Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / July 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

ThreadLast Post  Replies
English Translation of Ritz' 1908 Work (for John Kennaugh)31 Jul 2006 12:18 GMT1
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm
Vern
The phrase 'dark matter'30 Jul 2006 20:10 GMT56
Does anyone know when and by whom the phrase 'dark matter'
was first coined?
Stephen
Scientific proof  of God is possible.30 Jul 2006 18:29 GMT4
Creating all MATERIAL WORLD  the God
could only working in  an absolute reference system
and only under  physical and mathematical laws.
========================
Is there a theory or formula that "explains" the universe?30 Jul 2006 15:38 GMT26
Hello, I am an ignorant layman with only rudimentary knowledge of math
and physics. I read about things like the Unified Field Theory, Theory
of Everything, etc, which I understand have not been developed yet, but
I am wondering if there exists a theory or mathematical formula that
COLLIDER FOLLY30 Jul 2006 03:52 GMT3
Collider Folly
Recall New Year, 2000?  Everybody was excited about the arrival of
"the new millennium". Advertising on TV was full of it, so was
radio and the print media as well as the general populace. "The new
THE MODERN PHYSICIST30 Jul 2006 00:38 GMT10
I've been doing more thinking about the so-called modern physicists,
especially the mental weaklings on this news group.
I'm no psychologist - but nonetheless I can figure out fairly well
their problem.
A Million Miles a Day29 Jul 2006 22:40 GMT2
Galaxy Song
  - Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life":
Whenever life gets you down Mrs. Brown,
And things seem hard or tough,
SR  F.O.P.I29 Jul 2006 05:21 GMT20
SR F.O.P.I.
Two men on the planet Superstition wondered about the nature of light.
How was it transmitted from its sources? To answer their curiosity,
they used a device called interferometer in an experiment which later
Understanding quantum mechnanics29 Jul 2006 01:14 GMT3
Understanding quantum mechnanics
IF ALL STATES OF TIME ARE REVERSED isn't there a QUNATIATIVE state of
TIME that  NO MATTER WHAT IS CHANGED THE EVENT STILL TOOK PLACE. With
true qunatium choas of time Like a   GRID OF INFINITE  time sphere's
"What Special and General Relativity Tell Us About the Nature of Our Universe"28 Jul 2006 02:17 GMT1
"What Special and General Relativity Tell Us About the Nature of Our
Universe"
    The basic tenet of both Special and General Relativity is that the laws
and constants of the Science of Physics are the same within all velocity
A Critical Analysis of Special Relativity27 Jul 2006 09:45 GMT9
Worth reading:
Apeiron, Vol. 13, No. 3, July 2006 391
http://redshift.vif.com/current_issue.htm
Or http://perso.orange.fr/mluttgens/
"The Properties of the Aether"26 Jul 2006 16:25 GMT2
"The Properties of the Aether"
    Of course there is no such thing as the Aether, it says so right here
in the book that the Aether has been proven not to exist. Unfortunately for
the academic elite, such a proof does not exist. As Dr. Einstein said,
Censorship of chronological violations26 Jul 2006 02:46 GMT1
Rich non-arbitrary topological change may occur in a relativistic
vacuum space-time that violates chronology at every point, such that
every closed timelike curve (CTC) is ``censored" by passing through a
wormhole's event horizon. A Cauchy-like surface may exist through which
"Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2"25 Jul 2006 15:46 GMT1
"Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2"
    Following his success with The Special Theory of Relativity, Dr.
Einstein extended his approach to include accelerated reference frames. It
was his contention that the force produced by a gravitational field could be
P = m*V = (E/c,p) ?25 Jul 2006 12:32 GMT10
P [4-vector] = m*V [4-vector] = (E/c,p [3-vector] )
Does this always apply?
I just wonder, because I've seen the P (momentum 4-vector) defined in
both different ways. Maybe the relation m*V = (E/c,p) always holds, if
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 June, 2006
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.