Drop the last year into the silent limbo of the past. Let it go, for it was imperfect, and thank God that it can go.
The conventional Happy New Year approach is to think of the New Year as something that happens outside of our selves. It is a good luck wish that the New Year, in some magical way, will bring us our heart’s desire. We look to the New Year to make us happy. When we expect happiness to come to us from the outside, we are usually disappointed. Happiness is not guaranteed by sunny weather, a raise in pay, a new car, a beautiful home or anything else of a material nature. External things are often possessed by very unhappy people. Happiness does not come out of a New Year, it comes out of men and women. Life does not change when we hang a new calendar on the wall or when the clock strikes midnight and a New Year begins. The only way life will change for us is when we change ourselves.
Monday 31 December 2012
Delhi gang rape victim's last words
Must Read
"maa me abhi jeena chahti hu...
tere sath waqt bitana chahti hu...
mitti ka khilona nahi h ladkiya...
yahi baat m sabko samjhna chahti hu...
aksar kehte hai log har kisi par bhagwan ka hath hota hai...
fir kyo bhagwan k hath k niche ladkiyo ka ye anjaam hota hai...
jaa rahi hu aaj me tum sabko chodd kar...
phir na aaungi kabhi kisi ki beti bankar...
maa ka ek sapna tha ek din beti ke liye rajkumar aayega...
doli me baitha kar use le jayega...
khadi hokar sapne tutate dekhegiwo...
jab bhai mujhe kandhe par le jayega...
maa mai tere sath rahna chahti hu...
maa me abhi aur jeena chahti hu...
khush hua karte the papa dekh kar...
ab royenge mujhe yaad kar ke aksar...
unka u pyar se gale lagana...
mere baad koun unhe gale lagayega aksar...
papa me apko akhri bar gale lagana chahti hu....
papa me abhi kuch din aur jeena chahti hu...
mera bhai jab bhi raat ko soyega chup chup ke mere liye royega...
bhai ek behen jaa rahi hai magar hazaro behno ka khayal rakhna
ab soo rahi hu me apna aur sabka khayal rakhna :'(:'("
missing her ? :'(:'(:'(
please comment...
Friday 28 December 2012
free facebook in airtel[100% working]
FREE FACEBOOK IN airtel
use following link
to use facebook free in airtel.
This link is complety free work on pc & mobile.
Note:this link work at only 0 balance.
http://fb.me
this link work with airtel to provide free acces to facebook.
Thursday 27 December 2012
Watch Ind vs Pak Live on mobile & pc
Watch Ind vs Pak Live on your pc and mobile
use following link to watch Ind vs Pak live
Star CrickeT *LoW*
rtsp://2Gevent.nexg.tv/event/t20b/tencrk_2G.sdp?o=OAIRT&m=&u=motv.nexg.tv&src=WAP&p=NA&streamID=
STAR CRICKET *High*
rtsp://3Gevent.nexg.tv/event/t20b/tencrk_3G.sdp
STAR CRICKET *Medium*
rtsp://simplelive.nexg.tv/event/t20b/tencrk_mpeg.sdp
DD NATIONAL
rtsp://2glive.nexg.tv/nexgwap/ddnational_2G.sdp?o=CM_OF&m=1111111111&u=Cotv.nexg.tv&src=WAP&p=NA&StreamID=123456
DD NATIONAL
rtsp://3glive.nexg.tv/nexgwap/ddnational_3G.sdp?o=CM_OF&m=1111111111&u=cotv.nexg.tv&src=WAP&p=NA&StreamID=386788
Saturday 22 December 2012
:*:The mystery of Mona Lisa:*:
The mystery of Mona Lisa
summit of the Italian Renaissance work, whose official name is "La Gioconda" but it also responds to "Madonna Elisa," hides under his canvas, many mysteries to be solved.
History
The painting, owned by Leonardo da Vinci, dating from the period between 1503 and 1506. It is an oil on poplar board of 77 x 53 cm, whose technique was the "sfumato", a procedure very typical of Leonardo da Vinci in which overlapping layers of paint very thin and delicate, achieving an effect that vaguely vaporous the sense of giving contours blur.
In addition, the painter would play with prospects, thus drawing a horizon higher than another, which makes La Gioconda show higher if it is observed from the right side.
The play is property of the French State since the sixteenth century and can be seen from the Louvre Museum in Paris.
But despite the amount of technical and historical information we have about the Mona Lisa, the fact is that never have come to know a number of things: who is this mysterious woman, and above all why he smiles.
According to information gathered, processed and even historical studies, the most popular theory is that this woman was the wife of Francesco Bartolomeo Giocondo (hence as "La Gioconda"), whose name was Lisa Gherardini.
This theory is supported in his book "Mona Lisa, naive woman" the Italian historian Giuseppe Pallanti, convinced that it was Gherardini, a lady from Florence who had been married for a second time with Francesco. It would have been widowed and would have had five children with Lisa pins. According to studies, have been married when Lisa was 16 and would have posed for Leonardo when it had 24 or 25.
The historian would have called the "donna naive" because he was an affectionate nickname that her husband used to it.
Other scenarios suggest that it was a courtesan, or an unrealistic model imagined by the artist. Even, it has come to say that it was Leonardo's own.
However, the initial argument seems to be the most convincing. Pallanti gives strong evidence of that. Thus, it would confirm the theories put forward by the Italian writer Giorgio Vasari in "Lives of the best painters, sculptors and architects Italians," which was published in 1550 and would be expanded in 1568.
Once completed, the question is what about what laughs Mona Lisa?
Until Yale University in the U.S. we get closer to explain the research carried out there. They say the lady smiles because he is expecting a child. One reason is that, as the symptom of a pregnant woman, Lisa's hands are swollen. In addition, the manner in which they rest on the belly is feeling protective of her baby.
It is said that Leonardo painted getting the effect by which if you look directly smile, it disappears and reappears only when you look anywhere else in the box.
Whatever happens, never has come to know the real mood of the Mona Lisa. What is behind this mysterious and disconcerting smile, which seems to look as naughty, protective, sad, calm or even malevolent.
So rest myths and legends in reference to the work, even more so when the Aug. 21, 1911 was stolen from the Louvre Museum. The author of the theft would be one Vicenzo Perugia, which the police managed to pick up in December of that year. After touring a number of cities such as Florence, Rome and Milan, again, safe and sound, the Louvre in 1914.
He is currently protected by some potentísimos security systems and protection. In the same way, is also assured the survival of thousands of questions unanswered. Unknowns that always adorn the fame of the work.
******************
History
The painting, owned by Leonardo da Vinci, dating from the period between 1503 and 1506. It is an oil on poplar board of 77 x 53 cm, whose technique was the "sfumato", a procedure very typical of Leonardo da Vinci in which overlapping layers of paint very thin and delicate, achieving an effect that vaguely vaporous the sense of giving contours blur.
In addition, the painter would play with prospects, thus drawing a horizon higher than another, which makes La Gioconda show higher if it is observed from the right side.
The play is property of the French State since the sixteenth century and can be seen from the Louvre Museum in Paris.
But despite the amount of technical and historical information we have about the Mona Lisa, the fact is that never have come to know a number of things: who is this mysterious woman, and above all why he smiles.
According to information gathered, processed and even historical studies, the most popular theory is that this woman was the wife of Francesco Bartolomeo Giocondo (hence as "La Gioconda"), whose name was Lisa Gherardini.
This theory is supported in his book "Mona Lisa, naive woman" the Italian historian Giuseppe Pallanti, convinced that it was Gherardini, a lady from Florence who had been married for a second time with Francesco. It would have been widowed and would have had five children with Lisa pins. According to studies, have been married when Lisa was 16 and would have posed for Leonardo when it had 24 or 25.
The historian would have called the "donna naive" because he was an affectionate nickname that her husband used to it.
Other scenarios suggest that it was a courtesan, or an unrealistic model imagined by the artist. Even, it has come to say that it was Leonardo's own.
However, the initial argument seems to be the most convincing. Pallanti gives strong evidence of that. Thus, it would confirm the theories put forward by the Italian writer Giorgio Vasari in "Lives of the best painters, sculptors and architects Italians," which was published in 1550 and would be expanded in 1568.
Once completed, the question is what about what laughs Mona Lisa?
Until Yale University in the U.S. we get closer to explain the research carried out there. They say the lady smiles because he is expecting a child. One reason is that, as the symptom of a pregnant woman, Lisa's hands are swollen. In addition, the manner in which they rest on the belly is feeling protective of her baby.
It is said that Leonardo painted getting the effect by which if you look directly smile, it disappears and reappears only when you look anywhere else in the box.
Whatever happens, never has come to know the real mood of the Mona Lisa. What is behind this mysterious and disconcerting smile, which seems to look as naughty, protective, sad, calm or even malevolent.
So rest myths and legends in reference to the work, even more so when the Aug. 21, 1911 was stolen from the Louvre Museum. The author of the theft would be one Vicenzo Perugia, which the police managed to pick up in December of that year. After touring a number of cities such as Florence, Rome and Milan, again, safe and sound, the Louvre in 1914.
He is currently protected by some potentísimos security systems and protection. In the same way, is also assured the survival of thousands of questions unanswered. Unknowns that always adorn the fame of the work.
******************
Friday 21 December 2012
Fun Tricks Portal: Online Store
Fun Tricks Portal: Online Store: Flipkart Online Store Under Costruction
Fun Tricks Portal: Micromax launches Funbook Talk P350 tablet for Rs ...
Fun Tricks Portal: Micromax launches Funbook Talk P350 tablet for Rs ...: Micromax has just announced the Funbook Talk (P350) tablet in India for a street price of Rs 7,249. The budget tablet is a new addition to ...
Thursday 20 December 2012
Alexander the Great and the Bermuda Triangle
Alexander the Great and the Bermuda Triangle
During his last campaign, Alexander was able to cross the river Indus, entering a strange land, never before seen by people outside this area of the planet.
In this adventure is accompanied by a remarkable army, plus soldiers from conquering the land that was in its path. But there was a core composed of Macedonians, like him, eager to return home. Had accompanied their leader for more than two years and less missed their families.
After a discussion, Alexander agreed to his return. They would in boats led by Admiral Nearco, who carry on the Persian Gulf and from there to the Mediterranean. But never again see their wives and children. That fleet disappeared so intriguing. The scholars have different theories to explain this event. One of them describes as guilty fierce storm, which would have led the craft into the depths. This is quite unlikely, since we are talking about dozens of boats. Another hypothesis suggests that the ships were ...lost by not knowing those waters, the wrong path and deep into the peninsula of Malaysia. Even some researchers speculate that perhaps reached the islands of Tahiti and Hawaii, based on the similarity between some of the Hawaiian words and classical Greek. Such is the case of the term eagle aeto in the language of these islands and aetos in the language of Homer. The only certainty is that this vast fleet of hundreds of men had no more news. It seems certain that the sea has been a very conducive for such events. Were even more mysterious disappearances of crews as large as that of the Cyclops or the Marine Sulfur Queen. The first was an American ship of 19,600 tons, after leaving the March 4, 1918 Islands of Barbados, it never reached its destination. The ship, 542 feet long, was one of the largest vessels of its time. It consisted of a crew of 306 men and left to give signs of life shortly after his departure. Even distress signal was received and no one was found floating in the rest of the boat adrift.
It was considering the hypothesis of an attack by German submarines, but the files show that neither consulted operating in that area by that date. Moreover, these ships were in the habit of providing radio major attack enemy ships, and this time, there was nothing.
It was also suggested that perhaps the boat hit a mine or a storm that has caused its collapse. But it was found that there were no mines in those waters and that the weather was ideal for navigation at the time of his disappearance. Moreover, in both cases the master would have enough time to issue an SOS signal, which never happened.
Something similar happened with the ship SS Marine Sulfur Queen, which did not release more after that on the morning of February 4, 1963 sent a message of routine when he was about 200 miles from Key West, Florida (EE UU). Subsequent failed attempts to contact the 39 sailors and crew were moved to join the list of disappearances tenebrosa high strangeness.
:*: The Mystery of Acambaro:*:
The Mystery of Acambaro
History
Officially, we know the existence of dinosaurs from just over 2 centuries ... Therefore, officially, it is impossible for men who lived 3 000, 4 500 and 6 500 years, have been able to describe and produce figurines representing animals just now discovering. With regard to this dogma, many discoveries, like that of Acambaro are denied despite the evidence of dated ... because they do not fit with what is believed to know.
Dispensed and capable of new features to develop our knowledge. So far we have come ...
1923, is the co Waldemar Julsrud of civilization Churicuaro, discovery disputes, a local collector, will seek to rival that discredit.
1944, near the hill of Toro, discovered thousands of pottery figurines style unknown.
Strives to interest scientists, it offers the curious and the press, which makes a mistake. At the insistence of the issues, assign to the point of revealing his own theory, which will "put the scream in the sky" all archaeologists: according to him, these figurines which are in the company of men come from dinosaurs Atlantis.
From 1945 to 1946, Carlos Perea, head of the archaeological region Acambaro for the Museum of Anthropology in Mexico, will see more official excavations undertaken by the National Museum and the American Museum of Natural History, during which they also found dinosaur figurines.
Although the findings are not officially Julsrud, there is no doubt as to their authenticity.
In 1952, American archaeologist Charles C. Di Peso Acambaro attend for 3 days and lasts for 4 hours at home Julsrud.
Convinced of the authenticity of the piece, wants to buy some for his museum. Julsrud refuses because he never had the intention of profiting from their discovery and do not want to see spread before his collection to be examined by archaeologists. Just made a new enemy. Di Peso finds a rival collector figurines to buy, but the latter has no more than artifacts Tarascans. To avoid losing the sale and will no doubt adjust to old accounts, the seller has andalusia American archaeologist whole thing is mounted on a mixtificación Tinajero (Julsrud employee) and her two children.
Di Peso satisfy this explanation is without any verification. Upon return, your account will not suffer any doubt, the whole affair is nothing more than a sophisticated joke that Julsrud deceived (no one dares to put his honesty into question). In his article in April 1953 of American Antiquity, explains how he came to this conclusion: during an excavation by Tinajero noted that the earth had been moved before, and logically concluded that the devices were placed to be discovered again in his presence. The explanation is very different and will be tested later: Tinajero actually found hiding, but did not have enough time to complete a thorough job to prevent looting and plugged the hole. Again with Di Peso, glad not to disappoint the archaeologist and not wasting any time. Hell is paved with good intentions, it is said ...
Di Peso ensure his conviction of fraud after a thorough review of each of the 32 000 pieces discovered at that time. And that in a span of 4 hours! Claims to have meticulously examined 133 pieces per minute! over 4 hours without stopping! is not an archaeologist but Superman ¡!
Pretend that the parts are false due to the absence of residues in the hollow earth. Julsrud was honored just to clean them thoroughly as I would have done any real archaeologist. Moreover, the fact was confirmed by witnesses, the pieces that had not been cleaned carrying such waste, etc ...
Play here an important point in history when scientific arguments over the true development of an honest inquiry, not being able to take figurines, to discredit Take revenge on the matter, for spite, for we not jeopardize their reputation? We will never know.
Scientific measures taken less than 20 years later contradict. But the evil is done, for any archaeologist classic "Julsrud people" is nothing but an invention and no one will dare to look into the matter forward and risk his career and fame.
In 1954, the Mexican government sends a team of archaeologists, led by Dr. Eduardo Noguerain, ruins on the site and dig into another site, where other figurines were found. Conclude the authenticity of the site and filled with enthusiasm Julsrud in front of numerous witnesses. But 3 weeks later, in his report, deny the authenticity of the figurines of Julsrud due to representations of dinosaurs, too! Fantastic to be true!
Between truth and a ruined career, the choice is difficult for some ... And they risk denying their own discoveries ...
In 1955, the first visit by Charles Hapgood (professor of history and anthropology at the University of New Hampshire) ....during which Acambaro in fixed sites and witness the excavation. You will be convinced of the authenticity of the discovery.
In 1968, the second visit of Charles Hapgood in Acambaro to take samples and submit them to the latest reliable methods of dating: Carbon 14 and thermoluminescence.
3 samples were delivered to the Laboratory of Isotopes Inc. of New Jersey to be dated with carbon 14: Show No. 1 (I-3842): 3590 + 100 1640 BC
Sample No. 2 (I-4015): 6480 + 170 - 4530 BC
Sample No. 3 (I-4031): 120 + 3060 - 1110 BC
In 1972, Arthur Young delivers samples to the laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania dated by thermoluminescence to:
The dates of these samples were uniform, about 2 500 years BC
These measures are reliable science. Therefore ¿archaeological opinion changed? No, because they cling to their dogma. It's impossible that men have known the dinosaurs! And that despite the evidence ...
In 1978, 2 poachers are caught in flagrante delicto salvage excavation near the hill of the goats. Stop 3 300 of which figurines dinosaurs. These figurines are used as currency in exchange for weapons (do gunrunners would pay with trinket?). The Court found that these artifacts were authentic and sentenced to imprisonment.
In 1990, an independent archaeologist, Neal Steedy chosen arbitrarily, for excavation, from a remote location Julsrud. Found some helmets, but no figurines. Carbon 14 tests gave them an antiquity of between 4 000 and 1 500 years. But these data were rejected and proclaimed that such fragments could not stay longer than 20 years in the soil. The remains of what may Chupicuaro, but not those of Julsrud ...
*******************
Wednesday 19 December 2012
DOES OUR UNIVERSE BORN INSIDE A BLACK HOLE?
Cosmology, physics, nature, space, general theory of relativity.
Lee Smolin is a physicist, he is a cosmologist known for his complicated theory of Space Geometry. In his book "The Life of the Cosmos" (the book link:http://bit.ly/ctnoUN ) he theorizes a radical possibility in the theory of origin of our Universe. He is one of the foremost proponents of the theory of Universe born inside of Black Holes. He goes even further to emphasize the hypothesis of a natural selection like drive to create black hole more efficiently. In a nutshell his theory proposes a picture of universe as a giant machinery whose sole purpose is to create black holes more smoothly as well as efficiently.
Recently, a physicist fron Indiana University, Mr. Nikodem Poplawski modified the general theory of relativity to incorporates the intrinsic spin of Fermions, and is known as Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of Gravity.
This theory predicts a repulsive force known as "Torsion", which may act as the Repulsive Force in the theory of Inflation, incorporated within the "Big Bang Theory" of the creation of our Universe.
So what is the relation of Black holes and this Torsion? One of the prediction of this theory is that the energy density inside a black hole, and the torsion that results from it, actually prevents a black hole singularity from forming. Instead, the region inside the black hole would begin expanding as its own universe, just as the "science fiction" theories of Smolin and others have predicted in the past.
Recently, a physicist fron Indiana University, Mr. Nikodem Poplawski modified the general theory of relativity to incorporates the intrinsic spin of Fermions, and is known as Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama theory of Gravity.
This theory predicts a repulsive force known as "Torsion", which may act as the Repulsive Force in the theory of Inflation, incorporated within the "Big Bang Theory" of the creation of our Universe.
So what is the relation of Black holes and this Torsion? One of the prediction of this theory is that the energy density inside a black hole, and the torsion that results from it, actually prevents a black hole singularity from forming. Instead, the region inside the black hole would begin expanding as its own universe, just as the "science fiction" theories of Smolin and others have predicted in the past.
STEPHEN HAWKING : Warp of Space-time
||| THE BEGINNING OF TIME |||
In this article, we would like to discuss whether TIME itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end....
| ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| |
All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether our Universe will have an end!
| ||||||||||| | |||||||||||| | ||||||||||| | |||||||||||| |
The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. It was therefore not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time. On the other hand, it must have been obvious, that society is evolving in culture and technology. This indicates that the present phase of human history can not have been going for more than a few thousand years. Otherwise, we would be more advanced than we are. It was therefore natural to believe that the human race, and maybe the whole universe, had a beginning in the fairly recent past. However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. Their explanation for human progress was that there had been periodic floods, or other natural disasters, which repeatedly set back the human race to a primitive state.
This argument about whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little consideration of observational evidence. This may have been reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time.
In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason,why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some Time. Any such "lighting up time" would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different,however, when it was realized that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago.
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut
them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the
universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph ofhe separation between two galaxies, being a curve that approached zero, but didn't actually pass through it, at any finite time in the past. Instead, the idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart, new galaxies were formed in between, from matter that was supposed to be continually created. This was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle.
In this article, we would like to discuss whether TIME itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end....
| ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| | ||| |
All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether our Universe will have an end!
| ||||||||||| | |||||||||||| | ||||||||||| | |||||||||||| |
The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. It was therefore not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time. On the other hand, it must have been obvious, that society is evolving in culture and technology. This indicates that the present phase of human history can not have been going for more than a few thousand years. Otherwise, we would be more advanced than we are. It was therefore natural to believe that the human race, and maybe the whole universe, had a beginning in the fairly recent past. However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. Their explanation for human progress was that there had been periodic floods, or other natural disasters, which repeatedly set back the human race to a primitive state.
This argument about whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little consideration of observational evidence. This may have been reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time.
In a universe that was essentially static, there would not have been any dynamical reason,why the stars should have suddenly turned on, at some Time. Any such "lighting up time" would have to be imposed by an intervention from outside the universe. The situation was different,however, when it was realized that the universe is not static, but expanding. Galaxies are moving steadily apart from each other. This means that they were closer together in the past. One can plot the separation of two galaxies, as a function of time. If there were no acceleration due to gravity, the graph would be a straight line. It would go down to zero separation, about twenty billion years ago. One would expect gravity, to cause the galaxies to accelerate towards each other. This will mean that the graph of the separation of two galaxies will bend downwards, below the straight line. So the time of zero separation, would have been less than twenty billion years ago.
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut
them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the
universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun. This was obviously very unsatisfactory. So there were a number of attempts to get round the conclusion, that there was a singularity of infinite density in the past. One suggestion was to modify the law of gravity, so that it became repulsive. This could lead to the graph ofhe separation between two galaxies, being a curve that approached zero, but didn't actually pass through it, at any finite time in the past. Instead, the idea was that, as the galaxies moved apart, new galaxies were formed in between, from matter that was supposed to be continually created. This was the Steady State theory, proposed by Bondi, Gold, and Hoyle.
The Steady State theory, was what Karl Popper would call, a good scientific theory: it made
definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately
for the theory, they were falsified. The first trouble came with the Cambridge observations, of
the number of radio sources of different Strengths. On average, one would expect that the
fainter sources would also be the more distant. One would therefore expect them to be more numerous than bright sources, which would tend to be near to us. However, the graph of the number of radio sources, against there strength, went up much more sharply at low source strengths, than the Steady State theory predicted.
There were attempts to explain away this number count graph, by claiming that some of the faint radio sources, were within our own galaxy, and so did not tell us anything about cosmology. This argument didn't really stand up to further observations. But the final nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory came with the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965. This radiation is the same in all directions. It has the spectrum of radiation in thermal equilibrium at a temperature of 2 point 7 degrees above the Absolute Zero of temperature. There doesn't seem any way to explain this radiation in the Steady State theory.
Another attempt to avoid a beginning to time, was the suggestion, that maybe all the galaxies
didn't meet up at a single point in the past. Although on average, the galaxies are moving
apart from each other at a steady rate, they also have small additional velocities, relative to
the uniform expansion. These so-called "peculiar velocities" of the galaxies, may be directed
sideways to the main expansion. It was argued, that as you plotted the position of the galaxies
back in time, the sideways peculiar velocities, would have meant that the galaxies wouldn't
have all met up. Instead, there could have been a previous contracting phase of the universe,
in which galaxies were moving towards each other. The sideways velocities could have meant that the galaxies didn't collide, but rushed past each other, and then started to move apart.There wouldn't have been any singularity of infinite density, or any breakdown of the laws of physics. Thus there would be no necessity for the universe, and time itself, to have a beginning. Indeed, one might suppose that the universe had oscillated, though that still wouldn't solve the problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: one would expect that the universe would become more disordered each oscillation. It is therefore difficult to see how the universe could have been oscillating for an infinite time. This possibility, that the galaxies would have missed each other, was supported by a paper by two Russians. They claimed that there would be no singularities in a solution of the field equations of general relativity, which was fully general, in the sense that it didn't have any exact symmetry. However, their claim was proved wrong. These showed that general relativity predicted singularities, whenever more than a certain amount of mass was present in a region. The first theorems were designed to show that time came to an end, inside a black hole, formed by the collapse of a star. However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star.I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity.In order to discuss observations in cosmology, it is helpful to draw a diagram of events in space and time, with time going upward, and the space directions horizontal. To show this diagram properly, I would really need a four dimensional screen.As we look out at the universe, we are looking back in time, because light had to leave distant objects a long time ago, to reach us at the present time. This means that the events we observe lie on what is called our past light cone. The point of the cone is at our position, at the present time. As one goes back in time on the diagram, the light cone spreads out to greater distances, and its area increases. However, if there is sufficient matter on our past light cone, it will bend the rays of light towards each other. This will mean that, as one goes back into the past, the area of our past light cone will reach a maximum, and then start to decrease. It is this focusing of our past light cone, by the gravitational effect of the matter in the universe,that is the signal that the universe is within its horizon, like the time reverse of a black hole. If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, One can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning.
How can we tell from the observations, whether there is enough matter on our past light cone,
to focus it? We observe a number of galaxies, but we can not measure directly how much
matter they contain. Nor can we be sure that every line of sight from us will pass through a
galaxy. So I will give a different argument, to show that the universe contains enough matter,
to focus our past light cone. The argument is based on the spectrum of the microwave
background radiation. This is characteristic of radiation that has been in thermal equilibrium,
with matter at the same temperature. To achieve such an equilibrium, it is necessary for the
radiation to be scattered by matter, many times. For example, the light that we receive from
the Sun has a characteristically thermal spectrum. This is not because the nuclear reactions,
which go on in the centre of the Sun, produce radiation with a thermal spectrum. Rather, it is
because the radiation has been scattered, by thematter in the Sun, many times on its way
from the centre.
In the case of the universe, the fact that the microwave background has such an exactly
thermal spectrum indicates that it must have been scattered many times. The universe must
therefore contain enough matter, to make it opaque in every direction we look, because the
microwave background is the same, in every direction we look. Moreover, this opacity must
occur a long way away from us, because we can see galaxies and quasars, at great distances.
Thus there must be a lot of matter at a great distance from us. The greatest opacity over a
broad wave band, for a given density, comes from ionised hydrogen. It then follows that if
there is enough matter to make the universe opaque, there is also enough matter to focus our
past light cone. One can then apply the theorem of Penrose and myself, to show that time
must have a beginning.
The focussing of our past light cone implied that time must have a beginning, if the General
Theory of relativity is correct. But one might raise the question, of whether General Relativity
really is correct. It certainly agrees with all the observational tests that have been carried out.
However these test General Relativity, only over fairly large distances. We know that General
Relativity can not be quite correct on very small distances, because it is a classical theory. This
means, it doesn't take into account, the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, which
says that an object can not have both a well defined position, and a well defined speed: the
more accurately one measures the position, the less accurately one can measure the speed,
and vice versa. Therefore, to understand the very high-density stage, when the universe was
very small, one needs a quantum theory of gravity, which will combine General Relativity with
the Uncertainty Principle.
Many people hoped that quantum effects, would somehow smooth out the singularity of infinite
density, and allow the universe to bounce, and continue back to a previous contracting phase.
This would be rather like the earlier idea of galaxies missing each other, but the bounce would
occur at a much higher density. However, I think that this is not what happens: quantum
effects do not remove the singularity, and allow time to be continued back indefinitely. But it
seems that quantum effects can remove the most objectionable feature, of singularities in
classical General Relativity. This is that the classical theory, does not enable one to calculate
what would come out of a singularity, because all the Laws of Physics would break down there.
This would mean that science could not predict how the universe would have begun. Instead,
one would have to appeal to an agency outside the universe. This may be why many religious
leaders, were ready to accept the Big Bang, and the singularity theorems.
It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin.
Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like
science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine
scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time
as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's
another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time, because it is not the
kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real
time.
The three directions in space, and the one direction of imaginary time, make up what is called
a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four dimensional curve space. But it
is not too difficult to visualise a two dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a
football.
In fact, James Hartle of the University of California Santa Barbara, and I have proposed that
space and imaginary time together, are indeed finite in extent, but without boundary. They
would be like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions. The surface of the Earth
is finite in extent, but it doesn't have any boundaries or edges. I have been round the world,
and I didn't fall off.
If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any
singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down.
And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't
any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of
physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one
knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe
in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time
would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the
universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at
the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the
universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything
outside the physical universe, that we observe.
The no boundary condition, is the statement that the laws of physics hold everywhere. Clearly,
this is something that one would like to believe, but it is a hypothesis. One has to test it, by
comparing the state of the universe that it would predict, with observations of what the
universe is actually like. If the observations disagreed with the predictions of the no boundary
hypothesis, we would have to conclude the hypothesis was false. There would have to be
something outside the universe, to wind up the clockwork, and set the universe going. Of
course, even if the observations do agree with theredictions, that does not prove that the no
boundary proposal is correct. But one's confidence in it would be increased, particularly
because there doesn't seem to be any other natural proposal, for the quantum state of the
universe.
The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the
North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it
would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the
Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself.
According to the no boundary proposal, the universe would have expanded in a smooth way
from a single point. As it expanded, it would have borrowed energy from the gravitational field,
to create matter. As any economist could have predicted, the result of all that borrowing, was
inflation. The universe expanded and borrowed at an ever-increasing rate. Fortunately, the
debt of gravitational energy will not have to be repaid until the end of the universe.
Eventually, the period of inflation would have ended, and the universe would have settled down
to a stage of more moderate growth or expansion. However, inflation would have left its mark
on the universe. The universe would have been almost completely smooth, but with very slight
irregularities. These irregularities are so little, only one part in a hundred thousand, that for
years people looked for them in vain. But in 1992, the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite,
COBE, found these irregularities in the microwave background radiation. It was an historic
moment. We saw back to the origin of the universe. The form of the fluctuations in the
microwave background agree closely with the predictions of the no boundary proposal. These
very slight irregularities in the universe would have caused some regions to have expanded
less fast than others. Eventually, they would have stopped expanding, and would have
collapsed in on themselves, to form stars and galaxies. Thus the no boundary proposal can
explain all the rich and varied structure, of the world we live in. What does the no boundary
proposal predict for the future of the universe? Because it requires that the universe is finite in
space, as well as in imaginary time, it implies that the universe will re-collapse eventually.
However, it will not re-collapse for a very long time, much longer than the 15 billion years it
has already been expanding. So, you will have time to sell your government bonds, before the
end of the universe is nigh. Quite what you invest in then, I don't know.
Originally, I thought that the collapse, would be the time reverse of the expansion. This would
have meant that the arrow of time would have pointed the other way in the contracting phase.
People would have gotten younger, as the universe got smaller. Eventually, they would have
disappeared back into the womb.
However, I now realise I was wrong, as these solutions show. The collapse is not the time
reverse of the expansion. The expansion will start with an inflationary phase, but the collapse
will not in general end with an anti inflationary phase. Moreover, the small departures from
uniform density will continue to grow in the contracting phase. The universe will get more and
more lumpy and irregular, as it gets smaller, and disorder will increase. This means that the
arrow of time will not reverse. People will continue to get older, even after the universe has
begun to contract. So it is no good waiting until the universe re-collapses, to return to your
youth. You would be a bit past it, anyway, by then.
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe,
and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of
real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken
down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of
physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary
time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The
predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary
hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will
keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go
backwards, I think I better stop now
OCCAM'S RAZOR : The Simplest Theory of Science.
What is the most Simple Science Theory for describing Reality?
Introduction to Simple Science & Occam's Razor
Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony. In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred.
A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions. The principle is most often expressed as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or 'Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', but this sentence was written by later authors and is not found in Ockham's surviving writings. William wrote, in Latin, Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as 'Plurality should not be posited without necessity'.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) lived after Ockham's time and has a variant of Occam's razor. His variant short-circuits the need for sophistication by equating it to simplicity.
'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication'. (Leonardo da Vinci)
Occam's Razor is now usually stated as follows:
Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
As this is ambiguous, Isaac Newton's version may be better:
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world)
Occam's Razor is known by several different names including the Principle of Parsimony, The Principle of Simplicity, and The Principle of Economy. The reason for these alternate names can be explained by the association of simplicity and parsimony with Occam's Razor. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Occam's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Occam's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Occam's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Occam's Razor is currently conceived of as a methodological principle. Elliott Sober has expressed dissatisfaction with epistemological justifications for Occam's Razor. He thinks that there must be a metaphysical presupposition for Occam's Razor, but offers no possibilities (Sober, 1990).
READ MORE :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Occam's Razor (also Ockham's Razor or any of several other spellings), is a principle attributed to the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony. In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should not make more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred.
A charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions. The principle is most often expressed as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or 'Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity', but this sentence was written by later authors and is not found in Ockham's surviving writings. William wrote, in Latin, Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as 'Plurality should not be posited without necessity'.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) lived after Ockham's time and has a variant of Occam's razor. His variant short-circuits the need for sophistication by equating it to simplicity.
'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication'. (Leonardo da Vinci)
Occam's Razor is now usually stated as follows:
Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.
As this is ambiguous, Isaac Newton's version may be better:
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. (Sir Isaac Newton, Principia: The system of the world)
Occam's Razor is known by several different names including the Principle of Parsimony, The Principle of Simplicity, and The Principle of Economy. The reason for these alternate names can be explained by the association of simplicity and parsimony with Occam's Razor. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Occam's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Occam's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Occam's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Occam's Razor is currently conceived of as a methodological principle. Elliott Sober has expressed dissatisfaction with epistemological justifications for Occam's Razor. He thinks that there must be a metaphysical presupposition for Occam's Razor, but offers no possibilities (Sober, 1990).
READ MORE :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
STEPHEN HAWKING : ALIENS EXIST !
STEPHEN HAWKING : ALIENS EXIST !
London: Do aliens exist? They do, but humans should try to avoid any contact with them — at least, that's what one of the world's leading physicists, Stephen Hawking, claims.
The suggestions, that the extraterrestrials are almost certain to exist, come in a new documentary series for the Discovery channel, in which Dr. Hawking will set out his latest thinking on some of the universe's greatest mysteries.
Alien life, he will suggest, is almost certain to exist in many other parts of the universe — not just in planets, but perhaps in the centre of stars or even floating in interplanetary space, T he Sunday Times reported.
His logic on aliens is unusually simple. The universe, he points out, has 100 billion galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars. In such a big place, Earth is unlikely to be the only planet where life has evolved.
“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like,” the 68-year-old was quoted as saying.
The answer, Dr. Hawking suggests, is that most of it will be the equivalent of microbes or simple animals — the sort of life that has dominated Earth for most of its history.
One scene in his documentary shows shoals of fluorescent animals living under thick ice on Europa, one of Jupiter's moons, while another shows flying yellow predators prey on two-legged herbivores.
Such scenes are speculative, but Dr. Hawking uses them to lead on to a serious point — that a few life forms could be intelligent and pose a threat.
He believes that contact with such a species could be devastating for humanity, and suggests that aliens might raid Earth for its resources and then move on: “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet.
“I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.”
ON TRUTH AND REALITY
Is there any link between truth and reality? What is reality
TRUTH STATEMENTS : PHYSICAL REALITY
Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)
(Bradley, 1846-1924) We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.
"The Truth is far more powerful than any weapon of mass destruction."
('Mahatma' Mohandas Gandhi)
I think, hence I am, was so certain and of such evidence, that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search. (Rene Descartes)
TRUTH STATEMENTS : PHILOSOPHY, METAPHYSICS and SCIENCE.
1. We think therefore thinking things (minds) exist.
2. We all experience having a body.
3. We all experience our mind and body moving about in space.
4. We all experience many other minds and bodies (other humans) and many other material objects - but always interconnected in one common space.
5. To unite Science with Metaphysics we must describe Reality in terms of One thing we all commonly experience - Space.
6. Space (one substance) has properties.
7. Space (one substance) must be infinite (not bounded by another substance), eternal (not created by another substance), continuous (not contain another substance).
8. Light and matter have a particle / wave duality.
9. We cannot add particles to space.
10. We can add waves to space.
11. Space is a continuous wave medium that propagates waves.
12. Matter is spherical.
13. A spherical wave forms a 'point like / particle effect' at its wave center.
14. The electron is a spherical standing wave.
15. The wave center forms the 'particle' effect of matter.
16. The spherical in and out waves explain matter's dynamic activity and interconnection.
TRUTH STATEMENTS : QUANTUM PHYSICS and PHILOSOPHY
1. Matter has a particle wave / duality - the wave center forms the 'particle'.
2. Light has a particle / wave duality - standing wave interactions (resonance) are discrete thus like a 'particle'.
3. Schrodinger's wave equations determine the discrete energy states of bound electrons due to discrete standing wave patterns.
4. Matter moves through space in discrete 'steps' due to the formation of each successive in wave.
5. Antimatter is the opposite phase standing wave (positrons have opposite phase to electrons).
6. In phase standing waves repel (like charges repel).
7. Opposite phase standing waves attract (opposite charges attract).
8. Destructive interference of opposite phase standing waves causes matter / antimatter annihilation.
9. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is deduced from wave equations.
10. Probability waves are mathematical constructs caused by lack of knowledge of an interconnected system of spherical standing waves within infinite space.
11. When two spherical standing waves (electrons) are in relative motion you get Doppler shifts of the in and out waves that deduce both the de Broglie wave of quantum physics and the relativistic mass (frequency) increase of Einstein's special relativity.
12. The de Broglie phase wave is non-local where its velocity = c2 / relative velocity.
13. David Bohm's Non-Local Pilot Wave is the de Broglie phase wave.
14. Matter interactions (energy exchanges between wave centers) are local due to the velocity of the spherical in and out waves which is the velocity of light c.
15. The allowed energy states of matter (wave patterns of electrons in atoms / molecules) are non-local due to the de Broglie phase wave.
16. The ray diagrams in Feynman's quantum electrodynamics are mathematical constructs based upon spherical waves.
17. Interference for both light and matter in the two slit experiment occurs because both light and matter are made of waves.
18. Space has waves flowing through it from 10^80 other spherical wave structures. These background wave oscillations explain quantum field theory.
TRUTH STATEMENTS : Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity
1. A wave is an oscillation between two energy states of the wave medium.
2. As matter is made of waves, thus matter and energy are equivalent.
3. Wave Equations in an Elastic Medium Space deduce E = mc2, E= hf, F=ma.
4. Principle of Relativity - Because both light and matter are made of waves any change in wave velocity has a corresponding change in wavelength such that the wave velocity is always measured to be the same.
5. Lorentz Transformation - When matter is in motion it has an ellipsoidal shape.
6. Matter (wave centers) can never move faster than the velocity of their spherical in and out waves which create them - the velocity of light c.
7. Einstein's Special Relativity - When two spherical standing waves (electrons) are in relative motion you get Doppler shifts of the in and out waves that deduce both the relativistic mass (frequency) increase AND the de Broglie wave of quantum physics.
8. A spherical wave is 4 dimensional (Einstein's 4D space-time continuum).
9. Any changen the velocity of the spherical in waves (from one direction) causes a change in the position of the wave center when this spherical in wave meets at the wave center. (A 'force' accelerating a 'particle'.)
10. Einstein's general relativity - This change in wave velocity causes a change in the ellipsoidal shape of the 'spherical' in wave, thus there is a relationship between ellipsoidal geometry and acceleration.
11. Gravity is simply the slowing of waves in higher mass / energy density space.
12. Gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent because both are related to changing the velocity of the spherical / ellipsoidal in waves (force) which causes the re-positioning of the wave center (acceleration).
TRUTH STATEMENTS : COSMOLOGY
1. The electron (wave center) is a finite spherical wave structure of the observable universe within infinite space.
2. The electron's in waves are formed from the out waves of other matter in their observable universe.
3. Mach's principle is true - the mass (wave energy) of an electron is determined by all other matter in their observable universe.
4. Every electron sees itself at the center of its observable universe in infinite space.
5. The equation of the cosmos deduces the size of the observable universe.
6. There are an infinite number of finite spherical universes within infinite space.
7. Redshift with distance occurs as there is less common overlap of each electron's finite spherical universe with distance that causes decreasing wave interactions with distance and thus decreasing energy exchanges (redshift).
8. Redshift with distance is quantised because wave interactions are quantised.
9. Our observable universe is not expanding.
10. The evolution of complexity occurs because the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems (not infinite space).
11. We have limited freedom and limited determinism in a necessarily connected universe within Infinite Space.
12. Black holes and worm holes are mathematical constructs - infinite energy densities do not exist - time travel does not exist - faster than light travel does not exist.
13. The motion of galaxies at the edge of our observable universe is determined by matter outside our observable universe (they will be at the center of their observable universe within Infinite Space).
Truth Statements: Mind
1. Our mind (and body) did not always exist - we are born, we age, we die.
2. Our mind (and body) display traits that can only be understood with Darwinian Evolution.
3. Our mind is always in motion because reality is in motion (the wave motion of space).
4. Our mind has logical knowledge because interconnected repeating wave motions behave logically.
5. Our mind has empirical knowledge because of the spherical in-waves.
6. Our mind (and body) has limited freedom, limited determinism in a necessarily connected universe.
7. Our mind has a creative imagination.
8. Our mind can imagine physical reality - the wave structure of matter in space.
9. Our mind can deduce absolute truths from physical reality that correspond to empirical truths that we all commonly experience (Science).
10. While words may be metaphors, the word space does correspond to a real substance that we all experience existing in - this space around us.
10. Our mind and body are wave structures of the observable universe within infinite space.
Tuesday 18 December 2012
Create Your Own Android Application
Create Your Own Android Application
If you're new to Android app development, this where you
should begin. This series of lessons shows you how to
create a new project
Following Site Will Helpful to create an android application
Convert any web content into an Android App using
AppsGeyser - The Free Android App Maker. Build Your
Own App for Free and Make Money.
Please Comment if u like this information
Download Our Android Application
Download Our Android Application
Download this application for android and get updates on latest employment news,tricks,bollywood news,mobile tricks,android games & application
Also get latest Educational news,nagpur university news etc.
Check PAGE RANK of Web site pages Instantly
In order to check pagerank of a single web site, web page or domain name, please submit the URL of that web site, web page or domain name to the form below and click "Check PR" button.
Check Page Rank of your Web site pages instantly:
|
This page rank checking tool is powered by Page Rank Checker service
|
Monday 17 December 2012
Increase Facebook Likes,Twitter followers,google plus
The FollowLikeHub system will help increase your SEO, Backlinks, Traffic, Social Followers, Bookmarks & Networks.
We allow you to pick and choose who you want to exchange with and skip those who you're not interested in.
Create Your Free Account Today
We allow you to pick and choose who you want to exchange with and skip those who you're not interested in.
Create Your Free Account Today
What can you exchange at our website?
We abide by all Social Network Policies, here are the ones we currently offer.
Paid To Promote
Paid To Do Task
Increase Your SEO
Increase Backlinks
Free Affilates SignUps
Facebook Likes
Facebook Shares
GooglePlus Followers
GooglePlus
Twitter Followers
Twitter Favorites
LikedIn Share
Stumbleupon
Youtube Subscribers
Youtube Video Views
Twitter ReTweets
Twitter Tweets
Youtube Video Likes
Pinterest Followers
Text Exchange
Banner Exchange
Traffic Exchange
2 Offer Wall
Minimum $5 Cashout
300 Coin Signup Bonus • 400 Coins Per Referral • Earn $0.15 Per Referral
The More Active You Are The More Coins You Can Earn!
The More Active You Are The More Coins You Can Earn!
We don't sell Followers, Fans, Likes or Traffic • We abide by all Social Network Policies • We don't ask for your account passwords.
FollowlikeHub is more than a Social Exchange. You can Improve your SEO, Backlinks, Traffic and Social Marketing.
We are a showcase for your Social Media and our members will like your content if they find it interestng.
We are a showcase for your Social Media and our members will like your content if they find it interestng.
