Mystery111

give it a velocity larger than ''c'' and it will. Otherwise, it won't.

It don't need to prove anything. From your original statement, I know fine well this is not what is implied. Please, read what you said again, in response to mine. We will see who is pulling things from the aether.

Agreed. It doesn't matter if it is non-relativistic. Nothing in a black hole can be infinite apart from controversially the singular region of spacetime.

Fair.

Not so. There is such a thing as cosmic bruises. Not absolute evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

Though to be fair, some maintream physicists do believe they have the ''answer'' to what happened before the first instant. One approach in Ekpyrotic Theory... (did I spell that right?) Anyway, this theory dictates that there is such a thing as a cyclic universe (which I don't agree with), where the universe remained frozen for eons. It wasn't until a local brane (that is another branch universe) collided with our own, causes the big bang as we know it. I'm glad to help Yes there are some theories, like the Ekpyrotic Theory, a kind of inflamable theory of creation exists where the universe before the big bang existed for many many many years.... Probably longer than what it has currently been in progress for.

huh?

Then explain more clearer please. I responded to his question in two or three lines and I was much more clearer. How did my reply warrent yours. Please explain, before I get my crystal ball out

Mmmm... but to which end is it being screwed up? I mean, what if you have the right theory, but some other theory contradicts it? It don't mean necessrily a mathematical mistake. What if it was experimental, like the nuetrino experiment recently? (note for any readers, the neutrino experiment has not been proven as a mistake yet, just used as an analogy.)

Good. I did my good for today

I nev'r said it was... is this a reply to someone else? People need to qoute. It is hard to keep track

Everyone calm down. I'm not a mod, but clearly this guy is in need of education, so take his OP with a pinch of salt. I have done. Please look to the previous post to this one. I have now explained, in the most simplest sense a matrix evolution including a quantum evolution.

The simple reason can be explained in a simple way. You require energy to leave the earths atsmosphere. This is because gravity is pulling your object (the mass of the earth) from your located origin. What if that mass became so dense that the radial force required to leave your origin became that of the speed of light? Simply, a particle of light cannot escape something when the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.

I am sure. I might not have sounded sure. Some systems simply require media, such as a W boson. A good example is a longitudinal boson. They are bosons (or photons if you like) in the least energy state possible before a spontaneous symmetry-breaking occurs. Other examples requires new understanding. Your example, I am afraid does not require a W-Boson. Their existences are required in weak interaction... basically saying that it is involved in the decay of objects. I understood what you meant and you are on the right lines for identifying new particles. It was just applied wrongly. This is why I did not sound very confident, because you are on the right lines, just a wrong application my friend.

Yes, understood. However, not all contradictory results make the desired math imperfect. I might be being padantic here.

I will do. Give me around 15 mins to type it up. Latex requires a bit of time. Ok... the simplest way to envision an evolution in a matrix, or the way we describe it is by ''up-dating'' the system to another moment in time. We will not use a time variable expressed as [math]t[/math], we will simply depend on the matrix evolution involving a matrix times a vector, which can be a row vector or a column vector. In the most simplest way demonstratable is given as [math]\begin{Vmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \end{Vmatrix}[/math] You may take this simple 4 by 4 matrix and multiply it with let us example, a column vector given as: [math]\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}[/math] This matrix is trivial. You can have the 1 placed in any compartment. Anyway, when you multiply these two together, you will find: [math] = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}[/math] This ''1'' has now moved down 1 step in your column matrix. This is the power of matrix evolution This represents your fourth state as an up-dated example of your initial setup. You may describe the evolution of a system in such ways. Another example is the quantum motion of particle which can describe evolution. Usually the quantum textbook definition of describing a motion in a time contrained sense is [math]i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi(x,t) = \hat{H}\Psi(x,t)[/math] where [math]\Psi[/math] is your state vector, the wave function governing the entire system and x is your choice of position coordinate and [math]i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/math] is your energy operator.

Form your own opinion, rather than the dogma, just so long as your opinion isn't clouding the scientist in you. There are many scientific subjects friend which do not settle on one opinion alone. Study all concepts, leave yourself no room for interpetation when many may exist, and you will make a brilliant scientist.

Start with the dynamical stuff, simple explanations than worrying about complex systems friend. You can understand everything you need to know about thermodynamics in the most simplest sense which, quantum mechanics has provided us. It's a wonderful history quantum mechanics. The concepts are a walk over the mountains. The walk into mathematics is even more brighter and adventurous. I can give you a brief example of evolution in the respect of matrices and quantum mechanics if you wanted.

I've been thinking about it. not sure. I am so buisy right now. But I still try and find time to slot myself in

I am going to regret this, but how does a contradiction mean that the mathematics is wrong? Some mathematical theorems are provided to show that there is a contradiction in the midst? For instance, you may have a subject A which is in contradiction of B, and using a theorem, you may prove the contradiction. It doesn's establish however whether A or B simultaneously is wrong. It just says some aspect of it is wrong. So your initial theory might be right, inconclusively in respect to any contradiction.

Well I've been here a couple of months now (longer?) don't know... I'd just like to give a thanks. This site is a brilliant site and it's postes have brilliant questions. It's been a pleasure

Yes, nice example by alan. More to the point, and just realized this now, but why is my post in speculations? Most of the points if not the greater majority of them are not based on speculation, but really are part of mainstream? I wonder who moved my post. Thanks Michel, nice thank you.

Agreed. But many systems are already in a ground state order. In fact, systems will always tend to be in a state which will cost the least amount of energy due to the principle of least action. If particles could have their way, they wouldn't move at all to conserve as much energy as possible! But this isn't the case and can never be the case. In fact, I will add to this, that the big bang could have been in a ground state as well, so this cannot account for disorder.

It's a wonderful model really. In respect to imaginary time alone, you can remove the big bang and the singularity simultaneously. Very interesting model indeed.

You know, before I was well-aquainted with relativity, I actually predicted a dark age. I called it the ''dark belt'' - I noted it's existence because there was a part of expansion I had read from pop science book that light never came out of the vacuum until quite late. Using that I fathomed the beginning of the universe would be dark to us, named it a dark belt in similar contentions to the green belt found round large cities Sorry, back to topic guys, wavered off a bit there.