theory of relativity is a consequence of the law E = mc * 2, which states that any body, speeding up the speed of light, is transformed into energy, but what is the matter and energy? if any body can become energy, matter is only made of the same substance? photon?! What we perceive as energy is a tentative issuance photon waiting to be re-absorbed into the matter, brought into the orbits of the electrons, which become increasingly complex and articulated. And the proton? because it turns into photons? or otherwise we could never divide it into at least making it even more elementary particles travel at the speed of light? if the proton energy could be, there would be a complete and continuous transformation of matter and energy, that is, if the stars that produce photons, could transform the whole of their mass, what would be the star?
Einstein's law E = mc * 2 excludes antimatter. By studying the atomic nucleus, it was discovered not only the existence of many other types of particles of low mass inferirore to that of protons and neutrons, but also of antimatter, and its interaction with matter, producing energy. Why do not you think therefore that matter, instead of becoming energy can become antimatter, and that the speed of light is therefore an apparent physical limit. Form of anti-matter can reach any speed. Is it such an opportunity that makes the proton inseparable, as also being formed of antimatter, do not know what to become.
theory of relativity has also changed our understanding of gravity, which becomes the result of four-dimensional geometry of space.
He compared the influence of the gravitational field that of a ball resting on a flexible plan, as a body that travels at the speed of light, does not follow a linear mathematical law, so you can think of it, but follow a linear motion in a curved space, as if space were made of an ethereal substance, deformable funnel-shaped. The comparison was a great success with a famous experiment, conducted in 1919, during a solar eclipse, by Eddington, the deviation of light rays of the stars near large masses like stars themselves. I think that gravity can be regarded not as the result of attraction between heavenly bodies, but the behavior of a heavenly body, when inserted in a field made up of particles, ie a particle will move towards a star not because they were attracted by the star, but why hit by the photons emitted by it, absorbed it, nor affect its motion, which is Devit to fall toward the star, following an almost linear, or curved and orbital like the one that leads to the formation of planets. The atoms are aggregated, first joining in less stable bonds such as molecular covalent, ionic, and then, in which electrons form a cloud that moves inside a rigid aggregate of atomic nuclei. The stars are the result of a more intense aggregation of atoms, which, no longer able to keep the electron cloud from which they were surrounded, they expel the form of photons, but along but not more curved paths straight. This huge emission of photons by the stars, should lead the star to eat and disperse their energy into space, but from my point of view, in reality, the photons are not lost or sold, but are transformed into a small vortex that collects all particles dispersed in space, getting them to enter the gravitational field of the star from which, and most of them in fall, with a rectilinear motion, the star quickly.
Holes blacks should not be construed as the heavenly bodies from which nothing comes out, otherwise how do you create a gravitational field?! Currently it is thought that the force of gravity is carried by gravitons, but (note 1) the same assumption the existence of gravitons, particles that carry the gravitational force, would make the assumption that a body like the blacks holes, emitting particles, all matter can not converge. The severity according to physicists, is transmitted by micro-called gravitons, which has never been detected experimentally 's existence, nor gravitons may be different from the particles already observed. And also, if there was a force gravitazinale, because all the particles observed in the masses, you also attract gravitationally?. Scientists still want to detect gravitational waves as vibrations were issued for example by the explosion of supernovae, through detectors silver much like radio antennae.
The Newton's law of gravity is therefore to be revised because it is more the result of 'attraction between two bodies in space, where the attraction is mutual, but as the induction of a body which is invested in a field whose magnitude is measured, as if, knowing how many particles are there in a given gravitational space, we could predict what happens to a body When, it is invested.
THE BIG BANG THEORY - The discovery that galaxies are moving, in 1929, Hubble has given rise to the Big Bang theory, a theory full of various oddities. The Big Bang theory was born when Hubble discovered the motion of galaxies, by examining the light spectrum of light emanating from them, as a result of a Doppler effect, called redshift, clearly showed that they move. I think it fails to consider the photon as a particle, but as in the aforementioned experiment Eddington in 1919, scientists today consider it to be susceptible to the force of gravity, which would stretch the wavelength. The photons seem susceptible to the force of gravity as shown by the phenomenon of gravitational lensing (ie, a star is able to divert the path of a light beam emitted from the stars behind them until they appear in a different position from that observed without the star itself). This, however, shows that the behavior of the photon is similar to other particles. And so that the photons have a maximum term of life, which could be about 15 billion years, so it is not possible to observe a star at a distance of more than 15 billion light years. If the photons have eternal life, the universe being infinite, the sky appears to us and fully illuminated. If Cosmo had originated from a Big Bang, matter (and even galaxies) should be distributed on the surface of a sphere, uniformly, or at least within a sphere, and we, looking at the sky, we notice them or along a strip in space as in the first case, or to some horizon, and do not see anything below (in the first case) and not anything above it. Perhaps some would object by saying that the light being trapped by the gravity of the Cosmos, would be captured and forced to turn back, but in this case would notice the galaxies moving towards us. The galaxies appear rather chaotically distributed, and the simple fact that they move without any order (some are even the result of a collision), suggests that not go in any direction common and are not influenced by any gravitational field, and not depart smoothly from nothing in common.
If it were true that the universe is expanding, and then it all away from each other and therefore from our own, the radiation emitted light was red redshift only, except for those galaxies along the line that connects us to the point of origin, which appears blue to us, if there are galaxies behind. The galaxies are in a state of chaos, and can not be otherwise, because they are the heavenly bodies as large as possible, any celestial body can change their movement, trapping it in larger gravitational orbits, can not be larger celestial bodies or dense, because there is a limit, namely the impossibility for the matter to travel at speeds exceeding that of light. If the galaxies were driven by the explosion of the Big Bang and expanding as never formed galaxies and stars, many of which have billions of years, even 15 billion years, and even death to give rise to neutron stars, blacks holes or supernova?
The densification which resulted in the formation of stars would have to stop the expansion process. E 'must also say that the cosmos is not only expanding but also in decline, would not otherwise have formed the stars, because the formation of a star comes from a process of densification of the material, and the cosmos would be a cloud of elementary particles ! How to explain the presence in the sky diametrically opposed positions of galaxies of age 15 billion years, the distance separating each other? It 'so obvious that the Universe was born 15 billion years ago. This is just the maximum limit that can get our attention. Why do you think that the universe had an origin at the same time when we know it is infinite, and therefore without origin! We were able to observe at least 10 billion galaxies, each of which consists of billions of stars: why we think that their subject, in a moment of the past, could be thickened in a single infinitesimal point you should then think null and nonexistent? and what can be triggered by the explosion of a single body, which the Universe as it is theorized, without the intervention of an external cause? To me it seems obvious to deduce that if there are external forces, it can only explode or implode! The Universe would have been born from one celestial body, that all matter concentrated at a point in the smallest atomic particle, which means you have the strange belief that the matter infinitely thickener, ie, that nothing has been thought possible to limit the possibility concentration of matter, and then the infinitesimal atomic particle, when we identified the smallest atomic quark particles. And even if it were true that there may be very dense bodies, should therefore think that the matter in the universe is slowly orderly orbits gravitational ever larger, ie galaxies that revolve around larger bodies, which in turn rotate other bodies more dense and so on, when we see do not be so. They also argue that if the Universe originated from a Big Bang, exploded a particle is the smallest atom, and even then it says it is not the only one, namely that the universe did not originate by a single particle. The universe can not be done. If the universe had a limit, beyond that limit should we think that there is another. The Universe is infinite or finite? In my opinion, depending on your point of view, that is to be considered infinite if it is examined in its three-dimensional shape, and ended when observed in its four-dimensional. But at this point we wonder: Are there higher dimensions? No, because the fourth dimension must be understood as the limit beyond which a three-dimensional world can only be transformed, but without being able to exist with the previous one, which is to say that contemporary three-dimensional world can not exist, much less contemporary four-dimensional worlds can exist.
Moreover, if the weather is the last physical dimension of space, we should conceive of the cosmos or immutable, that is all that is past or future is also present, ie, infinite-dimensional three-dimensional parallel (and it is possible to jump into his past by changing history, erasing the chance to be born, or go back to the future with scientific inventions that no one will invent more) or we can conceive the fourth dimension may be limited and only moment of transition, in which the past can become present, without returning the past and the present become the future but none of these three worlds can coexist with each other, meaning you can just stop time, ie away from the surface space of time, as indifferent to gravity, and thereby also make super-fast interstellar travel, as well as meet in future. Our perspective of the universe changes with the speed with which people can travel in it. We see the Universe like the three-dimensional look as if it were infinite, because we can not see it as a whole, so what's there. But in addition it can only be nothing, then we can not separate because we made of nothing, that could not exist. Holes blacks can not exist as understood, were never observed, nor even their possible influence, such as for example the gradual disappearance of certain stars in any region of the sky, or the movement of many galaxies show an escape into their direction, and rotated with the blacks holes, galaxies appear disporsi along a single orbital plane. The holes have been theorized to blacks when it was realized that the gravity can converge the light radiation, but starting perhaps wrongly assumed that gravity cues from nothing.
Stars such as quasars and pulsars, rotating at very high speeds, and are believed to be holes blacks, who reject material captured in a single large project, which revolves with them and makes them look buttons. But because it is a visible phenomenon? If a black hole should not dismiss the matter!
If the universe is expanding, a black hole would stop. If the universe after 15 billion years there was some black hole, should there be someone at least large enough to be noticed, as swallowing stars, there should be some that disappear.
If our universe was a section of a three-dimensional space to four dimensions, born of a black hole that ejects matter from a different dimension of space-time, would be in equilibrium with another universe, like a game of ping-pong, but if you believe that the expansion of our Universe is unidirectional, holes blacks there would be only one.
GEOLOGY - The theory of continental drift
E 'was made a stupid theory that the continents would have been merged into a single continent called Pangea, that the continents were joined along the margin by which they are wet from the seas, as if they were floating rafts on the ocean, but without considering the tectonic plates submerged. It should instead reflect on the fact that the turf is made from which the earth's crust, whose failure is caused by the movement of magma below, may be subjected to seismic movements and earthquakes caused by movement and weight of the oceans and especially the weight of accumulated ice at the poles, and whose influence depends on the rotation of the Earth and by changing the temperature of glaciation. The waters of the seas, running first in the fracture lines and then in the lower areas of the crust, have compounded the erosion of the continents, and in some places ile coasts of the continents appear to parallel this pattern.
0 comments:
Post a Comment