1

Just Chat! / Re: Are wine tasters legitimate?

« on: Today at 14:51:06 »

Yes, sommeliers are legitimate.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do the Earth's satellites orbit longer than the Moon's?

« on: Yesterday at 22:45:42 »

Why do artificial satellites of the Earth rotate by inertia longer than artificial satellites of the Moon?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't know what you mean.  Could you rephrase the question?

3

New Theories / Re: Solving the puzzle of wave-particle duality, solution of this problem

« on: 04/12/2023 15:29:02 »

Particles in rapid motion turn into waves, and in relative stillness they turn into particles. This is how the phenomenon of wave-particle duality can be explained.

First of all there is no puzzle to be solved.  Quantum objects can modeled quite well.  The problem you seem to have is trying to describe a quantum objects using a classical description.  That cannot be done.  Quantum objects don't 'turn into' waves or 'turn into' particles.  Quantum objects have a wave like property, this wave like property is not really like a classical wave.   In quantum objects the 'wave' is localized and a classical wave is not and quantum 'waves' collapse to a point, classical waves do not.
As Alan said the term particle-wave duality is an unfortunate term because it implies that quantum objects are part wave and part particle which is not accurate.  A quantum object is neither a particle nor a wave.   

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Quantum Entanglement and Interstellar Communication.

« on: 02/12/2023 16:24:47 »

See if this helps.

Let's look at 2 entangled particles.  We will assume that the property we are going to look at is the spin of the particles.
The 2 particles are separated by 10 million miles.  Each location has a detector that will measure the particles spin direction (up or down).
Here are the rules about the entangled particles:
1.  When an initial measurement of one of the particles is measured there is a 50-50 chance the direction will be up and a 50-50 chance the particle will be down.
2.  There is no way to predict what direction the spin will be it is completely random.
3.  When measured the particle can only be up or down.
4.  There is no way to force the particle to a certain orientation.
5.  Once either particle is measured they are no longer entangled.
6.  Once you measure the orientation of your particle you instantly know the orientation of the other particle.
7.  When either location measures their particle the result is completely random.  So if I measure my particle as up I will know that your particle will measure down, however you don't know that.  Your measurement will be completely random as far as you can tell, but once you measure our particle, you will know that my particle will be up.

Since both locations can only get a random result there is no way to use these random result to communicate.   

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Quantum Entanglement and Interstellar Communication.

« on: 28/11/2023 13:39:04 »

How would one go about demonstrating that such a particle is in a state of superposition?

Here is a Youtube video that does a good job of simply explaining superposition IMO.

6

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

« on: 26/11/2023 16:20:28 »

This is what is called; Earth-centrism.

Nope.  This what is called a fact, the only planet proven to have life is earth.  You were the one that said empirical evidence is needed.

Even this (Earth currently being the only viable habitat for life) doesn't alter the very high probability that the UMI principle describes reality in this universe.

I of course never said "earth is the only viable habitat for life" because I have no way of knowing that.  What is the UMI principle?

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Quantum Entanglement and Interstellar Communication.

« on: 24/11/2023 23:34:39 »

@Anybody interested in discussing this Topic further?

Sure.

8

Chemistry / Re: A machine that smells as well as a dog

« on: 24/11/2023 17:09:09 »

Surely cracking fusion energy is not easier than creating a portable machine that is as good as a police drug dog . . .

Well we currently have neither.  I would wager there is a lot more money being spent on fusion than on an artificial dog nose, especially since a dog works perfectly well.

9

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

« on: 22/11/2023 16:52:40 »

It is possible that it is.

10

New Theories / Re: Explanation of the mystery of the anthropic principle, universe, civilization

« on: 20/11/2023 13:43:32 »

I would even propose creating a new religion of Nothingness.

Is nothing sacred?

11

New Theories / Re: How Jupiter magnetic fields is created?

« on: 12/11/2023 16:14:58 »

Poor Dave is once again tilting at windmills.
Dave's mission, it seems, is to disprove cosmology but I don't think he quite realizes just how high that bar is.  He has repeated failed so far and he is destined to continue to fail in this quest of his.

12

New Theories / Re: Universal Utopia? What's The Universal Terminal Goal?

« on: 04/11/2023 12:46:31 »

Protecting life on earth from asteroids is an instrumental goal to achieve the universal terminal goal,

But there is no universal terminal goal that you have identified, so how can you say protecting life on earth can help this unknown goal?   You are just making stuff up as you go along.  Why would the universe have a goal anyway?  The whole 53 pages of this thread is just rambling silliness IMO.

13

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

« on: 01/11/2023 15:03:05 »

After 171 pages the answer is still a resounding no.

14

New Theories / Re: What is non-returning twin paradox?

« on: 27/10/2023 12:44:34 »

So have you figured out it is not really a paradox?

15

New Theories / Re: Universal Utopia? What's The Universal Terminal Goal?

« on: 26/10/2023 18:23:51 »

There is no goal.

16

New Theories / Re: Has dark matter and dark energy become a faith now for astronomers?

« on: 02/10/2023 23:06:55 »

That is not evidence. That is groupthink consensus. Just like the sun goes around the earth.

That sounds just like something an anti -science troll would say.

17

New Theories / Re: What is non-returning twin paradox?

« on: 30/09/2023 12:39:58 »

It seems like the confusion is more common than what we think.

Just in the popsci world.  As I said before if you want to learn the physics relativity go to a university site that has open courseware and do the course.

18

New Theories / Re: What is non-returning twin paradox?

« on: 25/09/2023 15:45:54 »

According to A, twin B and C only change their frame of reference once.

I don't understand your confusion, especially since it is your scenario.
You should stop referring to inertial frames as frames of reference, using the wrong terminology can lead to additional confusion.
In your scenario twin A starts in the earths inertial frame and then accelerates to a new inertial frame.  He then decelerates to Alpha Centauri's inertial frame, so in your example there are 2 inertial frame changes.  Twin B does exactly the same number of inertial frame changes.  Observer A, B and C all agree on the number of changes in inertial frames of A and B.
I am not going to address observer D since this was not part of the original scenario, it is unnecessary and it only is going to cloud the issue.

19

New Theories / Re: Why Quasars are So Hot?

« on: 07/09/2023 21:08:06 »

If you wish, I can tell you what it is.

Boy that is a tempting way to get you banned, you know for strike 3 and all that.  But I would lean towards please no, don't tell us what you think.

20

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Prebiotics.

« on: 07/09/2023 13:43:25 »

I believe the term is probiotics.  The idea is that you eat foods that have 'good' bacteria to replace the bacteria in your gut.  There are no definitive studies that show that probiotics actually help gut bacteria.