1

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 16/06/2021 12:07:56 »

Say we all went inside a futuristic space ship and started to increase our velocity approaching the speed of light. According to Special Relativity, distance will contract and the universe outside the window will appear to be heading toward the big crunch. The universe does not change for us, but rather this is a relative reference affect due to our motion.

Next, we put on the space brakes and slow down the ship from our near speed of light velocity back to slow speeds. During this braking, the universe will now look like the big bang is occurring. In the end it was all a reference illusion created by relative motion and us unconsciously defining  ourselves as the center of the universe.

The bug in this scenario is that distance will appear to change only in the direction of motion. To make this scenario more realistic in 3-D, so the entire universe follows the trick, our motion would need to be in 3-D, like the wave function of a hydrogen 1S electron so distance appears to contract in all directions.

Another way to do this, with a simpler form of motion, is with a microscope. We zoom into a tiny drop of pond water, slowly increasing magnification. This type of reference change is different from special relativity, in that the propagation of time is not impacted by the zooming. All observations and our base reference will use the same clock. The only thing that changes is our distance perception.

If we start with the drop of water; primordial atom, distance will appear to expand as we magnify more and more. As we zoom in further, microscopic bugs will start to look like buses, and we wonder how all these ever fit into that tiny drop of water.

The telescope does something similar, in that it allows far away things, that look tiny to the naked eye to appear closer and larger. This is the same affect as the microscope. Which means, as we look out into the universe further and further, the distance between things will appear to get farther and farther apart. Again, the propagation of time is not being impacted, since we are always collecting photons, in real time with the telescope. The increase in telescope sensitivity allows the moon to looks bigger and bigger and distant galaxies, that were once points of light, now appear to expand into millions of little bugs; stars.

If we stopped using all telescopes, the universe data would appear to contract back to the reference of the naked eye and we would have an older classic universe reference affect on which theory would need to build. 

The difference between the microscope and telescope is connected to time delay. The subjects of the microscope are so small, the time delay is very small. We see the tiny bus sized bugs in real time.

The telescope brings distant objects closer by lowering the time delay. This is done by collecting photons, that are nearby, like with the microscope. The telescope only collects photons that were emitted long ago, but which reach us now. This creates a good view in distance for that time, but a poor view in real time. This makes inferring the universe not based on real time data. It would be like inferring modern humans from ancient fossils. A lot of time is ignored due to lack of data.

2

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Are there mountains/mountain ranges that existed, but no longer do?

« on: 11/06/2021 20:53:31 »

Following on from the OP's question, if there were mountains, in past ages, which exceeded the height of our present-day highest mountain, Everest - could geologists find enough evidence to find them, and deduce their height?

That sounds tricky, but it might just be possible. If they can deduce the average rate of mountain growth due to plate tectonics in a given area at a given period of history and compare that with predicted erosion rates over the same time period, they could potentially model what the maximum allowed height for a mountain could have been. There are also limits placed upon a mountain by the laws of physics. If it's too tall, the pressure at the bottom of the mountain will overcome the compressive strength of the rock. Alternatively, it can also cause the crust in the area to become depressed, lowering the height of the mountain above sea level.

Given that the Earth's interior cools over time, the internal temperature (and thus plate tectonics and subsequently average mountain growth rates) should have been higher in the past.

3

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 11/06/2021 20:20:04 »

Don't you think that modern "Physics" has been almost entirely captured by "Mathematicians"

No.

Just like they did in earlier centuries, when they told astronomers that the Moon must revolve around the Earth in a mathematically perfect circle.

So, you also don't understand what the church did- as well as thinking that mathematicians gathered the evidence of red-shifts.

The mathematicians prevailed over the astronomers, and for 1500 years astronomers had to believe that all celestial movements are circular.

To a pretty good approximation, they are.
It was only when the observations were good enough to show that they weren't circular that the mathematicians did some more arithmetic and realised they were elliptical (to a very good approximation)

You seem not to understand that the mathematicians are, at best, the slaves of the experimentalists.

You really should find out how science works before you try to overturn it.

4

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: How did horns evolve in mammals and why?

« on: 11/06/2021 13:02:17 »

Horns are Nature's boxing gloves

Specifically, they are the spikey sort of boxing gloves...

5

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Are there mountains/mountain ranges that existed, but no longer do?

« on: 10/06/2021 00:59:50 »

Are there mountains we know of that once flourished the surface of the Earth, but have since disappeared?

6

Geek Speak / Re: What is the power of regression?

« on: 09/06/2021 23:27:56 »

Couldn't the evidence in a graph, be presented in "digital" format, ie as just tables of numbers? Is it because graphs make it easier to see the underlying mathematical processes.

Yes, humans are a very visual species.
- We have the unusual visual quirk that we can see things that don't change, which makes the whole "reading a book" possible.
- As I understand it, for most species, things that don't change do not generate an image.

Graphs work well in 2D.
- They can be extended to 3D on a page for some sets of data
- but I think 3D data would be explored more easily with virtual reality headsets
- I have seen one presentation (as a movie) that worked through data in more than 3 dimensions (I think  it may have been 8 dimensions?). But that was geometrical data, so it was (sort of) possible to see geometrical patterns emerge as the view switched between hyperplanes. I don't this would work nearly so well for data that was noisy in multiple dimensions, as you would only see part of the pattern and part of the noise.

The one I saw was a bit more colorful than this one:

As BC said, regression can find patterns in multi-dimensional data that we wouldn't be able to visualise.

7

The Environment / Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?

« on: 09/06/2021 18:54:00 »

No.
Ask a lion.

8

The Environment / Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?

« on: 05/06/2021 22:57:00 »

If one looks at the Eocene Temperature Maximum, it was much hotter than it is today.



It isn't necessarily a bad thing overall.  However, it brings "Change" with it.

I.E.  Changes in our coastlines, changes in arable land, changes in storms, etc. 

And changes in species. 

However, humanity does better if everything is the same.  We don't want species to change.  We don't want deserts to become tropical forests, and farms to become deserts.  We don't want coasts to recede.  And, of course, some species to become extinct and new species to either move, or evolve (which normally might take thousands or millions of years).

Of course a little winter warming might be pleasant, but are we prepared for those 110°F summer days?

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What would happen if every neutron on Earth disappeared?

« on: 04/06/2021 23:41:31 »

How can a computer deal with something which is neither "1" , nor "0".

That depends on how you choose to program it in. Even a single letter we type isn't a single 0 or 1: it is represented in the programming by a series of 0s and 1s, with each letter being represented by a unique pattern. You can represent particles in a simulation the same way.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is a singularity?

« on: 04/06/2021 22:41:50 »

@charles1948
    Yes, that's pretty much the idea.
A singularity is a mathematical term, it's describing something about the behaviour of functions.  Physicist's have stolen it and now some people use the term "singularity" as if it's a real place or thing in the universe.

   When mathematician's say "there's a singularity here" they are telling you how functions behave in that region.

   When Physicist's say "there's a singularity here" there are always people who think it's a thing or a place you can find.

11

General Science / Re: Is Washing Dishes with Cold Water as Effective as Using Hot Water?

« on: 01/06/2021 08:29:02 »

I think with hot water its more effective.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could the core of a body have repulsive gravity?

« on: 30/05/2021 17:53:07 »

Why appeal to Newton's "shell theory"?  Newton was a 17th century scientist.

Because shell theorem is still correct. The passage of time doesn't change that.

Isn't this "Strong Force" a "repulsive" one

Only at very close range. Beyond that, it is strongly attractive until you get a little ways out of the nucleus. Then it becomes so weak as to be practically non-existent.

which lets protons overcome the inner force of Gravity.

Protons don't have to overcome gravity, as their electrostatic repulsion already massively overwhelms any gravitational attraction they have between each other.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could the core of a body have repulsive gravity?

« on: 30/05/2021 11:12:48 »

Obviously, to settle this matter, we need to get some actual evidence of what's at the core of a star.

We have a star close at hand, in the form of our Sol.  Would it possible to design a probe that could penetrate deep into Sol, and get some instrumental readings, and possibly photographs of the core?

No.

Not even if we went at night.

14

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: How does your dog recognize you?

« on: 29/05/2021 20:23:37 »

There are videos of guys greeting their dogs after having shaved off their beards. That's a big visual difference with nothing else changed. The dogs were very confused and looked around for where the real owner was. Smell and sound was not enough when the visual image didn't match.

I've been with a beard and beardless, and Mom's dog's reaction is the same.

I think the dogs also recognize vehicles associated with people from bicycles to cars,  and those can change from time to time.

As far as visual stimuli, at times, Mom's dog will watch her while she is inside a restaurant. 

Mom doesn't whistle, I do.  At times she has been convinced her dog doesn't respond to whistles, but he responds well to me whistling. 

When Mom and Dad's previous dog was a puppy, they picked him up about 100 miles away, and we met at a restaurant on the way back home.  Everything would have been new for the puppy, but I petted it for about 1 minute in the back seat of the car.  Then I didn't see them for about 2 months.  Meanwhile the puppy developed a strong attachment to my parents, and even nipped outsiders, including my aunt and grandmother.  They were convinced that he would not like me...  but on the contrary...  I was immediately "family" within seconds of returning.  My brother hadn't had that early exposure, but I think his introduction also went reasonably smoothly.

It is hard to say.  I think the puppy remembered me from that first brief introduction, but there may be an innate ability to recognize certain family members.  It is hard to say about other smells.  Grandma always used a strong smelling hand lotion.  I don't know about the aunt.

15

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: How does your dog recognize you?

« on: 29/05/2021 00:32:56 »

There are videos of guys greeting their dogs after having shaved off their beards. That's a big visual difference with nothing else changed. The dogs were very confused and looked around for where the real owner was. Smell and sound was not enough when the visual image didn't match.

16

Technology / Re: What is Cloud Computing and how does it work?

« on: 27/05/2021 23:10:56 »

What is the difference between private/private clouds compared to just running a standard LAN (local area network) within the company?

There are two distinct items here: The computer servers that make up the "cloud", and the communications network that passes data from where you are to wherever the cloud servers are located.
- The servers typically consist of many general-purpose CPUs =Central Processing Units, with large amounts of RAM=Random Access Memory, coupled with lots of disk space, and connection to a communications network (LAN and/or WAN).
       - The number of computers dedicated to one task can change dynamically, as the workload changes
       - Sometimes specialised processors are available which do things like run Artificial Intelligence models or high-powered number crunching or high-speed encryption.
- A "LAN"=Local Area Network is a communication network within a building. It may have traditional blue Ethernet cables, or, increasingly, use WiFi to connect to your phone or laptop. You use a LAN to reach a local cloud (eg in the same building, run by your company)
- A "WAN"=Wide Area Network is a communication network between buildings. It may have traditional telephone wires, optical fiber, or, increasingly, use 5G mobile to connect to your phone. You use a LAN to get to the edge of your building, and a WAN to reach a public cloud (eg in a Data Center in your city; it might be run by a cloud provider like Amazon or Google)
-Your company can rent space in a public cloud, and let the cloud provider look after the hardware, air conditioning and power supplies. Or it can buy its own hardware for a private cloud.
- But if you need fast responses ("real-time"), you will locate the servers closer to where you are, as there are delays inherent in passing over a LAN or WAN; these delays generally increase with distance.

If you want to get into cloud computing, you should do some general courses on software, and some specialised courses on cloud computing (each cloud computing vendor has their own unique software environment).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we communicate with civilisation in anti matter solar systems

« on: 27/05/2021 22:53:46 »

But modern science seems to be increasingly degenerating into mere mysticism.  At least it seems to be doing that in the field of Physics, which is getting more and more baffling and unintelligible.

Particle physics isn't mysticism. You can make predictions about it and test those predictions via experiment. It adheres quite well to the scientific method.

Is that because the Universe is really not intelligible to humans. Or because Physics has gone wrong in its theories?

That's a tricky question because we have no way of knowing just how close we are (or far away) from the ultimate understanding of the finer workings of the Universe. We might be right on the cusp of a physics breakthrough that will give us a picture of how all of physics meshes together, or we might simply not be smart enough to ever get to that level of understanding. What I can say is this: one should not conclude that their own inability to understand something means that others also lack that understanding.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we communicate with civilisation in anti matter solar systems

« on: 27/05/2021 20:24:52 »

But - if a Quark "cannot be isolated", as you say, than can it be regarded as a truly fundamental "particle"?

Do you see what I'm getting at?  Shouldn't the defining characteristic of a physical "particle" be, that it's a separate "thing" - that can exist by itself, independently.  If it can't do that,  is it really a physical particle?

Or just a kind of theoretical idea.   Like for example, you could say, that if you cut an apple in half, you get two "halves" of an apple.

But does that mean "halves" are actual particles with a physical reality - so that apples are made of two particles:

I half-apple particle + ! half-particle apple = I whole apple.

This is confusing my head!

Scattering experiments in particle accelerators can "see" individual quarks. Basically, the pattern of particle ricochets off of protons and neutrons tells us that there are three "things" in them. Although you can't isolate individual quarks, you can have them in different combinations. Protons contain two up quarks and one down quark, whereas neutrons contain one up quark and two down quarks. The ways that the quarks can (or can't) be combined tells us a lot about their individual properties, such as their charge.

19

General Science / Re: What does the following mean (Particle Physics question)?

« on: 27/05/2021 15:36:05 »

@charles1948


Hello Charles!

Previously i thought your posts were  quite bent towards antiscientific promulgation and also evoked potential seeding of conspiracy theories.
(Perhaps, i still Think the same)
🤔

But Now...as i see the aftereffects of the Quality of content(information) your Words/Statements/Doubts bring out or receive in Response... I'm quite Pleased!
😇

Gotta say, very helpful towards a layperson who might have similar doubts but might not have the courage to speak up or speak out.
👍

I feel by constantly suspecting & doubting Scientific Methodologies, works out in directly proportional manners, thereby making it Alot more Stronger & Alot more Credible.
👌




P.S. - Please, keep up the Good Work!
✌️

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can it be shown that there must be a maximum relative speed attainable ?.

« on: 26/05/2021 19:56:05 »

So even the "maximum speed of transfer of information" runs foul of non inertial observers-or is it just  that it can be lower than c but never higher than c?(bit confused as to your " Even light can be made to go fast")

It has nothing to do with observers. It has to do with the abstract coordinate system of choice, and any observer, stationary, inertial, or neither has a host of coordinate systems from which to choose .

Relative to non-inertial coordinate systems, things can move faster than c, even light. Think of Betelgeuse moving at 4000c in the rotating frame of my house. If light from it didn't move that fast, observers on one side of Betelgeuse would not be able to see it, which is absurd.  If Betelgeuse is moving at exactly 4000c in that frame, then light emitted from it in the west direction would move at 4001c, at least at first, and light emitted to the east would travel at -3999c at first.

Light currently (relative to the cosmological frame) emitted from GN-z11 (a galaxy about 32 BLY away with redshift > 11) directly towards us increases its proper separation from us at about 1.3c and will never reach us. But velocity isn't relative in that frame, so that light moves at exactly c no matter which way it is pointed.
Relative to the current inertial coordinate system of the solar system, light currently emitted from GN-z11 directly towards us travels towards us at about 1c and will reach us in (SWAG) 13 billion years . I didn't work the numbers since 'our inertial frame' isn't a clearly defined thing (and for that matter, neither is its location relative to the cosmological frame).

Point is, these are all very different numbers, but all for the same observer (Earth). It isn't about the observer, it's about the coordinate system chosen.