The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Inertia is equivalent to gravity. I prefer to give a further explanation by saying inertial mass is equivalent to the gravitational mass.

The equivalence principle alone doesn't solve time dilation. You have to include the concept of GR stress energy.

it is tuesday 28/july/2015 at 4 30 am in the morning this has been on my mind for some time now.thought you all should know.
first what started me thinking was Reading about the finnish people survived a great famine in the 1860 by eating the phloem layer of a pine tree.the phloem or cambium layer was stripped from the pine tree dried.ground.and mixed with rye seeds to make a sweet dark dense bread which saved so many lives,
then another scientist no name or date given mook the cambium layer out of a rose stem laid it under the bark of a Apple tree then grafted a rose to it.said it took could be just a story but it started me thinking.which i must explain,
lets call the phloem or cambium layer the magic liquid.because every tree every plant every weed that grows on earth.must have this liquid to live.under every single plant in the kingdom of plants there lies this liquid.that grows the buds.leaves.stems roots.fruit flowers everything would die without it,every scientist would is the life blood of all plants
in thery we could bud or graft a stem of aplant 50 times and as long as the cambium layer is touching this magic liquid it will grow,
if we were to damage the oppisite side of this same stem and layer it into soil it would root,
so why are we not experimenting more
we could make a soil-less compound so we could grow all our cuttings in this magical liquid.root all our cuttings,
use it in so many ways to grow better plants,it is the life blood for all plants.
this could be the great breakthrough.we could get it all for free.just the right knowledge to use it.
now as we all know a plant has to be in the same family to be able to graft a scion into that plant,
but as we know we now can transfer hearts into people.liver. why not plants
why cant we let the plant think it has a new growth of a graft by given it the same cambium layer .like the scientist did with the rose and Apple tree.we cannot say this would not work until we experiment,
they said you could not tranfer was inpossible.untill it was done,
i think we are on a new beginning in botany finding this life saving blood of all plants.and using it carefully,
New Theories / Re: Time travel
« Last post by scotty stull on Today at 03:38:55 »
PmbPhy                                                                                          To answer your question " What does our size have to do with any of this"?                We perceive the size of a object as being different from our own size, that is if we can see a difference in size. If our size is the same size as another object this "same size object" can never be exactly the same size as our own size because of infinity. Size is of course a result of a measurement and so is time. In order to be able to measure a small difference between the size of two objects of the same size, you will need a tool that can measure this small difference, also measuring time is no different. Accuracy depends on how small the tool is able to break down a measurement. When measuring time, greater accuracy depends on how many cycles per second that can be detected. Now if you were to shrink your self small enough to stand on a electron and this electron was liken to the earth would you not be in a different time frame as "compared" to your original size? Lets say that when you are standing on that earth-like-electron and this electron is exactly like our earth and with all things being equal would time be the same? The difference between two different sized objects creates a measurable size differential and the volume of which is the inside of the object ( space time ). One of the different sized objects will see the out side of the other object in a different time frame ( size and time ). Also both objects will have a gravitational effect on each other, even if both objects are of the same mass. ( Newton's law of universal gravitation ).
Thanks for straightening me out. I had looked at Einstein's elevator thought experiment and the "equivalence principle" and misunderstood. So, if the acceleration vector isn't what's referred to in the equivalence principle, how should one interpret the equivalence principle?
New Theories / Re: Gravity Defined
« Last post by Dreamian on Today at 01:32:50 »
Perhaps I am not real clear on why the vast voids I speak of that exist on the outskirts of all ger play such a vital role in creating the tension between the bodies of mass. I will likely work in that clarity later, but i will state here that if it wasn't for the vast voids, the voids created within the mass itself would simply be filled refilled by the substance that created it in the first place. as voids are being created, others are being filled. There would have to be more void than not for effect of gravity to take place. It is the vast voids which cause the effect of more void than not within mass. . . when more than one body of mass is present.
New Theories / Re: Gravity Defined
« Last post by Dreamian on Today at 01:23:59 »
Thanks PMB

Thanks colin2B

After thinking on it today, I made another edit to my definition on the website. I added the following to the definition:

Another possible problem with this definition of Gravity is that it would appear to be a push-pull type mechanism such that if the push was equal to the pull there would be no Gravitational effect. However,  the additional pull from the vast void that couples with the voids created within the mass to cause the tension between the masses, would have to have the effect of causing the Ger to vacate in the direction of that pull/force so that it fills in the space vacated by the body or bodies of mass as the mass shifts position.  This effect would be aided by the mass shifting position, as that space would have to be filled. The closest source of filling that space is the mass itself, or rather the Ger vacating the mass. Therefore the result would be a purely, or near pure, pull mechanism.
New Theories / Re: Gravity Defined
« Last post by PmbPhy on Today at 01:18:24 »
Alan,  I believe that the Ger I refer to has possibly been detected already, and possibly named, it can be renamed at anytime, I already assumed that the "ger" would likely be renamed at a later time, but due to my ignorance, I have named it such for clarity within my definition only.  Since this ger likely is drawn in by the voids created within mass, of which I have described, and then quickly vacates, it is likely that such an observance has already been made. Are you aware of any particles, with or without mass that appear and then disappear?  Has something to that effect thus-far been observed?
There are many particles like that. They have a very brief existence/lifetime. If you go to the FermiLab or CERN website I'm sure that you'll be able to find a list of them.  They're called resonance particles. See
Paul asked the Naked Scientists:
   You are standing at a bus stop at 0530 in a cool 4 degrees with your beanie down over your ears to keep the warm. If you were wearing a singlet with vertical tubes imbedded in the singlet, the air in the tubes would be heated by your body heat. Hot air rises, comes out at your neck, rises and keeps your nose and cheeks warm. How's that for an invention? I was going to suggest nanotubes to be more "scientific" but the air might now rise so readily, considering the size of the diameter of the nanotubes and the size or O2 or Nitrogen,etc.

What do you think?
did cbmr exist before the big bang?
Did you read the first few lines of reply #1?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
SMF 2.0.8 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Login with username, password and session length