Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Mar 26th 2013, 06:24 PM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5
The Fate of Earth

In late 2011, China Central TV presented an interview with the man who was believed to have been kidnapped to a UFO by aliens in 1996. The aliens told him: if you Earth people continue to consume fuels like what you are doing, after a while, Earth will collide with another planet!

Immediately I realized this must be a sincere warning from intellect aliens.
Reality tells us matter distincts by giving out pushing force, brightness and heat. As the Sun burns off its mass, its gravity is gradually losing. As a result, all of its planets are deviating from the Sun. Since Earth is also losing its mass, so unparallel deviation will take place, i.e., Earth deviates slower or even comes closer to the Sun.

Therefore, Earth and Venus will get on the same track. The more we burn, the sooner it will take place.Earth is also losing its atmosphere due to loss of mass. We will have chronical extreme weathers (cold winter and hot summer) as the shield becomes thinner.

I believe our understanding of the universe is at a child stage and we have mistakenly idealized some figures to the extent that ordinary folks do not want to hear

other voices.Can someone really conclude everything has gravity by seeing an apple dropping off a tree? This assumption leads to a great puzzlement as to where universal

gravity comes from?
Pushing force and gravity are two free forces in the universe. Dying matter generates pushing force first, it makes other objects have gravity to absorb its pushing
force. Pushing force and gravity always stay in a pair, they offset each other, and are magnetic power in nature. If we can dampen one force, we got the other; if we can convert one force, we got the double, and I believe that's how aliens travel. Those two forces do not need any means and no time to travel and they can penetrate

everything. Anybody who has gone through an explosion should have the feel that they had been knocked down first, then saw the explosion.

The following is my further understandings about the universe.


People over the age of 10, 20 or 80, are stunned by the magnitude of the universe and the origin of it has been the greatest mystery of all times.

It appears that the Big Bang Theory is gaining its popularity. But this theory needs to explain: Where did the force come from which condensed all matter to a pinpoint ? Why coundn't it stay like that forever ? What has caused the explosion ? The assumption of the whole universe matter being in an atom space, isn't it against science ? If this theory is not a set up myth as a result of deep puzzlement, what else ?

The Big Bang Theory is supported by the Theory of the Universe Expansion. Ironically, the Expansion Theory is still prevailing regardless of the finding that, in any given space, no matter how far it is, matter content is about the same.

By taking into account of our own speed, blueshifts and redshifts could be about the same. Those redshifts could be embedded with subjective data bias in bringing out an expansion concept.

What is the universe without matter ? It is the absolute coldness, absolute darkness, space and time. So matter must have come from this combination, there was simply no other possibility !

Due to the activities of dying matter, there is virtually no space in the universe where absolute coldness and darkness can be reached, a scenario which is termed as Cosmic Background Radiation. The universe matter had reached its saturation long, long time ago.

We can look at the universe as doing a energy relay. The Law of Conservation has proved that the universe has no ending simply because, without recipients, the relay will not take place ! The Law of Conservation also supports saturation concept for recipients only receive what is given.

If we look backwards with the eternal universe concept in mind, then the universe beginning is unlimited, any attempt to give a time frame can not avoid absurdity.

With technology advance, when the image of the universe can be captured 20 billion light years away, and we will find out that the universe there still resembles the present universe, people will become quiet, gradually.

The non-boundary assumption of the universe is plausible in that, considering the vastness of the universe, all matter can be treated as a gas which spreads out evenly.

The universe is repeating and overlapping whereas brightness and heat are actors, coldness and darkness are the audience, when actors tired, they switch positions. Unfortunately they sing the same song forever.
smf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26th 2013, 06:25 PM   #2
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5
part 2 and 3


The deep puzzlement in understanding the universe is the source of gravity and therefore Newton's Law of Gravity comes in question: Does everything really have gravity ? A bomb does not produce a pushing force ? What does a rocket do ?

My hypothesis is: Since matter dies by giving out brightness, heat and pushing force, gravity comes from the dying matter. The universe gravity offsets its pushing force making it to zero. Any object, when it comes to absolute zero, its gravity comes to zero; Any object, its gravity is exactly equal to its pushing force when it dies.

The Sun has both the gravitational field and the pushing field, and the interaction of which leads to its planets to rotate. Substances taking part in the nuclear reaction function as the pushing force; Materials surrounding the reaction give out the gravity.

The search for antimatter could be stopped by recognizing photon and electron as antimatter because only those two brothers have such an equality with respect to matter. photon is the dying antimatter and electron is the living antimatter. Antimatter governs the universe, it determines if the atom live or if the atom die. Antimatter is always equal to matter and it reaches the equilibrium through moving.

Uniform universe formulas can be drawn by describing the behavior of electrons.

Gravitational force=number of living electrons X travel speed X speed of self-rotation

Pushing force=number of dying electrons(squared) X death speed(squared)

There could be two causes for nucleus death: (1) it can not withstand electron gravity; or (2) it can not withstand electron knocking.

Neutron knocking can also be understood as electron's, it is the electron which sets the momentum.

When a nucleus tries to join another nucleus, it must break the electron blocking of the targeted nucleus,it absorbs the energy which will be released in nuclear fission, so the number of electrons should be squared when calculating the pushing force.

When a nucleus is of light mass, electrons might not travel to light speed when the nucleus dies. In an electron acceleration, due to the increase of friction, the self-rotation tends to diminish.

There is essentially no fire-proof material in the universe, everything will die under certain heat and pressure, in another word, everything is energy.

There has been a debate about how photons travel. I believe photons are sent by the pushing force and they can not go straight even on Earth due to the presence of the gravitational field, and a combination with a pushing field will add the complexity to how photons travel.

Space and time are the only two eternal things in the universe, other things must surrender. Who or what has not surrendered to space and time ? Matter can bend light, not space and time.

The law of physics always applies, it seems not applying when either the law is faulty, or humans are faulty, or both are faulty.

Suppose a high building fell, where did the force go ? It went to the impacted atoms. What made the building fall ? Gravity ! Some light elements are becoming heavy elements by joining together as a result of gravitational force accumulation. The Sun is passing its energy on Earth making it more and more condensed. This trend is revealed by the fact that light elements inside Earth tend to die and heavy elements tend to increase, Earth is condensing by way of Earthquaking. Earthquake movement pattern fits an inside explosion explanation.

Considering the age of Earth, probably every square inch of Earth has been shaken at least a million times ! Earthquake functions as a mixer, making all elements entangled together. All elements on Earth are dynamic, there is no need to fight for resources, get a shovel of dirt and keep hammering it, we'll get whatever we want. Earthquake will be more destructive with the advance of death fate from light elements to semi-heavy elements.

Quaking is universal. Some "craters" on Mercury could be bubbles resulted from an inside explosion as air tried to escape. These bubbles suggest that Mercury has evolved to a piece of metal.

If I can conclude that the outburst of all elements is the result of gravitational force accumulation, and if I reverse this process, it seems not absurd to conclude that all elements in the universe transformed from hydrogen !


Converting hydrogen into helium really produces energy ? Where is the experimental proof ? I believe the universe follows a simple rule: nuclear fusion, an accumulation of energy; nuclear fission, an energy release. The nuclear fusion attempt is destined to fail. The nuclear reaction at the core of the Sun could be shockingly nuclear fission !

Here comes a deep question about the composition of the Sun. We could have been tricked by the spectrums of hydrogen and helium between the space of the Sun and Earth. The Sun could be made up of liquefied hard rock and its nuclear fuel could be over 10 times heavier than uranium. Seeing no spectrum does not mean the Sun has no particular substance deep inside.

The above assertion is originated from the following abservations: (1)The Sun surface is too bumpy, had it been hydrogen, it should be very smooth; (2)There wouldn't be any sunspot had it been hydrogen, the convection should be very smooth, liquid hard rock is too sticky leading to the convection difficult; (3)Hydrogen can not withstand the Sun's surface temperature.

My assumption is that all stars evolve from large terrestrial planets. Planets can be characterized as gas, crystal and terrestrial ones. The occurrence of nuclear reaction at the core of those planets due to inside crushing is impossible because heat and pressure have time to dissipate. If an object hits a gas planet, the friction would not be enough due to its sponginess; If an object hits a crystal planet, it will break. The only possibility of a nuclear ignition is the scenario when a terrestrial planet hits another terrestrial planet and the impactor must be less than half in size. So instead of breaking each other, the striker goes in the target. The massive impact make matter instantly changes its attribute whereas the heaviest substances sink to the center. Under intense heat and pressure, the nuclear reaction will take place, the whole planet will be melted turning to a shining star. The convection will start the material allocation by weight. However, there will still be some disparity in this allocation due to the stickness of liquid hard rock. Flares and sunspots could be the reflection of this disparity, stronger fuels lead to flares; weaker fuels leave sunspots.

The logic in star burning is that stars always burn the heviest substance first. Stars will keep shining because less heavy material requires less pressure. When the layer becomes too thin, the star will break when the last flare happens.

The analysis of star evolution in modern physics deserves much criticism. My conclusion is that stars will burn out their mass in principle and end up with a shining cloud.

Supernovae is the display of an existing star which has just sucked in a planet. A white drawf could be a lucky planet which has absorbed great mass, neither gone in a star nor a planet. Neutron stars at most are some debris of no importance and their mass is overestimated.

The presence of a blackhole can be easily ruled out if we can prove that only something with great heat has great gravity.

Considering the abundance of stars, we should be able to see some samples of "red giants", otherwise the non-sample reality blows heavily on this assumption.
smf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26th 2013, 06:26 PM   #3
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5
part 4 and 5


The understanding of the galactic bulge is the fundation towards understanding thoroughly of a galaxy evolution.

The entitlement of a galaxy center requires great mass and gravity. It seems plausible to claim that the center is a piling up of stars, i.e. it is a huge, huge star.

As stars burning off their mass, all planets in a galaxy tend to escape from their master star. While stars remain comparatively static, turmoils in a galaxy are usually caused by planets when they escape from their master. They could go in a star turning it to a supernovae, or they could go in a planet giving birth to a new star.

Stars close to the central bulge have small orbit perimeters and therefore their orbits are vulnerable. Turmoils close to the center could make the central bulge swing a little and suck in a star.

If the burning ratio(dying matter versus existing matter) of the galactic bulge is lower than the average of stars, then the galaxy is elliptically inward or otherwise it is elliptically outward and as a result, the galaxy might lose some outer stars.

The most active galaxy is the spiral one with a great mass ratio(bulge mass versus galaxy mass) and it is charaterised as having a brighter core and tightly packed stars.

The galaxy shape is interchangable with the variations of the mass ratio.

The constant rotational velocity of a galaxy is attributed to the gravitational interaction among stars in which front stars exert pulling and back stars exert dragging.

Because of the activities of the present matter in the universe, dark matter, if there is any, should undergo a kind of movement which would join it together and show up in a form of matter, somehow and someday. If it never shows up, that is a clear denial of its existance.

Vanishing matter does not go too far from a galaxy because it does not need to go too far; there is not enough force to push it go too far.

If a thousand guys line up, and a beauty queen says: "I'm free, whoever wants to take me, take me". She will be taken by either the first, the second or the third guy. She does not need to walk all the way down.


There was a great chance that Earth had been hit by several giant comets which could have severed off the surfaces of the oceans and those pieces became Moon. This assumption firstly explains why Earth's surface is mostly water and wetter than Mars; secondly, had it been a terrestrial object of that size, Earth could have been broken into pieces.

My bold assumption: When other condition are met, life could be created instantly when a giant comet strikes a terrestrial object.

Many people know the "Ring of Fire", i.e. earthquakes and volcanos occur frequently on the perimeter of the Pacific Ocean, probably this is due to the fact that Earth's energy often releases in scarred areas.

Newton's g was a rough come out. G is virtually a variant rather than a constant, it varies from place to place, from altitude to altitude and from time to time.

Hurricane is a perfect example to explain the effect of gravity differential. Warm ocean currents pull air down, making the air to spin. Hurricane can not occur on land simply because there is no such a temperature differential on land.

Earth also expands and shrinks in response to a temperature change which, together with earthquakes and volcanos, lead to the formation of mountains and canyons, for example, the Grand Vanyon.

Earth will gradually lose all of its air, water and oil as a result of gravitational force accumulation and one way to defer this process is to use more solar and nuclear energy.
smf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29th 2013, 03:09 PM   #4
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5
The universe has an etenal law: Symmetry, the universe was too cold, too dark, in another word, too negative, so something positive came out--- matter which could generate heat and brightness.
smf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29th 2013, 03:24 PM   #5
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5
The man who was kidnapped also said, he asked the aliens why they came to Earth? They replied like mice in Manderin: we are avioding a disaster, an object will hit Jupiter that year; we want to see what is going on on Earth; and we want to have a baby with a human to see how he's gonna be looked like. One day a female alien visited his home and had sex with him and the aliens told him his baby gonna be born in 60 years.
The aliens also said they use solar energy and energy in a thunderstorm.
smf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7th 2013, 06:59 PM   #6
Forum Admin
topsquark's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,491
No offense but "tldr" What specifically are you trying to say?

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9th 2013, 11:38 PM   #7
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5
I must agree, that was way too long a post to have no point really stand out.
TJean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10th 2013, 07:18 AM   #8
Physics Team
ChipB's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ USA
Posts: 2,324
Please ... don't encourage the OP to write anything more! The last wthing we need is for him to "clarify" his writings.
ChipB is offline   Reply With Quote

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

earth, fate

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
radius of the earth Garvil Periodic and Circular Motion 2 Feb 14th 2013 12:42 PM
A ball lies on the Earth surface, undergoing circular motion together with the Earth. ENRIQUESTEFANINI Advanced Mechanics 5 Jun 20th 2012 06:18 PM
earth's revolution around sun.. shirshakmaskey Special and General Relativity 6 Jun 15th 2012 10:56 AM
Earth and poles xtheunknown0 Electricity and Magnetism 3 Aug 13th 2011 03:28 PM
earth adnan_hanif4 Kinematics and Dynamics 3 Mar 31st 2009 05:31 AM

Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed