This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Nizzle
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why is matter not spread perfectcly if it came from a singularity?« on: 10/04/2012 06:51:13 »
The idea with the balloon isn't that good really for describing it, one has to remember that it only is that outer 'skin' that represents those four dimensions we see. The inner side of the skin has no existing/visible analogue in SpaceTime. But it gives an idea of the 'mechanism'.
Maybe the 'skin' of the balloon only represents the 3 spatial dimensions, and an arrow, perpendicular to the skin and pointing outwards is the time dimension. The balloon is inflated from past to future, and the 'center of the balloon' is 'all the skin at time = 0', more commonly known as 'the singularity' ;)
Black holes clearly seem to a one way route to somewhere else but at the moment no one is brave enough to simulate what happens with the processes that we know and understand just inside the event horizon as black holes are collapsing and just run to this mathematical end game of an infinite density infinite energy "singularity".
I don't think Black holes have infinite density. For me, they're just a giant lump of quarks and leptons held together with a whole lot of bosons. The electrons surrounding the atoms get smacked on the nucleus by gravity to stay charge-neutral, which vastly reduces the size of 1 atom, and thus vastly increases it's density, but not to infinity. I consider a black hole as being some sort of QGP
This is probably oversimplified or even wrong, so I'm happy to read the arguments why my vision of a black hole is incorrect.
PS: If in the future we discover that quarks are made up of even more basic building blocks, I'll change my black hole vision to a giant lump of that new stuff.
« on: 05/04/2012 08:21:48 »
What explains the fact that all galaxies are moving away from us... except one?
I thought I read somewhere else on this forum that everything's moving away from each other with a speed greater than escape velocity, yet somehow, that didn't work for Milky Way & Andromeda?
« on: 05/04/2012 05:44:59 »
They can't alter pressures or combustion chamber design without mechanically altering the combustion chambers. They might be able to do something with valve timing, but only if the engine has a mechanism to do that, so I think they can only be modifying the fuel/air ratio “map”.
You must be correct cause it seems you know what you're talking about :D
But I'm sure they can alter some pressures.. It must be the Turbo pressure then..
« on: 04/04/2012 09:09:11 »
No, not at the moment.
A lot of discoveries in science still depend on creativity. A computer cannot be creative, as long is it is not intelligent. So first, we need to create human-like, or better-than-human AI. Then we can talk about a computer doing experiments.
« on: 04/04/2012 09:01:24 »
As pointed out in "Guns, Germs, and Steel" the religion of Europe was unable to overcome the geographical barriers Europe presented and so was unable to prevent science from becoming dominant. In all other geographical areas, the state religion was able to suppress scientific reality, leading to the dominance of Europe. Today the state religion is political correctness, and its pagan priests demand acquiescence to their eugenic agenda, to breed you into the slave state all religions have always aspired to. No place to hide now. Hand over your passwords.
I don't know grizelda.. Ever heard of the ~700 year period called "Dark Ages"? Science was pretty much oppressed in Western Europe between Roman Empire and Renaissance.
It's a shame that people are losing their trust in Science, but is it my perception, or is it fact that this only occurs in USA, and not in Europe?
In the Netherlands, there's even a Scientific Counsel, which is an advisory board for the government..
« on: 04/04/2012 06:48:03 »
The efficiency of an engine varies to some extent with its speed, but in this case, the speed has not changed, so that would not account for the improved economy. I'm not sure exactly what dials they have to play with to adjust things here, but I suspect they can only alter the fuel/air ratio. If that's true, the bit that I find contradictory is that, to increase torque, you usually have to increase the fuel per air which would take the economy in the wrong direction.
Could they perhaps achieve more torque not by altering fuel/air ratio but by altering fuel and air pressure in combination with using less fuel in the mixture?
PS: This is a sincere question, I don't know anything about the workings of an engine :-s
« on: 03/04/2012 12:45:09 »
Andromeda's blue shift could be because it's doppler effect overcompensates for the proposed 'photon fatigue' which would be infinitesimal, since Hubble's deep field showed that light from very very far away is still powerful enough to reach the telescope.
And for the theoretical: we may indeed have a theory that works on known physics with no new interactions required, but we also still have a lot of question marks out there, like for example Dark Energy. This is said to aid in the accelerated expansion of the universe, but we know nothing of Dark Energy. Who's to say that it's not aiding photon fatigue instead?
« on: 03/04/2012 09:55:58 »
I would be very interested to hear anyone's simple explanation of gravity that does not include time? Gravity is acceleration. Acceleration is time dependent.
Gravity is more than acceleration I think. Because objects lying still on the ground with 0 acceleration are still subjected to gravity, otherwise they'd float. Acceleration can be used to simulate gravity, but it's not the same.
But that's besides the point. I can't explain gravity without time..
« on: 03/04/2012 07:15:49 »
We're basing the fact that the universe is expanding mostly on the observed redshift of light from distant sources, but couldn't it be that this is an observational error, and that we actually live in a static universe (or a universe with a big bang but not accelerating expansion) where redshift is explained by some sort of "photon fatigue"?
A higher frequency indicates a more energetic photon, so if the photon would somehow lose some energy on it's way from the distant source to our optical instruments, it would be redshifted no?
And the accelerated expansion due to more redshift from more distant light sources could just be explained by the fact that the photon lost more energy because it traveled a longer distance?
Maybe the energy loss of the photon could be attributed to some sort of wave interference from the cosmic microwave background radiation?
« on: 03/04/2012 05:26:05 »
The big thing is that the nuclear industry needs to have more effort in separating out the reburnable materials, rather than just dumping them and mining new uranium. It is a finite resource, after all. I.E. Put them back in the nuclear reactor to generate energy which is the goal in the first place ;)
My thought exactly. Nuclear waste is still radioactive so that activity should be put to good use. Could we use nuclear waste in some sort of batteries?
« on: 02/04/2012 13:25:28 »
Geezer mentioned that Horsepower (or kW) is proportional to the instantaneous torque multiplied by RPM,
Geezer also mentioned that for a given constant speed, your engine needs a given constant power output, so if my torque is higher, I need less revs for the same power output, and less revs means less fuel consumption, no?
Can changes in various operating characteristics make an engine more (or less) fuel efficient by increasing (or decreasing) the amount of torque produced for a certain amount of fuel consumed? I'm certain that the answer is that they can.
Yes perhaps, but they told me they are staying well within safety margins (which are maybe too big off-factory for dealing with drivers who abuse their engines) and they're giving a 3-year warranty on the engine with their product, so I'm not that worried. Also, my driving style is not about taking the engine to it's extremes...
« on: 02/04/2012 09:28:12 »
As I understand, most research into the field of nuclear waste is done in "storage thereof".
Shouldn't we be looking at discovering catalysts that could rapidly degrade Uranium/Plutonium all the way to Lead?
Would such a catalyst exist and how would it look like or what would it require to be able to do in order to shorten the half life of nuclear waste?
« on: 02/04/2012 09:06:12 »
Maybe it's better to say "light in a different 'phase'" instead of different 'frequency', because, as CliffordK already stated, we already see a broad spectrum of frequency in our own universe..
Isn't our sun, at it's current stage, only fusing Hydrogen to Helium at the moment? I think it's not old enough yet to fuse Helium to higher order atoms. They may be present in the core, but not active at the moment. So I'm saying: Hydrogen + Hydrogen -> Helium + Energy
© 2000–2013 The Naked Scientists®
The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.