bigsplit

Come now...no one???

You say this, but then go on to provide quotes and descriptions of an experiment that confirmed this very thing, to about 10% IIRC. There are also measurements from binary pulsar systems that arrive at the same conclusion with higher precision. So "never been proven" is a gross overstatement, unless you are just playing at semantics with the inductive nature of science.

I think the reason it is said that light travels at c can be visualized by the ball on a rubber sheet visual of gravity. If the sun for instance were to be moved instantly, it would take the same amount of time for the "flattening" of space-time (rubber sheet) to reach us as it would for the light to stop shinning since c is the speed limit even for the bending of spacetime. This is how I make sense of it anyway.

arkain...just post it. If you are worried that you will not become rich and famous and that someone will steel your idea, your issues are greater than theft. If you truely think this is somethng of significance and are so paranoid...continue to study and go get a PhD as you would be one of the greatest physicist in history. But, if you want feed back then simple post it, people will tear it apart and either you will abandon it or strengthen it. If you have no intent of being a cosmologist then you should give it as a gift....and someone will know it was yours...that would be satisfaction in and of itself.

Bigsplit:

 

If the efficiency of direct solar to hydrogen cells could be boosted by a few magnitudes your idea would be feasible' date=' Or if the electrolysis of H2O and PV efficiencies increase by the same amount. However if PV's did, there would be no need for any hydrogen system at all.[/quote']

 

I understand what you are saying...but I have heard that one of the greatest obsticles to alternative systems for automobiles is the industry's obsession the the internal combustion engine. How much energy does it take to break down say a gallon of water, and which is more efficient for auto...combustion or fuel cells. Also, I have read that some chemicals actually increase the conductivity of the water making the process more efficient.

 

Once I was also curious about using mercury and its strong reactions to temperature changes to operate a two stroke engine...same problem I am sure.

 

But I guess all in all the simplest and best answer is to build a better battery.

'']If by wheel you mean "stupid invention" then yes.

What would be stupid about it?

US.2U asked:

If we are correct to say that time is the fourth dimension not separate from x, y, and z, then is it correct to say a mass, at spatial rest, has a velocity of 'c' in the fourth dimension?

If masses at rest do have a velocity of 'c' in time, then what is "pushing" the mass in that dimension (ie, forward in time)? Where does the 4th dimension get its energy for forward velocity?

Reply:

Mass is never at spacial rest in our Universe. The only form mass could take where it would be at spacial rest would be a homogenious distribution, temperature, charge with no differencial quantum struturing continuing infanitely....in such a scenario you could think of 4D in two ways, frozen at 0 or infanitly synchronized where GR and SR have no meaning. There would be no gravitational gradient or dynamics of anykind....A state where no change or motion will occur....a true t=0. This is my definition of the pre-Big Bang reality and the event that changed this state, I refer to as the Big Split or decay of the homogenous state. All the energy in the Universe in a motionless, homogenously distributed, pure potential state with no charge differential.

An electrolosis chamber small enough to be placed in an automobile which can break down water to H2 and O quickly enough to run the engine through combution or fuel cell. This would be a modern wheel if we could pull that off.

My idea is that the singularity was of the 4th dimension only at t=0. Space is infinate and eternal in the three spacial dimensions, it is the 4th dimension of time that began at the big bang. The 3D infinate was an infinate scalar field and it is useful to consider it an infinate Higg's field (although not neccessarily). Unlike m-brane theory I propose that there was only one infinate brane that was entirely homogenous with no dynamics or gravitational gradiant....a 3D infinate t=0. The Big Bang event was not an expansion of a super condense state of mass, it was a decay of the infinate scalar field into a matter/anti-matter quantum soup.

The decay like the "bang" occured at a point and proceeded outward in a spherical manner with one hemisphere of matter, the other anti-matter. The "expansion" (more like a chain reaction) took place at a rate less than c. Along the equator where the matter/anti-matter were in contact, vorticies began to occur compacting the matter/anti-matter via electrodynamics and heating up the system rapidly. These vorticies were the seeds of galaxy development and nucleosynthesis.

As mass began to develop near the center of the sphere first, the gravitation generated began it chase at the rate of c and eventually caught and halted the decay. Once the decay was halted, the center of mass of the sphere began to act hydrodynamically and began a journey to the edge of the sphere and formed a funnel shaped universe. The spin of the sphere (generated by the g of the center mass) began to decay as a result of the movement to the edge of the sphere. The old center of the sphere has now become the vertex of the funnel shaped Universe and is the source of the elusive dark energy. This evolution of topography explains by expansion began again as some say 10 billion years ago As bodies move down the funnel the decay of the momentum from the original spin occurs radially utilizing the inverse square law. This generates the illusion of inflation, but the expansion is actually a contration towards the vertex of the funnel.

The CMB should show characteristics of both the original decay, the previous sphere and the current funnel....which it does. However, there is debate as to the what the topography is at this point. Currently, we are looking for a smoking gun in the CMB and are not considering a hyperdynamic evolution as I have just explained. My model also explains why mature galaxies have been spoted so far away. I also reluctantly propose that quasars are evidense of the birth of a galaxy and further evidence of higher element nucleosythesis in the absents of mature star formation as has been recently observed.

Thanks for reading my post.

I think dark energy (know this is a thread about dark matter' date=' but whatever) is a pretty clear sign that the universe is a lot more complicated than most people give it credit for (scientists excluded)

 

I think it's pretty insane that the overwhelming majority of the universe is made out of something which we really have no clue about...

 

(and by the way, if you didn't garner it from my post it's dark energy which fills the enormous intergalactic gaps, not dark matter)[/quote']

 

I did not garner it, because dark energy was never mentioned in the post. No one has a clue what is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. The dead BH scenario does not fit, as their would be tell, tell gravitational effects that are different than what is observed...which is a uniform expansion based on Hubble's redshift and distance. There would be far more blue shift than is observed if ancient BH were the cause.

The dark matter or missing matter is contained within the galaxies themselves. Unless you accept that there is some mysterious invisable matter, you would have to generate some geometric dynamic as the cause. To do this, you would have to use great imagination and perhaps usurp our entire concept of the geometry and dynamics of our current Universe. To do this you would have to be above genious as you would essentually have to work it out all alone. Unless you could construct a model and make a prediction the Big Bang and its presumed topography could not account for and your model does. Even then, people would be hard press to give up the well researched....very very tough, but not impossible.

hey' date=' my names Avont, im in 10th grade, and iwas just wondering, they say all this talk about the big bang theory and it was started from an explosion from a single point in space.. how did that point get there? just a point come out of nowhere i just don't get it, someone had to place that point there, or something happened

 

 

and why can't darkmatter emit any light, so if you shined a flashlight on darkmatter, what would happen[/quote']

 

 

The Big Bang question is the most fundemental question to ask of such a theory. The answer to this question is that no one knows and the Big Bang does not even attempt to answer that question. There are hypothesis such as brane theory and an occilating universe that has existed forever (expand - contract...bang..expand contract).....but these are just speculations and not accepted by the mainstream.

 

As for your question on dark matter....We have never seen dark matter and can only see effects to galaxies and galaxy clusters that have caused the mainstream to theorize that there must be some matter there we cannot see. Just recently some theorist from Oxford have proposed that dark matter is the result of 3 extra spacial dimensions that are so microscopic we cannot observe them. Some have guessed that the extra gravity observed is the result of a geometric effect..most of these efforts do not comform to GR and BB cosmology....the fact is we do not know for certain what causes the observed gravitational effects....we just know it is there (the gravitational effect) and that mainstream physics needs unobserveable matter to account for it, aka "dark matter".

you cant use the bible for science at all. It might have truths withing it but its basically the church telling people what supposedly happened. The bible is full of metaphors and stuff that everybody views in a different manner and cant be accredited in science

Oh, but science is based on philosophies that are all tied into ancient theological ideals. Not too long ago generalist ruled the world of academia where theology, epistomology, metaphysics and physical philosophy were all tied together. All of the specializations of today can trace their heritage back to these great minds. Gallileo, Newton, DeCartes, Darwin and most of the pilliars in which modern science rests were men of faith.

But, you are not doubt correct, the church has no business teaching science...such is unwise and dangerous to both theology and science. But, those generalist of old in their attempts to develop complete philosophies are inspirational. Some people cannot help but reach out and try to tie it all together, some peoples intellectual curiousity and desire to know the unknown drives them to seek such meaning. This passion and drive is what make man unique and the quest to answer such questions has lead us to the modern world. Faith is a powerful tool for many.....faith in a natural law of both ethics and the physical world.....such endevors seek the true Unification theory....the unification of the spiritual and physical....the world of faith and science.

If Creationism is defined as denial of evolution, then it is in opposition to science. If this is what you meant, then I agree, it is sad.

This is not so in all views of creationism...some think that God is active constantly and that evolution is the method of his work dictated by the laws of physics he established in the beginning. But, some creationist do believe evolution is wrong.

Hello All,

When we use the term Creationist we must be careful...there are new earth creationist (universe 6000years old, God used magic) old-earth creationist (Old earth and God used Magic) and Theistic Evolutionist (God said "Bang" and Science handles it from there). The differences are based on whether you think God is a Magician or a Scientist....whether he waved a wand or used the laws of physics.

Creationism in itself is not in opposition to science in all cases and we must not forget this. It is dogmatic interpretations of ancient creationist accounts that are in opposition to science.....like the Church in Gallileo's time...they wish to hold back science because they do not wish to admit that their interpretation of ancient scripture is wrong. It is sad, really sad indeed.

But, on the other hand no one should or can assert that Science disproves God...such sentiments are as dogmatically founded as their counterparts.