As we all know, according to physics law, energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can transformed from one form to another. this is just my curiousity. everything that exists must be created from something. is it energy we using today is originated from energy that several perhaps million years ago? im not so sure if someone can understand what im trying to imply..

Energy from million of yrs ago changed in to carbon/coal/natural gas.. those that u can dig into ground and make into energy.

Current new energy all derive from the sun. From the sun energy it can be disperse to many different place example, plant absorb the energy and provide life. Or it can be harvest using solar energy panel. And so on...

those energy must be created from something right? for example, sun's energy is created from the nuclear fussion inside the sun.

U mean which energy? As i said the energy is from the sun, so created by the sun. Or the energy of wind created by the wind.

True... energy cannot be created or destroyed and can only be transfered... So where does the 1st form of energy come from? Good question hehe, but I doubt there's an answer... not at our current level of understanding and technology hehe

answer=potential energy

If u asking where the first energy comes from then its from God. Just like asking who create earth

Second law of thermodynamic tells us that all forms (energy, particles [particle is a form of energy, e=mcc]) tend to move from order to chaos, which means usable energy reduces, wasted heat increases, hence entropy increases.

If usable energy has no beginning and no end, which means it existed indefinitely long already, by now there should be no more usable energy, as all of them has transformed to wasted heat (entropy increased). This is what physicist called "heat death" phenomenon. The universe is not "heat death" yet could suggest that there is a beginning for usable energy.

Unless you subscribe to the idea that big crunch will occur where the spacetime expansion to reverse and back to blackhole singularity, but I don't see strong evidences supporting such claim.

Isn't "usable energy" need to had a beginning in order for second law to hold true? How could we explain "heat death" is not occurred yet if usable energy had existed indefinitely long ago.

If big bang model holds true, isn't the explosion of the singularity marks the creation (hence the beginning) of the usable energy? The usable energy is formed as part of the power residues resulting from the explosion. After that energy is conserved onwards.

What law of conservation of energy stated is energy can transform to usable + unusable energy, in a conserve way (energy can not be created nor destroyed, but transform) within the current observable timeframe, it doesn't tell if usable energy has a beginning or has an end. Second law of thermodynamic does.

There is one postulate suggests that the sum of energy immediately after big bang is equal to sum of energy that we observed now, and this value is always zero. And hence energy is conserved after the big bang. This sounds convincing.

However, whether energy already existed within the singularity (hence still conserved before and after the big bang) OR it was created right immediately after the big bang is debatable, as at the edge of singularity, law of physics as we know today, doesn't apply.

This post has been edited by nice.rider: Sep 3 2010, 07:22 PM

I guess you are asking for first cause... prior to big bang..... that is what CERN is doing now... maybe you can grab stephen hawking`s latest book

Can you explain this? Energy which is something intangible can change to to coal (tangible).

That's why and where big bang theory come in.

Coal is storing the energy within the its carbon bonding.

You burn coal to release the energy and use the energy.

So it did not changed to carbon as Fifi stated. It got captured by coal. Amazing, tell me how can coal managed to capture energy?

Energy doesn't literally change into carbon. It's absorbed by hydrocarbons, and coal IS one of them. Crude oil and natural gas are another two examples of hydrocarbons.

Not sure about the actual absorption process, my Googling doesn't work well. AFAIK, it's similar to how solar panels or planets absorb sunlight, but I don't know any further than that.

lol.. no energy doesnt change to carbon. Im just giving other examples of energy source other than sun that I stated. Carbon coal deep within the ground is fossil fuel energy.

Coal, oil, fossil fuel come from carbon content materials, aka died plants, died animals, anything related to carbon.

Energy from geometric force, gravity, then turn those carbon into hydrocarbon, (oil, coal, natural gas).

How plants grow?
From solar energy, and various energy source available.

Energy doesn't turn something into carbon.

Basic materials like carbon are exist natural and finite in the first place. Energy (solar, gravity etc) absorbed by earth, just transform how the state of materials, which in turn can be used as energy source.

Just like there is solar energy from the sun.
You use a solar panel, which you turn a solar energy into electrical energy.

Energy is just transform from one another form.

Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in the form of water and carbon dioxide doesn't burn together. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in the form of oxygen molecules and carbohydrates(sugar) can burn together to release heat. Photosynthesis using solar energy in the form of light can convert water and carbon dioxide into oxygen molecules and sugar molecules. The number of atoms have not changed but the form they are in and energy content has changed.

Thanks Smith, I can accept that. Now I am waiting to learn how the absorption process works.

Ah yes, cherroy explained it right. Darn my faulty memory! *slaps head*

Energy is required to form ( or break ) the bonds between atoms which carbon ( or any matter ).

So, to form/break the bonds, energy is 'absorbed'.

Carbon materials like coal are used as energy source because it is easy to unlock the stored energy. In the case of coal is combustion. Nuclear fission is used to unlock/unleash/release the energy in uranium.

Though this is a simplified explanation. A very detail explanation would require going into the fundamental forces.

This post has been edited by befitozi: Sep 6 2010, 07:14 PM

BIG BANG

well the full picture is roughly like this
everything is created in big bang ( which we don't really understand it fully, nor can we explain why does it happen or how things get there)
all the matter-energy in this universe is already fixed since the beginning of time, for it can't be created nor destroyed, but only transformed (conserved)
of course in the 14+- billion years we get various form of energy transformation.
for the fossil fuel you use?
the power of sun is the source of energy of all living things (for it provides energy for the producer, that is, plant)
the energy got transfered to plants then animals, which they used for living processes, making tissues, growth etc.
then they die, got buried. those carbon based living organisms on earth then transformed into fossil fuel by high pressure n temp underground ( i don't really know the complete process)
today we burn them. the energy is stored chemically. in the bonds between the hydrocarbon chains.

does that answer your question?

thanks for all of your comments although some of it is too complex for me to understand however why energy cannot be created? can someone explain?

wait u dun slp im typing

---

Added on September 7, 2010, 2:42 amowh i'm afraid that there is no other explanation other than mass-energy conversion.
mass=energy,
and they can be inter-converted.
to create energy, you need mass.
to say create is not the appropriate word.
in nuclear fusion, fission or antimatter annihilation,
mass is converted into energy.

in accelerating a mass to the speed of light, you put in energy,
and as it gain speed, it gain mass too.

there's a theory called super string theory, under development,
states that everything that exist today, all particles, matter particles or virtual force carriers, energy, everything in this universe, originated from the same thing,
and are different manifestation of the same thing. a string.
a string that can exist in many forms, give rises to different things,
matter and energy are just two examples.
and from the big bang, we learned that things should be already there by the time.
before big bang, whether they exist, or who created them? we don't now.

matter-energy cant be created, this is the nature's way,
just like 1+1 is 2.
we make such conclusion because this is what we observed,
and nature tells us that they cant be created from nothing.
and we make laws of physics based on our observations and inferences.

in physics however, there's a limit whr we can explain things.
for example, we know mass exhibit gravitational pull , or charges exhibits electrical forces,
but why so?
we can't explain. =) hope i helped.

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 7 2010, 02:42 AM

Thanks, this is simple enough. I will not be able to understand anything more advance. I did not go to science stream. I do remember some of these bonding stuff I did in the science for arts students.

Einstein FAIL !!

Ben Rich Lockheed Former CEO
“We now have the technology to take ET home. No, it won’t take someone’s lifetime to do it. There is an error in the equations. We know what it is. We now have the capability to travel to the stars. irst, you have to understand that we will not get to the stars using chemical propulsion. Second, we have to devise a new propulsion technology. What we have to do is find out where Einstein went wrong.”
When Rich was asked how advance propulsion worked, he said, “Let me ask you. How does ESP work?” The questioner responded with, “All points in time and space are connected?” Rich then said, “That’s how it works!”

gravitation: think about your flat mattress, put a bowling ball on it. see it sag down, then put a tennis ball nearby, see it roll towards the bowling ball. bowling ball = big mass, tennis ball = small mass, mattress = space

haha i think you misunderstood what I said.
what you showed is an explanation on the mechanics of gravitation, but not explanation of why it exist.
of course that's a very nice and popular explanation by einstein in his General Relativity.

to show it clearly,
there's 4 fundamental forces in today's universe: Gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear forces.
the mechanics of all 4 forces are almost the same,
the only difference is in their strength, and thus the range.
yes we can explain the mechanics of the forces with mathematical model (in fact every picture/explanation is what we derived from math, including your classical example of gravity's mechanics)
but why do they exist?
no explanation, at least so far.

let's look at electromagnetic force.
charged object possess this force,
the same signs repel and the opposite signs attracts.
but why is this so?
and why is there electrical field in around charged objects?
so far we can only say it's there because it's there,
this is the way it is, what we observed.

Why dont we think this out of the box.. Dont follow the calculation. Redo the calculation. If we keep holding to the old calculation, we still follow the old principle. Paste the gravity, mass and speed calculation and think about it.

"E=mc2" Energy = mass + light.

I get your point.

However, if we look at it that way, then everything has no direct explanation. It is like asking why 1 + 1 = 2. Experimental observation and mathematical modeling together, for me, is adequate.

in fact, the truth,
as stated by physicist like stephen hawking,
is as follow:
though we can define some quantities or explain things or define them in terms of more fundamental quantities (e.g. speed in terms of distance and time),
some concepts are so fundamental that any such attempt leads to a circulation definition like that just stated.
to escape from this, we will have to define such quantities 'operationally', which means we describe what they do,rather than what they are. i.e. we can explain how do they operate.
such as mass, we can explain it through the force an object experiences when exposed to gravity, that is, objects of same mass will experience the same force when placed at the same point or in the same strength of gravitational field.

why physics involves maths so much that one can't really understand it without maths?
because the physical world appears to be largely governed by the laws of cause and effect, and maths is used to explain such casual relationship,
and it is used to make prediction and measurement.
every single row of correct maths equation or formula that can be written is a valid representation of certain event in this physical world.

Math is a fail .. dont use it. Think Logic. Think outside the box. Think Nature law. Nature will show us the right way.
Gravity has its highest and lowest point. Like you see earth have Ozone layer. Certian gravity pull ozone together and certian gravity pull dirt and people to the ground. The core.. its there the center of no gravity.

Eg. Nucleus cell. Proton & electron. Sun and planets.

They all follow different gravity to maintain their position. If gravity is but one. We would have all the planets flying side by side with earth.
Same as ozone layer would be at our heads or feet.
Law of gravity has many pulls and push but never as one.

Math is the language of logics. You cannot talk about complex logics without maths. Physics uses maths extensively because there are regularities in nature that can be represented by maths. Maths describes that regularities or patterns precisely, and according to logical rules established in maths, these equations of nature phenomena can be manipulated in forms and structures to yield different perspectives of the same reality. Like looking at the other side of the same coin. In physics, without maths, you can hardly formulate your idea for others to test it out, which again calls for maths to know if the test is good or not. Again the reason being that we expect nature to be rational and consistent, like if we throw the same ball over and over again, we expect to see the same trajectories which can be modeled by maths.

I don't know where you get your information, but what you are saying is perhaps the weirdest thing i have heard of so far

2 corrections here to be done, to prevent misunderstanding of certain concepts,
or we will mislead the public here.
the logic and maths part has been explained by SpikeMarlene, which I strongly agree with.

next, gravity,
it is the weakest force of all the 4 fundamentals.
in the body too small its mass to exhibit significant gravitational force,
the other 3 forces kick in.
in a nucleus or even among the quarks in proton, or between protons and neutrons,
the strong and weak nuclear force dominate at this small scale.
for charged particles such as proton and electron, or quarks or leptons to be more precise,
electromagnetic force plays an important role.

to show how weak is gravitational force as compared to, let's say, electromagnetic force,
try to think of the giant magnet used in lifting cars in junkyard.
with the tremendous mass of earth, the gravitational force that it exerts on the car is easily overcame by using juz a normal electromagnet like this.


centre of zero gravity?
well there is indeed such region beneath our foot.
but it's not in the centre of the earth,
simply because the earth itself as a whole has different densities at different point,
the deeper we get to the core,
the denser it is.
thus we get an imbalance distribution of mass, thus gravitational force.
the neutral point should be in between the surface and the core.

and in fact science, logic and math is what we used to find and explain the law of nature.
so true that it is undeniable since the modern science revolution, at the time of galileo galilei.

2 corrections here to be done, to prevent misunderstanding of certain concepts,
or we will mislead the public here.
the logic and maths part has been explained by SpikeMarlene, which I strongly agree with.

Logic accept for calculation but not all calculation are correct.

next, gravity,
it is the weakest force of all the 4 fundamentals.
in the body too small its mass to exhibit significant gravitational force,
the other 3 forces kick in.
in a nucleus or even among the quarks in proton, or between protons and neutrons,
the strong and weak nuclear force dominate at this small scale.
for charged particles such as proton and electron, or quarks or leptons to be more precise,
electromagnetic force plays an important role.

Still it maintain orbit around the core but not away from the core .. still no answer to how the core maintain gravity pulls.


to show h
ow weak is gravitational force as compared to, let's say, electromagnetic force,
try to think of the giant magnet used in lifting cars in junkyard.
with the tremendous mass of earth, the gravitational force that it exerts on the car is easily overcame by using juz a normal electromagnet like this.
centre of zero gravity?

If we stay on a place govern by high gravity, we will not know its effect as our body tends to adapt to the pulls. As you know astronaut have decrease in their bone mass the longer they stay in space because of absent in gavity in space. Magnetic force which is larger in scale effect larger mass, the magnet lifting the car is but a small concentrated magnetic force with only have the purpose to lift ONE car at a time or a limitied load. Gravity has to pull the mass of the earth together and earth to the sun without getting too close to the sun.
Might say the core pull the earth crust and the crust pull us and the sun pull earth all at the same line of path.


well there is indeed such region beneath our foot.
but it's not in the centre of the earth,

Its from the crust as gravity around the world shift. (eg real document. Car that goes up the hill without any engine assist or any other perpetual stuff cause of force unknown. This one already defies the law of gravity. Insted of going down .. it went up.

simply because the earth itself as a whole has different densities at different point,
the deeper we get to the core,
the denser it is.
thus we get an imbalance distribution of mass, thus gravitational force.
the neutral point should be in between the surface and the core.

FAIL .. Earth is Hollow. Logic not accepted.

well human has the right to stand out for what they believe in and thus has freedom in practicing certain believe.
you believe in your claim, that's very well.
perhaps you have faith in something other then science?
no one in this world can stop you.

but, to my curiosity,
allow me to ask,
where did you get all those information or teachings?
what do you practice if it is not science like much of the human on earth do?

no offense intended.

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 11 2010, 09:02 PM

huh? what talking you?

Science is theorize by thinking but proof is made available until experiment is conducted. Some proof require experience before theory. As the case for "made man of science", they have first experience it before they theorize it.

I will ask you, what is underneath the earth? You might like to picture it as science would .. core, mantle and crust, nothing else. But have you ever gone inside a cave?
Read stories which have connection about the earth.
Ill give you the story of Admiral Byrd and Olaf Jensen. It does have connection with the Jules Vern "Journey to the center of the earth".

Logic theory require proof but some proof have logic in it which we will never understand and denied it.
I stand with the human science once before, but too many loop holes it provide and some are coverd by just "make-up" science, i turn into Nature science of logics.



This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 12 2010, 10:28 PM

create here does not mean take oil and create heat if I add spark

create here imply to generate or comeout with the energy from NOTHING at all... the moment of big bang...

what we see, hear, experience, feel is what exist from the big bang. Energy existed long before that, we just harvest, change its form to what we want, merge its magnitude and sadly left it in useless state which many people say we run out of energy... which in realty, we left it in useless state. we burn petrol for car emission, left it in carbon monoxide which cant be harvested for anything usefull

screwballX
.... okay, so show us the logic and 'nature science of logic's' way of explanation?
story is story,
i gave up on fiction since I was in standard 2.
started reading science since then.
well if it's not the things mentioned by science,
then wat's in it?
another world? with a sun in it? and high-level living creatures?


awakened_angel.
okay, and ya this is real Okay lmao,
good for emphasizing on the definite meaning of 'create',
it makes things clearer and more understandable.

and,as I can recall,
I've seen d equation
E=mcc
above?
I'd just learnt today, that this equation actually represents the change in mass as a inevitable consequent of the change in energy,
rather than change of mass causing the change in energy.
the real cause of release of energy is in the transformation of the arrangement of the particles into a lower energy state, thus the excess energy is released, which is accompanied by loss in mass,
that is calculated thru this equation

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan

KeNGZ,
Advance life form, Another world .. who knows maybe. But mostly i focus is the inner sun. The traverlers refer as crust about 800 Miles thick and hollow with a small sun. I would not belived it but some actual science is applied do make sense to me..
Take a raw egg and spin it then stop it immedietly and release it .. It still spin a bit .. Take a hard boil egg .. spin it and stop it .. it will stop without any movement at all. Like all motion mechanics, there is a force to move it. Just like a ball rolling, either it must be kick which use impact force or push on a slope area which use gravity as its force. In order to have motion, one must pull and one must push.
How does the earth spin? Sun provide our earth with a large rotation which we rotate around the sun.. so what makes our earth rotate?


"Earth seems to have a heart beat called the Schumann Resonance where it has been observed that the earth's magnetic field resonates with a heart beat of 7.83 Hz from electromagnetic resonances in the cavity of our hollow earth. These resonances were first discovered by Nicola Tesla in 1899 which he used to develop a method of transmitting electricity through the air and the earth. The earth's magnetic field is generated by the earth's shell with a negative charge rotating about the inner sun with a positive charge similar to the way a common dynamo generates a magnetic field." - a science person.

Yes, Nicola Tesla.. the guy who introduce AC. Most of his experiment did base on free energy but decline and dissaproved by government which prefer to use oil as it profits them. As you see today, oil controls everything. If you search on Nicola past experiment, you will find that he already have harness the energy made by earth itself for FREE. All which you read have link one to another.
Sciencetist today have said to know how the universe run and the big bang theory. But they did not see it, they have no doubt in their theory about the universe but assume by just looking at stars and meteorite. They assume they know the galaxy. But on earth, there some unexplained event happen.. still they are unable to solved it in science theory. Yet they cant link all the galaxy behaviour until it happens.
Solved our mistery before solving the universe mistery. There is a lot of holes to cover.



@linOOb

As you know some are unable to belived until seen but some belived and theorize the science effect which do have connection.. If what you see in the picture do remind us... we know so little of the world.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread592042/pg1

This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 13 2010, 09:58 AM

boy is this going OT, anyway, a simple google turns out this: why does the earth rotate

anyway, i would argue that the earth is more like a raw egg than a hard boiled egg. as the mantle is liquid. your hollow earth is more like an empty egg shell. try spinning that and see what the result is like

Simple Children science webpage ... neat.. havent seen it for a long long time.

Let me simplify to you..

Egg have yolk and liquid surrounding the yolk, shell as skin protective and to hold it together. Earth have inner sun (yolk) and dense atmospere (liquid) protect by crust also hold it together(shell).

how is that in anyway different from a metal core, a liquid mantle and a solid crust? and the sun, is it hollow too?

science way of logic exist no less than 5 century.. it is about a genius with his logical midset, predicts a natural phenomenon(hypothesis), set the boundaries/parameters/variables, run an experiment to test it, get the results, use math to compute the result and try to derive a relationship between the variables, inputs and outputs known as formulae

science is what makes us logical, fiction is what motivate us to apply the science that we discover for better

"science without religion is blind; religion without science is lame" Albert Einstein

I do believe many scientist/engineer are motivated or inspired by science fiction



you are welcome.... one english word has totally different meaning in various faculty


it can also mean the energy released if amount of mass collides at the speed of light or on the contrary, the amount of energy needed to accelerate a certain mass to the speed of light...

This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Sep 13 2010, 10:57 PM

Here is the science today depict the earth:

Earth has a diameter of about 12,756 km (7,972 mi). The Earth's interior consists of rock and metal. It is made up of four main layers:
1) the inner core: a solid metal core made up of nickel and iron (2440 km diameter)
2) the outer core: a liquid molten core of nickel and iron
3) the mantle: dense and mostly solid silicate rock
4) the crust: thin silicate rock material

The temperature in the core is hotter than the Sun's surface. This intense heat from the inner core causes material in the outer core and mantle to move around."

Now, Ill ask you..
1. How they know the make-up of the earth core and contents ?
2. If they measure the earth outer diameter how come they can come out with the earth core diameter ?
3. If the core temperature is hotter than the surface of the sun. How they measure it ? Any equipment would melt before reaching the core.
4. Can you name me technology that can drill all the way to the earths core?

Most of all, Why information regarding the earth core is so little? Just 4 ? And its by THEORY. Do i need to belived them? I should... they are scientice but i dont cause they cant answer anything but just by theory.

While travelers provide with a lot of proof since ancient times.

We are looking answer about the earth not the Sun. But ill stop here since the Topic is about Energy .. I will not stray out of topic ..

P/S - You know about the Kota Kinabalu UFO appearing news? Wonder where they come from? Mostly ufo appeared "NEAR MOUNTAINS". I guess a HOLE somewhere underwater lead into the Mount and go all the way down.... Nahhh must be a DREAM!~~~~~ or a fiction... or a make-up....
Just follow your mainstream science and forget about what i put up. I will discontinue the topic .. lets talk energy ... weeeeeeeee ~~

P/SS - Real experience people.

The Latest on Quantum Gravity
When I wrote Hollow Planets I was very impressed with the theories of Microwave Engineer, Ron Kotas. Ron says there is a link between electricity and gravity. I asked him how things were going. It turns out that in spite of his lectures via science societies and the fact that he debates directly with scientists on their level, they just give him the cold shoulder. Sad isn't it? Here's Ron's update:-

Dear Jan:
Received your e-mail ok. In relation to my gravity theory, there is another APS (American Physical Society) meeting in Albequeque, New Mexico in April. I don't know if I'll be able to attend. I still have a lot to do with my actual book, and that might take a number of years to complete.

When I wrote to NASA in relation to the Foucault Pendulum article they had on the web, I found that the head scientist even discounted the information NASA provided in its own web site. He didn't believe the pendulum shifted at all and thought I was trying to tell him the earth was shifting 13.5 degrees. Some of these people seem pretty well mind set on Einstein's general relativity, and sometimes it seems hopeless to bring up anything new or different.

Keep working on things. Is your New York trip business or pleasure. Maybe a combination of both. I hope you have a good trip.

Ron Kotas
Grand Quantum Research


This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 13 2010, 11:02 PM

there is a very easy debunk for hollow earth theory, the gravity force of the the earth will be much different because the mass of the earth will be much lower, or the crust need to much denser, which mean the crust must not be make up something much heavier rock which we have no reason to believe it is not. the deepest hole ever dig by human are 12,262 metres in the kola penisular, and there are many other deep hole that do several km into the crust, they did not find layer of mush denser material..

scientist know about the layer because of seismology pick up the wave generated by earth quake bouncing off the different layer




scientific theory are not just speculation, please read up on what a scientific theory actually is

---

Added on September 13, 2010, 11:43 pmabout the inner sun, dont it make sense if there is a sun in the hollow earth sun light will shine out of the hole of the crust??

This post has been edited by robertngo: Sep 13 2010, 11:43 PM

All the energy in the world and universe must have origin from a single source, otherwise the theory of energy would not be valid. Scientists have reasons to believe that big bang was the source of our universe. In layman terms, big bang is like a massive explosion, which occurred at extremely high temperature, along with a lot of energy. As the universe expand and cool down, these energy particles become highly unstable at lower temperature, and transform into mass.

The mass later coagulate and became larger particle, and soon enough, all the sun, planets were created.

It's like how mass cannot be created (in general terms). We slice an apple in half. We blend half of it, put it into a cup, then add the other half and weight it. It would maintain the same weight as earlier. Same goes to energy. Only that we cannot see how it happen.

If i may add, in science, a theory is the STRONGEST.


Real life experience has ZERO weight on a scientific argument. Why? Because it is neither controlled nor repeatable.

I think your doubts on this stem from your first post in this topic

I guess you have no idea how powerful maths are in determining the unobservable.

This post has been edited by befitozi: Sep 14 2010, 12:21 AM

Not sure what you are trying to imply here. But Ron Kotas study the Foucault Pendulum behavior during solar eclipse. The discovery is nothing new, only that Ron Kotas suggested a theory that Gravity and Gravitation are an Electromagnetic phenomenon based at the nucleon level. Source

There are countless submission which try to relate gravity with electromagnetic theory. It is all part of efforts to contribute to the string theory.

is big bang the source, or is big bang the limit of our observation/calculation/equation?

IMHO, from what I read & watch(astro551-555), the big bang that resulted us is creating this "VISIBLE" universe.. which is a giant sphere containing our universe.... as far as human can perceive(theoretically) which is 15 billion light years in diameter

and there are millions of such universe out there............ somce scientise call it (parallel universe) or other dimensions.......

This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Sep 14 2010, 01:40 AM

All our observations seem to converge to a single origin, which is the big bang. By observing the universe, when they work backward to create the big bang theory; and then using the big bang model (mathematically simulated) to predict other cosmology event, it come out quite accurate.

But still, Big Bang is just a theory. I won't say it is the ultimate truth. Maybe there are still missing information due to our limitation in observation, or equations yet to be developed. This information can be supportive or negative to the big bang theory. Who knows....

For now, the theory is very convincing. A lot of papers and writings suggest the same. Even few unrelated study has also indirectly support the theory.

Yup, visible universe, as in the space we are living now. The visible universe that hold the energy.

Parallel universes theory is rather pre-mature and still very shallow, too many assumptions. I like the idea, but I find it difficult to believe in.

then why say big bang created energy and matter (and thus inferring that energy and matter needs to be created)? Energy/matter may well exist before big bang, but we cannot observe/calculate it.

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 8:38 amWhy dont you google earth and find out if they HAVE any picture of a COMPELETE north pole and south pole.

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 9:55 amIll open the Hollow earth theory Theads.


This post has been edited by ScrewBallX: Sep 14 2010, 09:55 AM

einstein aint live long enough to answer this.. hope hawking could finish the equation

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 2:26 pmmain stream science are like traditional people... they cant accept new ideas unless it is proven on the LAB.. not on papers...

P/S feel free to watch this link....

http://www.tom365.com/movie_2004/html/8489.html

This post has been edited by Awakened_Angel: Sep 14 2010, 02:26 PM

== im lasy to retype things about big bang and how did the matter-energy created/origin from.
find it here, the whole process of big bang.
i posted a reply to the topic of creation of the universe and thus everything in it.
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...post&p=36264943


and I'm a science-main stream student.
not quite true to say it that way, or did I get you wrong?
before the acceptance of an idea, we speculate and test it.
'test' does not necessarily means testing in LAB.
just like you learn new ideas on physics from the textbook,
you surely don't carry out all experiment to prove everything for yourself, but you still accept it.
why?
because it makes sense to you.
it is logical
string theory, or M theory,
they are theoretical physics.
and can't be really proven in lab.
theoretical physics require mostly workings on paper, using mostly math.
and how do those theories get so far and dominated?
because they make sense.
they are logical as seemed to all human mind.

for the, there's 2 type of people who practices science.
1. the type that only learns and applies, without questioning much about them.and thus they can't accept new ideas beyond what they've learnt.
2. the type that is standing outside the box, and they can speculate the how correct is the existing theory, and they can develop new ideas.
best example? einstein and stephen hawking and all those string theorists. they are creative.

---

Added on September 14, 2010, 3:21 pmanother way,
using the science's way of getting the trust of people.
logical proof.
prove and explain the formation of a hollow-core planet?
if you succeeded in doing so,
Nobel prize is waiting for u

This post has been edited by KeNGZ: Sep 14 2010, 03:21 PM

The theory converge to a single point of origin. Energy spark off the moment big bang happen. The pre-big bang theory is still under development. Time to time, there are new discovery that challenge or support the theory. I try not to direct readers to any single theory, as the discussion is about energy. That is another huge debatable topic....

Main stream science is what govern our day-to-day physics, hypothetical theory like string theory is way beyond my head I'm more of an applied science (yea, type 1).

Theory is fine, but to explain it in physics (mathematically speaking) is very subjective. New discovery on a previously assumed parameter could easily change half of the results. I'm not that good at drawing fast conclusion unless it is really convincing. It all boils down to assumptions drawn during writing. Certain assumptions are rather fictional, not until it was proven.

Like the dude who suggest that the earth is hollow, base on the assumption off aurora effect, and non-creditable writings..... well

If you want to know something about string theory and the practice of science, read this book

The trouble with physics by lee smolin

http://www.thetroublewithphysics.com/

It is one of the best science books I read in years.

i've heard of the book's name in my book too.
is it available in any bookstore?
or do I have to order from amazon lol