Royston

Well I don't follow your reasoning. Let's assume for the sake of argument that space as you said doesn't have 'shape', i.e there is no geometery describing space, General Relativity was never realized...it's just a void as far as we know. However going back to the time of Hubble it was observed that the Universe is expanding, more recently that this expansion is accelerating. So purely from observation (no need to worry about the shape of anything) this void is expanding inbetween far away objects, so we don't even need to worry about whether space has a shape, just that expansion is an observerd phenomena. So are you contesting that these observations are wrong, or are you not familiar with this subject ? With regards to the geometery of space, i.e as described by GR, gravity is the shape of space. Where we have a body, space curves towards it causing passing objects to take orbit, or to crash into it. I'm about to leave work so this post was rushed...but I may come back to this. I'd recommend looking at the cosmo basics thread (the sticky under Astronomy and Cosmology.)

Sovereign, I realise you're new here, but if you wish to posit something (that appears to be against current physics) you need to supply a reference or link to back it up. What you've stated is wrong...actually it doesn't make much sense, so please elaborate.

Do you have any references for this, because there's a number of flaws with what you stated. For a start the Universe doesn't have an edge, whatever the shape of the Universe turns out to be, neither of the three possible models e.g spatially infinite has an edge involved. Shockwave of the big bang ? Can you elaborate please. Also, the Universe is isotropic, i.e very distance galaxies will be receeding faster, the further away they are from the observer. This holds true for any position you care to pick in the Universe. Stating that the mass of the Universe is somehow concentrated in the centre (there's no centre of the Universe either) and that's why objects far away from the centre are receeding quickly, is just wrong. There's no such thing as absolute space, which would be required for your statement to hold true.

So the direct effects of the economic crisis hit yesterday, as I was told I was being made redundant. Although I get quite a tidy sum on leaving, my current job is very flexible which is ideal for my degree, plus I'll miss the people I work with. At first I was surprisingly happy, at the prospect of trying something new (providing I can find something else...the economy being what it is) and getting a nice lump sum. However, now it's sunk in, I'm feeling a bit glum, and I'm stuck here for another six months...which is a long time with absolutely no motivation to do anything...bar posting on here. In any case, has anyone else had any direct or non direct problems arise due to the failing economy, or are you carrying on regardless, and only realise there's a financial crisis due to the constant exposure it's had in the media ?

DEAR FRIENDS, tHE ANSWER TO THE POLL ? A RESOUNDING YEP !!! THANKS TO MY 'EXCHANGE FUNTON FIELD GEOMETERIES' FUNTON'S PERMEATE ALL SPACE ! DUE TO MY NEW PHYSICAL FUNTON CONSTANT, ABSOLUTE SPACE, ABSOLUTE nonsense AND NON-RELATIVISTIC UNIVERSE IS REALIZED !!! THE BAFFLING WORLD OF QUANTUM'S HAVE BEEN REMOVED, THANKS TO CAUSAL GEOMETERIES CONSTRUCTED FROM FUNTON FIELDS. IT WORKS !!! A new authorrity ! A new physiks ! The benefits to mankind are many and gargantuan.... The mysteries of consciousness unravelled with funton explanation to mind. The Threee Body Problem......SOLVED ! With Funton Orbital Velocity Chaos Pacifier...derivATION from funton constant ! It's REAL! *PERPETUAL motion device, constructed with funton geometries schematics...IT WORKS!! Fermatt's Last Theoerem A DODDLE - thanks to NEW FUN MATH *Perpetualism has been harnessed thanks to my device... This surprising and unsettling result, thanks to geometeries from new math... [math]E = \infty[/math] Funton input - Funton output = Net Funton = NET ENERGY IT IS A GENUINE RESULT ! MY THEORY IS BS!!!!!!!!! BEYOND SCIENCE ! I'm halfway through 'The Sun and Moon Corrupted', and couldn't help but attempt a parody of a crackpot.

I wrote a short essay on the Copenhagen Interpretation about a month back, I'm no QM expert, but the only issue I have is the boundary between the classical system (i.e the measuring device or more specifically the measurement itself) and the quantum system (that is what is being measured.) It just seems incomplete to me...or not satisfactory to leave it at that. I read about consistent histories shortly afterwards, which does away with the classical measuring device, and treats it all as a quantum system including the act of measurement i.e probabilites rule...there's more to it than that, so I'll look for a link. However, after making my vote, I decided to read back on consistent histories, and surely it's impossible to get exact solutions ? In any case, I think I should have read more on the subject before casting my vote, but on face value consistent histories does deal with the boundary problem. If I have this wrong, or I've <ahem> misinterpreted the consistent histories approach, please correct any of the above.

Well said. I voted 'we don't know yet'...because we don't. Whatever models have been derived for pre big-bang scenarios need to be tested...that's when the evidence comes into play. The problem is probing such high energies, which are not reproducible in a lab, we may get close to an answer via GRB's et.c Or there may be a model that predicts current observations better than existing models, which includes pre big bang periods. However evidence wins, and personally I'm unsure we'll ever know, when such things are not falsifiable by direct measurement / observation. Which is a tad tricky where this problem is concerned...unless anybody knows of other methods.

Did you watch 'High Anxieties' as well YT ? EDIT: for those that havn't (though I think you have to be from the UK to watch BBC iplayer) you can watch it here... http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dzypr/High_Anxieties_The_Mathematics_of_Chaos/

I just want to address the OP before this goes any further. If we can agree that the Universe is not expanding into anything, then this principle alone picks a flaw with the above. The best way to picture it is, imagine a three dimensional graph [math](x, \theta,\phi)[/math] and I embed a sphere, so that I can find the coordinates of the centre of the sphere et.c This implies absolute space, I could stick clocks on any coordinate and syncronise them, so absolute time...blah blah blah. Apart from relativity telling us otherwise, as this is a Newtonian view of the Universe, what's outside this graph ? Well we could come up with new models for the location, or nature of this graph et.c, but a much simpler solution, is to wrap the graph around the sphere, so the sphere defines it's own space. Therefore the Universe is essentially 'nowhere' because there are no coordiantes in which to state it's position. This is a whopping simplification, but I hope you can see that 'nowhere' becomes 'somewhere' isn't correct...the nowhere remains nowhere.

In this instance yes, providing you don't go too high, if you read the equation an increase in h, will mean the rock will have a greater potential energy. Mr Skeptic is quite right that potential energy is merely a difference. The past is irrelevant to the situation. Remember potential energy isn't solely confined to situations involving gravity, think about the potential difference across a battery terminal (voltage), or the energy values of an electron bound to a nucleus (these values are potential energy.) I'd go further that potential energy is possibly one of the most important principles to understand in physics, especially when you move into QM specifically the Schrodinger equations which are as fundamental as Newtons Laws.

The swine...I trust you gave a swift kick to his bucky balls. You should of threatened to fire his testicles through a diffraction grating. Umm, I could carry on, but I'll spare everyone with my lame jokes.

Thanks Martin, I must say I'm quite surprised, as this followed my line of thinking to an extent. We have two constants, Lambda and the gravitational constant, I then thought of the Andromeda / Milky Way situation but wondering if they were pulled away from each other (to a critical distance), and finally I thought of the Milikan oil drop experiment, but applying it to astronomical distances, masses et.c (obviously the drop is static due to the electrostatic force and gravity...but the principle still applies.) Of course the drop experiment is under controlled lab conditions, there are no collisions, supernovas, black holes forming et.c et.c, hence my afterthought that such conditions would be fleeting (in astronomical terms)...but that's certainly given me something to mull over. I'd be interested to read the paper by Lawrence Krauss, despite it's probably beyond my scope...but any information I can grab from it would be useful.

Not sure if this has been asked before, (sorry more questions) but is it possible for two galaxies to cancel out any net force between them, i.e there is some critical distance and providing they are of the right mass, local gravitational effects cancel the expansion due to dark energy (exactly) so the two galaxies are essentially statically bound to each other. They would have to be isolated, or not disturbed by any surrounding gravitational effects from other galaxies. EDIT: Hmm, I think I'm possibly being a bit dumb here. Is the universe too dynamic for this to happen e.g the galaxies masses would have to stay constant. Or such an effect would be fleeting.

I've just finished my current course (physics), got good marks throughout the year for my assignments only to completely dive-bomb at the exam (which is worth 50% of the entire course...Gah!) Walking out of the exam room feeling like a complete failure, I bought my own body weight in alcohol, and logged onto my Uni forums only to find a flurry of posts of people mainly in a state of shock. Even people who had already had degrees in math et.c and sat several exams through my Uni, were making comments such as 'that's the hardest paper I've sat'...'whoever thought of these questions got out the wrong side of bed'...'I want to burn all my books'...'I'd be happy if I managed 40%, but I want just over 15% so I can do a resit.' So long story short, it was an absolute b*tch. Practically everything I concentrated on revising, which I thought were the important principles et.c seemed to be non-existent. It was the same for everyone else. I'm not allowed to discuss the content of the exam, needless to say it sucked. So I was wondering, has anybody else had this experience, where everyone was doomed for a crappy mark, how is this sort of thing dealt with...like it or lump it ? Or, do you have other options. I really hope I can do a resit, because I'm aiming for good marks to go onto postgrad education.

Apart from one complaint from the neighbours, everyone had a very good time indeed. I'll be sure to pass on your compliments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a change in tactics with crime prevention in New York City that dramatically reduced how dangerous the city was. IIRC they concentrated heavily on petty crime, and this somehow had a knock on effect...I'll try and find a link. I can only sympathize with your situation Ladeira, and I think running is probably the best tactic, especially as you're a skinny teenager, you probably have an advantage in that area. The area where I live is pretty safe, we have the odd problem now and again, usually involving groups of teenagers who are just bored. I have visited dangerous parts of Central and South America, there was a place in Panama that springs to mind, where we suddenly realized everyone around us was staring at us, and we had to dash into a taxi...the driver was doing the finger across the neck gesture. Honduras was quite sketchy as well, especially Tegucigulpa, everyone assumed we were American, and there were a couple of occasions we were spat at, and called something or other, but luckily no violence towards us. (No offense to any Americans on here.)

Well yes, considering this thread is questioning the validity of QM, at least I think that's what the OP is suggesting, and that the big bang is a consequence of astronomy and cosmology, then you need to explain why you brought this up. The only point QM comes into play is when we're dealing with singularities in this instance, but this area of physics is way beyond my scope. However, this certainly doesn't retract from the observations and predictions that the universe was once much denser. I personally don't follow the first post, it stinks of a lack of understanding of QM.

Thanks YT I almost blurted out how ummm arousing it was being surrounded by girls in lab coats with clip boards at one point in the party (mostly girlfriends of my mates.) Needless to say I stopped mid-sentence, and said 'ok, I'll shut up now', and blamed it on the alcohol. Thankfully all my mates are very easy going. So you should, that joke's almost as old as me

A couple of weeks ago I had my first surprise party held for me, and my friends did a terrible job of keeping it under wraps. However, I was even more terrible and didn't suspect a thing, even though a party was mentioned prior to the event . I thought I'd share some pics, no guesses for the theme.

Well I'm done with revision for one night, so I'll address your points... You're making the same mistake as many others who come on here making claims. To propose a new theory, you're supposed to show full understanding of the current models, show where they are flawed i.e in principle and mathematically, and show how you're theory improves on the current models. There is absolutely no indication of you doing this. I was asking you what pure energy is, i.e I'm asking you to define it, as you have used this to define 'potency.' My advice to you, is go and talk to your mathematician friend, and come back with a mathematical model. There's no need for proofs et.c, just the main equations and how they predict the dynamics of these holons, and an explanation of how this idea can be tested i.e by observation and experiment...until then, there is nothing to discuss. EDIT: Oops I was AFK and missed the last two responses...but once again, math please.

I'm sorry, what is pure energy ? Well that's meaningless really, but carry on... Hang on, where are you getting this value from ? What does any of this mean...you need to define your terms, plus are G(f), L(k) et.c functions, what functions ? Can you please write them out in full, something like this... [math]D(E) = B \sqrt{E}[/math] where [math]B = \frac {2 \pi L^3 (2m)^{3/2}}{h^3}[/math] Then if someone asks me the derivation, I'll run them through it. (note, I'm having a break from revision so had a look at your website, and couldn't find any math explaining these holons.) Sorry, but it looks like a load of nonsense to me.

Moss covered, three handled family grudunza ?

I've just been viewing the forums before logging in, and I could access the politics forums i.e there's no 'private' message, it's viewable just like all the other forums.

Well I managed 369 I'm red-green colour blind, so I was interested to see how I'd do...as I suspected; badly. On the first row at least, a green block would appear to change into a red block and vice versa, including the end blocks, which made things rather tricky.

Blog entry from Ethan Siegel on those notorious micro black holes... http://startswithabang.com/