gagsrcool

I just came to this forum after reading the same article just a minute or so before. Nice one but I have not been able to understand how they found it.

Hi, I think he means the EPR paradox. But aren't we supposed to not confuse ourselves by co-relating Special Relativity 7 General Relativity to quantum mechanics and stuff? I mean. even though a few principles of special realtivity have been valid for at the quantum level at the same time quantum mechanics has theories of its own, right? gagsrcool

Could you give us some more info on it?

Severian stole my words

Hi, I was given a book at 12 on jet propulsion and then it started. I discovered ecstacy in science and it really amazed me. Now, I am 13 and am more intersted in high level physics (EPR, Quantum, TOE, GUT relativity etc.)... gagsrcool

Hi, Many of them are 13 here. So am I. gagsrcool

Reply The gravitational constant existed before GR. GR deals with ‘space curvature’ and makes tiny tweaks or corrections that I say are not necessary with a ‘flat space concept’. Einstein himself admitted that he made a mistake with his introduction of ‘Lambda’ to counter the effects of a gravitational collapse. He was wrong here also because gravity is neutralized by ‘linear momentum’ which prevents gravitational collapse. Hi, But I would like to remind you that theories about the cosmological constant have indeed be revived. Reason? Well first why did he tell that he had made an error when he had introduced the cosmological constant? That was because he believed in the steady state therory, even though there was nothing like that at that time and strongly opposed the Big Bang theory and the statement that the Universe is expanding. But his field equations somehow could only hold good IF the universe was in motion, or in other words expansion or contraction(it was expansion and proved by Hubble which is not related to this post). So, for that, he introduced the cosmological constant which gave the constancy for the universe and matter. But later took it back, because it too supported the theory. Now it has been revived by scientists because, it is indeed a true statement and presents the approximate shape of the Universe, i.e. whether it is closed or open. A value above the constant gives that it is open, below, closed. gagsrcool

Hi, I think, it would not measure the same. No, its not because I go on with what the people think, but its because I feel that there willl be a change in the orbit, and the star most probably would not/could not exist. But if you rule out the above two facts, even then it would be the same because, the rate of expansion on different sides of the Universe would be different. gagsrcool

Hi, Nice theory, Mike T. Interesting one. But can you explain the phenomenon of gravity without general relativity?

Hi, I have not gone throught the paper yet, but I think I know the answer to your question. Take two entities say the Earth and a ball. When both are separated over a certain distance, we clearly see the force of attraction of the Earth over the ball but not vice-versa. That is due to their respective masses. The mass of the Earth is huge when compared to the ball. So, even though the force of the ball acts on the Earth it is so minute that it can hardly be noticed. When we take two objects of same masses, I think, as the force between them is the same they get cancelled. Probably... not too sure. As atheist. gagsrcool

Hi, Yes, it possibly must. Because if we have anti-neutrinos, then we also have anti-tau, anti-muon and positron neutrino. Another extra fact. Many scientists during the mid 1950s to 1970's were awestruck when they could not decipher or observe neutrinos from the Sun. That was because they did not know the existence of many other types of neutrinos. Only in the 1980's did they know that when the neutrinos from the Sun escaped its surface they automatically got converted to another type and escaped the surface. Hence, they could not decipher that particle to be a neutrino. That is how the various neutrinos were born. gagsrcool

Hi, That probably shows the reason why it is the best search engine. I mean, even very good websites would have to compete to get to the top there. The competition there is probably too good. Why don't you try attracting traffic, ads, newsletters n' stuff to promote your website? gagsrcool gagsrcool

Hi, I thought schwarzchild radius is the formula for the radius of a blackhole! What do you mean by the schwarzchild radius of a person??? gagsrcool

Hi, Amazing find! Really too good! RyanJ is right. We cannot simply believe people who know this much. Even Einstein himself because his field equations gave way to time travel and he was not ready to accept such a theory. Then, soon after he agreed. Do you know or have any idea of what he presented in the conference? gagsrcool

Hi, You cannot solve the problem. So, the answer is D). gagsrcool

Hi, Mass is ofcourse lost but not at all cases. Mind it, if mass is lost by doing so, then we would be violating Dalton's law that mass cannot be created or destroyed but can only be changed from one form to another. There are very exceptional cases such as matter-antimatter collisions and radioactivity where mass is lost. Lost to energy. That is it gets converted to energy. So, energy must also be a form of mass, if we are not to violate Dalton's laws. I could help you better if you give your equations along with the method opted to derive it. gagsrcool

Hi Mattd, Length is the only dimension talked about when you refer to strings. There is no time involved when it comes to 1 dimension. How? Have you ever seen or heard of a string die or at least change its position or the way it is present? No! Why? Because there is no time. But they vibrate as a result of their minute length and the dimensions invloved. gagsrcool

Hi, Nice method of deleting the virus. I could help you trace the hackers. Go to mcaffee.com and download the trial version of the latest mcaffee. There you have the option to trace down the hacker(also download the security suite.trial version). There you are! You can track down the place and also inform symantec or do things like that to stop the source. gagsrcool

Hi, Big-bang was space. It constiututes the space today as well as along with time. So, there is no possiblity that anything could have existed before it. But the question now is -WHAT FORMED THE BIG BANG? WHY DID IT ACTUALLY HAVE TO TAKE PLACE? gagsrcool

Hi, Possibly no. Good thinking. gagsrcool

I am sorry. It has got to be MORE than the speed of light. I apologize again. gagsrcool

Hi, The shape of the Universe, its size, length etc. all are just some perceived features. There can be no exact proof for this theory. But still two points are exactly clear, 1. Space is curved 2. It is constantly in acceleration at about the speed of light. Hence all the other theories have been just conjectures made with respect to these 2 points and a few Mathematical theories. We have to somehow accept that space is infinite yet finite. gagsrcool

Hi, I think you mean the EPR experiments. Very interesting one. Sort of almost disproved Relativity. gagsrcool

Hi, Yes it surely would. The reason is that as velocity reaches speed of light, mass increases. Hence, when the velocity of the bullet is near the speed of light, its mass nears infinity and so curving space-time. In fact, I believe it would affect the Earth itself! gagsrcool

Hi, I would suggest you start with basics. That is learn the structure of the atom properly, the reason is because of its resemblance with the Universe and its fundamental property. Then, go deeper into it by studying the various atomic particles and its influence on the atom as a whole and other atomic particles. You may then move on to Quantum Physics. Learn it properly as it gives you the restrictions in the Universe as such. Then I would suggest Relativity(avoid the Mathematics part!) Special first and then General. Then the structure of the Universe like black holes, time travel, galalxies, matter, antimatter, dark matter, EPR experiments etc. gagsrcool