1

Just Chat! / Re: What is your take on moral purchasing?

« on: 14/03/2023 03:00:31 »

The problem with moral purchasing is that the world changes.

Your moral standard is more consistent than your moral rules. If your moral standard is conditional, i.e. changes by world conditions, then by definition it's not universal. You can choose to follow different moral rules in different conditions, based on your moral standard.
Efficiency is a universal instrumental goal, assuming the same effectiveness. This is the basis for Occam's razor.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do you change the spectrum of radiation inside an oven if you change its shape?

« on: 12/03/2023 14:13:44 »

Blackbody radiation is usually considered (theoretically modelled and suitable equations derived) by looking at the radiation that can exist inside a cavity or an "oven".    The interior of the oven can support various modes of radiation within it,  each mode has a particular frequency,   those frequencies ultimately assumed to be caused (generated by) charged particles oscillating at that frequency in the walls of the oven.

The effect of standing wave to radiation spectrum is only significant when the oven walls are highly reflective. Otherwise, the effect of standing wave, and shape of the oven, would be miniscule.
Candle soot is highly absorbtive/emissive, even when it's only applied to a flat surface. It absorbs light and reemit electromagnetic radiation close to black body spectrum.

3

Just Chat! / Re: An Open Question To A Moral Nihilist...

« on: 14/02/2023 08:33:22 »

Because isn't pain always a horrible thing to go thru? Who ever says it's nice? Some people think it's sometimes necessary or unavoidable. But I've never heard anyone say it's nice or they enjoyed it.

Imagine what would happen to someone who can't feel pain. They won't know that real damages has been done to their body, and they would be more likely to die, especially when their understanding of physical reality hasn't been adequately developed yet, such as babies and little children.
Ability to feel pain can be seen as a defense mechanism against physical harms, which is a product of evolutionary process.
You can find masochism in dictionaries.

4

Just Chat! / Re: What is your theodicy?

« on: 10/02/2023 06:51:15 »

The function of  theism is to excuse evil.

What do you mean by evil?

Any action that intentionally causes harm.

How do you define harm?
Can your definition be consistently used to determine if these cases are evil?
A human kills a mosquito which is biting him.
Humans use gene drive to get a species of mosquito into extinction.
Fishermen kill dolphins because they compete for fish.
Neutering stray cats.
Kick boxers kicking each others.
 

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How important is it to recreate Earth's gravity on a manned spaceship?

« on: 07/02/2023 14:04:43 »

you can even die if enough time is spent in zero gravity before coming back to earths gravity.

Not sure this has been demonstrated.

Perhaps because the time wasn't enough.
But when someday it does, it would be a challenge to determine whether the death is caused by zero gravity or something else.

6

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

« on: 26/01/2023 07:58:35 »

Here's some quotes with similar meanings.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/04/good-men-do/

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing
John F. Kennedy? Edmund Burke? R. Murray Hyslop? Charles F. Aked? John Stuart Mill?

“For evil men to accomplish their purpose, it is only necessary that good men do nothing,”

7

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

« on: 24/01/2023 04:14:22 »

By a majority vote. Like Margaret Thatcher, Donald Trump, GWBush-Blair, and pretty well everyone whose lifetime achievement was to damage civilisation.

A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims... but accomplices
George Orwell

8

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

« on: 18/01/2023 10:21:19 »

What influence have the children of Karl Marx, Pope John Paul II, Adolf Hitler, Jesus Christ.... had on society? And did these rather significant characters themselves inherit power and influence?

In conscious organisms, genetic transfer/inheritance is not the only factor influencing their future. Their ideas can have bigger impacts than their genes.

9

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

« on: 12/01/2023 11:33:25 »

No intention of Derailing the Topic or Discussion...

But What If..?

Fanatic Extremists of One specific religion were to Succeed in Converting/Killing All others until there is No Other religion left, besides just One.

Would people belonging to the same Religion, the only one last religion left on earth, would they fight among themselves for Religious purposes?

P.S. - I understand wars would still exist for money, gold, land, resources etc etc.

Whatever their ideologies are, they are all memes that live in people's mind. Their survival depends on their effects on the survival of their hosts. In an extremely rare "lucky" case where one ideology successfully defeats and eliminates its competitors (either by killing hosts of its competitors, or converting those hosts to accept it and abandon its competitors), random mutations will inevitably appear in some of its hosts or their descendants. These new variants will compete among one another, and the variants which best serve their survival will be more likely to be the most common. When this memetic evolutionary process continues, the eventual winners will likely be those which are most closely aligned with the universal terminal goal.

10

New Theories / Re: Is there a better way to explain light?

« on: 31/12/2022 06:30:10 »

Go and look up what the words mean.

Does a silver mirror transparent, as per your definition?

Does it what?
Or did you use the wrong word?

Is the silver mirror transparent?

11

New Theories / Re: Is there a better way to explain light?

« on: 29/12/2022 03:59:57 »

My reasoning is that your question is badly written and can provide two answers which contradict eachother.
The current is zero because the charge  does not change.
Or the current is undefined because it does ot specify the time over which the change happens (from another perspective.) and current is defined as a rate of change of charge with time.

You have two contradicting answers because you don't understand the question.

They are both correct answers to your question, and they contradict each other.
That is a problem with the question, not with my understanding.

How should the question be stated according to your understanding?

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: why do a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: 28/12/2022 09:50:26 »

(400 kHz homing beacon)...interference and diffraction are distinct phenomena, but both are effects of superposition

The behaviour of radio waves from a homing beacon can be described quite well by Maxwell's equations. This is "classical" physics.
- Superposition derives from quantum theory, and cannot be described by classical physics.
- You don't need superposition to describe radio waves

Superposition principle has been widely used long before quantum theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

The superposition principle,[1] also known as superposition property, states that, for all linear systems, the net response caused by two or more stimuli is the sum of the responses that would have been caused by each stimulus individually. So that if input A produces response X and input B produces response Y then input (A + B) produces response (X + Y).

A function F(x) that satisfies the superposition principle is called a linear function. Superposition can be defined by two simpler properties: additivity


and homogeneity

for scalar a.
This principle has many applications in physics and engineering because many physical systems can be modeled as linear systems. For example, a beam can be modeled as a linear system where the input stimulus is the load on the beam and the output response is the deflection of the beam. The importance of linear systems is that they are easier to analyze mathematically; there is a large body of mathematical techniques, frequency domain linear transform methods such as Fourier and Laplace transforms, and linear operator theory, that are applicable. Because physical systems are generally only approximately linear, the superposition principle is only an approximation of the true physical behavior.

The superposition principle applies to any linear system, including algebraic equations, linear differential equations, and systems of equations of those forms. The stimuli and responses could be numbers, functions, vectors, vector fields, time-varying signals, or any other object that satisfies certain axioms. Note that when vectors or vector fields are involved, a superposition is interpreted as a vector sum. If the superposition holds, then it automatically also holds for all linear operations applied on these functions (due to definition), such as gradients, differentials or integrals (if they exist).

13

Guest Book / Re: Should people that hate science be banned from posting?

« on: 27/12/2022 10:39:21 »

P.S. - Better to be Hated for what you are, than to be Loved for what you are Not.
(random internet quote)

It's French author André Gide.

14

Science Experiments / How to build DIY lasers?

« on: 24/12/2022 10:31:11 »

I just found a great Youtube channel named Les' Lab, explaining how to build DIY laser. I'd like to share the videos here. I hope you find them useful.

Nitrogen Laser tear down, power up, and Home Made Dye Laser Demonstration

15

New Theories / Re: Is there a better way to explain light?

« on: 18/12/2022 14:20:17 »

Yes it does. The problem is that you do not understand that, in that case, Huygens's construction predicts a cone of beams which, when they strike a screen, form a curve.

How do you explain cone of beam produced by a single edge diffraction using Huygen's principle?

To be honest, I don't bother.
I know that when this was originally being sorted out in about the  18th and 19th century, people who were better at maths than I am did the calculations and found that they agree with the observations.

If they hadn't then it would have been argued about at the time.
Essentially, if Huygens' ideas had not agreed with the observations then we wouldn't still be using them.

So, which is more likely ; you can't apply the principles correctly or all those scientists, and all those since, were wrong?

It seems like you have fallen into a herd mentality problem. Thinking that someone smarter than us must have solved the problem before us, and stopping us from solving the problem ourselves can hinder scientific progress.

And, in particular, which is more likely given that you have already shown that you don't understand the underlying principles of science (like, for example, dimensional analysis)?



 

As a human being, I may have made mistakes. I may make more mistakes in the future. But it doesn't mean that I can't make a correct conclusion.
Which dimensional analysis are you talking about?

16

New Theories / Re: Is there a better way to explain light?

« on: 16/12/2022 22:14:30 »

Incidentally, you need to be very careful with the "edges" of transparent objects.
The manufacturers generally polish the edges to give something curved (so it isn't dangerously sharp).
But a curved bit of glass is a lens and will produce changes of the light beam that you might not have considered.
Can you explain how you have allowed for this factor?

What kind of changes do I need to consider?

17

New Theories / Re: Does science assume aether

« on: 11/12/2022 06:29:38 »

AFAIK, every model of aether that has been proposed so far makes predictions contrary to at least one experimental result. Thus, this word comes with too much baggage for anyone who wants to propose a new theory of light. Perhaps it would be better for them to invent a new word for their idea.

18

New Theories / Re: Is there a better way to explain light?

« on: 10/12/2022 01:52:08 »

Whose?
Who will be embarrassed by you posting a video in which you say something that's wrong.

What's the wrong thing I said?
What should be said instead to make it right?

19

New Theories / Re: Is there a better way to explain light?

« on: 08/12/2022 08:48:26 »

. I've shown non-diffractive edge in experiments using total internal reflection in visible light. I 've also shown using a metal plate and microwave.

Can you post a link?

video #4 Non-diffractive Obstacle

video #9 Horizontally tilted diffraction

video #10 Vertically tilted diffraction

video #11 Non-parallel light source

video #12 Non-diffractive interference

video #13 Non-diffractive slit

Here's my newest video investigating diffraction of light by producing single side interference pattern.

I have uploaded new video showing diffraction in microwave frequency.

Basically, the experiment result leads us to conclude that diffraction comes from the material blocking the microwave path. When the obstruction is opaque enough, we find no diffraction. It's similar to my experiment using laser showing non-diffractive obstruction.

This result is not widely known yet.
 

Here is a new video demonstrating diffraction of microwave using multilayer metal grating, which is a meta-material.

Same as diffraction by normal material, it only occurs when the meta-material is adequately transparent to the microwave.

20

New Theories / Re: Is there a better way to explain light?

« on: 06/12/2022 13:07:08 »

Physics is not wrong.

PHYSICS IS FRAUD.

Is your model part of physics?
Or do you call it something else?

We can probably save a lot of time by ignoring Mitko.
What he says makes no sense.

At least we can help him (and others) to identify his mistake.