Physic's greatest question

[arkain101]

I have a theory to describe the four forces, and why energy and matter are interchangeable. It does however take alot of blindfold acceptance to agree with it. Although it is not much different than how Einstien many times said, if you accept this it will be this.. and the kind of strange "Space-time" which doesnt necessaraly seem to have any, whats the word, physical traits?

[InfiniteNow]

what is to be gained by not debating the subject?

I don't know... time to do other things maybe? All I'm saying is do we have any information indicating that either of those two things are possible. Just doesn't seem too likely.

 

 

You are welcome to discuss and debate anything that you would like, but in my mind it's a silly question. Maybe I'm just missing something though.

 

Can you explain or give an example of an unmovable object or an unstoppable force? At least then I'd have somewhere to start...

[InfiniteNow]

I have a theory to describe the four forces, and why energy and matter are interchangeable. It does however take alot of blindfold acceptance to agree with it.

Isn't that called faith? :hyper:

 

 

No thanks. I'm not in the market for a new kind of science that's not based on confirmation, evidence, and testable predictions, and like the type we've got already.

 

 

Cheers. :shrug:

[arkain101]

Well, thats a theory in testing is it not? Special Relativity was written on faith untill it was accepted from evidence. But one can tweak relativity a tad, and come up with a much different but fitting logic.

 

Takes a little faith to come up with a new idea....

[TheBigDog]

Well, thats a theory in testing is it not? Special Relativity was written on faith untill it was accepted from evidence. But one can tweak relativity a tad, and come up with a much different but fitting logic.

 

Takes a little faith to come up with a new idea....

Is your theory consistant with existing experimental evidence? Do you have an idea about how it ould be tested? Are there specific predictions that it makes that may be beyond our reach now, but could be looked for in the future? Give me those and I will at least give the benefit of the doubt, if not a complete leap of faith.

 

Bill

[Erasmus00]

what happens when the unstoppable force meets the unmovable object?

 

If a something is unstoppable, then nothing can be immovable. If something is immovable, nothing can be unstoppable. The two notions are contradictory, they can't BOTH exist so this could never happen.

-Will

[Racoon]

If a something is unstoppable, then nothing can be immovable. If something is immovable, nothing can be unstoppable. The two notions are contradictory, they can't BOTH exist so this could never happen.

-Will

 

Then Anything can be moved!? and everything could be Stopped!? :hyper:

ie. Move a Mountain,

Stop a Comet or Meteor.

 

Move a Planet or Star...?

Stop Light Rays...?

 

Good point Erasmus... :shrug:

 

Now I have even more questions.

[arkain101]

Is your theory consistant with existing experimental evidence? Do you have an idea about how it ould be tested? Are there specific predictions that it makes that may be beyond our reach now, but could be looked for in the future? Give me those and I will at least give the benefit of the doubt, if not a complete leap of faith.

 

Bill

 

Its directly related to fluid dynamic theory which is on this forum http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/5553-new-universe-model.html.

More or less its just an ideas of now, Its not to be taken too seriously.

[woog]

what happens when the unstoppable force meets the unmovable object?

 

This is the "age old" question from the Xmen comics!

 

unstoppable force = Juggernaut

immovable object = the Blob

[anglepose]

there is an unstoppable force and unmovable object a point in witch there is NOTHING.

for if there is nothing within that point then what can move it, for there is nothing to move nothing nor nothing can stop nothing yet when nothing meets nothing, nothing happens

 

lol

but there is a serius side

[TheFaithfulStone]

umm....

 

Wow. It's like reading Baudrillard. Impressive. :hihi:

 

TFS

[jkellmd]

I have a theory to describe the four forces, and why energy and matter are interchangeable. It does however take alot of blindfold acceptance to agree with it. Although it is not much different than how Einstien many times said, if you accept this it will be this.. and the kind of strange "Space-time" which doesnt necessaraly seem to have any, whats the word, physical traits?

 

Don't be so reticent. I'd like to hear it. You can borrow my faith for a few minutes.

[arkain101]

Alright, well here is a summery of the idea.

In this Theory/idea, it postulates;

 

Matter (M) and Energy (E) are Interchangeable due to the fact they are disturbances in the Father Theory Fabric (F) and not seperate types of versions of eachother. The Father fabric is like we describe space-time, it is a field, that is one but possibly infinite. The constants such as C, and Planks Constants, and quantum constants are the description of the fundamental properties of this fabric. The four forces in nature are all the same disturbance functions with in this fabric on different scales, velociites, and energy scales. Strong nuclear force for example is very high energy disturbances in the fabric, a disturbance to fabric relationship that operates directly related to the constants found in nature. Next weak nuclear is a Disturbance to disturbance relationship of a group disturbance to fabric relationships. Gravity is a Group disturbance to fabric relationship, and magnistism is a opposite to opposite disturbance relationship.

These disturbances are like the bernoulli's principle where motion can cause a force. This fabric can be looked at as a constant like pressure, in an infinite realm, which results in the constants of the universe the relationship of infinity. Friction in this fabric is null because the 'matter' / 'Energy' Is only versions of velocity of this 'F' fabric and so friction is unrelated.

 

This is not an idea proposed directly from imagination.

Checking this topic http://hypography.com/forums/physics-mathematics/5553-new-universe-model.html will give you base to start from. Then combine fluid dynamic theory and this F theory. The key factor to making this theory acceptable is in the further study of lights velocity characteristics.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Pretty cool, arkain.

 

Not sure I understand you 100%, but it seems kinda Kaluza-Klein. Could be something there. Do you have the background to research it further?

 

TFS

[cogito]

I hope I will not sound to stupid or to out of the thread...I'm new to this forum, and this is not my only excuse for my igonrance:hihi: I came here seeking for an answer to this question ( wich, if is a stupid question, may very well not have an answer): can it be said dat quantum theory has surpassed Einstein's relativity in a similar manner let's say to the way Einstein surpassed Newton. Or, what is the relation between quantum theory an relativity in respect to their explanation of the Univers. I know that these to theories are not actualy running on the same field, but do not the both of them wish to say some ultimate truth?

[InfiniteNow]

Hello cogito,

Welcome to hypography. This is certainly a good place for questions such as those you posed. There is no problem with a lack of information or knowledge when coming from someone who seeks it.

 

Anyway, I am not an expert on relativity or quantum dynamics, but they describe the amazingly large and amazingly small, respectively. They do not go together (yet) in a one-to-one sort of way, and that is the current holy grail of physics... bringing them together.

 

Interestingly, it was much of Einstein's work which led to the field of QM. He had to incorporate probabilities and use actuarial tables (like insurance companies do) to find some answers to his questions. Despite his famous "god doesn't play dice" quotation, he did a lot to further QM... and through work of deBrolie and others, it grew into some really amazing science.

 

I think that science is a best guess approximation at the ultimate truth, and is strong because it is dynamic and constantly changing.

 

Anyway, I look foward to interacting with you more... Therefore I am.

[Buffy]

can it be said dat quantum theory has surpassed Einstein's relativity in a similar manner let's say to the way Einstein surpassed Newton. Or, what is the relation between quantum theory an relativity in respect to their explanation of the Univers.

Quantum Mechanics is a well-proven model for the sub-atomic world dealing with the Electromagnetic, Stong and Weak forces (which are now recognized as three different manifestations of a single force). Similarly Relativity has been confirmed for explaining the gravitational force in the macro-world. Both are "correct" insofar as they provide accurate predictions for all behavior in their respective realms.

 

The only issue is that the equations of each theory, while they over lap, and are in some cases quite similar, do not fully explain the other theory's force. This is NOT to say they *contradict* each other, just that you can't do anything useful with Einsteins equations to explain electroweak forces and you can't use Quantum theory to explain gravity. Plug the numbers in and you get results that say "infinity" which is the same as "don't know".

 

Thus, you can't say that Quantum "surpasses" Relativity: what's happening now are extensive efforts to find a single set of equations that will explain both, all of which are much more complex than either theory alone. That's why there's conjectures of superstrings/branes that have 11 dimensions.

 

Pretty wild stuff...keep asking questions! The only stupid question is the one you *don't* ask!

 

Inquiringly,

Buffy