1

New Theories / Re: I have a theory about me!

« on: 03/04/2018 09:47:39 »

None of the above. You can make perfect sense when you want to. You just like the attention.

2

Just Chat! / Re: Did Jesus die on the cross ?

« on: 17/03/2018 15:04:09 »

The christian elites did have an uneducated and superstitious populace that they could manipulate and threaten into becoming murderous crusaders.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we thank Stephen Hawking enough?

« on: 14/03/2018 17:29:14 »

To be honest with you it's the man I'm thinking of and his family.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is spacetime made of?

« on: 01/03/2018 19:54:02 »

Well Planck's constant has a well defined value as a quantum mechanical action. If either space or time were quantised it would have to be in Planck units. We have the Planck length and Planck time that could fit the bill. Does it make sense to consider motion to be defined in multiples of these units? Well the speed of light is defined as 1 Planck length over 1 Planck time. So your quanta has to be less than that. Otherwise everything has to move at the speed of light. Therefore the quanta, if they exist, are impossible to measure.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the truth about tachyons, baryonic string theory, and quantum mechanics?

« on: 25/02/2018 02:23:31 »

Just because mathematics may contain a negative time element does not necessarily indicate physical particles traveling back in time.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If there was only vacuum what fields could be defined?

« on: 19/02/2018 12:34:03 »

It is THE vacuum containing vacuum energy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

7

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: What is the meaning of 666?

« on: 15/02/2018 18:46:43 »

Well it's all on wikipedia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/616_(number)

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did the Big Bang happen where Earth now is?

« on: 14/02/2018 19:50:59 »

Maybe those vibrating strings have a use after all.
https://carlbrannen.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/mandelstam-variables-and-veneziano-amplitudes/

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did the Big Bang happen where Earth now is?

« on: 14/02/2018 19:38:04 »

Maybe our understanding of the speed of light as the ultimate speed limit is wrong.

It might be worth looking at the work of João Magueijo, who believes the speed of light was greater in the early Universe.

Some have hypothesized that the universe has parts that are made of matter, and parts made of antimatter, but we should be able to see the boundary between those regions as random bits of dust and antidust meet

Could it be that these boundaries are so far away that light from them has not reached us, and probably never will?

The answer may lie in s channel scattering.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could 2 Planck mass particles form a black hole?

« on: 14/02/2018 12:40:51 »

Great question.  Let me take a layman's stab at this...

I assume you're asking could two 1-Planck scale particles, and 2-Planck scale particles?  However, isn't a Planck scale particle, by definition a theoretical particle thought to be a tiny black hole whose Compton wavelength is equal to its Schwarzschild radius?

Theoretically, a Planck mass particle on its own would not collapse. It has a critical mass beyond which collapse is inevitable. If theory is correct. Two Planck mass particles together should form a black hole.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a gradient from the event horizon to the singularity of a black hole?

« on: 13/02/2018 06:07:50 »

You can approximate infinity by choosing a point away from the source that has a gravitational potential very close to zero. The reasons that infinity is used is that the field is said to extend to infinity and the escape velocity takes an object away from the source to infinity. It just means the object escapes completely and has no likelihood of being recaptured.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a gradient from the event horizon to the singularity of a black hole?

« on: 11/02/2018 13:43:23 »

At the event horizon of a black hole the escape velocity is the speed of light. This means that the velocity required to escape from the source to infinity is the speed of light. Conversely, an object freely falling from infinity will be moving at the speed of light upon reaching the horizon. The important thing to note is that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for an object with rest mass to achieve light speed. So this means that the mathematics break down at the horizon. This cannot be what actually happens. So general relativity must need a modification for regions approaching an event horizon.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can macroscopic objects be considered quantum objects?

« on: 11/02/2018 12:42:44 »

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/jun/17/condensate-created-in-freefall
I found the above page. Very interesting!

14

General Science / Re: Is it possible to have a sphere with infinite radius?

« on: 10/02/2018 15:24:01 »

@petelamana Apologies for the terse reply. I found your post very interesting.

15

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 08/02/2018 18:34:52 »

So:

c^2t^2/2R= extra distance travelled due to acceleration?
(Where t is the age of the universe.)

No, total distance travelled, from rest, at a given acceleration of c^2/R
Extra distance due to acceleration depends what you are comparing it to eg constant speed ct

s = at²/2, as we said earlier, so 13.8 x  c⁴/2R²  billion light years.

@alancalverd Alan, did you mean c²/2R x 13.8² billion light years.

I’m still not sure how Smolin derived c²/R as being the acceleration.

Well you have length^2/(time^2 x length) = c^2/R. That looks an awful lot like acceleration. Whether or not the value is valid is another matter entirely.

16

General Science / Re: How do they get the stripes inside a marble?

« on: 02/02/2018 17:53:00 »

There's nothing like a video demonstration to illustrate a process. So here's one I found earlier.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-marbles-are-made-2016-4

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is "infinite speed"?

« on: 30/01/2018 00:52:09 »

Since speed is distance traveled over time taken it is not possible to have an infinite speed. The time taken in this case is zero. The equation becomes undefined at this point, which can also be interpreted as infinite. The true interpretation of this situation is that an object is everywhere at once and so occupies all of spacetime over a zero time interval. As if it exists everywhere and nowhere. That is more like religion than science. Infinity has its uses but should not be taken literally.

18

Geek Speak / Re: In simple terms, for idiots, what are bitcoins?

« on: 26/01/2018 22:32:39 »

Explain it to a five year old.
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-explained-five-year-old/

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did TIME Have To Manifest First ?

« on: 08/01/2018 23:35:55 »

If nothing is changing then there is nothing to measure. Also if there is a barrier that precludes measurement then apparently there is nothing to measure. The event horizon of a black hole is just such a barrier. So we have no idea if time is meaningful within this region. Inside the black hole, or any dense, enclosed region, there will still be some change occurring. So that any fluctuations of the vacuum can be said to be time dependent. It all depends upon point of view.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can anything be "still" in space?

« on: 30/12/2017 09:32:10 »

Let's say we have a position P in spacetime that we know with absolute certainty is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe. We travel past P for one light second and mark another absolute position to show how far light travels for us in 1 second. Other travellers do the same. Their marks are all at different distances to ours since their velocities differed as they passed point P. Since quantum mechanics shows position to be a continuum, these points form an infinite series. Thus we see an infinite amount of variation in the perceived speed of light. The traveller who is stationary at point P would see an instantaneous speed for light. Since he has not moved. However, in relativity it is not possible to tell you are moving or not in an inertial frame of reference. So it can easily be seen that relativity breaks down if we can define a fixed background.