1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why is inflation needed in the bbt?

« on: 24/06/2022 13:54:26 »

This should help:  https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html#:~:text=The%20Inflation%20Theory%20proposes%20a,relatively%20gradually%20throughout%20its%20history.

2

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 19/06/2022 15:47:40 »

Its always a bit messy to have to deal with consciousness but quantum gravity, if that's such a thing "seems" to demands to understand clearly what it's, before, being able to mathematically represent it, if tapping into the answer without understanding how time and consciousness are related one would be forbidden to understand the "why" (it would be).

Do you seriously think that makes any sense?

 Think like this: If I understand everything I need to reach Vega in order to warn them about a supernova I've seen on earth, which they haven't seen yet.

If you see the supernova on earth and it doesn't negatively impact the earth, then the would be no need to warn Vega since it would obviously be farther from the supernova than the earth is.

 Now what is a paradox for us?
 Where the math couldn't keep up.
 But if that's true, it's a redundant assumption.
 You couldn't travel because you didn't knew how at that moment.
 You "math" would only be the math for casualty which emerged "specifically" set for "you".

 If you knew how to reach Vega the way you wanted, you say that there would be no paradox.
 But isn't that equally redundant?
  What about the casualty that prevented you to do the way you wanted?
 "Was avoided!"

 See?
 You don't avoided the potential paradox, you avoided the casualty which lead to it.
  Not preventing the paradox, simple "there was the paradox and there wasn't all along".

 Your "not knowing" created casualty based on your own observation.
 Which lead to you explain not the universe embedded within math or geometry, but the causality you yourself caused because your math was still "predictable".

 One needs to understand this quantum aspect of "different time" or even "no time", in order to understand how to replicate that in the macro scale.

Once you do, you'll understand "what casualty" was, pretty sure it's time to put the human consious observer as a properly of time, or there'll be a "new way" to describe casualty and "why" you can't do it, because you used casualty on your understanding, "bringing" the impossibility with you.

 From that point will be very difficult to return and fix.
 For me, intuitively "light" it's our single only misconception for it all.

Word salad.

3

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 16/06/2022 16:33:49 »

@Alex Dullius Siqueira, your entire post in pseudoscience.  The ideas presented do not match observation or experimentation, so your ideas are wrong.

4

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 15/06/2022 03:55:32 »

Light causes gravity

There is plenty of observational and experimental evidence that shows your idea is not correct.

And it all would start from the assumption that photons recieves their mass one plank distance behind their present frame, and such would be mass is quantified, allocated but since it can't be stored remains null.

That makes no sense.  I think you need to rephrase that.

When the temporal warp light causes trough out it's whole trajectory of billions of years, start to colide with mater, it than start to "push" the object, and the binding is up to electromagnetic forces.
 It doesn't literally pushes or pulls anything, rather the object recieves the whole temporal path of light, and it grants it the ability to move.

I'm going to have to stop at this point because none of this makes sense.  It sounds like a bunch of science terms just randomly thrown together.  Sorry.

5

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 14/06/2022 13:14:39 »

 Light is the interference that gives mass to everything there is and itself, in time.
 The photon is why the electron and everything else vibrates and can exist as a thing in the first time.
 Photons not traveling trough space time, photons created space time as the original "universal star" exploded.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that would support those conjectures.

Wondering if black hole in fact sucks anything, or if they simple when the star exploded is sometimes able to "delay away from C" and becomes disconnected from the grid and space starts to fall towards it in order to seal the hole.

A black hole is more like a very compact gravity source.

 Not sure C is indeed a "limit" to anything.
 It seems C it's more a tictac rate, where anything moving at a matching speed would not be able to be recreated in the next frame and would desapears.
 But nothing ever proved C is the limit.

The speed of light is invariant and as a consequence, the speed of light is the max speed of the universe.

A warp should be proporcional, light is a warp.

I think you are using the wrong word.  'Warp' means bend.

6

New Theories / Re: Volume/Space/mass/light linked?

« on: 13/06/2022 13:26:36 »

It's possible that the photon do have mass and happens that due their configuration can't store it or keep it,

Probably not, since matter cannot move at the speed of light.

therefore their mass occurs one frame behind the next plank

Could expound on this?  I don't know what 'one frame behind the next plank' means.

 As if the warp was to fast to even quantity their mass

I don't know what that means, please explain further.

so instead of giving it to the photons as particles, such mass is lost in the previous frame, and once there mass without a geometrical "particle/vibration" becomes "volume/space"?

How could a particle become space?  That would clearly violate the conservation of mass and energy so it seems highly unlikely.

Could it be that the elusive force expanding the universe is the mass of the photonic light emitted by the stars?
 Only visible if observing the past.

Light cannot expand space, light has inertia so it could conceivably have some effect on matter but not space.

7

General Science / Re: How to calculate overall efficiency of combined cycle power plants

« on: 13/06/2022 13:12:14 »

 https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node67.html

There are several other sites that go into more detail.  Just google:  'Calculating the efficiency of combined cycle power plant'.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Formation of our solar system, the Nova, Nebula, dust and disc formation?

« on: 06/06/2022 16:16:53 »

Gold in our solar system, in the earth's crust formed in a nova or super nova, also everything heavier than iron, true?

Yes.

Was this a nova or super nova event? Was this about five billion years ago?

There were probably several nova and super nova that contributed heavy elements to the dust clouds that eventually became our solar system.

What and where is the remnant of this star and explosion?

White dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes.  They are long gone from our region of space.

Was there a resulting nebula? If so, what happened to it? Why wasn't there a resulting dwarf star or neutron star?

All these things are long gone.  4.5 billion years is a long time, we have orbited the milky way about 20 times since this happened.  In as little as 100,000 years the night sky will no longer have any recognizable constellations due to the motion of the stars.

Did our solar system form from a nebula or where did the mass come from, for the sun and planets?

It formed from a dust cloud or more correctly it formed from a 'molecular cloud'.

Do nebulas have a life span?

Yes.  There are many types of nebulas, but none of them are permanent features.  The quick answer on what happens to them is they either dissipate or coalesce.

9

Just Chat! / Re: appreciation

« on: 06/06/2022 15:59:28 »

Click the 'Actions' pull down and the first option is 'Say Thanks'.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / sIRe: The early Sun at the time just after Thea's impact?

« on: 06/06/2022 15:57:09 »

I assume after the impact there would not be a moon for quite a while.  There would be a debris field in orbit around the earth that would gradually coalesce into the moon.  Further I assume that there would be so much dust and debris in the atmosphere that you would not see the sun at all, the surface of the earth would be in darkness.

11

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can You Define What a Woman Is ?

« on: 28/05/2022 12:23:10 »

A female human.

12

Just Chat! / Re: There's a section with "similar topics" appearing.

« on: 13/04/2022 02:54:19 »

   I'm not a very observant person but it's come to my attention that after each thread there's a section that claims to identify "similar topics".   
1.   Is that new or was I really not paying attention?

Yeah, it's been there as long as I've been a member.

13

Just Chat! / Re: A Short puzzle with dogs.

« on: 12/04/2022 17:53:03 »

Are these dogs point particles

LOL, good question...

14

New Theories / Re: The theory of the human body special mass

« on: 07/04/2022 15:23:53 »

What do you think will happen then?  will any university try to do the experiment to make it public?

If I am on a scale and I weigh 60 kg, if I raise up on my toes the scale will not read 120 kg as I am rising up, I believe that is your experiment.  But that result is the expected out come based on simple physics.  You seem to think the scale should read 120 kg but no one who has a basic grasp of mechanics would come to that conclusion.   

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does a red-shift affect a black body spectrum?

« on: 05/04/2022 01:41:10 »

.
    In the rest frame of the observer, is the radiation they receive from the black body still going to have the right distribution to be consistent with a Black body spectrum but just with a different temperature T₂? 

The distribution curve of the radiation is different at different temperatures I believe, so I think the curve for say 800C would have the same shape it would just be shifted in the moving frame.

16

New Theories / Re: I'm a discoverer

« on: 27/03/2022 22:02:01 »

What is the x force on the scale ?

The force on the scale when you are not moving is about 588 N.
If you take 0.5 seconds to stand on your toes your 'X' would be about 8 N.

17

New Theories / Re: Evolution is Universe Wide

« on: 25/03/2022 00:52:49 »

This thread is absurd.  It is just a bunch of stuff you made up.  It makes no sense and is impossible.  If you don't stop this I shall write  Snuffleupagus.

18

New Theories / Re: Could the Hubble constant be related to the proton radius?

« on: 21/03/2022 19:40:26 »

This is an assumption of the preview. If there is a minimum value for the physical quantities action, charge and temperature, then maybe some other physical quantities may be minimally limited too.

That may or may not be true.  But there is no reason to think this is true :
The Hubble constant H (of dimension T-1) would correspond to the minimum frequency:
fmin = H.

19

New Theories / Re: Could the Hubble constant be related to the proton radius?

« on: 20/03/2022 15:10:44 »

Nevertheless, some scientists, including myself, follows in the footsteps of Dirac, searching for a meaning of dimensionless numbers

I didn't realize you were a scientist.  Could you explain how the Hubble constant can have a frequency and what that frequency is?  Thanks.

20

New Theories / Re: Could the Hubble constant be related to the proton radius?

« on: 19/03/2022 15:25:20 »

Now, if you read the preprint, you will notice that all physical values are referred to as constants, including the proton radius. So, your conclusion about my idea is unjustified.

When I said you were doing numerology and not physics I was referring to things like this from your paper.
You wrote:
The Hubble constant H (of dimension T-1) would correspond to the minimum frequency:
fmin = H.

Let's think about this for a second, what is the frequency of a constant?  There is no frequency of a constant.  The Hubble constant is the speed of the expansion of space per Mpc.  A constant speed doesn't have a frequency.

You then take the formula for the energy of a photon  and substitute in the bogus frequency of the Hubble constant.

None of that makes any physical sense and that is just the first couple of equations.