1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does special relativity explain dimensional components ...

« on: Yesterday at 22:10:12 »

Here may be a clearer way to see my issue.  Imagine a very simple universe where there only exists object A and an object B.  They are on a collision course.  Scientist A, (from another dimension) uses object A as a point of reference.  But scientist B (from yet a different dimension than scientist A) uses object B as a reference.  Each scientist is going to end up with a different description of this universe from using special relativity.

So what's your issue?

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does special relativity explain dimensional components ...

« on: Yesterday at 02:52:07 »

Since we know for certain that at least one of A or B is moving (or both), then how can either claim to not be moving?

Because velocity is relative.  Let me say it again, velocity is relative.  There is no way to tell If A is moving towards B or B is moving towards A.  I can say A is moving and B is stationary relative to some arbitrary reference point or I could say the opposite based on difference arbitrary reference point.  So either can claim to be stationary because it is all relative.

How can either claim to be not moving?

I can give a sleeping pill and after you are asleep, I could load you on a spaceship with no windows and send you into space at 1,000,000 kph.  When you awake traveling at 1,000,000 kph it would not feel like you were moving.  As a matter of fact there is no test that you can perform that would tell you if you were traveling at 1,000,000 kph or 0 kph.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does special relativity explain dimensional components ...

« on: 26/06/2022 20:24:27 »

But since they are moving towards each other, (keeping this in special relativity) doesn't that mean that at least one of them must be moving in the x direction?

Yes, there's clearly movement on the x-axis.  A could say only B is moving and B could say that only A is moving and a 3rd observer may say both A and B are moving and they would all be correct.  No one however can say which is moving in an absolute way.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does special relativity explain dimensional components ...

« on: 26/06/2022 13:53:23 »

From an objective point of view, it should be noticeable which object has more of which component.

That is implying a preferred frame.  In other words it seems you are saying 'objectively' one of them is 'really' moving in the x direction.  The fact of the matter is the movement can only be relative to another object so there can be no absolute velocity. 

5

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 26/06/2022 13:09:53 »

It is much less than 25%.

Why do you enjoy making up stuff?

I hope that we all agree that our scientists don't have a clue what is it and how it had been created and why it is there exactly at the density that they wish.

Classic Dave BS.  You imply the Astrophysicists lie and make up a number for 'a density they wish', instead of the truth which is they describe the density that the evidence suggests.  This is probably to subtle for Dave to get.

However, please specify the dark matter density formula that is invented for the Milky way.

Again Dave throws astrophysics under the bus, implying the research is just made up.

2. Galactic Disc -
A. How this dark matter formula can set the disc only at the spiral arms (3KPC to 15KPC)?
B. Why in the Bulge there is no Disc at all?
C. Why the disc does not continue after 15KPC? Actually, do you confirm that when arm is ended, the stars after that point are ejected from the disc?
D. Why the thickeners of the arm at the base is 3000LY while at the end it is 400LY? How Kepler law can explain this phenomenon

3. Bar -
Can you please explain how the same dark matter that aim to keep the orbital velocity of the stars in the galactic disc at a fixed velocity can suddenly increase so dramatically the orbital velocity of stars in this section? How the dark matter formula can justify that dramatic increase

4. Ring
A. How the dark matter formula can justify the creation of the Ring?
B. Why the ring is always created between the end of the bar to the base of the spiral arms?
C. Why do you think that Kepler law works better with dark matter for this section?

So basically, you don't know much about astrophysics, so you make up absurd WAGs to answer questions that come from your ignorance.  Nice...

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does special relativity explain dimensional components ...

« on: 25/06/2022 21:17:39 »

I understand that relativity says that both A and B are correct in thinking that they are at rest.  But in reality, because they are on a collision course, only one of them can actually be at rest where r = ( ct,  0,  0,  0), right?  Or am I missing something here?

When you say only one of them is actually at rest, that sets off alarm bells.  I don't see the difference if A thinks they are at rest or if B thinks they are at rest, even though they collide.  From A's point of view he is stationary on the X axis and moving vertically parallel to the Y (time axis).  A sees B moving at an angle to the X and y axis until he intersects A at some point on the Y axis.  Replace the B with A in the above scenario and that is B's viewpoint as stationary on the X axis.

7

New Theories / Re: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

« on: 25/06/2022 00:45:43 »

Consious life "requires" instructions in order to be created.

I agree but those 'instructions' are the natural laws of the universe.  Under the right conditions and with only the natural laws of physics and chemistry life can arise.  And evolution of that life can end up resulting people.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does special relativity explain dimensional components ...

« on: 25/06/2022 00:37:22 »

How does SR explain the componentry of this kind of scenario?

Not sure what you mean by componentry.  Observer A would say B time is dilated and it's length is contracted.  Observer B would say A is time dilated and length contracted.  Is that what you are asking about?

9

New Theories / Re: Did we really never observed white holes ?

« on: 24/06/2022 14:06:55 »

Imagine the usual picture of the puncture of a black hole singularity, ignoring the black itself.

That is not the usual picture, nor does it makes sense.

The black spherical effect it's entirely of our own spacetime and gravity.

What does that mean.

Now consider that that puncture it's on itself a wormhole ever growing larger and long.

What is this puncture you keep talking about.

All the material gathered here it's stored in such atelier that's outside of time, our present time.

That makes no sense.

Eventually our universe will have weaker everything, aiming the source of gravity which is very likely intrincated with spacetime.

Does that include coffee?  Will I have to add more beans in the future to have the same strength of coffee?
Unfortunately it looks like the entire post is just a bunch of scientific terms randomly strung together.

10

New Theories / Re: Spectrum emitted by anti-matter. Are the hydrogen lines absorption??

« on: 24/06/2022 14:00:36 »

What I am thinking is that the tokomaks that are trying to produce nuclear  fusion keep breaking down every time they start to produce energy.

That does not happen AFAIK.  The issue is it takes more energy to produce the fusion than the fusion releases.

Now, if the tokomaks were spinning up anti-matter particles then that would be quite understandable as the positive antimatter would quickly be attracted to and annihilate the enclosure walls which are made of normal electron shelled planetary materials.

No that is not the issue

11

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.

12

That CAN'T be true! / Re: does tourmaline have magical beneficial powers?

« on: 24/06/2022 13:50:53 »

Black tourmaline is a powerful warding stone and can be used to negate and dispel harmful energies. This is probably one of its most well-known functions and explains why the stone is one of the most commonly used protection stones used by most natural.

Oh, it keeps like vampires and werewolves away.  Does it also work on dementors?

13

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 23/06/2022 16:28:07 »

Our mission is to verify how they really work.

No, you're not going to verify anything.  The best you can do is to try to understand what the scientist have discovered.  You have not done so well on that so far.  But you can always improve.

14

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 22/06/2022 21:52:48 »

They affect the motions of stars, dust and gas. It is believed that bars act a bit like a funnel, pulling matter into the bulge from the disk

You might find this interesting:. https://www.universetoday.com/151820/the-milky-ways-central-bar-spin-rate-is-slowing-down-thanks-to-dark-matter/#more-151820

15

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 22/06/2022 13:57:04 »

If no one in the whole science community has a basic clue about it - why don't you give me a chance to explain how the entire spiral galaxy really works from A to Z?

Because you have demonstrated over and over that you do not know what you are talking about, so it would be a waste of time.

16

New Theories / Re: Did we really never observed white holes ?

« on: 21/06/2022 23:38:26 »

I dont think it is very amazing.

That's because you don't understand physics.

The idea is coming from some much global consideration of what the universe is.
If you dont have the full picture, i understand that it can sound strange

So you don't have any evidence for your claim, just some stuff you made up.

17

New Theories / Re: Dark Energy As Radiation Pressure (article)

« on: 21/06/2022 14:58:24 »

Fully explaining my theory here is somewhat beyond the scope of this post

That's good.  A full explanation of how electron density is gravity would probably blowup everyone bologna meters...

18

New Theories / Re: Did we really never observed white holes ?

« on: 20/06/2022 16:51:58 »

On the contrary.
It is because i was sick hearing all thoses fairytales about black holes that i tried to make some more physical model.

I see, you believe that the physics that's taught in every university in wold is a fairy tale.  Even more than that, you believe that you have the real answers.
Do you have any evidence for these amazing claims?

19

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does the IVO thruster violate Newton's third law?

« on: 20/06/2022 16:43:49 »

Se already know that Newton was wrong concerning a lot of things

So are you saying that Newtons 3rd law of motion is wrong?

I said : "Theoritically" 2 times.

What theory says an action can occur with no reaction?

20

New Theories / Re: Did we really never observed white holes ?

« on: 20/06/2022 13:19:30 »

What do you think about this ?

It seems like fantasy and not physics.