Ragib

Im pissed off today, so i'm going to do a thrashing. Particle may imply volume and mass to you, but be reminded you don't know jack. Just because all we see in day to day life, in our macroscopic scale, has mass and volume, does not mean its the same everywhere. Now if you want to momentum of light, its not mass times velocity. Its Planks constant, over its wavelength god damn it. And thinking its a wave doesnt get you out of it, this equation still applys.

The mathematics tells us to think of fundamental particles as point particles. No Billiard Balls. In Fact, not volume, takes up so space. They are not intervals in geometry, just points.

To snail, yes the gravity could superimposed, or be diffracted etc. This has been examined. In fact Eiensteins equations of general relativity incorporate this, but are commonly interpreted rather as combined distortions of spacetime, which are eqivalent.

Please, physics is not hard. Im 14. And no, im not a nerd, i have a life, most people here do.

Yea, what he said...

Im sorry but I dont understand what exactly is hard hard about the chain rule?..Its the easiest to remember and apply, and most people have learnt it 2 years before the end of high school in australia, which isnt particularly smart..

we are thinking of the same rule, arent we? dy/dx = dy/du *du/dx ???

its basically multiplying the rates of change to get a total rate of change. eg Im going 2 times as fast as you. A car goes twice as fast as me. Multiply and you get the car, goes 4 times as fast as you. SImple.

The Universe is infinite? Please explain?

As to we 14+ billion light years in each direction, how is that possible when accurate reading state the age of the universe is approx 13.7 billion years? Does that mean we see the entire universe? The light couldn't have reached us in this time...

Umm Edtharan, You seem to have made a few silly mistakes. First, I think your ment to universe is 15-20 BILLION years, not million, and more accuractly its about 13.7 billion. A trillion is a thousand BILLION not 1000 million.

And Im almost certain he meant primeval atom, thats the way one of the first people to speak of the big band theory described it, and its been quoted many writings ever since.

Can you prove with references that this is an issue? Let's be clear that you say this is an issue with any universe that always exists. I've read extensively on cosmology, and the only issue with entropy that I've seen is for a universe that always oscillates between a big bang and a big crunch. Is that the one you're talking about? Harrison says this issue is highly speculative.

Itll get you references later, I have my exams this week and its been about 4 years since i've read that information, cant remember where. But i believe entropy is also an issue for a universe that has existed for an infinite amount of time, surely. Even if not entropy, how about thermal eqilibrium? How does an eternal universe aviod that? Should the night sky be fully illuminated, seeing as the light from the most distant stars have reached us by now? And why favour an infinite amount of 1 diemension, time, and not space? they are the same. You are not claiming space is finite are you? Then how would it expand/contract as you say?

You could choose to think of as a particle and a wave. Physicists will tell you that they are only one at a time, choosing on how we observe it, but i find a good analogy is that it is both at the same time. A photon isa particle attracted by both a magnetic and electric field, just an analogy. Now, an electric field is created, athe photon goes there, the magnetic field is now induced, and the photon goes there, and keeps going so the photon, the light, has travelled 'through' a medium it has created.

O btw, just to explain, you would be pretty scared seeing..well not seeing because the light wont reach your eyes if its going faster than light..well sorta seeing a negative lengthed...object with imaginary mass, therefore imaginary momentum, and since theres the law of conservation of momentum, suddenly everyother mass has to become imaginary...eep

Why can't light go at less then C? Because if it did, then that would be C. If you mean, simultaineously, which is probably what you do, ill try to explain. Easiest explaination. If we had two light beams. Ones 0.5c, other c. Now, Your standing still. Your brother can see both beams. He can only travel at below c, as he has mass. But, he could go at 0.6 c, faster than the other light beam. In his point of view he just went faster than light, when this should not be possible as he has mass. Not to mention, theres lots of problems going faster than light, ie imaginary time/mass, negative length

Eienstein did see the issue of Entropy and Thermal Eqilibrium. He never claimed his theory could explain this, he merely thought it an improvement to current theories of gravity. Once it was shown by Hubble the universe is indeed expanding, he had that problem fixed. Explain why these issues are irrelevant to your theory? These may prove it falsifiable, which every good theory should do.

God damn i wish Matt grime was still here, he would do this in a second...

Zanket, sure even for Eienstein he believed in a static universe. But we are not dealing that. We are dealing with his theory, which DOES predict a non-static universe. And who ever said Zankets a crackpot, seriosuly think before you say that, you havent found anything wrong yet.

swansont: it could make sense to say that SR deserved it but not GR. It all depends on timing. Maybe the Nobel Committe thought that that year GR was good but something else was better. SR and Brownwian recieved no credit as the committe did not want to cause a controversy, with a Jewish man in an anti semetic society. GR, during World War 1, would have been even worse.

Ok, i have not bothered to read all up, ill just explain it straight. Basically theres this principle in quantum mechanics called Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle which basically states that there is an inherent uncertainty between conjugate variables such as postion and momentum. It is basically saying it doesn't matter how hard we try, or how good of apparatus we can get, theres always some uncertainty, because the better we observe one of the variables, the less accurate another one is. This is different to the observer effect where observing it changes the outcome. An example of the oberserver effect is, im measuring the position of a particle, but to the measure it i use a light photon, which has momentum and changes the position. However The Uncertainty principle says even with everything perfect we cant measure it perfect. Eg. Time and Wavelength. The Smaller increments of time gets the time measurment better, but we have less time to observe the wavelength so it will be less accurate.

Now one of the uncertainty relations of Time and Energy. It basically says Uncertainty of Time times the Uncertainty of Energy is more or at best, equal to plancks constant divided by 2pi. So, in a small enough increment of time, something can have a large uncertainty of energy and still comply with the principle, and we wouldn't be able to measure it. So in quantum tunnelling a particle, for a very short period of time, has enough energy to escape, which it so happens it does.

Virtual Particles can never be experimental verified. However, they provide a very good interpretation of Black Hole Evaporation, also known as Hawking Radiation. There are of course other interpretations, but virtual particles are eqivalent and useful in the mathematics, espically when dealing with Quantum Electrodynamics.

Zanket, your theory may appear more approachable to a general audience, such as 14 year olds like myself, rather than one comprised of only experienced

physicists, if your were to rewrite it in SI units. If possible, could you send me a paper that has all the equations in SI units rather than Plank units, that would be a great help. Natural Units are good for equations, but nothing more. In deriving equations Natural units are frowned upon by most, as it provides less understanding of the formulae. Only after derivation are natural units used, to simplify calculations and nothing else. A flaw may be found with much less effort if SI units were used.

Now, I have not completely analysised your paper yet, which I will as soon as possible, but it seems you have a circular argument going on. You seemed to critcise Espens comment on assuming equation 17 is correct, which you said you have shown an inconsistancy in. However, in a seperable section you use your assumption that equation 17 is not correct to prove another flaw.

Now i quote your paper:

"The universe always existed. There are no singularities."

"Presumably the universe endlessly cycles between expansion and contraction; otherwise the galaxies would already be infinitely spread apart from one another because the universe always existed."

Would you please, using your theories equations, tell us to what extent it expands then contracts?

Not to mention, having existed for an infinite amount of time, shouldn't the second law of thermodynamics result in a heat death of the universe already, or the universe reached thermal eqilibrium? I can not remember the quote exa ctly, or by who it was from, but someone once said that "If your theory disagrees with observances, well even sometimes experimentalists get it wrong. But if your theory is incompatible with the Second law of thermodynamics, I can offer you no hope". Quite true I have to say.

I'll get back to you later once i've read it, it may take me up to a week to fully analyse it though. Please do not dismiss my comments merely on the factor of my age, you will find I know just as much Relativity as you do.

To All: As we have not found an error yet, do not dismiss this theory yet. Even if the probablity of its physical correctness is not very high, if we do find an error it may show us something new we have not considered before. Just like Eienstein's criticism of Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle lead to a deeper understanding of the Principle itself.

well in elementary physics, 4 is fine, but in relativity advanced theories, new diemensions are introduced in the desire to explain all things as distortions of spacetime.

Polynomials with a degree higher than 4 can not be solved with a formula because someone proved a long time ago that when you produced a formula for them, it had an infinite amount of terms, which of course we cant do. And i would imagine these wouldn't converge, or else people would use them anyway, or at least computers would.

How about over here lol. Just put your questions up, and people will help. Promblem Solving, do some textbooks. Reasoning, Practice your mind, play class, do crosswords, puzzles etc

I think its only valid when direct substitution produces one of these indeterminate forms-

0/0,

or +- infinity/ +- infinity.

If it produces inderterminate forms such as-

1^(+- infinity)[which isnt still 1],

0^0 (which isnt 1 or 0),

or infinity^0, (which is not 1..)

then you can use logarithims to change it abit, then u can use the rule.

i dont think it works when the denominators derivative is 0 btw.

it is also potentially problematic, as certain functions as NOT, differentiable sufficiently often to obtain a conclusive result, as stated by woelen. They may oscillate wildly, and we may not notice. or, not just oscillation, but say, cusp, sudden change, like |x|. you could define 2 tangents, very problematic. L'hopitals rule is nice and easy to use in your school exams, but if your presenting a proof go the hard way, or at least substitute your example in the rules proof, makes it appear more rigours and easier to see if there are any cusps, oscillations etc

do u wonder why its name l'hopital wen he didnt even invent it, and never claimed to..

umm i dont understand you, the gravitational pull from the cylinder along the x and z axis, the gravitiy from earth along y, and hoping to balance it with 300v of electricity? i think it wont balance, youll get some blob..

Yes but thats when you want a rigid proof. If you wish for a quick solutions, then L'Hopital is the way to go, usually.

im assuming your brute force is just a cooler way of saying guess and check, ill use it from now on btw sure its pretty evident for simple intergers, but i doubt in your daily guess and checks u try -23/30 ...

umm i know im really late, but when you do use L'Hopital, not Hospital lol, hes not sick.., yea you get the same result.