cperkinson

URGH, peer review!

What is this string theory dealing with 11 demensions by Einstein all about? Any ideas on where I should start looking online? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWow very complex. Can anyone give me a small basic description?

I see. My appologies. I thought it was a stab in the back of sorts.

while they are the cornerstones of theory formation, are they the cornerstones of science? There are many different regions of science. Cosmology, for example, deals with the universe in it's entirety and human's place in it. While many scientists don't enjoy that this form of science has been recently recognized by the science community, it is still a reputable form of science and therefore cannot be ignored. PS: many of my ideas are cosmology related. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedwhat im trying to say is that science itself doesn't necessarily deal solely with theories and equations. Simply thinking can be a great way to come up with new ideas and answers for many questions. After all, that IS what science is all about, right?

The questions asked on this site are all related. And the answers are all similar in that they deal with physics in some way shape or form. And physics laws are based upon infinancy. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd if someone would like to argue the fact that not all questions are physics related. That is true. Not all questions are directly related, but are indeed related in some shape or form.

1+2=3=2+1=3=1+2 say it however you want, it all still means the same thing

okay i see no reason to further this argument if i will be ganged up on

HMM while they may initially travel at the same speed, i dont believe radiowaves carrying information would travel the same speed as light. The information encoded within the waves would slow them down. RIGHT? And henseforth i would like to further state that in accordance to the origonal post that if radiowaves dont travel at the speed of light then the reworking of the question of how the radiowaves will sound will have to be rethunkified

Define falsifiable.. i am ignorant to it's meaning.

Too much truth here... But while you think i am merely jumpin in head first I am not. I AM indeed open to outside oppinions but not when those opinions are in disregard of mine.

I would like to recieve responses in this post regarding people's understanding of the universe. Or rather how they perceive it. Was there a beginning and will there be an end, or is the universe static?

People are testing my beliefs in this universe right now.. they have been testing them since the beginning of science... and they always will be testing them. I merely ask anyone who reads or hears about my "thoughts" to simply think within that perspective when trying to figure something out. It will help them make sense of everything around them. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged thx

i couldn't tell you which tests to run, i have never tested my THEORIES. I simply use basic logistic skillz to FORMULATE them. I capitalize theories and formulate because there is scientific cognition in my thoughts when i come up with these THEORIES.

fair enough. i ask hence forth that no one removes me directly. I merely ask you and everyone else to disprove my theory of multiple universes coexisting with each other. if it can be disproved then kick me out, and i'll never return.

I am aware that you are refering to my Bashing the big bang theory post from earlier. Please, try to disprove it with all the mathematics that are out there. I will make the prediction that it cannot be done.

Remove me from the forums then.. you'll read about my theories in papers across the globe. And go ahead and dismiss this as a form of enraged response, but my whole life has been built upon becoming a famous scientist. While my ways are strange i have a method to my madness. While i accept the fact that my life is predetermined and that i cannot alter its course no matter what decisions i make, i still understand that in some point in my life i learned to accept this fact and that it enables me to have a wider understanding of the universe around me. I ONCE SAT IN MY BASEMENT FOR 3 WEEKS CONTEMPLATING SUICIDE UPON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THIS PREDETERMINED DESTINY, KNOWING THAT NO MATTER WHAT I DO IT IS'NT MY CHOICE, THAT I DO THINGS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN PREDETERMINED FOR ME. THE ONLY THING THAT STOPPED ME FROM KILLING MYSELF WAS THE CONTINUAL REPEATING OF THE PHRASE "if nothing matters anymore, then why am i here." MY SOLE PURPOSE FROM THEN ON WAS TO SPREAD MY UNDERSTANDING TO THE REST OF THE WORLD IN HOPES THAT I WILL BE THE GREATEST NAME IN HISTORY. I AM CURRENTLY WORKING ON MY ASSOCIATES IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND WILL THEN BE WORKING ON MY BA AND ONWARD TO MY MBA IN THE HOPES THAT I WILL MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO FUND ALL THE RESEARCH NECCESARY TO PUSH OUR COMMUNITY INTO THE SPACE AGE AND MAKE FURTHER PREDICTIONS ABOUT THIS PLANET. Moo, the theory i fed you just an hour ago i had thought up in about 30 minutes after whatching the history channel's episode of "The Universe 'beyond the big bang' " ps: his name was alan guth (check spelling) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedand you're right moo, i should have more respect for the scientific community. Respect is something i lack upon my more natural state of being, hence my father being an undeserving drunk and druggy, respect is something i dont show much of. Plz forgive me. I truely do have great potential, just give me a shot.

Thx... be looking forward to a post before too long giving an extremely detailed explanation of this theory i have.... i understand about the expansion and the four parts to the primeval atom that what's-his-face (could care less about names and details of people, i prefer the more generalities of life) more recently came up with. And i also formulated this idea through the understanding that gravity was the one part that was taken away from the primeval atom which caused it to begin it's rapid expansion. I choose to call it an explosion because it was and still is rapidly expanding. What exactly is an explosion defined as anyways. And further more i believe the gravity element was not merely removed from the atom, it was displaced by some outside force (maybe a smaller primeval atom hitting it), in turn causing the rapid expansion. Sort of like how the atomic bomb begins it's explosion (or rapid expansion as you people enjoy calling it). The nucleus of an atom is split thus releasing it's subatomic energies at great speeds into the other whole nuclei and therefor causing its explosion. I speak of this infinancy as a form of understanding.. not actuality. Just understand that within just one atom are an infinant amount of vastly expanding universes and within those universes are atoms that have infinant amounts of universes within them. This is the idea of infinancy. And as for a static universe, i believe it and will until the day i cease to draw air... Just as Fred Hoyle did. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedASTROLOGY = Astronomy and Cosmology. Shorter for me to write. (should've explained)

For some reason i find myself coming up with ideas without mathematical construction. I merely use logistics and let everyone else do the grunt work.

I am most definately going to have to disagree. NOTHING travels as fast as light.

You wouldnt be hearing broadcasts from one year ago... Radio waves travel at a slower rate than light.

I'll have you know that science has been my entire life! And for you to tell me that I won't be a member of this community long is hanous! I have spent my entire educational career praising Einstein, Edison, Tesla, Lemetra, Hubble, Hoyle, and Gammof as gods! So what if I enjoy thinking in a theoretical sense. So did EVERY great scientist in history. They all thought theoretically, and in order for new understanding to be brought into existance there has to be speculation. This is a science forum, therefor I speculate about known science. Now before you decide to dismiss an idea based on a person's reputability try and understand his ideas first.

The big bang is only the beginning of our one and only percieved universe. While this may be true I began to think deeper into this region of science known as astrology, and came out with a theoretical understanding. What if the vastly small atom that blew up creating our universe was one of millions? I believe in infinancy to the fullest extent in that there may not have only been just one atom that blew up creating the many galaxies, stars, and solar systems we know of today... I believe that there were many atoms that blew up creating their own little universes, and there still are these little atoms blowing up creating their own universes. And as our universe may be viewed, by many, as being ever expansive and the only one out there, I don't view it that way. I believe that it is being thrusted outwards away from the central point of the explosion. I believe that at some point our universe will collide with others, just as the particles of atomic bombs do after they begin their initial activation.

A theory is a composed idea about something. From my thoughts, I form ideas. SO I am free to use the word theory whenever I want. thx for the useless insight Tree. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI compose these forum replies and posts as they come to mind. And just because my logic defies yours, doesn't mean that there is no logic in it at all. Think more deeply about what i say if you want to make sense of it.

So what is being said here is that somehow the stronger a gravetational pull is on an individual, the faster they move through time. Time in this scenario being a constant. This is all very interesting stuff btw, thx. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged"Really as above. Don't apply [math]E= mc^{2}[/math] to massless particles so easily." BUT I AM RIGHT IN SAYING THE EQUATION STILL APPLIES FOR MASSLESS PARTICLES, NO? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe true underlined conception of my whole theory is that time travel is only possible into the future and that time is only measured corectly when weighed against someone elses perception of it. I suppose by you telling me about a person's "time cone" I cannot really call this idea my own but while others may already have the same idea, I have formed this understanding through my own logic.. No body else explained it to me. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedand what is with this new equation? "p^2"? Is it that "p^2" equals "m"? i know essentially p = Ev/c² but in order for the origonal equation to make sense then p^2 must equal m. therefor may we infer that m also = Ev/c²?

When you learn a new concept, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, sleep on it. After initially reading or being told about whatever it is that you're learning, go home, fall asleep, and then dwell on the matter at hand upon waking up. Many great scientists have reported using this technique. The idea is that the newly found knowledge simply marinades, making it easier to understand and in turn allowing more to be learned from it. Just dwell on something and sleep on it a few times. YOU'LL GET IT EVENTUALLY.