1

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: Yesterday at 21:16:59 »

My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.

why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?

Because you said that it involved the aether.

No pope. I just call it the aether because you people are so high strung on semantics. call it what you want, you still aren't going to find anything in the universe without tempetature?

Words have particular definitions. If you are using a word in a way that goes against its traditional definition, you can end up causing confusion. So if what you are talking about isn't aether, then you probably shouldn't call it aether.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics

« on: Yesterday at 18:46:25 »

nobody has ever insulted me with the title of philosopher!

I had assumed you were a PhD.

3

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: No Evidence of the Exodus?

« on: Yesterday at 15:36:20 »

From ChatGPT:

How the mighty have fallen

4

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: No Evidence of the Exodus?

« on: Yesterday at 08:42:56 »

I'm not sure if trying to cite a chat bot  on a science page is more or less stupid than trying to cite the Bible.

It's important to note that absence of evidence does not necessarily equate to evidence of absence.

How can you sleep at night knowing there might be a tiger in your room?
I realise there's no evidence for the tiger but you don't think that the absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence.

In the real world, if you look for evidence without finding it, and the situation is such that evidence should be obvious, then the absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there any philosophical or other implications to the underlying randomness

« on: Yesterday at 03:17:20 »

I also  assumed that randomness  was the only interpretation of QM  that  was accepted .

There is no interpretation called 'randomness'. I think you mean the category of non-determinstic.
Of the 13 basic types of interpretations listed in wiki, 2 are agnostic, 7 non-deterministic, and 4 of them deterministic, meaning no randomness, no 'god rolling dice'. I would include relational interpretation as a 5th one there because it also has no randomness, but wiki lists it as non-deterministic.

So the decay of the nucleus is only of significance when it is measured (to my mind) and  this "measurement" is a synonym with "interaction"

Good point. For one, 'measurement' and 'interaction' are essentially the same thing in QM (with a couple exceptions). You seem to take the non-realist approach that says the decay doesn't exist until measured. I agree with that, but keep in mind that it's a choice, not something known.

Do you stand by your explanation that some occurrences (eg nuclear decay)  take place on their own and without a "partner" in the physical  environment (the wider system they are part of)?

There are valid counterfactual interpretations that say the decay happens even if not measured. Either way, the decay isn't 'caused' by anything, so whether it takes an interaction or not, it's still an uncaused and empirically random occurrence. Given the realist interpretation, it doesn't take two for the decay to occur, so no partner required. A partner is only needed for it to be measured. A tree falling in the forest makes no noise if there's nothing to measure the event. That makes no sense at the classical level since it is impossible for any part of the forest (or of Earth) to not measure the tree falling in it.

More generally,perhaps are not all systems ,large or small interconnected?

Well that's what the Schrodinger's box thought experiment illustrates. The box represents the isolation of a system from the outside, a severance of that connection. This has been demonstrated in the lab for 'large' things (something big enough to see without aid), which were isolated enough to be placed in superposition of state for a time. The procedure to isolate it would not be survived by a cat. Anyway, it constitutes a real situation where two systems were not interconnected for a time. It gets much easier with distance. A planet currently 20 BLY away is permanently not interconnected with Earth today, so there's an example of systems forever not connected, at least per a local interpretation. Given a non-local interpretation, one can influence the other faster than light. Maybe they share entangled particles or something.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are there any philosophical or other implications to the underlying randomness

« on: Yesterday at 00:57:00 »

As I hope I have understood  Bell's theorem  has clarified the random nature of physical interactions

Did it have much (anything?) to say about randomness?  It seems that quantum theory in the first place (well before Bell came along) demonstrated the fundamental probabilistic nature of empirical things.
There were two principles held shortly after the turn of the 20th century: Realism and locality. The former says that things exist (a system is in a particular state) independent of measurement. The latter says that the effect cannot be separated from its cause in a space-like manner, or that cause-effect cannot move faster than light. Bell demonstrated that (barring superdeterminism), at least one of these principles must be false.

we do only have interactions rather than isolated events don't we?

I don't know what you mean by these things. An interaction is something that happens over time between different systems. An event (as usually used in physics) is a point in spacetime, but it also might be used to describe an occurrence, such as a particle interaction, say that shown by a Feynman diagram. In that sense, an interaction is a form of event. The decay of some nucleus is an event that isn't an interaction since there is but the one system.

So if the random event is something of a ground zero in our understanding  of the physical world  what else can we say  about it aside from just accepting it and building on it?

Again, I don't understand. Our understanding of the world isn't grounded on one event, or a group of them. There's a lot more to it.

Are we still allowed to believe that randomness  can still.be investigate to a deeper level of understanding or is this as far as things go?

My apologies, but again, I don't know what's being asked. Measurements seem probabilistic by nature, but there are interpretations of QM that are not random at all, so the perceived randomness is hardly fundamental since it cannot be conclusively demonstrated.

Thanks for your patience.Clearly I am poorly versed in Bell's theorem and also the localism vs realism question.

Thanks for your descriptions of them

I also  assumed that randomness  was the only interpretation of QM  that  was accepted .

I suppose I may learn more from my errors than by trying to buildi on my imaginings.

I will need a little time for the lessons to sink in.

When I said that interactions were more descriptive  than events (not using  "event"  to mean a geometric  point in spacetime) I was expressing my feeling that everything has to have an environment to play out in.

So the decay of the nucleus is only of significance when it is measured (to my mind) and  this "measurement" is a synonym with "interaction"

As the saying goes ,one hand does not clap and the nucleus decays into or from something ,doesn't it?

Do you stand by your explanation that some occurrences (eg nuclear decay)  take place on their own and without a "partner" in the physical  environment (the wider system they are part of)?

More generally,perhaps are not all systems ,large or small interconnected?

7

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Is religion killing us?

« on: 05/06/2023 19:30:58 »

Religion starts with man's yearning to answer some of the perennial questions for which there are no simple answers, such as what is the nature of conscientiousness, what happens after death, how did the universe arise, etc, etc. This all good, in my opinion, but the trouble starts when a cult develops with leaders who start dishing out dogma and it then goes downhill.

8

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 04/06/2023 22:59:09 »

Never mind ice cream. Every book for sale at the airport bookshop is a "best seller".

Perhaps they were really best seller for a day, or an hour.

Even assuming anyone would know, surely you have to print the cover before you sell any?

9

General Science / Re: How to kill, both natural and medical, aerobic bacteria in the gut?

« on: 03/06/2023 07:34:43 »

Antibiotics. Proper strong stuff from hospitals. I have heard of doctors end up prescribing those dainty little bottles from the supermarket that are the gut bacteria stuff.

If you think that (UK) supermarkets sell antibiotics you are not well enough informed to be giving advice.

Antibiotics are noted for upsetting teh stomach- bloating is a fairly typical symptom.
PC is suggesting treating bloating with drugs likely to induce it.

It's as if he didn't understand this bit.

Please note: this is not seeking medical advice, just scientific evidence/opinion

Ahh thank goodness for the disclaimer.

The question asks for something to kill bacteria in the gut, the hospital grade antibiotics will do the job, hospital ergo not without very serious doctor prescribing. Killing the bacteria ergo no bacteria ergo needing something to replace the bacteria ergo little hospital pots of microbiotics or gut bacteria.

Ergo I wonder what happens if you drop antibiotics into bacteria culture is it like coke and mentos.?

10

General Science / How to kill, both natural and medical, aerobic bacteria in the gut?

« on: 01/06/2023 11:51:55 »

Hello

Is there a way, both natural and medical, to kill aerobic bacteria in the gut?

I think bloating is caused from these and I would like to know how to kill them. I know Rifaximin is killing some that cause ammonia.

Please note: this is not seeking medical advice, just scientific evidence/opinion

Thanks!

11

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Is there enough lithium?

« on: 01/06/2023 10:16:30 »

Apparently, Lithium has no significant new sources in the whole universe...
- Lithium was produced in the early universe, making up 10^-9 of matter from the Big Bang
- When Lithium finds its way into the core of stars, it is rapidly fused into heavier elements (ie the amount is reducing)
- When stars fuse lighter elements, they "skip over" Lithium, so no new Lithium is being produced in stars

So, it is important to wisely use what Lithium we have (and recycle what we no longer use)...
- Lithium is great for mobile applications, due to its low density
- But for stationary power storage, other chemistries are becoming competitive, like flow batteries

12

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 01/06/2023 03:50:43 »

...
@MrSmiles...
Why so Silent?
(hopefully ur still smilin)

Yes, thank you , as good as ever ...
Just not much contemplation happening as I recuperate from recent illness. I will be composing a new post with some ideas for discussion very soon ...

195624,

13

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 01/06/2023 00:41:00 »

Never mind ice cream. Every book for sale at the airport bookshop is a "best seller".

14

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Is there enough lithium?

« on: 31/05/2023 23:22:37 »

Is there enough lithium recoverable to supply 8 billion people with energy storage? Or should we wait for the aluminium batteries?

15

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 31/05/2023 22:43:52 »

The " Universal " part.
If a whole city agrees & accepts it, then it becomes a City moral standard.
Similarly...
State moral standard.
Country/Nation moral standard.
Continental moral standard.
Planetary moral standard.
Interplanetary, Galactic, Intergalactic, Clusterial, Interclusterial, Observable universe & then finally " Universal Moral Standard ".

You can expand the scope by space like that. You can also expand the scope by similarities.
Let's start by individual moral standards. For the sake of the argument, assume that it's the smallest unit of consciousness where morality can be applied.
It can be expanded to siblings moral standards. Then clan's, tribe, race, species, genus, phylum, base chemicals, and finally universal moral standard. However you divide them, they will converge if their scope is expanded enough.

16

Just Chat! / Re: A question for our paragon of aeronautical erudition, Alancalverd

« on: 31/05/2023 16:49:40 »

We did try, but the main harbor road in Porec is named after Nikola Tesla and the first bloke we met at dinner was a retired physics teacher, then somebody started dropping parachutists out of a Cessna Caravan and somehow it all seemed a bit like being at home.....

17

New Theories / Re: Why is the sky blue?

« on: 31/05/2023 15:38:17 »

The light emitted by the Sun is red shifted by the Sun's gravitational field by a significantly larger factor than the Earth's gravitational field blue shifts it because the Sun is much more massive than the Earth. Despite this, the Sun's light still appears white from space. The degree of change in wavelength is incredibly small.

Besides, what Bored Chemist said about the sky being red at sunset also demonstrates that gravitational blue shift cannot be the reason behind the sky's color: the Earth's gravity doesn't change at sunset.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics

« on: 30/05/2023 23:40:34 »

ChatGPT seems like a longwinded philosopher rather than someone who actually understands information theory. Try Wikipedia - the entry seems to have been written by folk who know what they are taking about.

Strictly, of course, a code is a string that identifies a longer string stored in the receiver, whereas a cipher simply substitutes one symbol at a time so that the decrypt contains the same number of bits or whatever as the encrypted string. Thus "BMBO" is a simple cipher for "ALAN", but "ALAN" is a code for "an old geezer in Cambridge with nothing better to do with his time".

The unexpected message will only contain information if the receiver has some preconception of what the sender means. Thus ALAN or even .-  .-..  .-  -. will probably denote at least "a British bloke" to many earthlings but conveys nothing at all to a Martian tree frog.

19

New Theories / Re: Newest Quantum Gravity and Theory of Everything, TOE

« on: 30/05/2023 08:55:01 »

Don't go there, Zero, my friend. Any convexity in the grid would create a massive black hole consuming the entire universe and reducing it to a singularity effectively nullifying the last ~13 billion years. It would be as though we had never existed!!

20

New Theories / Re: Is life in this Universe a one-off occurrence?

« on: 30/05/2023 01:59:11 »

If you substantially keep posting All LINE material content on science forums, then who's gonna buy the online book?

Are you Prof. Lang?
Or an Imposter plagiarising his Content?
Or just a silly spammer?

Ergo; If you keep spreading the word, then who's gonna buy the Bible, Koran, or Torah?