1

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

« on: 24/04/2022 09:46:52 »

The idea is crazy try to think of this: my body is 60 kg and when I lift it I must exert the same force I exert to lift a heavy rock of 60 kg but I move or lift lighter body of say 20 kg even though it should be heavy like the rock.
I think like this can be thought of : people are familiar with lifting or moving heavy loads do you think you really jump, dance , walk, run, walk upside down,etc doing these with a load of your body 70 kg?

How many times can you do pull ups?
How much additional weight can you carry while pulling your own body up?

2

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.

3

General Science / Re: Is this a feasible system for recycling CO2?

« on: 08/01/2022 12:19:01 »

Cranks may care to read the small print in my contract. There is a very substantial consultancy fee for examining the prototype.

4

General Science / Re: Is this a feasible system for recycling CO2?

« on: 02/01/2022 18:57:56 »

5

New Theories / Re: The universe may have thought its self into existence

« on: 25/08/2021 11:12:41 »

Now I see the problem the coming into existence at the very start is as the big bang theory so this is matter that is not living and therefore it is dead. Then the thinking / conscious universe is the second state coming into being so the dead but existing universe began to develop into a conscious entity.

Why is this in new theories?  This clearly is not a theory or a hypothesis, this is a wag at best.  This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.

6

Just Chat! / Re: Were spare versions of Hubble built?

« on: 20/07/2021 00:13:38 »

There are plenty of purely military satellites out there. Everybody knows that. The strength of Hubble is its light-gathering capacity, not its spatial resolution. If you want to spy on anyone on earth you really need a stereo camera in low orbit, and there's plenty of ambient light. And if you want to modify a military satellite, you don't publish your calculations, use a civilian crew, and do it on live public television.

Anyway, consider this as a warning: unsupported conspiracy theories are not really welcome here.

7

COVID-19 / Re: Are any viruses known to make a quick exit once they're rumbled?

« on: 01/05/2021 17:37:38 »

Once a virion has left the cell in which it was created it can either infect a new cell in the same host or shed to find a new host.

Virions can't fly.
They can not tell if the next cell they come across is from the same host, or from someone they got sneezed onto (or whatever).

They are not in any position to make decisions about their fate.

Set fair, the above is the most important point to absorb. Sit with a cup of coffee, tea or any other beverage you prefer and think it through. Qualified people have given up their time to give you the correct answers. You would not get this opportunity at most forums. Have a nice day.

8

Physiology & Medicine / Re: What is the evidence for scar-healing treatments?

« on: 23/04/2021 06:55:12 »

2021-04-23. It has been 14 months & 4 days since the silicon tape was applied to the scar 24x7 on 2020-06-27.

Disappointingly, there has been no  clear noticeable improvement.
However, the tape gives protection against pain caused by clothes rubbing against it. So I persevere hoping one day it may show significant improvement.

9

Just Chat! / Re: Top ten medical breakthroughs the past four decades?

« on: 08/04/2021 01:19:36 »

4 decades? That would mean 1980.  I think you are showing your age.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is an exponential, and how could you calculate it?

« on: 16/02/2021 21:06:48 »

So how do you calculate  e  exactly?

If you need to specify the exact value, use the pronumeral e.

If you want to approximate it, calculate e¹
e^x = 1 + x + x²/2! + x³/3! + x⁴/4! + x⁵/5! + ...
e¹ = 1 + 1 + 1²/2! + 1³/3! + 1⁴/4! + 1⁵/5! + ...
= 1 + 1 + 1/2! + 1/3! + 1/4! + 1/5! + ...
= 2.718281828...

This series converges quite quickly, because the factorial function n! gets very big, very quickly (ie 1/n! gets small very quickly).
I remember calculating this to over 100 digits accuracy on my first home computer (and it consumed most of the memory...)
(Oops - overlap with Bored Chemist...)

calculating a simple obvious exponential function like 10^x where x=3 using a Taylor series

10 = e^2.3026
10³ = (e^2.3026)³ = e^3x2.3026 = e^6.9

The first 6 terms grow, and it starts to converge after the 7th term = 6.9⁷/7!

Of course, if you had to calculate 10^7.654, it wouldn't be so obvious, and I would recommend using a calculator (log tables being no longer found in every scientist's desk).

I think your polynomial might struggle if k is complex or imaginary

The exponential function converges for all imaginary values, too.
- You can express the answer in terms of COS(θ) + iSIN(θ).

You can see this in the similarity between the Taylor series for the exponential function EXP(x), SIN(x) & COS(x).
- SIN and COS are what you get if you use the EXP function with complex inputs
- Remembering that i² = -1

EXP(x) = 1 + x + x²/2! + x³/3! + x⁴/4! + x⁵/5! + ...
SIN(x) =     x         - x³/3!        + x⁵/5! - ...
COS(x) = 1     - x²/2!         + x⁴/4! - ...

11

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Final evidence of a rigged election in 2020?

« on: 07/02/2021 19:46:55 »

Although this group confess to intentionally changing laws like act 77 in Pennsylvania which was changed the year before the election happened,  to allow mail in ballots, to remove requirements for signature verification,  and for ballots to be accepted days after the election had happened.

Act 77 passed with heavy Republican support( even more so than Democratic support), as a compromise deal with the Democrats.  In exchange for exapnded vote by mail, they got rid of straight ticket voting (Where you could go into a booth and click one lever that voted for all candidates of a given party.)   The Republicans felt that this would help pick up some seats in the state legislature (which it ended up doing).
Off course, the instant this compromise hurt them in the 2020 presidential election, and their compromise no longer benefited them,  they immediately had buyer's remorse.

Pennsylvania officials tried to have these law changes over turned as they were unconstitutional,  yet were stuck down on technicalities not on merits.

Those  "technicalities" were that they had waited until over a year and 2 elections had passed. ( Oh, and by the way, one of those elections was were they picked up a couple of seats in the state legislature.  You didn't hear them complaining that those results should be overturned).
If they had filed their complaint before the election was run, things might have been different. But they didn't.  This just tells me it wasn't the law they were really objecting to, but just an election result they didn't like.

The voters that voted by mail did so while the law was in effect and did so with the assurance that they were voting legally, and you can't just go back and disenfranchise those voters just because it was later decided that the law shouldn't have been passed.

Let's put it this way:  Supposed a town passes a law that allows drivers in their town to make a right turn at a red light without first coming to a full stop.  The law stays in effect for a year.  But then someone points out that it is conflict with state laws.
Can you now go back, using traffic camera footage, and issue tickets to everyone that made a right turn without coming to a stop during that year?

As far a mail-in voting goes: My state has had mail-in voting exclusively for decades, and in that time, the cases of voter fraud has been negligible. 
Republicans are not against vote by mail due to concerns over fraud, but over concerns that it will increase voter turn out, and historically, Republicans don't fare as well when voter turnout is high.

12

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?

« on: 03/02/2021 17:41:09 »

Unless your data includes gravitational lensing then it isn't valid.
In reality, gravity affects photons much the same as it affects you and me.

No
Gravity doesn't slow down the photon velocity as it might affect any other real mass.
As I have already informed the gravitational lensing is actually a curvature in space time due to the ultra gravity force.
Even so, that curvature in space is the base for the curvature in the light/photon.
In any case, it doesn't change the velocity of the photon as it should chage any real mass/object that would penetrate to that aria.
That proves that photon has no mass.

If you use hard gammas, then most of them would turn into pairs.

Well, first you have to prove that the pure BBT energy could set those gammas.
You have already known that photons and gammas are all about EM.
For EM you need Electro/magnetic waves/fields
You have to agree that there were no Dynamo or magnets at the early Universe.
Therefore, there is no EM. Without EM there is no photons or high energetic photons as Gammas..
Even if you wish to believe that photons would be created, why are you so sure that those photons are energetic?
How a pure energy could set photons at ultra high energy?
Based on the BBT, the space itself is expanding. So, any mass or mass less particale must move with the space.
So nothing could move faster than the space expansion.
However, the photon/gammas must move at the speed of light with reference to their space time. Therefore if there photons/gammas they had to break the envelop of the expanding universe.
This is one more explanation why photons/gammas can't be created at the early Universe.

much faster than the space expansion.

"For photons with high photon energy (MeV scale and higher), pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. "

From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Do you remember that page?

Yes I do.
However, now I understand that this isn't realistic.
Photons/gammas cross the space of our current universe.
The space is full with mass and atoms.
So if that idea was correct, then any photon/gammas had to be converted to the particle pair.
However, this isn't the case; We clearly can observe those photons/gammas as they cross the space without any pair creation.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:30:10
Would you kindly explain why the energetic photons could cross the Hydrogen chamber, the space which is full with Hydrogen atoms and our atmosphere without being transformed into new pair particles?
In much the same was as Xrays, gamma rays usually go through matter.

You do not answer the question:
If the following imagination that photons are converted to the new particle pair as they move near by mass, then why we can't observe that process in our universe or even in the Hydrogen chamber?
Why we can clearly see the pair particle process due to shooting an atom to the chamber, while we can't see the same pair process by shooting energetic photons to that chamber?

If we can't observe the pair creation process by photons as we see with atom, thean this idea is not relevant. 

13

Just Chat! / Re: Is the jig up?

« on: 03/02/2021 02:13:27 »

What happened with game stop according to wallstreet

14

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How can a question be fake news?

« on: 21/01/2021 17:01:53 »

The answer is "possibly, but no evidence to date".

Next question, please.

That doesn't answer the question. That reply relates to the question could the Covid vaccine damage fertility?
And it doesn't answer it, it leaves it as UNKNOWN.

The question was how can a question be fake news?

When it is just a ploy to push an agenda.   

15

Just Chat! / Re: The dumbest aspect of the British political system

« on: 07/01/2021 00:14:47 »

Just to revert to the original question for a moment.

For those who don't understand the British political system, the most significant scene in The Crown is where the Queen sends for the Leader of the Opposition and says "Mr Wilson, as the electorate has given you a parliamentary majority, I must ask you to form a government in my name." "Thank you, Ma'am, it is an honour to serve." Shake hands, and the color of government changes instantly.

How quaint, outdated and efficient, compared with the bloated pomposity that was taking place in the Capitol until the guardians of stupidity invaded the place this afternoon.   

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: FAKE NEWS: Could the covid vaccine affect female fertility?

« on: 25/12/2020 06:01:36 »

Clearly some scientists

I've already asked you how many "some" scientists is. More importantly, what is their evidence? Have other coronavirus infections in the past (like MERS and SARS) been linked to autoimmune reactions that resulted in infertility? 10-15% of common cold cases are caused by coronaviruses as well. Why haven't we seen huge rates of infertility caused by colds?

17

New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe

« on: 26/10/2020 14:33:45 »

Even if your maths was the right maths (it isn't) then you still left us a 30% chance.
That's not zero.
So you have not proved that it is wrong.

How could you claim that the math is incorrect?
That answer by itself shows that your knowledge in basic Math is very poor.
Please see again the calculation:

Let's go with "the size of the real observable universe" which is 92 BLY.
Therefore, R = 46 BLY.
Now, let's verify what is the chance that we are located at a distance of 12 BLY from its edge:

The Total volume for R is ref to R^3
Hence,
V (ref for R=46 ) = 46^3
V (ref for R=46-12 ) = 34^3

Hence
The chance to be at the sphere with a maximal radius of 34 Ly is:
34^3/46^3 = 29.8%
Therefore, the chance that we would be at a distance of less than 12 BLY from the edge of the Universe is over than 70%.
In this case, we should clearly see the edge of the Universe (as we can observe to minimal distance of 13 BLY) and therefore the CMBR at that edge direction should be different from the other direction.

So, if you can't set that basic math, how could you dare to ask me the following?

WHY DO YOU NOT LEARN?

It's better for you to learn some basic math and real science before you shows that your knowledge is so poor.

In any case, as my math is correct by 100% then it shows that the chance for the BBT to be correct is less than 30% while the chance for it to be incorrect is more than 70%.
So, if you set your trust in a theory which has 70% to be incorrect, then I would advise you to go and learn Math and real science (not that science fiction that we call BBT) and just then come back.

So, with or without your confirmation, it is very clear that our real Universe must be much bigger than this compact imagination of only 92 BLY.
Therefore, it's the correct time to set that BBT in the garbage once and for all.

18

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why do even non-believers pray or appeal to God in times of need?

« on: 18/10/2020 01:05:50 »

Before trying to explain why something is true, it's a good idea to check if it is true.

How often does the cockpit voice recorder tell us that someone's last words were"Our father who..."?

I spent some time working with a forensic phonetician. He assured me that the last word on every CVR he had analysed (several dozen) was always "sh1t". It is a remarkable finding: his skills ranged over at least ten major languages, but whatever the native language of the pilot, years of training kick in at the last moment; "in an emergency, speak English".

The only exceptions I know of, were the 9/11 hijackers who attempted to contact some deity before killing 3000 innocent civilians. However they don't count as they were not in time of need.

19

Just Chat! / Re: Political split from topic about Darwinism

« on: 07/10/2020 12:20:28 »

We willfully take a diseased male, and inject him with pep pills, so he has enhanced performance for a few hours.

Your premonition was correct! Dexamethasone has reanimated the scumbag, maybe for long enough for the electoral college to ignore the people's vote once again.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Life on Venus Finally Found?

« on: 25/09/2020 22:09:08 »

Millions are thinking that the beggining and the ending is on earth,

Mine certainly began here, and although I'd like it to end on Mars, the prospect is receding. I think the consensus is about right on this topic.