Speculations

Hi all I just posted a paper on ViXra, http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0163 , with title as above and will be very interested in any constructive criticism etc (which mayl be acknowledged by name in future versions, unless otherwise requested). Evidence for the model would be a formal proof that the basic tenets of QM can be derived from it, which I believe should be possible and is something I am currently considering. Note that emphatically nothing in the paper is intended to suggest that QM is in any sense "wrong", quite the reverse. It is merely an attempt to discern and sketch a realist or "operational" underpinning to QM. It is fairly short (10 well-spaced pag…

So, a thoughts been lodged in my head for awhile that I'd like to discuss, to see if it's taken as common knowledge or as a revolutionary point of view. From my perspective, the speculations of a "Gravitron" somewhere in matter isn't right, mainly because light has no room to cary it with it as it's doing loops in spacetime. So, Einsteins theory of relativity shows that spacetime bends around matter; isn't that gravity right there? What if spacetime is a fabric, a three dimensional fabric laced by strings, and matter is an obstruction to this fabric, a sort of cosmic tumor? (not going for a nilhist perspective on this one, trust me) lets say that, theoretically, this fabr…

The position of an object (or an event) in spacetime can be described with a set of 4 coordinates: 3 spatial coordinates and 1 temporal. (x,y,z,t) Say we have event A with coordinates (0,0,0,0) That represents something that happens at the origin right now. Then some other random event B. Say event B has coordinates (x,y,z,t) . One can choose a set of spatial axes so that x axis is aligned to the direction between the observer and event B, so that we get simplified coordinates (x',0,0,t). Now: 1.If B has coordinates (0,0,0,0) we can safely conclude that A=B (= sign meaning that A & B are 2 events that took place at the same place at the s…

Hi all. I remember a while back I introduced myself as a new member... and then needed to disappear for two weeks. well, the two weeks turned into something like 4 months, But Im back now for a while anyway. so excuse me if I don't respond to posts daily. anyway here is a link to an article describing how radiometric decay can be sped up significantly by the removal of electrons from around the atom. after reading the article, discuss what implications this will have on accurate radiometric dating, and thus on the accurace of the theory of evolution. http://creation.com/billion-fold-acceleration-of-radioactivity-demonstrated-in-laboratory also, please comp…

Daniel posted this: It is a fact that space is a familiar entity, in contrast with time which is so mysterious. but do we really know what we think we know so well? Here below some considerations and question marks. _it has been established that there is a relation between space and time: any distance corresponds to a certain duration. We cannot get information from any distance in zero time because nothing can go faster than Speed Of Light. IOW in order to observe real simultaneity, information (EM radiation or any kind of other signal) should transfer at infinite velocity and this is not the case. In short, everything that we observe in the space dimensions is…

Theory: perhaps dark energy is only gravity. That's why we can't detect it, only see its effects. Maybe our universe is just an irregular bubble in a very large black hole. That would account for gravity being all round the perimeter of our universe pulling the galaxy's to the edges. Then what? Why did the bubble form? Heat is a basic catalyst to create a reaction. Is the center or creation point of our universe becoming a larger void or is it full of fairly uniform matter like the rest of the universe? Food for thought. Good day. Chrisb PS; A very small spec of a black hole would contain a huge amount of matter, perhaps a universe full.

Today, we use time in a majority of uses. From cooking food to counting down to the new year. But in my eyes, we are viewing time incorrectly and impractically. For example: If you are on the east coast of the US at noon, and on the other side of the earth its dark with night, according to humans it is a different "time". The very meaning of time is being thrown out in this example. We don't use time in a scientific sense, we use it in a hypothetical sense. Time is woven into the fabric of space, it is a constant, therefore if you are on one side of the universe, the other side is the same time. Understand so far? So the way we use time today is completel…

While this is usual, I am amazed to see such absurd irrational fallacies and acts of faith in the name of science, and even sometimes by high level scientists ready to tell any bullshit to politicians in order to keep the credits on their projects. People still fancying that anything might be possible because, supposedly, "nobody knows" what can be discovered, and what can have potential applications. What is this based ? On history, maybe ? Of course, in general, it is true that scientific research can be useful, and that some discoveries in fundamental science had wonderful application. But... Is this a good reason to tell any bullshit and to worship science in a relig…

From the next figure model we can claculate Redshift value. In this model, we assume that the cause of Redshift is the interactions between the light and surround something. So, we can apply modified Beer Lambert model. [latex]Z=\frac{\lambda _{c}}{\lambda _{t}}-1[/latex] Beer Lambert law [latex]\frac{I_{c}}{I_{t}}=e^{-kd}[/latex] [latex]\frac{I_{c}}{I_{t}}=\frac{E_{c}/tA}{E_{t}/tA} \cong \frac{h/\lambda _{c}}{h/\lambda _{t}}=\frac{\lambda _{t}}{\lambda _{c}}[/latex] [latex]\frac{\lambda _{c}}{\lambda _{t}}=e^{kd}[/latex] [latex]Z=e^{kd}-1[/latex] From known data Z=1, L=6 k=0.09 So [latex]Z=e^{0.09d}-1[/latex] where d=13.75-L d; distance(Billion year) …

From well known Redshift formula, we can draw a diagram about the Universe expansion. Other factors, i.e., Doppler effect, etc. are ignored.

Our Earth is still 'not yet fully explored and occupied', so declaring something extinction is almost always a probability thing, right? Coelacanth were thought to be extinct, until one popped up in a fisherman's net, but this is an isolated incident, except that people are both hearing and seeing the giant red headed woodpecker. So with these and other examples readily available, why is cryptozoology so ill-respected respected in general? The question I'd really like an answer to is how would a layman prepare an argument for the non-extinction of anything, sans a body?

mayan calender says its the end of the world. even in kuran there are saying's that world going to end in 2012 hindu religion as also says that it's the end. WHAT DOES SCIENCE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS???

I know how to make a device that allows you to go to another place without traveling the space in between.This is how you do it you put an object on the ground that is going a constant speed of 18 miles per hour backwards and on top of that object is a object that is going a constant speed of 1 miles per hour forwards.The object that is going a constant speed of 1 miles per hour forward has on it a rectangular platform with two objects on it that are side by side.One of the objects is going a constant speed of 1 mile per hour backwards and the other object is going a constant speed of 9 miles per hour.IF you are on the platform you will observe the objects going a way fro…

Okay... here goes. A Theory of Quantum Gravity: Fresnel Shells in Crumple Space. So, Einstein views space-time as smooth. Long sweeping curves, like heavy objects on a wide sheet of stretchy rubber. However, WMAP has measured the curve of the universe and shown that over all, the universe is flat. Frankly, that makes no sense. With all this matter in it, space should have SOME sort of curve to it, either negative or positive, but no. It's flat. So, how is this possible? The huge sweeping curves of Einstein's general relativity seems like a great deal of wasted, errr… "space". I mean, if you think about it, it has to be curving into SOME…

I had considered working through on my own, but decided i'm more interested in advancing the theory than protecting it. If possible, I would like some feedback or insight on where to look at for the major holes in this before investing the time / resources on the details. Any thoughts? Is there any string research being done on quantum level particles and their movement or transition through dimensions? Theory Summary: The following describes how gravity is unified into relativity at a quantum level. To sum up, the 4th dimension (not considering space/time as the 4th dimension) is scale. It is very simple to understand and visualize 'scale', this s…

I must say I find this to be quite an extraordinary statement. Can I ask what, precisely, you meant by "better off"?

Force is mass acceleration and curvature is equal and opposite reaction to inertial pressure differential. Mathematical calculations based on curvature are alphanumeric images of force. Images are easily misinterpreted. Is "That might be the most meaningless nonsense I've ever read in a single post." a kind and well reasoned response? peace ron (:I see through the empress` new cloak:)

I have been thinking about this question for quite a while and want opinions from mathematicians, programmers and others. http://denninginstitute.com/pjd/PUBS/AmSci-1990-2-thinking.pdf I want to specifically discuss about this question. We know mathematicians prove theorems, for example Alan Turing proves that no algorithm exists to solve the halting problem and he arrives at an algorithm which shows what algorithms cannot do but my question is did he arrived at that algorithm in a computable way or to put it in an another way is there an algorithm which generates other algorithms or did he just discovered it in a non-computable way. Even programmers come up with n…

Ruv -(1/2) Rguv=Guv given true statement Ruv -(1/2) Rguv+Lambda guv=Guv Guv+Lambda guv=Guv false statement Going to be giving a web lecture on this next month to those interested in alternate theories, what is required to make the false statement true and what it means physically. Questions more than welcome here.

First off the Michelson and Morley experiment, if there is an aether and light is already traveling on it then why would putting light in a different medium be a viable experiment. Also if there is an Aether, it doesnt mean light has to have it to travel. I'm sure when you slap a wall the energy from your slap still travels as if you slapped a body of water. The water just shows you the disturbance infront of your slaps energy. Right? I'm not saying there is an aether, I just want to brainstorm and talk about it.

Here below a picture from the Wikipedia article about redshift: So I made a screenshot of this picture and imported into a Cad program. Then I joinded graphically the end of the absorption lines, as accurately as possible, and ended with the following graph: So I thought the Wiki picture is not good. I found this other one from Brian P. Schmidt Nobel lecture page 5 ( http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/schmidt-lecture_slides.pdf ) . And I did the same thing, importing in Cad, joigning the lines, and obtaining this below: Then I did something else: i scaled the image down and put it above the original …

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moved through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both. In a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.

First, the Relativistic energy equation: E2 = p2 + m2 treats rest-mass like a "hyper-momentum", in an extra spatial dimension: E2 = pxyz2 + pw2 That extra "w" dimension can be construed, as the hyper-spatial "thickness" of the fabric of space-time. The fabric of space-time may have an "inside surface", and an "outside surface". And, the wave-functions of quanta may reside in between both said surfaces, like ice cream between the wafers of an ice cream sandwich. In reduced-dimensional visualization, in (1+1)D, the space-time fabric of our universe may resemble a "vase". In this hypothesis, that "vase" would have some "hyper-thickness", and would n…

I was amazed to read about scalar, longitudinal electromagnetic waves as I have never heard of them before. However, I was casually looking through the web and found this: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/Beard_wmod.htm My questions are: Do such waves exist? If they do, what sort of properties would they show and how could you detect them?

This is one point constant accelerated expansion model. Observer line calculation t_current=t+L/C t_current=t+(L_initial +vt)/C v=(Ct_current-L_initial)(1/t) -C t_current; current time, 13.75billion year L_initial; initial Supercluster distance from the Earth In the case of constant acceleration Observer line calculation t_current =t+L/C t_current=t+(L_initial +(1/2)vt)/C where (1/2)v is average velocity value from Big Bang to a point. Solve above equation to the v. v=(2C t_current -2L_initial)(1/t) -2C one point expansion, Linitial=0 v=(2C t_current )(1/t) -2C v; speed of expansion(1x1022km/billion year) C; speed of light(9.46x1021km/billion year) t; time(billio…