PDA

View Full Version : my theories



Samuel
2007-Sep-14, 01:02 AM
Allright, Ill start off by stating that I know I should have better grammar if I am going to be stating my hypothoses among the many brilliant minds on this site so I'd like to apologize in advance. I have a number of hypothoses and theories on space-time, the stellar vacuum, and reality itself. So please be open-minded and if anyone has any questions, comments, complaints...
1. Before I get started I'd like to put forth my hypothesis that in our realm of existence, there are 3 states that something can exist in. The first state is a state of zero. The second state is a state of Finite. And the third state is a state of Infinite. Along these rules, im proposing that, under normal conditions, things (sorry for lack of a more definite term lol) cannot jump from one state to another. Possible examples of this involve the fact (it has been put forth as a fact) that it is impossible (even in interstellar space) for a temperature of 0k to be reached, this may be an example of a state-jump from Finite to Zero. Another potential example of this is the Tachyon. hold on... let me back up... As you all know... its impossible for matter, under normal circumstances to reach, or go faster than the speed of light, or speed "C". But there happens to be a hypothetical particle called the Tachyon, that not only is faster than the speed of light, but cannot go any slower than the speed of light. As it is known, a particle's mass increases exponentially as it approches the C barrier. It climbs to infinite, and because of this, it needs an infinite amount of energy to pass the C barrier, and there is no source to provide it the energy it needs for acceleration. So anyone can figure out that in our finite (as far as it is percieved) universe, one may not aquire and contain a property of zero, or a property of infinite under normal circumstances. If you need evidence, look at any progression or decline in all studies of science. In nature, if you graph any progression or decline, it can be put as a gradual line on a graph. An example of this can be put forth with the following problem: I once concluded that if a laboratory succeeded in reaching a temperature of absolute zero (0k), that time came at a stand-still. I concluded that although there is no method of proving this (there is no method of observing zero K since any type of observation requires energy, thus increasing its temperature) I thought that through the hypothetical experiment of Schrodinger's cat, and through Heisenburg's uncertainty principle, that one has to conclude that as long as there is no energy, thus, no movement, that time actually stops at zero K. But then it was proposed that since scientists have come a few billionths of a degree from zero K that if time is to stop, that it would at some point upon approaching this cold temperature (or lack thereof) slow down gradually in a manner that can be graphed. So upon thinking about this, Im more sure than ever that these three hypothetical states 0, finite, and infinite, cannot be interchanged under normal circumstances.

For many years, it has been proposed that the universe is either going to slow and stop its expansion due to gravity, begin to contract, and implode in a fate that has been dubbed "The big crunch". Another idea that was set forth is that there is not enough gravitational pull to stop the expansion of the universe and that the universe is going to keep expanding, cooling off, and become darker and more desolate. A third idea that goes along the 2nd one has been set forth that the universe is going to keep expanding and rip itself apart. Recently, question 1 has been, for the most part, answered upon the discovery that the universe is not only still expanding, but its also accelerating.

Now this may seem off the subject, but hold on... (its relavant) It has been proposed (I dont remember the person) that a possible fate of our universe is going to happen through a "rip" in the fabric of space-time itself, opening a hole in our cosmic vacuum, opening it up to a more simple, more stable vacuum. This rip in the space-time fabric spreads at almost the speed of light, destroying everything it comes across (including us). A hypothetical cause of the event put forth is through a high-energy event (like in a particle accelerator)

Now, back to the accelerating expansion of the universe... Upon hearing about this I did a lot of thinking and came to one conclusion... I'd like you to take a moment to review all that is currently known about gravity...

1. weakest of the four fundamental forces.

2. is a fundamental force of mutual attraction and contraction.

3. Is found and directly connected with mass.

4. It's gauge-boson, or carrier particle (ppl think) is the graviton.

5. the closer mass/gravitons is/are to another, the stronger the force.

6. The closer a subject is to the center of gravity, the stronger the pull.

7. gets dramatically weaker as the distance between gravitons/particles of matter- increases.

8. All particles are "gravitationally aware" of one another.

upon reviewing this information try to think of an explanation put forth about circumstances surrounding, and the events after the big bang...

It is said that 95% of the universal mass/energy is missing...

This matter has been dubbed "dark matter"...

It has been theorized that at the beginning of the Big Bang, a "war" occured involving dark matter and normal matter (in other terms, there happened to be a huge amount of both and this meant conflict due to the fact that dark matter, and normal matter destroy one another upon meeting), and normal matter had the victory. (there happened to be a greater amount of normal matter. The leftover, surviving matter is the makeup of the universe)

It has also been proposed that there have been several Big Bangs, and that there are alternate "multiverses"...

In bubble chambers, at a sub-atomic level... scientists have reported particles spontaneously moving in and out of existence.

Scientists have also reported the discovery of "antiparticles" ex. positrons, antineutrinos...

Now think about this possibility. In an opposites-attract manner, mayber there is a "black universe" (im not using bizarro for the term lol) that is in one form, or another "attached" to our universe... this explains the next thing im proposing...

Back to the accelerating expansion... Im proposing the existence and the circumstances of hypothetical particle I'll dubb the "antigraviton". Risky, I know, considering that the graviton's existence hasn't yet been confirmed.

Think about it... a particle with the opposite properties of gravity...

-Universal force of expansion and repulsion.

-Increases in strength as distance between "antigravitons" and their hosts (particles they cling on to)

- Just like their counterparts, they accelerate, but accelerate upon separation

This explains the accelerating expansion of the universe... perhaps there is a shadow universe, or maybe just an antiparticle causing this to happen...

Next up is the fate of the universe... But first take a black hole...

A black hole is a self-sustained system in which the collapsing star's gravitational pull contracts it making the star's matter closer to its center (and the center of gravity). Upon moving closer to the center, the surface gravity gets even stronger, pulling the star with even more force towards its center... a vicious self-repeating chain that causes the star to become more massive, compact, and stronger (gravitionally) at an accelerating rate... this object becomes an infinitely massive, dense, small point in space called a singularity...

Thankfully... due to the very nature of the black hole, the universe is protected from the rip expanding or even existing due to the contractual nature of the black hole, and it "heals".

Remember up above the mention of the three states... Zero, Finite, Infinite?
In a black hole you have extraordinary circumstances that let you make the jump from a finite system to an infinite one...

...Think about this "antigravity"...

The Universe is going to expand and do so faster... this stretches space-time, and everything in it making things cooler, and getting colder at an accelerating rate... sound familiar?... as space gets more stretched out, this effect gets much stronger... eventually Im proposing that at some point as this effect is exponentially increased that the universe will "break" as it approaches the "unreachable" temperature of 0k, instead of the drop of temperature slowing as it does in laboratories, it should speed up due to the properties of "antigravity" and as it does this it should take the catastrophic "jump" between Finite and Zero.

Dont get this and the "Big Rip" confused. The Big Rip states that all matter is simply going to be pulled apart and eventually destroyed...

Im proposing that the Space-time fabric is going to tear under the unstoppable force of antigravity creating the hypothesized vacuum that is going to be more stable than the current one. dont be scared though...

1. this should take a very very long time...
2. no one is going to realize their fate as this phenomenon cannot be observed due to its surrounding properties and the speed at it takes place.

novaderrik
2007-Sep-14, 05:45 AM
you lost me at "Tachyon"..
all i can think of since reading that word is that maybe if we just reverse the polarity on the deflector dish, we can solve this problem..

antoniseb
2007-Sep-14, 11:47 AM
Think about it... a particle with the opposite properties of gravity...

-Universal force of expansion and repulsion.

-Increases in strength as distance between "antigravitons" and their hosts (particles they cling on to)

- Just like their counterparts, they accelerate, but accelerate upon separation


You put a lot of ideas in that post, and it will be difficult to discuss them all at once. Do you feel like defending your ideas about the anti-graviton?

Why do you think that the anti-particle of the graviton should increase its influence with distance? The anti-particle to the electron has an opposite charge, but still has the inverse-square law for the field strength of that charge.

sweetser
2007-Sep-14, 12:33 PM
Hello Samuel:

I can tell you have been reading LOTS of physics. With the physics you've learned, you have tried to connect the dots, all of them. This is a fun thing to do, I give it a spin from time to time. I don't take anyone's yarns seriously - even professors at major Universities - until they say, yup, do this experiment and you should see exactly this sort of thing. So at this point I take the data for rotating profiles of galaxies, the big bang, the expanding universe, all that stuff is good, but the yarns, dark matter, inflation, dark energy, I don't think are anywhere near precise enough mathwise to be of long term value to physics.

Personally, I have spent a large block of time working with equations for gravity. I took a class on general relativity where we played with the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity and did calculations with it. A decade after that class I developed my own metric (which people already know about), and repeated many of those calculations (which reminds me, I should go through those old class notes!). I have, as you might say, zero sense of how to do a calculation with only zero, finite and infinite, zero idea of where to start.

You may be the sort that wants to study the ideas without combing through the math. In my experience, the math is far better than the words: math is compact, and equations can twist on a dime, in ways words get tangled. It is possible to play new games with equations, but new games with words tend to sound garbled.

Good luck should you decide to study the math behind physics, it is hard, but worth the effort.

doug

Nereid
2007-Sep-14, 12:46 PM
[snip]

It is said that 95% of the universal mass/energy is missing...

This matter has been dubbed "dark matter"...

It has been theorized that at the beginning of the Big Bang, a "war" occured involving dark matter and normal matter (in other terms, there happened to be a huge amount of both and this meant conflict due to the fact that dark matter, and normal matter destroy one another upon meeting), and normal matter had the victory. (there happened to be a greater amount of normal matter. The leftover, surviving matter is the makeup of the universe)

[snip]As antoniseb said, there's a lot to digest.

Before even trying to get into this idea, I'd like to start with what is stated as well-established mainstream conclusions.

Where is it "said that 95% of the universal mass/energy is missing..."?

How did you determine that, in mainstream cosmology, "[t]his [mass/energy] has been dubbed "dark matter"..."?

Where can one read up on the details of this ""war" [...] involving dark matter and normal matter" in which "normal matter had the victory"?

Fazor
2007-Sep-14, 07:37 PM
Where can one read up on the details of this ""war" [...] involving dark matter and normal matter" in which "normal matter had the victory"?

Well, actually I did read an entertaining little article that went along those lines the other day. It was interesting, but it also didn't link any actual research or support. Made for a very fun read, but you can't take stuff like that too seriously.

Granted, that doesn't mean the information was bad either. The point is, you can't trust something that you cannot verify.

absael
2007-Sep-15, 05:29 PM
The antiparticle of the graviton is the same as the particle (same goes for photons).

Samuel
2007-Sep-17, 02:21 AM
The antiparticle of the graviton is the same as the particle (same goes for photons).

This isn't necessarily true. Remember, normal gravitons (much less "antigravitons" haven't been directly observed or even proved to exist yet.

Samuel
2007-Sep-17, 02:31 AM
You put a lot of ideas in that post, and it will be difficult to discuss them all at once. Do you feel like defending your ideas about the anti-graviton?

Why do you think that the anti-particle of the graviton should increase its influence with distance? The anti-particle to the electron has an opposite charge, but still has the inverse-square law for the field strength of that charge.

I'll support and defend my ideas about the anti-graviton, but I'm not going to enforce them. I feel priveliged to be able to discuss my ideas amongst the brilliant minds on this forum and the last thing i seek to do is to force my beliefs on them.
As far as your point on the positron goes, you must keep in mind that the graviton is a gauge boson that itself has an infinite field of reach, the electron is a lepton carried by the photon. I dont know if this a valid response to your proposed argument, but the graviton itself has never been directly observed, and because of this, it is impossible for anyone to say if its properties are for sure going to be the opposites, I have proposed. But I definitely consider it a possibility for this mysterious force that so little is known about.
You do put up an interesting argument though and I'd like to thank you for taking the time to listen to my ideas.

Samuel
2007-Sep-17, 02:36 AM
As antoniseb said, there's a lot to digest.

Before even trying to get into this idea, I'd like to start with what is stated as well-established mainstream conclusions.

Where is it "said that 95% of the universal mass/energy is missing..."?

How did you determine that, in mainstream cosmology, "[t]his [mass/energy] has been dubbed "dark matter"..."?

Where can one read up on the details of this ""war" [...] involving dark matter and normal matter" in which "normal matter had the victory"?

1&2. Its a very commonly held idea. You can find it many different places, here is one of them:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/missing_matter_050202.html


3. I actually got it from one of the shows regarding the subject of the birth of the universe on Discovery (or one of those channels)

Nereid
2007-Sep-17, 03:38 AM
As antoniseb said, there's a lot to digest.

Before even trying to get into this idea, I'd like to start with what is stated as well-established mainstream conclusions.

Where is it "said that 95% of the universal mass/energy is missing..."?

How did you determine that, in mainstream cosmology, "[t]his [mass/energy] has been dubbed "dark matter"..."?

Where can one read up on the details of this ""war" [...] involving dark matter and normal matter" in which "normal matter had the victory"?1&2. Its a very commonly held idea. You can find it many different places, here is one of them:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/missing_matter_050202.html


3. I actually got it from one of the shows regarding the subject of the birth of the universe on Discovery (or one of those channels)Thanks for your answers.

re 1: the reference you give is not in ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/); do you have any which are?

Further, that reference does not refer, as far as I can see, to "95% of the universal mass/energy [being] missing...". Do you have any such reference?

re 2: the reference you give is not in ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/); do you have any which are?

Further, that reference does not refer, as far as I can see, to "[t]his [mass/energy] has been dubbed "dark matter"...". Do you have any such reference?

re 3: in which papers, either preprints on the arXiv server (http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph), or papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, can one read up on the details of this ""war" [...] involving dark matter and normal matter" in which "normal matter had the victory"?

Which specific show (on Discovery, or any other channel) did you get this from?

More generally, how can any reader of this thread check the veracity of these statements?

absael
2007-Sep-17, 07:31 AM
This isn't necessarily true. Remember, normal gravitons (much less "antigravitons" haven't been directly observed or even proved to exist yet.


Back to the accelerating expansion... Im proposing the existence and the circumstances of hypothetical particle I'll dubb the "antigraviton". Risky, I know, considering that the graviton's existence hasn't yet been confirmed.

Think about it... a particle with the opposite properties of gravity...

-Universal force of expansion and repulsion.

-Increases in strength as distance between "antigravitons" and their hosts (particles they cling on to)

- Just like their counterparts, they accelerate, but accelerate upon separation

This explains the accelerating expansion of the universe... perhaps there is a shadow universe, or maybe just an antiparticle causing this to happen...
Bold is mine.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you proposed that the antigraviton exists, and has different properties than the graviton, and from what I can decipher a substantial portion of your theory rests on this assertion.

The mainstream consensus is that the graviton would be its own antiparticle. What support can you provide for your idea that an antigraviton would behave differently than a graviton?

Samuel
2007-Sep-17, 07:25 PM
Bold is mine.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since you proposed that the antigraviton exists, and has different properties than the graviton, and from what I can decipher a substantial portion of your theory rests on this assertion.

The mainstream consensus is that the graviton would be its own antiparticle. What support can you provide for your idea that an antigraviton would behave differently than a graviton?

Its all hypothetical. But the facts i put forth are supposed to be the support of my hypotheses. I have put forth a number of factors that are meant to be supportive of one another. Im putting all of these questions and facts together to ultimately give a hypothetical answer to the question of the accelerated expansion of the cosmos.

Samuel
2007-Sep-17, 07:31 PM
Thanks for your answers.

re 1: the reference you give is not in ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/); do you have any which are?

Further, that reference does not refer, as far as I can see, to "95% of the universal mass/energy [being] missing...". Do you have any such reference?

re 2: the reference you give is not in ADS (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/); do you have any which are?

Further, that reference does not refer, as far as I can see, to "[t]his [mass/energy] has been dubbed "dark matter"...". Do you have any such reference?

re 3: in which papers, either preprints on the arXiv server (http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph), or papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, can one read up on the details of this ""war" [...] involving dark matter and normal matter" in which "normal matter had the victory"?

Which specific show (on Discovery, or any other channel) did you get this from?

More generally, how can any reader of this thread check the veracity of these statements?

1.

a. I have never been on that specific site, so I cannot give a definitive answer if it is or is not mentioned on that site, but I can give numerous reputable sources that do mention the concept I have put forth about dark matter.

b. It says so on the first paragraph.

2. I do not remember the name of the show that used the "battle" analogy, but I can give another source of equal (if not greater) reputation that uses this same analogy.
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/01/aaasantimatter221.html

Fazor
2007-Sep-17, 07:59 PM
I think I see what you're getting at Samuel. If matter has gravity via gravitrons, then maybe antimatter has repulsive force via anti-gravitrons, and this is what is causing the universe to expand. Is that a correct assesment of your idea?

A few questions I would pose, in that it's my understanding that there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe. If this is indeed true (I don't know, is it?) then why would the repulsive force of the anti-gravitron overcome the attractive force of gravity?

Also, gravity (thus presumibly "anti-gravity") is a weak force. Would this anti-gravitron be a strong enough force to over come other, more prevelant influences on a universal scale?

Lastly, if this particle exists and is the driving force behind universal expansion, wouldn't it have to exist uniformly in order for the universe to expand, well, uniformly?

I don't know maybe I misunderstand your theory, and with my limited knowlege of such things I dont' even know if my questions make sense. But thats what comes to mind for me.

Nereid
2007-Sep-17, 08:06 PM
1.

a. I have never been on that specific site, so I cannot give a definitive answer if it is or is not mentioned on that site, but I can give numerous reputable sources that do mention the concept I have put forth about dark matter.

b. It says so on the first paragraph.

[snip]Here is the first para:
Only about 5 percent of the mass and energy in the universe is normal matter, the subatomic particles that make up all things visible. Scientists have no clue what the other 95 percent is, so they've dubbed part of it dark matter and the rest dark energy.Here is what you said:
It is said that 95% of the universal mass/energy is missing...

This matter has been dubbed "dark matter"...Perhaps, instead of incorrectly summarising a popsci article, you would consider either starting a thread, in BAUT's Q&A section (to make sure your summary is accurate, in terms of current mainstream cosmology), or researching the topic using standard cosmology textbooks or papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals?

Nereid
2007-Sep-17, 08:11 PM
[snip]

2. I do not remember the name of the show that used the "battle" analogy, but I can give another source of equal (if not greater) reputation that uses this same analogy.
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/01/aaasantimatter221.htmlHere's what that source says:
Scientists believe equal quantities of matter and antimatter were formed in the Big Bang that created the universe. These opposite particles should have completely annihilated each other. But one-billionth of the matter remains, said Stewart Smith, a BaBar project spokesperson. It's as if two armies started with a billion soldiers each, and at the end of the war only one soldier was left standing * he was made of matter, said Smith during a tour of the experimental facility: "We're trying to understand why."And here's what you said:
It has been theorized that at the beginning of the Big Bang, a "war" occured involving dark matter and normal matter (in other terms, there happened to be a huge amount of both and this meant conflict due to the fact that dark matter, and normal matter destroy one another upon meeting), and normal matter had the victory. (there happened to be a greater amount of normal matter. The leftover, surviving matter is the makeup of the universe)How did you conclude that antimatter is the same as (a synonym for) 'dark matter'?

absael
2007-Sep-17, 08:37 PM
Its all hypothetical. But the facts i put forth are supposed to be the support of my hypotheses. I have put forth a number of factors that are meant to be supportive of one another. Im putting all of these questions and facts together to ultimately give a hypothetical answer to the question of the accelerated expansion of the cosmos.

The fact that a particle hasn't yet been detected doesn't mean that we can ascribe any properties to it that we wish... theory dictates that the antiparticles of chargeless bosons such as the graviton, photon and Z boson are identical to the particles (you could also take this to mean that the antiparticle doesn't exist). If you believe that the theory is incorrect, you should provide some proof, or at least your reasoning for believing so, other than that the existence of particles with those properties would cause accelerating expansion. I saw nothing in any of your posts that explains why the physicists who postulated the existence of the graviton were mistaken in their description of its antiparticle.

Samuel
2007-Sep-17, 10:54 PM
Here's what that source says:And here's what you said:How did you conclude that antimatter is the same as (a synonym for) 'dark matter'?

Good call. My mistake. I meant the other. I apologize for the mess-up.

Samuel
2007-Sep-17, 10:57 PM
The fact that a particle hasn't yet been detected doesn't mean that we can ascribe any properties to it that we wish... theory dictates that the antiparticles of chargeless bosons such as the graviton, photon and Z boson are identical to the particles (you could also take this to mean that the antiparticle doesn't exist). If you believe that the theory is incorrect, you should provide some proof, or at least your reasoning for believing so, other than that the existence of particles with those properties would cause accelerating expansion. I saw nothing in any of your posts that explains why the physicists who postulated the existence of the graviton were mistaken in their description of its antiparticle.

Im not enforcing these properties. I simply intend to set forth an idea that, if my obervations are correct, could explain the proposed question. I do not have the math or a sufficient amount of evidence (this critical evidence doesn't yet exist) to call it a fact, or even a theory, but I do think it is a plausible explanation.

Samuel
2007-Sep-17, 11:01 PM
Here is the first para:Here is what you said:Perhaps, instead of incorrectly summarising a popsci article, you would consider either starting a thread, in BAUT's Q&A section (to make sure your summary is accurate, in terms of current mainstream cosmology), or researching the topic using standard cosmology textbooks or papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals?

That is not the case. I found that article after you asked me for a source. I chose that artice because it is one, of many that say the same thing that I am proposing. It is a reputable source as well. I did not intend to summarize that specific article, but rather use that article (chosen among many) to explain and back up the information I am proposing.

Samuel
2007-Sep-17, 11:45 PM
I think I see what you're getting at Samuel. If matter has gravity via gravitrons, then maybe antimatter has repulsive force via anti-gravitrons, and this is what is causing the universe to expand. Is that a correct assesment of your idea?

A few questions I would pose, in that it's my understanding that there is more matter than anti-matter in the universe. If this is indeed true (I don't know, is it?) then why would the repulsive force of the anti-gravitron overcome the attractive force of gravity? (A)

Also, gravity (thus presumibly "anti-gravity") is a weak force. Would this anti-gravitron be a strong enough force to over come other, more prevelant influences on a universal scale? (B)

Lastly, if this particle exists and is the driving force behind universal expansion, wouldn't it have to exist uniformly in order for the universe to expand, well, uniformly? (C)

I don't know maybe I misunderstand your theory, and with my limited knowlege of such things I dont' even know if my questions make sense. But thats what comes to mind for me.

These are all good questions. As for (A&B), I have come up with three possible answers to these questions.

a. There is more anti gravity causing the universe to ultimately expand to infinite rather than contract. but this explanation leads to other questions like: "why do other systems of gravity (like galaxies, solar system(s), and black holes) manage to coexist along this dominant anti-gravity"? this brings me to explanation b

b. There is equal amounts of gravity and anti-gravity, but due to their very nature, they can coexist without destroying the effects of the other. for example, perhaps if matter is close enough to other matter, normal gravitational force, as we know it, behaves normally (and because of this, systems such as black holes, galaxies, and planetary systems hold themselves together). But since gravity is such a weak force, that it takes an insignificant amount of distance for anti-gravity to take its effect on the large scale (the spaces in between the galaxies) to not only exert its influence, but to get stronger due to the increasing distance. This in turn causes a chain of events, like that in a black hole, but the opposite. just like the self-sustaining, and self-strengthening contracting effect gravity has on a black hole, the spaces in between the spreading galaxies have a self-sustaining, self-strengthening system of expansion, and repulsion.

c. Perhaps there is an equal amound of gravity, and antigravity. but the additional outwards push, provided by the big bang disrupted this equilibrium, thus, causing the universe to expand to infinite.

C: I have 3 possible thoughts on this. Either:

a. It exists in some kind of relation to matter/dark matter, to the same effect that gravity has on matter, and therefore exists within the matter. or to my second proposition b

b. Rather than thriving near any type of matter, dark matter etc... it thrives in voids of matter and/or energy, another property that puts it opposite to normal gravity.

c. It exists semi-uniformly (I say "semi" because perhaps its effects are stretched and amplified near certain properties, like mass) in the quantum foam that makes up the universe and therefore, has a broader influence.

These are actually really good questions, and upon thinking about them, gives me another hypotheses that I am going to post.

Fazor
2007-Sep-18, 12:50 PM
These are actually really good questions, and upon thinking about them, gives me another hypotheses that I am going to post.
Just some advice; before you post a new theory you should make sure you have some good supporting evidence, not just theoretical what-if's.
I understand that you say you do not have the math and/or physics background to go that in-depth with it. That's fine, neither do I. But if you cannot fully support/defend an argument yourself, then perhaps it's a better thread for OTB.
Not trying to overstep my bounds here, but I like when people think outside the box and play the what-if game. But I think you'll have a lot less frustration approaching it in another manner, and the others will have a lot less frustration with a poster who cannot answer their questions about the physics/maths.