URAIN

This topic has started to know about this. YES ("If possible" in short and sweet)

OnlyI would like to gain the knowledge from of experts. I will only see,what will goes in the discussion. If any doubts arise then I will ask question. I don’t havefull perfect idea about it. When I was visited the websites, in searching of this subject, I found this opinion.

When I was in high school, It was taught that in internal combustion engine, the potential energy (like petrol, diesel) fully not used by engine to perform work. Did I had posted wrong question? Is there any mistake? What is your opinion? May be there is a link in between this law and performance of engine. I have not any perfect opinion or idea about it. (I would like to perfect in my understanding)

The second law of thermodynamics expresses that things tends to go from order to disorder as time progresses. Yet, the evolutionist says that this law must be violated billions of time. On this discussion topic I would like to know (and would like to discuss) 1) What is the reason for disorder (or increase in entropy) according to second law of thermodynamics? 2) How can we apply this second law of thermodynamics to the evolution and cyclic universes? 3) What is the reason for not converting, potential energy into 100% kinetic energy in internal combustion engine?

Please clear it (I am not understanding). As per theory, Does galaxies must have to rotate?

Why these are considering in the science, the medium which has much trusted in the world than anything. Even GOD. What is use of considering such things which are unknown or has not any existence?

Actually what is the Dark matter and dark energy? where it is exist? Do we able to know existence of this ? I questioned this but no one answering acurately.

At first, Hello to you (I have seen you, at different science forums). You mean before bigbang the universe (or anything) was not exist. You mean it is the first universe ever. Do you not think it opposes conservation law. (what is the geodesics?)

Ok. Actually I would like to know, which thing had made to happen the Big Bang. What has existed before the Big Bang?

Some people say universe originated from nothing, some reject this. Is there any consensus about it. Or till no consensus?

I heard that according to quark, only energy has existed everywhere and there is no matter. Is it true? And, according to your definitions, to which option you will vote (to the poll).

Some people say, space is not empty. what you say about it ? Is there any specific definition of space?

I had posted same question on Yahoo answers. Now yahoo answer community chosen the following as best answer (answer by amin). Till I need something to be satisfied. "Best Answer - Chosen by Voters occupies space means has volume...go through the 5 points...get your concept clear..!!!! 1.Matter is the most striking feature of perceived reality. It is all around us and within us too. 2.Matter requires space - a tiny, tiny region or a vast, vast volume. 3.The universe is more empty than filled: matter is found only here and there in the vastness of its expanse. 4.Even though matter can be found all over the universe, you usually find it in just a few forms(solid,liquid,gases,plasma) 5. Matter is anything that has a mass. i hope this helps (: "

In definition of matter, it comes that matter is one, which occupies space, and have the mass. Matter occupy space, meant, what ? Which are the things, do not occupy the space? (In definition of matter, is there any necessity of saying that matter is one which occupy the space ?) Why the two matters do not occupy same place, at same time ? (please try to answer by avoiding of pauli exclusion, if necessary include this too)

*What about neutron stars? * Does these invisible neutrons have existed there? *How that is named as neutron star?

What you will say, to the comment, nuetron is the invisible ball ?

I had seen (some times), you consider something and do not consider something (ignore ). Then I will not able to know your views or science views. I had said that may be conservation of energy and momentum has main role to recognize the neutron. But you had not commented on it. You said that photon is invisible ball. ( I think then alpha particle will be visible ball as per your opinion. Because neutron found when beryllium bombarded with alpha particles ) I am reading the book of famous scientist Alexander. I. Kitaigorodsky. Before giving above example he says, discovery of neutron delayed because electrically charged particles were found by ionization path. But electrically neutral particle has not any actions with the electron therefore that will not leave any path. Hence neutron may found from base of secondary effects. (This is translation) Then after he gave above example of invisible ball on the billiards table. Hence he says that neutron is the invisible ball (as compared to photon, electron) for the reason not giving any path during ionization. (I think you will accept it.)

Swansont I have come to know another link, where chadwick himself commented on his discovery at 'nature' http://web.mit.edu/2...es/Chadwick.pdf Chadwick own comment from 'nature' "It is to be expected that many of the effects of a neutron in passing through matter should resemble those of a quantum of high energy, and it is not easy to reach the final decision between the two hypotheses. Up to the present, all the evidence is in favour of the neutron, while the quantum hypothesis can only be upheld if the conservation of energy and momentum be relinquished at some point." Swansont I think conservation of energy and momentum has main role to recognize the neutron. Hence neutron is like invisible ball onthe billiards table.

I am not expert in physics. When I was reading a physics book, author explained that why the discovery of neutron delayed and how it was confirmed. Author’s writing is followed. Assume a invisible ball is on the billiards table. One visible ball moving on green surface of the table and suddenly, without any reason the ball goes in another direction. Scientists do not accept the, moving of anything or changing direction of anything without any reason. Therefore they decided that visible ball dashed with invisible ball. That invisible ball is the neutron. Is giving this example for discovery of neutron correct ? Is there any other examples, for perfect understanding the neutron ?

Yes, no doubt universe is unic and it has no boundaries. It is infinite. For more you visit this forums, following thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59878-a-natural-phenomena-for-conservation-and-invariance/

I not deny or reject, what you are saying. I had said this point when I have given my first response to schrodinger (you may see). You have used the word EVOLUTION, therefore I asked. But I am confident, science will not neglect my theory for more days ( You may note this) and I have not said fully what I knew.

If you read the theory you have noticed that about 30% part of reincarnation related theory is pending to be write. In theory I have only said that before birth also you had existed, after death also you will have existed. No doubt who read the theory they accept it and you have to keep it in mind that it is metaphysics related theory. But I have not started this topic in the name of reincarnation. I would like to discuss it in another thread. You said that your theory comes under term EVOLUTION. what I have to make to this come in the knowledge of scientists. Do you share your own ideas. I would like some science magazines or newspaper discuss about it. What I have to do, to get acceptance from science world for my theory?

Do you will not give, your valuable time for reading my theory?

Some part of your answer tally with my answer but some difference is also there. Already I had said, my all statements are depending on the Prem Parvathi principle. Again I will say that, "In my answer, what I will say that is also on the base of Prem Parvathi principle". Therefore before anyone comment on my answer, please you have to see the principle once or check the correctness of principle then after you can comment on my answer. First I focus on, what is same in your and my answer. If I am not wrong, I think, you had tried to say that '0' is also part of this universe. This is tally with my answer. Differences Difference is you had considered '0' outside of the universe. I will not consider 0 outside of universe. You had not considered 'nothing' in existences or in N amount. You considered 'nothing' in out off N amount. But I consider 'nothing' also in existences or N amount. Nothing is in N amount. My answer fallows for the question 'what has existed outside N amount?' Answer : The question of outside of the universe only arise, when this universe has the boundaries or when this universe has limitations. In my opinion this universe has not any boundaries or any limitations. This universe is unlimited or infinite. (Therefore actual wisdom is that If we will not go to the outside of universe. Although if anyone asks that "what has existed outside universe" Then answer will be "our ignorance has existed outside of the universe".) You had tried to say "nothing" is also part of universe. But you are not considering that is in the existences. My question is, If nothing has not existed then, how it will become part of universe? I think you had said nothing only comes when we calculate the total N amount. But I say nothing has existed after calculation and it is existed prior of calculation also. Space or vacuum is nothing. I would like to use this science forum as a stage to announce that space or vacuum is also an existence. I am saying this because Prem Parvathi principle says that "nothing has not existed in this universe, at anytime, at anywhere. only existence has existed" and to which you are saying 'nothing' that is not nothing but something. Once again we see principle "Nothing has not existed". Which has not existed at past, at present and in future also, that is real not existence. And we will not able to know this not existence at any time and at anywhere. Apart of this not existence all are existences. If we know anything has existed at anytime, anywhere then that will be the existence. We know space or vacuum existed in this universe. Therefore this nothing also an existence. The actual 'nothing' or 'not existence' is only that which has not existed at past at present and in future or which is unknown at all times. (I think immediately you will not understand it. If anyone raised the doubts and questions, I will go next. For logic you notice that this 'not existence' or 'nothing' word also has existed. OR 'not existence'/ 'nothing' word also an existence. Therefore nothing has not existed at anytime and at anywhere. It is only understandable, verbally by words, it is not possible to say this principle.) Therefore if we consider all universe existences as N amount then, (how much time may moved in this universe,) any alteration will not come in N amount, it will remain always same as N amount. Hence we can say with perfection that this universe conserved and invariant always (with perfection). (For discussion purpose we have to consider your nothing or 0 zero as something else we and readers will get confused. Because I am saying nothing has not existed anywhere and at anytime. You are saying that nothing has existed outside of universe)

I think you hadn't given importance to the words 'whole' (all) and 'existences' (entities) which are in my question. My question was, If I consider whole universe existences as N amount then, what remain outside N amount? I will wait for once then after I will answer it and explain the base for conservation and invariance.