The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Just Chat ! / Re: Kissing butt?
« Last post by David Cooper on 25/04/2015 18:39:45 »
People in forum gangs don't always recognise that they are in one, so it might be worth letting them know how you feel through PMs. We all need to try to be fair to everyone, but it's difficult to keep track of how we actually come across while at the same time letting our rival ideas do battle with each other. I find such messages useful and welcome them.
New Theories / Re: Numbers 1*1=2
« Last post by yor_on on 25/04/2015 18:38:57 »
You should be pleased Box, there are some people of good imagination answering you here. Then there are logic naturally. Logic is defined by your limits. When you set natural numbers as something complementary to your definitions of 'nothing' you make it more complicated than it needs to be. On the other tentacle you make it new :) and make people consider what you might mean by it. That's one of the things that makes TNS a place to have fun on.
Just Chat ! / Re: I will miss being a science idiot
« Last post by yor_on on 25/04/2015 18:28:40 »
Don't worry Box, use your imagination and be free.
We live a while, then we die. And that :) goes for all of us.

No exceptions.
So be free.
New Theories / Re: Space-Time
« Last post by David Cooper on 25/04/2015 18:19:19 »
Quote from: NUFOIB
As stated by physicist Brian Greene in his book The Elegant Universe, pages 26 and 27,
all objects are constantly on the move at the speed of light within Space-Time.
That's a common misconception. It's meaningless to speak of something "moving" through spacetime. That phrase is only meant as an analogy and should never be used to mean anything physical. Saying that something is moving through spacetime is equally meaningless. Greene is doing all layman a disservice to relativity enthusiasts by saying something like that. Shame on him!

I haven't looked the file up or followed the link, but I wondered if that particular claim might be related to the idea that "stationary" things are "travelling" through the time dimension at c.
Technology / Re: How can renewable energy farms provide 24-hour power?
« Last post by RD on 25/04/2015 18:09:56 »
It needn't be a balloon. A steel can will do quite nicely, and it doesn't need to be very deep under the ocean: the domestic gas supply pressure is only a meter of water gauge or less. The deeper it is, the more efficient, but large steel cans are very cheap and easy to make.

Scottish Scientist was suggesting storing the hydrogen at depth (~100m)

Deeper seas are better because the water pressure is proportional to the depth allowing the hydrogen to be compressed more densely, so that more hydrogen and more energy can be stored in an inflatable gas-bag.

Building a heavy-duty "gasometer" made of steel, on the sea-floor, 100m below the surface of the salty-sea, sounds very-expensive and impractical to me : It will be bigger than a military submarine , and they cost over a billion dollars each.
You're restating the same  argument we went over before, and this time, you are phrasing it in a way that sounds like the data "disproves" my theory of aether/time.

I'm simply trying to get you to provide a rough figure on how much a clock will slow in deep space compared with one that's running faster in "middle space". What I want to see if whether it's worth trying to understand your theory in depth or if it is already disproven by the lack of optical effects in the sky of the kind that would show up if you require a significant slowing.

Again, our existing data shows that time passes slower in "near space," as in a clock in a moving airplane, ...

Clocks run slower when moved fast at the same altitude regardless of which altitude you choose.

...and time passes faster in what I say is "middle space," where a moving GPS satellite travels.

Time passes faster as you go to higher altitude, and this effect is stronger than the one that causes slowing due to speed of travel. You still don't appear to be separating out the two effects.

-As I've covered already, I claim that "true outer" space would be where the earth's magnetic field would not exert its influence on the clocks in a moving vehicle, and that although no experiments have been done with clocks that far out as yet, time would run slower there, due to the absence of the magnetic field.

Are you aware that there are other planets and moons in the solar system with different strengths of magnetic field which have had atomic clocks taken to them and which have not showed the magnetic field to have any impact on the passage of time? Are you aware of magnetars (

"These magnetic fields are hundreds of millions of times stronger than any man-made magnet, and quadrillions of times more powerful than the field surrounding Earth."

Do we see weird optical effects around them because of their extreme magnetic fields? If your idea of time being slowed doesn't involve light being slowed too, you aren't describing a slowing of time but a slowing of some kinds of clock while other clocks (light clocks) in the same locations would not be slowed with them. If you really are trying to say that time is slowed, then you have to have it slow light down as well, and if you do that you should get optical effects if this slowing is anything other than trivial. That's why I'd like to hear a few figures on how much slowing you predict there to be, because that slowing will be directly proportional to a slowing in the speed of light. If you can't provide such basic information, no one will ever invest a penny into testing your theory.
Sometimes I feel 'TheBox' really is 'Jccc'. Wonder if that's really the case.

I've lifted this from the 'heat' thread because it is more appropriate here.

If we look at the posts by jccc and the box, we see some interesting differences.
Jccc has a consistent use of language, whereas box is almost bipolar, sometimes incoherent, other time very coherent.
Jccc has a poetic side I don't see in box, similarly a good sense of humour.
Although jccc can exhibit occasional, mild paranoia, this is much stronger in box.
Jccc posts mainly about the nature of the atom, nucleus, photon, particularly photon, where he views them quite differently to everyone else.
The box has a more general attack on the whole of science, and a very typical pattern of question response. He posts a question eg "does heat repel heat, folks reply assuming a level of understanding implied by the question, box then accuses them of not answering the question, because he knows what heat is. However, if he really knew what heat is, he wouldn't have had to ask the question in the first place. This behaviour could be indicative of a troll who is just having a laugh. Jccc doesn't show this type of behaviour.
I think there is a trait in box that is fascinated by what I call semantic paradoxes which involve conflicting definitions and usage of words, and I don't see this in jccc. I won't go through all the examples, but take one of his recent posts "technically the wind doesn't blow". By definition, the wind is an atmospheric movement of air, and blow (in this context) is movement of air. So the statement is a tautology.
I remember being fascinated by these when I was about 12. If a tree falls in a forest ....; don't read this notice; all lawyers are liars and I'm a lawyer; it's a long list. Some are interesting because they challenge the law of the excluded middle, or make you think about definitions, circular arguments and neurone loops. I also remember, about the same time, reading about the musings of Bishop Berkley and spending time walking around the house with my eyes closed, you don't need to bump into many tables before you realise the meaning of the word pragmatic. However, it does make you think about how our perceptions steer our view of (what I call) probably reality.
Arthur C Clark wrote a book in which one of the characters says "some jokes are always funny, some are funny only once". I would say that some things are interesting all the time, others like Sudoko and paradoxes, only once.
No I don't think jccc is the box. Too difficult for one person to keep up consistently. I find jccc good fun when he is not being annoying and disrupting serious posts, but the box often makes me wish I hadn't bothered to put fingers to keyboard, maybe I've finally learnt!.

PS hope you saw my reply #16 in the heat thread, not offended, just misunderstood!!
I don't usually copy anyone's whole post out of respect for efficiency. However, because I reasoned that this last post by Colin is most intelligent and worthy, I made the exception. These points Colin has make are manifest examples for why Pete choose him to be one of our fine members at Pete's alternate forum.

My hats off to you Colin.......... A very fine example of critical thinking!

bold head?
Quote from: jeffreyH
3 times the solar mass is far too small to create a viable black hole
Different respondents above have tried to work out if this comment means:
A) Natural processes cannot compress 3 solar masses into a small enough volume to create a black hole, or
B) If you did have a black hole of 3 solar masses, it would decay or disintegrate, making it non-viable, or
C) It is not possible to form a black hole of 3-30 solar masses, even in principle
D) Something else?

The comment about "violation of the light speed limit" suggests (C) to me?

Please clarify which you mean, and why would a stellar-mass black hole violate the speed of light?
If it's (B) then someone has a serious misunderstanding of black holes.

I don't have too much time at the moment to give a full response but C is the option that describes what I believe is the case. This relates to the Kerr metric and the profile of the ergosphere. You cannot relate this to the Schwarzschild metric as it has no angular momentum associated with it.
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What's the point of a Neutron?
« Last post by Cosmo on 25/04/2015 17:39:05 »
  The Neutron is absolutely critical to Nuclear binding - two protons repel without a neutron.  Except in the case of hydrogen and Helium  there needs to be at least as many Neutrons as protons to form a stable nucleus.  A plot of Z (# of Protons) vs N (number of neutrons) for stable elements diverges from the straight line N = Z  The heavier the nucleus, the greater the divergence.  For the light elements, the most stable configurations tend to have equal numbers of protons and neutrons
The point, to me then, with this last proposition is that it it doesn't simplify anything. It doesn't matter how we want to define superluminal motion if we have no standard for it, and we don't. We have a standard for 'c' though, that works in all experiments. that doesn't state that this idea must be wrong. It seems more a matter of how one expect, or think, 'it' works, than how 'it' might be to me.

and yes, I do use experiments, not theory. You don't have a experiment proving your point? then you redefine it.

(And to be clear, I do question motion too, in that you're not alone. And if you do that all standards for what it means change. But 'useful' information must still be transfered at 'c' to me. And what happens outside the limits is of no use to us normally, although QM may open some windows of application to us.)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0.8 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines