[socratus]

But today the Oficial Church of Science says
" The Big Bang theory" is the "first law of Universe".
Problema...........
Again we come to situation when " the sun turns around the earth".
............................
Nothing is new under the Sun.

[bottomlander]

Originally Posted by socratus But today the Oficial Church of Science says " The Big Bang theory" is the "first law of Universe".

The "first law of Universe" should be a natural law, or else no law was required.
If the law was of a style of Cosmological Blue Print, it implies the pre-existence of a Designer or Creator.
If the law was too flexible, it implies multi-universe with multi-sets of laws from same initial situation (nothingness).

Crazy!

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by socratus Was Vacuum born from Big Bang? =================

Socratus;
Vacuum and space are synonymous in their meaning, so just as space was created by the big bang, so was any vacuum. The substance for space and vacuum however existed within the eternal void prior to the big bang event. Nothing has ever really been created by any cosmic event, only the fundamental substance has been transformed by the interactions of various vibrations, motions, collisions, and bonding properties of the substance. (it sticks to itself when relative motion is near zero)

BTW: When it comes to science, NEVER listen to Michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

First natural law of the universe___Uniform randomness evolves into random uniformity...

Lloyd

Originally Posted by bottomlander The "first law of Universe" should be a natural law, or else no law was required. If the law was of a style of Cosmological Blue Print, it implies the pre-existence of a Designer or Creator. If the law was too flexible, it implies multi-universe with multi-sets of laws from same initial situation (nothingness). Crazy! Best Regards. Bottomlander

[socratus]

Why does Physics have two different theories:
Classic and Quantum ( + SRT) ?
============ ========= ========= ======
Because:
1.
In CT time and space are two different mathematical objects,
and in QT they are one connected object (system).
2.
In CT mass and energy are two different physical parametres
and in QT they are joint parametres (in one particpe ).
3.
In CT rest energy of one particle is equal to zero,
and in QT rest energy of one particle is equal E=M^2.
4.
In CT the reason of motion is outside impulse,and
in QT the reason of motion is inner impulse of particle.
5.
The CT explains the change of position of one particle
(object)by Galileo transformation, and QT explains the change
of position of one particle by Lorentz transformation.
6.
The CT uses principles of causality and determination
to explain behaviour of one particle, and the QT uses
Heisenberg,s "Principle of Uncertainty " for this aim.

What is the reason for these differences?
The reason is one:
The QT discribes the behaviourof photon/electron
(in Vacuum and microcosm), and the CT discribes the
behaviourof of all other particles, objects
(in our 3D Earth space and macrocosm ).
The CT and QT are two breanches of one tree of Physics,
which we must understand and describe in objectiive terms
(and not be surprised by their paradoxs).
============ ========= ==

[socratus]

Some remark about SRT.
===================
The formula E=Mc^2 continues to providethe answers to Physics.
1.
Photon is some " form of energy".
2.
Like a " form of energy" it has the rest energy: E=Mc^2.
3.
This photon has a mass.
But in many books it is written:
"...remember that this (photon,s)energy has mass
in accondance with the equation: M=E/c^2
(mass equal to energy divided by speed squared).
It is not correct.
Why?
Because SRT shows that mass and energy are equivalent:
the property called mass is simple concentrated energy.
In other words massof photon is its energy, and its energy
is its mass, and the distinctionis a simple play of words.
So, the mass of photon is: M=Ec^2 (mass equal to its
potential (rest) energy multiplied (not divided)
by speed squared).
So, it seems we are in some " fairy ring":
E=Mc^2 and M= Ec^2.
When the question is:
How does this potential (rest)energy/mass of one photon
become kinetic and active?
Or in another words:
What does the Law of transformation and conservation
energy/mass mean according to one single photon?
==================================

[dleviwing]

Socratus;
The mass of a photon is called “Relative Mass” as is the mass increase of a moving object or particle. The equation refers to the conversion of “REST MASS” to energy. A photon DOES NOT have “Rest Mass”. All the books that just say “Mass” are referring to “Rest Mass” values. Older text and Einstein’s original works did not distinguish a difference in the two until 1925.

BTW: QT is classical once you remove the bull.

[socratus]

The information:
**...Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent:
the property called mass is simple concentrated energy.
In other words massof photon is its energy, and its energy
is its mass,**
and the distinctionis a simple ....play of words.
I took from the book
** The Universe and Dr.Einstein**
By Lincoln Barnett
With a Foreword by ALBERT EINSTEIN.
/Rart 8; page 70/.

[dleviwing]

Socratus;
Lincoln Barnett’s book is excellent for the general population who wish to have some idea of Einstein’s work but it is hardly a reference for science terminology or even science. Mr. Barnett does not even have a degree in any of the physical sciences.

Both Energy and Mass are quantitative measurement terms; otherwise they are dimensions and not entities of the universe. That is why the terms are related by a factor of motion. (c^2) Don’t worry socratus, you seem to have good clarity of thought; just get a better selection of real science text!

BTW: My statements are facts, not opinions. Don’t be another pinhead that thinks facts are debatable or that you comprehend them better than someone with over 40 years experience in the field of radiometry and scientific instrumentation.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Stick with it Socratus, this makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by socratus Why does Physics have two different theories: Classic and Quantum ( + SRT) ? ============ ========= ========= ====== Because: 1. In CT time and space are two different mathematical objects, and in QT they are one connected object (system). 2. In CT mass and energy are two different physical parametres and in QT they are joint parametres (in one particpe ). 3. In CT rest energy of one particle is equal to zero, and in QT rest energy of one particle is equal E=M^2. 4. In CT the reason of motion is outside impulse,and in QT the reason of motion is inner impulse of particle. 5. The CT explains the change of position of one particle (object)by Galileo transformation, and QT explains the change of position of one particle by Lorentz transformation. 6. The CT uses principles of causality and determination to explain behaviour of one particle, and the QT uses Heisenberg,s "Principle of Uncertainty " for this aim. What is the reason for these differences? The reason is one: The QT discribes the behaviourof photon/electron (in Vacuum and microcosm), and the CT discribes the behaviourof of all other particles, objects (in our 3D Earth space and macrocosm ). The CT and QT are two breanches of one tree of Physics, which we must understand and describe in objectiive terms (and not be surprised by their paradoxs). ============ ========= ==

Don't let Dave get to you, he quite often makes no sense, except to himself.

Originally Posted by david BTW: My statements are facts, not opinions. Don’t be another pinhead that thinks facts are debatable or that you comprehend them better than someone with over 40 years experience in the field of radiometry and scientific instrumentation.

If you know so much David, why don't you explain to us exactly where in the real physical universe, em waves, and wave interferences(as such) turn into real solid object matter?___Physically Where? Not only has no-one on this board explained where this process takes place, or what scientific prime mover, moves fundamental waves, no-one in the entire physics community has, either. So much for your abstract facts, David...

Go back to the drawing board. There's a lot more to learn, before you know...

Lloyd