1

New Theories / Re: Is there no process in the Universe that corresponds to what QM avers exists ?

« on: 05/03/2016 08:09:04 »

I thoroughly believe that QM has not yet been confirmed by experiment. There are other systems that fit observations perfectly well and I believe it to be a matter of time before QM is relegated/ transformed.

2

New Theories / Re: zero sum = uncertainty principle

« on: 01/03/2016 07:56:42 »

throwing flashy undefined terms around doesn't actually MEAN anything btw...

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Did the big bang start from nothing?

« on: 23/02/2016 08:09:12 »

For me, the only thing that makes any sense is a single predetermined universe.

We shouldn't invent universes that we have no evidence of. First, we need to fully understand the laws of our universe: space, time and force.

I am of the opinion that when done correctly, the realization is that you don't need other universes/ outside input for us to exist. Our brains are evolutionarily wired to find concepts of eternity hard because we have always needed to 'develop from something'. In this way, we have evolved under entropic laws to collect resources from prior states (when available) to predict and survive future states (when not available). Ultimately though, past present and future already exist which can be easily visualized via Feynman diagrams with each interaction being reversible along the time axis.

It's an idea more consistent with General Relativity and is not compatible with many assumptions made by Quantum Mechanics, although all testable observations are compatible. That is why I feel it to be the correct solution.

4

New Theories / Re: SURVIVAL OF FITTEST CHEMICAL REACTIONS->LIFE??

« on: 23/02/2016 07:40:59 »

Of course everything is subject to natural selection, including chemical reactions. The formation of heavier elements over time in the universe is not a new idea. Or, if you mean the conditions of the universe out of many possible states that is also not a new idea. What exactly did you have in mind anyway?

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How does light from other galaxies reach us?

« on: 18/02/2016 12:10:03 »

How does light from other galaxies reach us if each galaxy is expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light?

Is it because when people say galaxies are expanding faster than light, they really mean the combined velocities of two galaxies moving in opposite direction? So one galaxy is actually not moving faster than c?

6

New Theories / Re: Aliens and UFOs

« on: 18/02/2016 09:49:57 »

Our universe is is an estimated 14 billion years old.

The size of the Milky Way Galaxy is 100,000 light years across.

Traveling at half the speed of light, it would take 200,000 years at maximum to reach Earth from anywhere else in the galaxy.

14,000,000,000/200,000=70,000

Let's half this number to give life 7 billion years to evolve since the beginning of the universe.

So, if an alien species existed in our own galaxy and traveled at half the speed of light, they will have had 35,000 chances to have already visited us.

Zeta Reticuli is 39.17 light years from Earth. That's a trip that could be completed in one human life. ~78.34 years. We're practically neighbours. If life does exist there, then I would imagine intelligent life is very common in the universe. Galaxies are expanding faster than the speed of light, so it may not be possible to reach another galaxy. We might be forever limited to the Milky Way galaxy. This could explain the lack of diversity of visitors.

Why would aliens visit us? Well, Earth-like planets are rare. Complex life is rare. Would we choose to visit an Earth-like planet? You betcha. Life exists to spread out and evolve, it's in our genes. Just as the lungfish took to land, or our ancestors left Africa, so too will we choose to explore space and taking note of interesting locations along the way.

An advanced species would be able to manipulate atoms to produce any element/ resource that they need. They could genetically engineer desirable traits to speed up the process of evolution. However, it would be incredibly hard to produce a species from scratch. Changing height is one thing, that requires only a few genes to be altered, but in humans alone you are dealing with 3,000,000,000 base pairs, the positioning of each gene needing to be perfect to activate at the right time. Such a task would SURELY require natural selection, not genetic engineering. So aliens would have reason enough to abduct and study life here on Earth. They may very well have tried to merge human genes with their own, to provide the best of both worlds. Intelligence, beauty, resistances, immunities, creativity, inventiveness, social skills etc. They may even have tried to engineer non-biological life such as robots/ gaseous entities (imagine Futurama dating). If they are 'harvesting' or cataloging our genes and cultural information then it would make sense that they don't get all buddy-buddy with us. Besides, our species is still rather primitive socially speaking. We are not smart enough to understand the more advanced nuances of the universe. Most people are more concerned about putting food on the table and praying circumstances remain the same to worry about the mindset of an advanced civilization. We have an aggressive trait that makes us more likely to attack a potential threat than submit to it. I can understand why would prefer to avoid contact with us.

Bob Lazar says UFO craft use huge amounts of energy produce by the breakdown of stable isotope 115 to produce gravity waves. Each craft has 3 emitters of gravity wave. One is pointed at the ground to provide lift and the other two work together to warp space-time and provide thrust (drawing the craft forwards to point B). We don't know if Lazar is telling the truth, or if he was even relayed accurate information in the first place. It's worth noting though that gravity waves have only just now been discovered, whilst Lazar has been claiming they exist for 25 years.

7

New Theories / Re: Aliens and UFOs

« on: 15/02/2016 17:34:10 »

Haha, that would make a lot of sense.

8

New Theories / Aliens and UFOs

« on: 15/02/2016 13:21:13 »

Do they exist?

Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper among many other astronauts claim that aliens are real.

We have many radar reports of UFOs exceeding 10,000mph.

Many people have seen UFOs. Many have been captured on video. Many governments behave rather shadily regarding the whole subject, refusing to comment or release documents.

I think that aliens do exist and that the truth will be revealed within the next 100 years. With the advent of space tourism, it seems impossible to keep the secret under wraps for much longer. Judging by the numerous NASA transcripts we have and references to UFO activity, they seem very interested in our endeavors in space. If they are real, how will this affect our plans to set up a moon base or go to Mars? Famous cases such as Bob Lazar, Betty and Barny Hill place the home planet of grey aliens in the Zeta Reticuli system, 39.17 light years from Earth. Bob Lazar, who worked at Los Alamos in a technical capacity (recently confirmed by Dr. Robert Krangle, who currently works at Los Alamos), claims to have worked at Area 51 reverse engineering UFO craft. It is this Bob Lazar that put Area 51 on the map and made it a household name.

Supposing that aliens are real, certain conditions must have been present for them to have evolved into the big eyed, short, grey-skinned hominids that has captured the attention of popular media. Perhaps they evolved under a veil of global-ash from an asteroid impact, where light-retention and energy conservation were deciding factors between life and death. Or maybe eyesight and small size is preferable for quick reflexes in a spaceship, where quick decisions and perception decide between life and death. Or maybe they genetically engineered themselves that way. After all, strength and aggression are not particularly useful traits in space. Given that we haven't been destroyed yet, these aliens would appear to possess high levels of altruism. It makes sense, since an aggressive species would probably not last very long. It's no good if you go to sleep only to be wiped out in an instant by an ambitious rival. Similarly, if any species acted in such a way against us, how would it make them appear to others? You wouldn't give an American teenager an intergalactic spaceship equipped with a nuclear/antimatter generator.

Some sources suggest that aliens live on motherships rather than planets. This would provide them with the maneuverability to avoid attacks by rivals or space debris/asteroids/earthquakes/supernova/other natural disasters.

In 1997, Phoenix, Arizona, an entire city saw a huge V shaped UFO hover silently over their city, something which even the governor, Symington, could not explain. In an interview with The Daily Courier in Prescott, Arizona, Symington said, "I'm a pilot and I know just about every machine that flies. It was bigger than anything that I've ever seen. It remains a great mystery. Other people saw it, responsible people. I don't know why people would ridicule it". Symington had earlier said, "It was enormous and inexplicable. Who knows where it came from? A lot of people saw it, and I saw it too. It was dramatic. And it couldn't have been flares because it was too symmetrical. It had a geometric outline, a constant shape."

To conclude, this is a subject of great ridicule but I personally don't think any scientist is worth their salt unless they have at least given the topic of UFOs a serious consideration. It takes extraordinary evidence to prove extraordinary claims. Videos could have been altered or simply misinterpreted. Perhaps they are governmental craft. The speeds and silent operation of these crafts suggest that they are using a form of antigravity, defying all known laws of physics. However, if this is the case, don't we, academia and the scientific community deserve to know how these craft work?

9

New Theories / Re: Theory of relativity

« on: 09/02/2016 14:54:42 »

I literally lol'd.

10

New Theories / Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?

« on: 07/02/2016 15:20:14 »

I for one can indeed confirm that the Illuminati are holding back scientific progress. I know for I am one of them. If they ever found out I told you this my life would be forfeit. It's up to you, TheBox, to find the truth. Good luck!

11

New Theories / Re: What year did the world start to think that a clock was time itself?

« on: 06/02/2016 17:10:33 »

For his sake I hope that he is a 'troll'.

12

New Theories / Re: The world is crazy and has a block on its perception.

« on: 31/01/2016 08:51:44 »

Here's a pretty good crazy test:

What have you accomplished relative to the world?
What has the world accomplished relative to you?

How would it impact your life if the discoveries of others were to disappear overnight? Is your intelligence really greater than everybody else?

13

New Theories / Re: The world is crazy and has a block on its perception.

« on: 30/01/2016 15:44:49 »

Distance might not be invariant.

Far as we can tell, space relies on time in a thing known as spacetime.

So, your axioms are wrong.

14

New Theories / Re: Every moment in time is the same moment!

« on: 26/01/2016 14:06:04 »

I would like to apologize for my previous comments. They were mean and unnecessary.

15

New Theories / Re: Every moment in time is the same moment!

« on: 26/01/2016 07:47:31 »

Like minds attract. Nothing strange about that.

Was that a lame attempt at insult or a failed effort to impress us?

Well I certainly wasn't trying to impress anybody.

What I was saying is that TheBox seems to enjoy spewing ridiculous sentences with garbled terminology that 'sounds good' in order to come across to the layman as an expert in the field. He is not a genius or an expert. If what he says was logical and made sense, I would not have a problem with him. However, he spams these Cambridge-based forums like nobody's business and always has an opinion no matter how incorrect or self-serving towards his own ideas. I remember a while ago he said he was going to make his last post, but here he is so clearly that was just a bid for attention/validation.

No matter how many times we tell him he is barking up the wrong tree with something he insists that he is right and everybody else is wrong. It's clearly some kind of superiority/ inability to to adapt to new ideas. Everything that a scientist should not be.

16

New Theories / Re: Every moment in time is the same moment!

« on: 25/01/2016 08:27:37 »

Like minds attract. Nothing strange about that.

17

New Theories / Re: Ufos... How do they work?

« on: 23/01/2016 18:29:40 »

If these aliens really wanted a new world to call their own why haven't they terraformed Mars long ago? We could've been trading partners with the new Martians.  With our limited technology we believe we could actually terraform Mars, but either the aliens are very lazy and just want to drink from our cup of water, or they have oceans enough and don't really need the Earth.

because being stationary in space is a precarious affair. Far more survival advantage being able to maneuver at will. Especially with other controlled craft out there that could wipe you out in an instant. Far better for a species to live in motherships. Just need to keep some very trustworthy and competent guys at the helm/engine room...

18

New Theories / Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.

« on: 22/01/2016 16:23:45 »

No, I don't agree with most of what you say Thebox. I only agreed with the premise that anything which is nonzero is history, simply because this is a rather wordy (and stupid) way of saying anything that exists, exists. It's certainly not going to win a Nobel Prize...

19

New Theories / Re: My theory on quantum mechanics

« on: 22/01/2016 08:40:28 »

The speed of light is not the fastest thing we can witness. The expansion of the universe is faster.
That aside, photons don't need to 'know' anything. They don't have consciousness. What they possess is an intuition. Everything happens for a reason. That is why your idea is wrong.

PS: Why do people insist on calling theories after their own names? Science is supposed to be a noble art! I would prefer if we left the ego out of it.

20

New Theories / Re: I understand my own ideas, now it is time for a paper.

« on: 21/01/2016 08:46:57 »

Your abstract isn't very clear at all, no.