1

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 07/05/2024 21:32:46 »

Expect an experiment of a mass moving at v=c.
That's what Einstein was thinking according to Susskind.
Susskind specifically talks about railroad carriage moving with the speed of light in Einstein's thought experiment.

Einstein's thought experiment was intentionally absurd. It shows that the scenario isn't possible. There are no reference frames where light is sitting still.

The conclusion in your thread is that frame is undefined under the Lorentz transformation.

My thread? What thread are you talking about?

By the way, this is still true:

Special relativity has been supported with large amounts of experimental evidence.

If your conclusions disagree with the evidence, then you need to reconsider your conclusions.

2

New Theories / Re: Could quantum mechanics be wrong?

« on: 05/05/2024 04:20:05 »

Fully populated 1s shell.

Do you think that electrons shared by H2 don't fully populated 1s shell?

Technically, it's a sigma orbital.

There's also the issue of product stability. A bond between a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom (bond order 1.0) is far stronger than one between a helium atom and an oxygen atom (bond order 0.5). It's easy enough to know the reason for this if you look into the literature. So I now have to ask: are you actually trying to educate yourself, or are you trying to find fault?

3

New Theories / Re: How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 14/04/2024 17:38:38 »

If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretching, it implies that we also need to stretch the time by the same amount. So far, I haven't found any source for the latter.

That doesn't follow. It takes light one second to travel 299,792,458 meters. Of course, over the course of one second, a portion of space of that distance will expand to be ever-so-slightly longer than 299,792,458 meters. As such, it will take ever-so-slightly longer than one second for light to travel that distance because it can only travel 299,792,458 meters in one second.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does time dilation and length contraction apply to light?

« on: 07/04/2024 19:08:53 »

So when someone asks, "What does the universe look like from light's perspective?", the answer is that there is no answer? Or that space and time don't apply?

5

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 30/01/2024 22:27:28 »

So from what I can tell from reading about this is that it actually seems to support the possibility that once the black hole does not contain enough mass to maintain the gravity well it's radius would become larger than its Schwarzschild radius and is no longer a black hole as light can then escape.

No, the event horizon radius would shrink in proportion to the shrinking in mass. Remember, all of the mass is concentrated into a singularity of zero size (this is why Halc says it doesn't have a meaningful density. Objects of zero size would have infinite density).

I found that in fact density is a vital part of calculation for the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole.  And in fact that to exist smaller black holes must have an increased density. The increased density ultimately sets the size limit of  black holes with smaller sizes based on the particles being squashed more, until we reach the limit of what can be squashed.

Density is important for when an object becomes a black hole. You can calculate the density of an object if all of its mass exists within its own Schwarzschild radius. However, it doesn't stay at that density. Since no force exists which can support a mass against such crushing force, it all collapses down into a singularity: an object of infinite density.

So as a black hole gets smaller it must increase in density to maintain the Schwarzchild radius.

We need to differentiate the density of a black hole as its mass divided by the volume of the event horizon versus the density of the singularity. All black hole singularities have the same density: infinite. What the wiki article is referring to is creating such a black hole from non-black hole matter (such as collapsing stars). It isn't referring to an existing black hole undergoing Hawking decay to become a smaller black hole.

The gravitational strength at the singularity is infinite is because the distances involved are zero. This is true for any finite value of mass. So even very tiny masses experience infinite gravitational force and thus the singularity cannot decrease its density to become something else.

However, all of these things are based on classical physics. It's quite possible that a black hole doesn't collapse to zero size due to quantum effects getting in the way. However, such a quasi-singularity would still be extremely small and extremely dense compared to anything else in the Universe.

6

New Theories / Re: Do Black Holes turn into something like Quark Stars?

« on: 30/01/2024 16:40:14 »

The consensus currently is that a black hole can exist with a mass of one gram?

Yes.

If there is not enough mass to form that geometry then how can it maintain that shape?

Take a look at the formula for the Schwarzchild radius: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

For any finite mass, a radius exists where an event horizon will form if that mass is concentrated inside of it. It's density that forms a black hole, not mass. However, that formula is a classical one, not taking into consideration the possible quantum effects that may put a lower limit on black hole mass.

do not require mass to exist?

No one said that a black hole of zero mass can exist.

Finally if black holes persist for such a long period of time and only end their lives in a wimpy pop of hawking radiation then we should be observing black holes of all sizes everywhere as they would be the most common cosmological entity.

It's quite possible that they are very common. However, they are also black. That means that only way we can observe them is through their gravitational effects (or if we get lucky enough that a stray, super-high energy particle from an evaporating black hole hits our detectors).

7

New Theories / Re: The secrets of gravity, antimatter, black hole, and gravitational lensing?

« on: 03/01/2024 19:05:19 »

What experiment can you propose to test whether your idea is correct or not?

8

New Theories / Re: Why the Earth axis rotation is shifted

« on: 03/12/2023 00:51:57 »

I told you not to make any more threads about magnetic fields:

Dave, we have already been through the whole "solid core" with magnets in your previous thread about the Sun. I gave you three chances to back up your claim with a reputable source three times and you failed. That got the thread locked. Since you are bringing up incorrect material from a locked thread, that means you are circumventing a thread lock. That means it's time to lock this thread as well. Since you have a track record of pushing incorrect notions about tidal forces and magnetic fields, let's add those to the list of forbidden topics (along with the quasars, black holes and Theory D).

In your previous thread, you tried to circumvent a thread lock and in this thread you ignored my warning about magnetism. Combining that with the fact that so many of your other threads have gotten locked for your general repetition of false things or other reasons, I believe I can make a good case for finally banning you.

9

New Theories / Re: A Disproof of the Principle and Theory of Relativity

« on: 30/10/2023 23:19:45 »

Cross reference: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132749-a-disproof-of-the-principle-and-theory-of-relativity/

Thanks. In accordance with this rule:

It is not acceptable simply to post material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread.  If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.

This thread will now be closed.

10

New Theories / Re: Structure of electrons, quarks and gluons; preon, preons

« on: 24/10/2023 16:46:30 »

One can also consider the hypothesis that these particles (main particle) are micro black holes that have ended their lives as particles, by evaporating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens to the surplus electrons after an alpha decay?

« on: 08/10/2023 00:52:34 »

The negative charge on the electrons are balanced by the positive charge on the alpha particle. In principle, they could combine to form a helium atom. Alternatively, they might interact with other atoms in the environment to form ions.

12

COVID-19 / Re: Corona impact?

« on: 28/09/2023 21:18:34 »

Hearing today that in the UK the mental illness rate in children has increaced from 12 percent to 18 percent due to lock downs

What evidence was provided that such was the cause?

The pandemic has had a devastating impact on many of the young people

Even in happy Sweden corona had a bad effect, so it may or may not have been exacerbated by lockdown.

https://www.norden.org/en/news/covid-19-has-been-bad-mental-health-vulnerable-children-and-young-people

Where in those sources are the numbers you provided in the first post? How were the mental stresses of lockdown differentiated from the mental stresses caused by people's friends and relatives getting COVID and/or dying, fear of them catching it themselves or other pandemic induced stressors? How was the relative weight of each stressor determined?

13

COVID-19 / Re: Corona impact?

« on: 27/09/2023 21:39:45 »

Hearing today that in the UK the mental illness rate in children has increaced from 12 percent to 18 percent due to lock downs

What evidence was provided that such was the cause?

14

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: 15/09/2023 23:45:46 »

I thought I banned you... Well, I can always try again. You would do well to try to learn from your mistakes instead of doubling down on them.

15

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Did life evolve twice? Or even more?

« on: 11/09/2023 00:51:27 »

The "RNA world theory" does indeed propose RNA as a precursor to modern life.

16

New Theories / Re: Grand Canyon Formation By Anti-matter

« on: 03/09/2023 18:06:59 »

We have heard this nonsense before, where it was thoroughly debunked. I think the mods should delete this as it is identical to it's previous incarnation.

Or just move it to the bottom of his other thread here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86292.msg704502

Done.

17

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

« on: 31/08/2023 21:24:28 »

Yes but the law is an ass.

Can you elaborate?

I believe the way this is got round in siency circles is an "addition". It would be quite easily to add an addition.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

To be clear, faster-than-light communication technically isn't forbidden by relativity. It just has troublesome consequences if it happens (causality violation). In either case, you can't do it with quantum entanglement because quantum entanglement doesn't work that way.

18

Just Chat! / Re: What's your advice on writing a series of story?

« on: 09/08/2023 17:37:36 »

What I meant was to amplify those above average abilities to extraordinary levels as far as permitted by natural laws, like conservation of momentum and thermodynamics.

I'm rather fond of exploring ideas like that myself. I often find it hard not to think deeply about the nature and consequences of superpowers. When trying to come up with my own fictional world, I tried calculating an upper limit on they might be capable of achieving. My idea was that their bodies convert nitrogen in the air that they breathed into energy ala E=mc² (since the body doesn't need the nitrogen we breathe anyway). I still have the resulting power written down in a notebook somewhere. It was a lot, obviously. Didn't have an obvious solution for how they would convert it all into useful work without cooking themselves, though.

19

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

« on: 07/08/2023 17:07:20 »

can the Microgrid Stretch & Bend?

It can probably bend, it is not known if it can stretch.

Gravitational waves passing through space make it stretch and contract. That's how we detect them via LIGO and VIRGO.

20

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: 23/07/2023 05:31:20 »

None of those answers proved anything

It's almost as if you are simply ignoring them instead of understanding them.

they look like whimsical thoughtless responses.

So you think that blue shift literally means that light turns blue?

You think that a gravitational blue shift factor of "about 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000" can be detected by the human eye? By the way, here is an example of just how tiny that factor is. A red photon has a wavelength ranging from 620 to 750 nanometers: https://scied.ucar.edu/image/wavelength-blue-and-red-light-image#:~:text=Red%20light%20has%20longer%20waves,around%20620%20to%20750%20nm.

That would be a change in wavelength of 6.2 to 7.5 x 10^-13 nanometers. So that would be a decrease from 750 nanometers to 749.9999999999999 nanometers or 620 nanometers to 619.9999999999999 nanometers. Now why don't we compare that with the blue shift factor caused by movement (the Doppler effect)? https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1258042695

A 750 nanometer photon emitted by an object travelling at 8 kilometers per hour is blue shifted towards an observe to 749.9999995 nanometers. That is a larger change in wavelength than what the Earth's gravity provides. Now let me ask you, does a person look noticeably bluer when they jog towards you? If the answer is no (and I know that it is), then the sky isn't going to look bluer due to gravitational blue shift either.

Actually Ralley burger cheese racing is what causes the sky to turn orange at sunset. It's when the giant ball of cheese in the sky starts leaking. It goes along with the raleigh thing

Why are you still trolling? I cannot understand what's so hard about acting like a mature adult. Consider this strike two. Three strikes and you're gone for good this time.