1

New Theories / Re: Length Contraction and Time Dilation Contradict the Constancy of Light Speed

« on: 27/11/2013 11:45:22 »

No, it was all with reference to A.

Actually wiht more investigation I found that B was not an inertial frame of reference as it undergoes acceleration.. So I rephrased my question to.

If B is travelling at constant velocity towards A
When A calculated B is going to arrive at that point (without stopping) in 1 year he emits a light signal towards a reciever 1 light year away at point C.
At the exact point B reaches A the reciever detects the light the time of which takes 1 year form A's point of reference, but obviously less time from B's point of reference.

If I considered the ladder paradox, would this mean that the distance between A and C appears smaller to B? So that B can calculate the speed of light to be constant.

So would that mean that the faster you travel, the closer things appear to be to each other? Is this why its hard to find a parking space?

2

Technology / Re: How to measure the natural resonance of concrete

« on: 27/11/2013 11:16:33 »

To answer the question..

Call a vibration monitoring company with a fictional story about having a large concrete structure you want assessing, get them in on a visit to show you what they do to do it, say you have a set up to see the actions (so you can design the structure to be monitored or somesuch) They will come along and test it for you thinking they had a mutlimillion pound deal on the go.. and then phone them up a few months later saying the project had been cancelled.. sorry!

(I dont know how ethical this could be considered...)

3

New Theories / Re: Length Contraction and Time Dilation Contradict the Constancy of Light Speed

« on: 26/11/2013 08:59:57 »

B stops at A..

To give an idea of values, that may show a calculation path,

B is travelling at average 1/2c, to a point B 0.5 light years from point A and obsever A, (1 year there and 1 year back) point C is 3 light years away.

So B would take 2 years with time dilation and arrive back at point A noticing a (?) reduced duration of local time (?) and then observe the conclusion of the light signal at point C at exactly the same time as observer A at this set local time exactly 3 years after light signal was emitted. Therefore the speed of that light was faster than c for observer B as his local time is earlier than local time at A.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: what such of thinges that produce ..shock waves and blast waves

« on: 25/11/2013 14:41:43 »

Blast waves and shock waves are pretty much identical, blast waves can be called specific shock waves defined as the resulting waves of energy generated from the deposition of a large amount of energy in a fluid.

Think if you threw a stone in a puddle, ripples (waves) would come from the point at which the stone entered the water.

As for sources of such things, anytime you have a sudden release of energy will produce shock waves, including breaking the sound barrier, explosions, lightening etc.

5

Technology / Re: Does hydrogen and oxygen fed to a petrol engine improve performance?

« on: 25/11/2013 11:23:52 »

I feel something has been lost in the discussions.

For an engine to work, it needs fuel, air and a source of ignition, ignition is nice and easy (petrol sparks, diesel heats), there is much talk over the increasing fuel/changing fuel etc. but what is lost is the requirement for air, now pumping a stoichiometric amount of HHO into ta cylinder will work fine on its own, but doing it with the other fuel in there would limit the amount of air for that reaction and limit the return on that fuel.

the whole fuel/air ratio would need to be addressed way in advance of strapping any HHO generator to car.

6

New Theories / Re: Length Contraction and Time Dilation Contradict the Constancy of Light Speed

« on: 25/11/2013 10:51:26 »

Here's one I thought about reading this, its the confusion about how the speed of light is constant for all observers, and time dilation.

1. Observer A is stood at point A and shines a packet of light to a far away point C
2. Observer B is on a rocket ship traveling at speed to point B somewhere between point A and C
3. The packet of light will be travelling at c to both observers
4. But if observer B is having time dilation, travels to point B and back to point A, time will have passed slower for him than observer A but if light hasn't got to C by the time he gets back to point A it will arrive at C simultaneously for both observers
5. How is light then constant seeing as B has been monitoring it for less local time than A?

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are inertial forces real?

« on: 25/11/2013 10:06:51 »

The inertial forces such as Gravitational, Centrifugal and Coriolis forces? they are measurable, and definable.. I think its hard to say its not real if you can measure it.. you can even predict them, so how can they not be real.

Maybe the question is of the definition of 'real'.

"Notice that all inertial forces have the mass as a constant of proportionality in them. The status of inertial forces is again a controversial one. One school of thought describes them as apparent or fictitious which arise in non-inertial frames of reference (and which can be eliminated mathematically by putting the terms back on the right hand side). We shall adopt the attitude that if you judge them by their effects then they are very real forces."

How else would you judge them?

8

Just Chat! / Re: Punning is hard(ly) work! Groaning aloud here?

« on: 21/11/2013 08:35:15 »

knotty problem there.. although I think the subject has been tangled somewhat

9

Just Chat! / Re: Punning is hard(ly) work! Groaning aloud here?

« on: 20/11/2013 10:49:27 »

on the button there.. waist not want not..

10

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?

« on: 18/11/2013 09:46:46 »

So now you are saying that life is non-physical? You do realize that we have a good understanding of the basic processes that make something alive. Look at a living cell. Which part of that cell's function requires a supernatural explanation?

All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone ., let alone its origins .
Otherwise , try to explain to me how life did emerge from the dead matter way back to the so-called original soup.

How could sentient mental physical life rise from just physics and chemistry ?

When one wants to explain life , one should try to explain it as a whole package : body and mind, not just take the physical body as the whole thing , by reducing the mental to the physical, it cannot be reduced to  .
[/quote]

How many fallacious and misleading statements do you want to make?

Your argument from personal incredulity is plain, and shifting the burden of proof is a typical reaction when you know you are fighting a losing battle.

You play with your circular arguments, without once questioning the conclusion you are arguing from. WE have tried to meet you with false compromises, yet you stick to your guns with no proof or evidence of any kind. You inflate the conflict about the few subjects you have chosen as you immaterial evidence regardless of having no evidence excpet the lack of evidence

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can an electromagnetic field make photons?

« on: 15/11/2013 10:07:08 »

I would like these photons as propulsion for spacecraft using rotating magnetic field.

There's really no such thing as a rotating magnetic field. All too often people make the mistake of thinking that electric and magnetic fields move, and they can't. This misunderstanding comes from the fact that there are sometimes useful to think of the fields as moving such as in visualizing magnetic field lines "cutting" across a conductor.

To see how you can get into trouble with moving field lines think of a rotating magnet. In the past some physicist took this moving field lines literally and tried to apply it to the action of the field of a rotating magnet. This implies that at certain distaces from the magnet the magnetic field would be moving faster than the speed of light. One astrophysicist thought that meant that the action of the rotating magnet didn't apply to distances that far away and called that distance the "light cylinder". He was trying to apply this to the magnetic field of a rotating neutron star. When one trieds to calculate the divergence of the field when one attempts to do it this way an error resuts.

So if you rotated a magnet, the field wouldn't move? Sound like dodgy science to me, I can rotate a bar magnet as many times as  i like and I dont break the laws of physics.. the north pole can be pointed south, and its still the north pole of the magnet, the south pole can be pointed east, and its still the south pole.. and my junior school experiment with iron filings show that the layout of the magnetic field changes as i rotate it..

Does my junior school magnet experiment show that magnetic fields can move? Plus I worked on generators for long enough to know that moving the magnetic forces through conductors has been a solid way of making electricity for quite some time.

I have rotating magnetic fields.. I feel sorry for those who dont.

But I am willing to accept that the motion of the field does not correspond to classical theories of motion

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Dr Cox meets Dr Who

« on: 15/11/2013 09:54:19 »

I watched a fantastic presentation on the BBC last night about the science of Dr Who, (a time travelling alien, worth a watch if you dont know it)

It explained a hell of a lot to me in nice laymans terms, but left me with a few questions

If a star collapses to a black hole and as time stops at the 'event horizon' (where the escape velocity becomes faster than the speed of light), we cannot observe the black hole due to it not releasing light, but due to time contraction as it approaches the event horizon, surely we could watch a star collapsing into one, in slow motion as such. Has this been observed?

If time stops at the event horizon due to gravitational forces 'bending' the light cone (or future possibilites) is there not a similar action around other gravitational masses? i.e. do we see comets 'slowing down' as they approach the sun.

Is time as we know it already affected by the sun, earth, moon and other planetary bodies? would this affect what we can learn about the speed of light? (i.e. are we subject to time dilation and record things slightly lower than a baseline?)

And finally, Dr Cox predicted the possibility of travelling to the past, using a black hole to 'turn' our future around so that our past becomes our future.. what limitations are there in the way of this being theoretically possible?

13

New Theories / Re: This Is Not Theory - The Moon Hitting the Earth Is Real - Very Real!

« on: 13/11/2013 15:44:23 »

I thought the moon was looking a little bigger last night.. and when i woke up this morning... I found a giant rubber stamped reconstruction of MO in my back garden.. I was proper shocked..

It was even inverse, with the ridges being dips and mountains where MO has canyons... scary stuff eh?

it even left my house standing and caused no more nuisance than a buzzing fly.

14

Just Chat! / Re: Automimetic Cat

« on: 11/11/2013 16:37:58 »

I cant but help think.. infinite number of monkeys with this one..

Sooner or later a pattern on the fur will look like something

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?

« on: 11/11/2013 08:56:44 »

Test or not, if it were the case, science would show a great interest in you, as solid evidence of something that is not understood.

What you miss completely from your waffling and indignation is that science would LOVE to find an immaterial, a sentience that makes the world happen.. as it would make their lives a LOT easier.

16

New Theories / Re: What is ...Science ?

« on: 11/11/2013 08:53:52 »

Why do we not consider to resolve this discussion by burden of proof..

Scientists will continue to work their thing and see if things are materialistic..

DQ can work his magic to prove that things arent materialistic.

Give us 1 piece of proof and you win the argument.. Science provides plenty of proof disproving what was previously thought of as immaterial so far.. yet they will keep heading towards fully understanding the universe (with or wihtout materialistic explanations) and if they do find the immaterial, science will try to find the patterns or determinism of said immaterial. (although that would then turn the immaterial > material by your view)

Give 1 example of something which you have solid proof of being immaterial, if you cannot supply 1 unattested fact, then why do you even bother trying to argue your point?

17

Technology / Re: 'Seawater greenhouses', who knew? And how is the heat rejected?

« on: 08/11/2013 15:15:42 »

For pumping water up from a mile down, this is in fact NOT what will happen, the level in the pipe will be the same as the level of the sea as atmospheric pressure will do all that work for you. Its the final bit to the greenhouse that will use the energy.

A single wall pipe will be fine (as the pressure inside will be the same as the pressure outside) you wouldnt want to go too close to the sea floor as the crud it will 'suck' up will clog bits and pieces.. and a fish filter would be advisable if you dont want to give a whale a hickey and have to empty tuna out of the pump casing every time a shoal goes past.

18

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Quitting smoking

« on: 08/11/2013 11:10:15 »

Yeah i have three of these.. its not the same.. they dont even have the same impact of patches..

If they were cheaper so i could find one that works for me.. yeah i would keep trying but.. so far they are not even close to replacing the nicotine or feeling of smoking a cigarette.

19

Just Chat! / Re: Too much power over individuals and the masses due to the net and chip implants?

« on: 08/11/2013 09:08:17 »

Just 1 example... The National Socialism party.. (is a banned political party in many countries)..

20

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?

« on: 08/11/2013 09:05:00 »

I am not afraid   haha of any  mainstream  materialist 'scientific world view "'s censorship or inquisitions to dare to say that there are indeed spiritual immaterial beings on earth out there , even though i cannot prove their existence ,as i cannot prove the existence of God either = just  belief assumptions of mine thus .
Since the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " assumes , just a materialist belief core assumption thus , that reality as a whole is just material or physical , then, it's pretty obvious that that "scientific world view " would a-priori reject those belief assumptions of mine as expressed above thus .

But , science proper thus (without materialism thus ) cannot , per definition, neither prove nor disprove  neither my belief in the existence of God nor my belief in the existence of those immaterial or spiritual beings on earth = that's 'somehting " that's both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .

P.S.: Those above mentioned belief assumptions of mine are not just based on religious authority , but also on my own personal experiences on the subject, among other factors as well  .
Religion , or just my faith in this case , that does stimulate experience , personal experience ,for example,  before science ever learned to do so thus .
Even science itself did originate from the very epistemology of the holy book i do believe in also: see my own thread on the same subject  : science as a religious duty , a form of worship of God , in order to try to find out about the secrets and signs of God both within and without .
Long story thus i am not gonna elaborate any further on .

You didn't answer the question.. what do they do that makes you think they exist? We are not asking for proof, just examples of things that cannot be explained by what you call materialism?

You are arguing yourself in circles. You accuse science of having a negative belief, and use your own negative belief as a counter argument. Science may never prove or disprove the existence of the immaterial, but it may find the evidence for it that you so obviously need to make your arguments hold water. It may very well be outside the possibility of science to actually investigate the immaterial, but until there's some immaterial evidence there is no current boundary for science to reach and so it will will keep discovering the material world until it finds where it cannot go further.. Your belief is not affected by the progress of science.. unless it explains what you call 'proof' of your belief to be a false belief..

You are simply my sir, afraid of being proven to have lived your life on a lie. And want to stop everyone else from finding out.