1

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can a cigarette be used for nicotine poisoning?

« on: 23/04/2022 21:14:35 »

Thanks for an offered explanation.

But why boil tobacco of the mentioned twenty cigarettes? In the episode tobacco was boiled. 

2

Physiology & Medicine / Can a cigarette be used for nicotine poisoning?

« on: 23/04/2022 18:57:38 »

Hello.

I guess I could use information for a detective story of mine I’m contemplating. I watched an episode of Death in Paradise, where a woman cooked tobacco I think of one cigarette only and presumably in boiling water. She then placed the dried/cooked tobacco in an empty capsule and swallowed the capsule, soon after dying, in order to frame this “murder” to a certain priest.  I guess I could use tips/info about details regarding this particular instance of deadly nicotine poisoning if I were to understand it and write an acceptable story w/o appearing ignorant.

Thanks if You know something about this and can shed light on this tragic matter, regarding: nicotine poisoning.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does matter of astronomical bodies in Solar System fit in a hot-air balloon?

« on: 11/09/2021 18:33:12 »

Thanks all for your fine thoughts and reasoning. To paraphrase One (a drone from Star Trek), I'll need time to assimilate this information. But I'm certain that I'll use some of what two members propose.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does matter of astronomical bodies in Solar System fit in a hot-air balloon?

« on: 08/09/2021 14:41:31 »

This is, actually, important, that is to say, I'm ambitiously writing a SF book; so please be precise, if You can do just that, or else I'll end up like Dan Brown who wrote The Da Vinci Code: rich and miserable. Yes. That is very interesting information about the Sun and the planet, and I'm thinking about using it; but - is it 100% authentic? How about at least 70%?

P.S. I am still having trouble of letting the hot-air balloon go, so if you can think of a certain astronomical body that would indeed (more or less) fit in a hot-air balloon, I'd be greatly appreciated.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does matter of astronomical bodies in Solar System fit in a hot-air balloon?

« on: 07/09/2021 15:44:15 »

Inspired by  Anthony Peake, who suggests that most of atom is empty space, the question in the title stands, considering ALL matter of astronomical bodies in our Solar System; that is to say, I guess I need a hot-air balloon in a SF story of mine to make a point; but it doesn't necessarily have to be a "darn" hot-air balloon, perhaps something else, maybe a fruit. Thanks a lot. 

6

General Science / Binary star: What color is the sky on a planet?

« on: 19/05/2021 14:39:16 »

Hello. There is a binary star consisting of two stars, red dwarf and blue dwarf. The red dwarf has a mass twice smaller than the mass of our Sun, while the blue dwarf is smaller than the red dwarf. There is a planet orbiting around the binary star, at a distance, say, close to the distance between Earth and the Sun, which planet is similar to Earth, with similar atmosphere. Life, apparently, in my story, evolved there, where live aliens similar to humans. What color is the sky during day? (Additionally, what color is the sky at the sunrise and the sunset?). Thanks a lot.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can two infinities cancel each other out?

« on: 15/05/2019 19:47:22 »

(...)

That means that I don't expect limits inside SpaceTime. I don't expect you to go out to the left to come in to the right.
I call that a limit, and limits presume borders neighboring to something else.  It's Buck Rogers in my mind.

(...)

Earth has no edge or borders because of its shape like a ball, and yet it is finite. Is it at all possible that, regarding infinity, that it "has" borders, its just  that we can never reach them because they are infinitely far away from us? Imagine a pebble infinitely distant from Earth, teleported into an unimaginably distant point in spacetime by technologically advanced alien race Sipons, of course. Who else? Is infinity, in this case, "distance" that is always the same? If distance of the most distant point of static infinity, relative to Earth, is always the same, then it represents some kind of a border, unless the pebble continues traveling, at an infinite speed, rather than just occupy the same point in spacetime. However, if the universe is constantly expanding, then infinity could have no borders, no edges, if the universe travels at an infinite speed. What you are proposing is some sort of static space, static infinity regarding its farthest point from Earth. This, I am afraid, nobody or very few could imagine, forwhy to be without a border, the universe "must" be "expanding", which cancels static infinity as such, but expanding at an infinite speed - so that the expanding infinity does not get compromised. Static infinity ought to have a border, an edge, while expanding infinity, expanding at an unimaginable, infinite speed, could be the real infinity here.


Am I talking out of my nose, or this, actually, makes sense?
 

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can two infinities cancel each other out?

« on: 10/05/2019 20:10:49 »

I'll use the first sentence.
"  Can two infinities cancel each other out?  "
No

Let's put it into signs
Can a minus cancel a minus?

https://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_a_minus_plus_a_minus_equal

But what if one infinity is - and the other +? Got ya! I await my Nobel Prize in Infinities. Actually, and evidently, I'm still struggling. I am currently reading A Brief History of Time though.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)

« on: 05/05/2019 20:22:25 »

We have got a bit off-topic here, but the premise in Star Trek is that someone has invented a "universal translator".

I agree. First I mention infinity, and then: wham! Somebody mentions universal translator. I demand to know what infinity is! (Even though science is not my thing.) Somebody invent a time machine, travel back into the past and bring back, one and only, Stephen Hawking. Universal translator . . . How do you sleep at nights?!

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How realistic is the science on "Star Trek" (and other SF?)

« on: 04/05/2019 15:34:24 »

In order for anything to move at light speed, never mind "infinitely fast", it needs an infinite amount of energy. This cannot be obtained from a finite mass. So there's nothng to worry about - it simply can't happen.

All right then.

So, basically, what you are saying is that, well, Star Trek is lying to us?! Enterprise CANNOT travel faster than light?! Well then. That is not a nice thing to say to a Trekkie, is it now. Not to worry. I forgive you.

This discussion on Star Trek was split off from here - moderator 

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Can two infinities cancel each other out?

« on: 04/05/2019 14:26:58 »

Give me a hand, will ya (struggling probably with basics, trying to understand a certain idea, "just asking questions").

Let us imagine a parallel universe infinitely vast, consisting of nothing but space and one chicken egg “in the middle” or where it all started. Somehow, in one nanosecond the egg infinitely enlarges itself, so that the yolk, the yellow internal part of the egg, becomes infinitely big, but also the white which surrounds the yolk; while the shell did not get thicker (like the yolk and the white), rather stayed thin but it stretched to infinity (infinitely big). Now, let as suppose that a dolphin is in the center of this parallel universe, “in the middle” of the yolk. The dolphin starts to swim infinitely fast. Will it travel (instantly) from the yolk to the white, or, since the yolk is infinitely big, would the yolk cancel out the white, so that the yolk’s infinity isn’t compromised? So, will the first infinity (the yolk) cancel infinity that surrounds it (the white) so that the yolk’s infinity does not get compromised? And, will the dolphin reach the eggshell, which represents the edge/border of this parallel universe, and would he somehow be able to break it (even though, evidently, nothing should exist beyond the eggshell)?

And, if space is infinitely big, can this space be perfectly still or it is a rule that it must always be expanding, like space in our universe?

Thanks (for Your patience).

12

New Theories / Re: Does time travel equals time loop?!

« on: 12/12/2018 01:24:29 »

Yep. That's what I mean.

Well, you can't go around a hypothetical wormhole. I see your fine point though. There is always a way.

13

New Theories / Re: Does time travel equals time loop?!

« on: 11/12/2018 19:37:12 »

Well, my reasoning is that, when you press the button for time travel, and into the past, you do just that: you travel back into the past right before pressing the button, unpressing the button, if you will. And since at that particular time you still have the same desire: to press the button, you will not be able not to push/unpush the button again and again and: forever; unless: you acquire temporal shields that will shield you from backward time travel (into the past), while everybody else will then walk backwards. Hmm. Does it make a bit more sense now? I am no expert in temporal mechanics, not in the slightest; but it seems to me that my logic is not flawed.

14

New Theories / Does time travel equals time loop?!

« on: 11/12/2018 08:50:10 »

It appears, there IS a mathematical reason why a time travel machine could not be able to disrupt spacetime continuum enough to go backwards in time.

The proof? Here we go. Let us suppose that you just invented a time machine. Yay! Naturally, you want to try this hot rod out, that is to say, you are about to press the button for traveling into the past at a certain speed. However, since you neglected to include temporal shields to encompass and protect the time machine, and, of course, you in it, it appears the following will happen: a temporal loop. Time loop is a plot device in which periods of time are repeated and re-experienced by the characters; but in this instance, there is no hope of breaking out of the cycle of repetition, so it is more of a casual loop, I think. To cut a long story short, you will be pressing the button (for time travel) forever (!) in this time loop forwhy you haven’t temporal shields around your time machine. In other words, the moment you press the button for time travel you WILL travel back in time, but for the duration less than a nanosecond (!), more precisely, to the moment when you are about to press the button. So, this time loop, with duration of a blink of an eye, is likely to occur at the very first try at time travel — without the temporal shields. Am I wrong to think that? Did You think of it already?

15

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 13/10/2018 18:05:27 »

Logically, life abounds throughout the landscape of the greater universe, but is separated by such vast distances that detection and general confirmation of extraterrestrial life has not yet occurred

Are you sure? I saw Klingons on my TV. Allow me to explain by quoting J.K. Rowling :“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” If emotional content is strong, and if your eyes see Klingons, does that mean that you have no emotions and that you are actually blind to extraterrestrial life?! If it feels real, it is real, from your perspective. Earth, likewise the universe that you're viewing from the Hubble Space Telescope, are you sure that 'tis not a holographic simulation, that is to say, 3D TV, in which characters have AI or consciousness, a 3D television watched by God (talking 'bout The Truman Show)? Maybe there is greater universe, but, are we truly part of it and, what does it mean to us, other than being imprisoned in a holographic universe that fits in God's 3D TV? If an imperfect life form is looking for perfection likewise a perfect world with no beginning or end, his strive is misplaced and he fights a struggle he cannot possibly win, be it humility or megalomania. God and heaven or greater universe is the only thing that makes sense, that is to say, true meaning could only be found in the afterlife: an unexplored dimension, the world of the dead, aside for near-death experiences that are deficient. Are you truly prepared to venture that far? Of course you are: death is inevitable, when energy of the deceased takes another form. There are a lot of question unanswered, too many, whilst those answered did not make us very happy. Sorry man. I am in a bad mood today . . . 

16

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 13/10/2018 16:44:36 »

What dimension are you on already?

Whatever do you mean? I mentioned two dimensions: consciousness and time, considering space, or "space" if you will, as a holodeck illusion.

17

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 13/10/2018 15:13:22 »

(...) very philosophical I’d admit.

Too philosophical I'd admit. But, sometimes I do have my moments. And, it is always a great pleasure to be part of this fine community - - - even though I'm not a scientist, rather just naked at times (not a nudist). 

18

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 12/10/2018 17:11:49 »

Hold your horses a bit. I need time to assimilate this info (and possibly accept it). Nice debating with you. See you again. And, if you have more thoughts to share, please do (pretending to this topic). 

19

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 12/10/2018 16:55:27 »

How 'bout this? This universe could be - - - one of the three hearts of God, which powers Him, giving him more energy, forwhy He feeds on our aura, and auras of many, many aliens. That is why the anthropic principle stands for something, talking about Hamlet being bounded in a nut-shell, together with You and me. Man, you really inspire me!

20

New Theories / Re: Is the universe two-dimensional?

« on: 12/10/2018 16:30:21 »

(...)

I could suggest that the universe (space if you like) has always existed and has always been infinite, and our Big Bang might have been one unremarkable event in a landscape of the greater universe where big bang events are commonplace.

You opened my eyes. I was blind but now I see. Or do I? I could go blind again. Thanks for stopping by. Hell, let's turn this into an endless discussion!

Or time is linear; so how could it "always" be there, the greater universe, I mean? What you suggest is closer to timelessness likewise eternity, something that hasn't been observed - - - as of yet. Hmm.