), or so to say 9 is the biggest of all 1 digit numbers. Since Infinity is not affected by numbers, this somewhat similar mathematical constant is not affected by numbers. Ergo:
9999999999... + 1 = 99999999...
It may seem rather unusual, so imagine that infinity is not a constant value. What do you guys think?
0 -
Infinity is generally ambiguous, ergo unless Infinity has a value, then we cannot calculate infinity further. The best explanation we probably have right now is that infinity is a "number" that does not have a value but we do know it doesn't have an end. It is uncountable, to say. But in mathematical theory, I theorise that Infinity cannot be affected by numbers, at all. But at the other side of the coin, Numbers can be affect by infinity. Much like: 1/Infinity = 0 or 0/infinity = 0, as I can name more. Infinity + 1 = Infinity. Thus, the answer will always be infinity unless you're using infinity to affect numbers.
0 -
Metallic objects are magnetic, but not all of them are. The reason is because the electrons are lined up in such a manner that it has a magnetic field, as described in Maxwell's equations.
0 -
Hey! Welcome to the science forums, I hope you have a great time here. Going to the topic, the Big. Bang Theory is not an explosion. It is a common misconception, but its name implies it was an explosion, so don't worry. Besides that random idiot who named it the Big Bang theory, it should be called: the everywhere stretch theory. This theory explains that our universe at the beginning of time , at which it's space expanded from a singularity, as atoms, particles, and molecules settle, stars, comets, asteroids, galaxies, superclusters of galaxies, so on so forth form, they cooled down over a long period of time, and the dark energy process began (where space is expanding due to dark energy and galaxies start to away from each other at extraordinary rates). Once clearing that concept, let's get to your hypothesis. If you move from one position from another and continued walking, you would end up where you were, because earth is a shape close to that of a sphere, given any three dimensional shape, you can walk for several miles and end up in the sane spot because a circumference has to end. So here is one problem with your theory:
-The universe is hypothetically a sphere, maybe even flat. But given any of this shapes, this would not even work. If there was indeed a shape of the universe, we would not be at the edge of the universe, but rather somewhere within it's radius or generally its diameter.
-Dark energy sends the objects in space farther away from each other, but given the statement above, it would not be possible they would reappear in the opposite direction. If anything, they just spread continuously.
-Big crunch cannot be confirmed, and we would be long gone before then, neither can we significantly prove with just logic, because in the cosmos, phenomenal and such are bound to happen. That's why it's called a theory.
-That theory has been published or maybe not, but check out the holographic universe theory...
0 -
is used to calculate the energy of moving objects; true or false?
E^2=(MC^2)^2+(PC)^2
is used to calculate the energy of objects that are not moving; true or false?
E=MC^2
So, or both formulas correct? I've been pondering over this...
0 -
No. For example, gravity is described using Newton's laws or general relativity. Neither of these can be derived from (or requires) quantum physics.
I also don't see why this would be a paradox.
Friction is a real thing (otherwise the world would be a very different place). There are materials with very low friction, and we might find something with zero friction. But that doesn't mean friction doesn't exist.
A paradox is a unsolvable problem that confuses people to some extent; it confuses me to think, that asking every question would be a paradox until discoveries or the advancement of technology. Why: we may interpret the existence of forces such as friction, when it may be something else or something phenomenal. Though conducted by experimental physicists or scientists to prove their existence, their work are only dedicated to designing protocols to find the accuracy of such theories. And as me know, some substance or hypothetical planets beyond the cosmos or in a distant galaxy may have a substance in a planet that cancels friction. Or possibly, asking a question such as; how many states of matter would be vague as to the 4 types of matter, plasma, solid, liquid and gas, there may be another type of matter out there. So one limitation of science would be theories. Correct?
0 -
I think my two colleagues are too harsh - lots of notions (especially those you find here) that would fit your criteria "cannot be proven, sounds illogical, neither can it be disproven" would correctly be described as a wild guess or Not science; but I am mindful of some of the rival interpretations of quantum mechanics which would also fit the bill. They are definitely not a testable theory and they are completely contrary to notions of common sense - but they are also a long way from being guesswork. They are not completed science but they are the process of science.
It is a terrible thing to say but to an extent it depends on who is doing the opining. If Ed Witten tells you about this mad idea he has - with no links to the datum universe but the structure is beautiful and the maths is just awesome then you listen; if imatfaal tells you the same thing then you nicely tell him to go away and try to learn the basics. This isn't an argument from authority - just a realisation that some people's guess work has the foundation of years of study, a first rate mind, the intimate understanding of the subject, and probably the first level of peer review through similarly brilliant and learned close colleagues.
Authorise me to elucidate: In simple terms, Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics are, and from a general outlook, a scientific subject or a branch of physics to explain phenomena that the world - No, the universe that can offer: such as super luminous supernovas (Hypernovas, in layman's terms), supernovas, gravitons and String Theory, or in academic language, M-Theory, so on, so forth. But from Quantum Computers, and the Quantum Realm (Where evidently everything is pixelated beyond macroscopic level) etcetera, but going to my question, is everything quantum physics? I know science can be an estimation or a approximation; such as Newton's Laws and such, but then again, Quantum Physics is an attempt to explain phenomena. So, asking a question such as "Is friction real?" or "Is energy real" will be a paradox. Because a phenomena beyond the distant galaxies could mean that friction would be zero, because of some special atom or gas that cancels the effect. Everything confuses me.
0 -
It may baffle to some extent for those of you who know me may recognise me as a possible philosopher. But seriously, I just need to ask these questions:
-What do you call a theory that cannot be proven, sounds illogical, neither can it be disproven?
-Is everything phenomenal due to the limitation of science?
-Due to the limitation of science, and the infinite possibilities to the universe, are our experiments, theories, conjectures, assumptions, so on, so forth, wrong; because of the undiscovered portions of the possible infinite universe?
0 -
nothing
There is indeed a difference.
0 -
What is the difference between an inacceleratable object and a immovable object? By the way, the answer is not: Inaccelratable object cannot be accelerated but can be moved, vice-versa. This is somewhat similar or perhaps is the Theory of Relativity.
0 -
OK. How about clarifying what you are saying. Quantify "extremely quickly or quicker" and explain how this differs from relativity.
I'm not differing it from the theory of relativity, just explaining the theory of relativity.
-1 -
I have a religion, so I think this was quite offensive. This is though in the wrong section, should probably go to Brainteasers or Religion. Unless a theory, it should go to its respective categories. Anyways, it varies from one person's view, opinion and thinking. I believe that god was always there, and that he was infinite and eternal. Called the Eternal Effect, he was always there. If the big bang was real, I would prefer to believe that he caused it, and not heated particles appeared from nothingness, and the big bang exploded and the universe expanded from a singularity.
0 -
!
Moderator Note
No, it really depends on the evidence and what kind of model you can make. If anyone wishes to come up with some kind of defense of Astrology they may try to do so in the Speculations forum. Otherwise, I think the OP has been answered: yes, it is
e.g.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/aug/17/20030817-105449-9384r/
Noted.
0 -
So that's not a subset of "travel at any speed and time slows down" which is well-established?
No, I'm not saying that. Travelling at any speed slows down time, but travelling extremely quickly or quicker, it slows down time.
Well it is all relative.
You have not really presented a theory here. In physics a theory is a mathematical model that we can use to model nature. A theory is 'good' if it matches nature well enough for our purposes, or 'bad' if not.
So you will need to present some mathematical details on travelling at the speed of light (relative to what?) and how this effects the measurement of proper time.
Well, it is not just an issue to technology. The theory of special and general relativity tell us that (locally) a massive body cannot travel at a speed equal to or greater than the speed of light as measured by an inertial observer. In short, no-one can measure the speed of a body to be the speed of light.
There are some 'get-outs' here. You can use the geometry of space-time to have motions that break the global speed of light, such as using a wormhole or a warp drive. Both of these could be used to create a time machine or a CTC (closed time-like curve) as we rather call them. The problem is that such devices seem to require 'exotic matter' such as matter with negative mass. It may be possible to use quantum effects to generate the necessary negative energy densities.
However, so far all known time machines are sick. They suffer from real problems when quantum mechanics is taken into account. (The energy-momentum tensor of quantum fields diverges near a CTC). I don't think there is a full proof of this sickness, but example by example shows it to hold so far.
This lead Hawking to the 'Chronological Protection Conjecture'. Basically nature will always find a way to destroy a time machine.
But as I say, this conjecture is not fully proved as far as I know. One would need to understand the full quantum theory of gravity to really address the question of CTC being physical.
Thank you for the message ajb. I shall try to fully understand quantum theory of gravity to try prove the conjecture. I misunderstood the concept and your message helped a lot. While on this topic, the reason of CPC (Chronological Protection Conjecture), is actually and possibly to protect space and time of universes or this universes from paradoxes, right? Or that's just my opinion.
0 -
As in other threads, you have not presented a theory as we understand it. You need to be mathematical and define carefully what you mean by 'frames'. The closest is what MigL states, Cauchy surfaces and some quantum\discrete evolution in time.
Have you watched the flash? I'm sure you have, it has all played a part about being one of the most enjoyable moments in our life, (perhaps watching shows, movies or comic books) instead of reminiscing about our great pasts, let me name the example with him. You know how he runs extremely quickly that we could see something like a second him from the back and front of the real flash, one that seems quite translucent. Let's try making use of that. We'll call those frames, and that in Theory, he's running as so quick, may be faster than light, that we can see his second frame, and that the frame that is the past can also be seen. Now applying to real life, we can see our frame as for instance, I walk from point A to B. And with an insight of perhaps powerful cameras of such, or I humane eyes, we can several thousand frames of you walk from A to B. However, the mass of frames are equivalent to their own, but not to you, because in my theory, particles scatter throughout as we walk. Somewhat similar to light as it's particles scatter as it travels over time. But if you were to walk on a weighing scale, it may take effect but it's actually extremely quick that you might not see it.
Mass equivalency Equation:
Fàm 1 = Fám 2 - ∞, ("Fam(s)", being the Frame Mass)
Fam ≠ öms ([öms] being Object's Current Mass)
0 -
No language could possibly explain this. I'll try though. It is a classic paradox, where you can "screw up" space and time. Imagine a timeline. He time travels back past 3 seconds, and as time moves on, the man (past) doesn't move. Why? Because another man from another time line would go into this timeline, and the process will keep on happening until there is no more space on earth. Classic time travel paradox.
0 -
It depends on one's view, intellectuality and preference. If you would love to learn more about the cosmos and astronomy, stick to this topic. If you have other interests, just get out without bothering others. Astrology is not deemed pseudoscience, as there is not enough evidence to prove it. Though based on the mechanics of cosmos, that's how it works.
0 -
What theory is disproven?
No, not this thread, it'd be pretty stupid to disprove my theory. The theory of "travelling at c, slows down time, but you wouldn't", is actually not disproven in my opinion. We haven't come to the extent of having superior technology to find that out. We'll leave that theory be for a couple years.
-1 -
As we learn more about time travel we have to familiarise with paradoxes, such as the grandfather, or parental paradoxes. But here's some paradox and theories made by me to mess with your mind. Are challenged enough to solve these paradoxes with great ease?
Limour/Limited Colour Paradox:
Can you think of a new colour not yet discovered?
Laziness Paradox:
If someone states, "I am too lazy to sleep", is it actually true?
Matter Split Paradox:
If I were to get a piece of matter, such as cake or a rod, and repeatedly cut it into half, is it infinite, and would it run to as stop? Assuming we cut it even though it is an atom thick.
Fundigm Boredom Paradox:
How can we have fun while being bored?
Universe Destruction Error Paradox (UDEP):
Proving parallel universes wrong, look up the thread I made, what if there was a universe that was so fast, and it is to actually destroy our universe? Would it be stop by another universe? But what if it's slow? So on and so forth.
Solving the almighty being paradox:
One states that if a almighty being were to create rock that it cannot destroy, it will not be almighty, thus god cannot be. But I have solved it. What if that Almighty Being, god, were to actually made an elixir or potion that made itself possible to destroy that rock? Or what if he made himself strong enough to destroy it. While some argue that it makes one again, god, the almighty being can destroy by doing the previous action, so on and so forth.
More to be made/To be continued...
-1 -
A theory regarding to this, states that: If you were to travel at c, the speed of light, everything around you would age; but you wouldn't, as you won't experience time if you travel that quick. And since we're applying into that, that would be physically impossible as only massless particles could do so, and though some may say that currently we are unable to travel at c, with further technologies in the future, it may be possible. Even as we do so, our particles would get scattered (as we notice how light travels, and gets scattered, as it gets weaker). So we cannot test this theory yet. One example for instance, that if we were to do so, and not experience time due to the great speed, and we to travel at the speed of light in a space craft or train for one year, we would emerge several thousands or hundreds years from where we began. (As I briefly explained in another thread of several other theories).
0 -
Hi I had an idea that might interest some people here, and I would like to have some comment on that idea.
There is a possibility that someday we will find a comet heading to earth and we will try to deviate it so it miss the earth.
There are many senario's proposed, but mine is so simple:
Take a big mass of nuclear fuel and crash it on one of the pole of the comet.
Make it crash at a speed so the mass will penetrate between 10 and a 100 meter.
The nuclear mass is subcritical so it wont detonate, but massive enough to come to a temperature of around 1000 Celsis.
The interior of the comet is mostly water ice and the water will turn into steam that will exit by the entry hole providing some trust.
Is it a realistic scenario to change the orbit of a comet ?
How much fuel would be needed ?
How long before the hole get to large ?
Good question there. The hole to get large is a little vague. Some possible theories of it being radioactive, or chemical reaction of some sort in the comet causing it to explode to leave a big hole, or it being too high of its temperature that it will melt the ground. What is the ground? What other chemicals are there in the comet? I need more data to calculate the infinite possibilities of this theorem. Just solve it within all the information given or do you prefer to give me more? (This question also gives more questions than it answers, surprisingly).
-1 -
I'm not that dumb!
Ah, sorry for the misinterpretation. I thought you were using the text slang in the facial expression... xD
0 -
I'm just a dummy ... what does xD mean?
Just to quote it short, I'm not old. I'm 13. The picture is Stephen hawking.
0
Are mathematical constants equivalent to Infinity?
in Applied Mathematics
Posted
Yeah we did, but I did make a little tweak, elucidating that the value is not affected by numbers