1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / 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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the exact cause of the time dilation of the twin?

« on: 05/09/2023 18:32:23 »

Let's start with the simplest frame of reference first, which is the midway observer. What will he observe when he meet both travelling twins? At that moment, what's shown by his own clock, and the clocks brought by the travelling twins?

Assuming the mid way point is exactly 2 ly and the twins acceleration was instantaneous:
Twins speed 0.999c.  From the frame of the observer at the mid point the elapsed time on the clocks would be:
1.  Mid point clock - 2.002 years
2.  Earth twins clock - 0.0894 yrs
3.  Alpha Centauri twin - 0.0894 yrs

5

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

« on: 29/08/2023 12:58:34 »

Now force your particle into an up state:  you therefore know mine is down, and I can measure it.

It is impossible to force a superposition particle to be measured in the up (or down) position.  The position is always random.  If it were possible to force the position, you could communicate information but that is not possible.

If you want to tell me something, flip your particle. Mine will "suddenly" (the question is how suddenly) flip, so you have sent me information.

Once either particle is measured they are no longer entangled so flipping one of the particles after the initial measurement has no effect on the other particle.

6

New Theories / Re: Dark Motion. Is it the answer to the Dark Matter and Dark energy problem

« on: 29/08/2023 01:56:26 »

Is there really no one reading this with the courage to call this Naked Science King out on this nonsense

Let's do a quick check to see who is talking nonsense.

First and foremost we know that in an elastic collision the KEi = KEf.

The KE before the collision.
Assume the velocities are m/s.
Assume the masses are 1 kg (to make it easy and clear)
Blue ball:  1/2m*v^2 = 1/2(1 kg)*(4 m/s)^2 = 8 J
Red ball:  1/2m*v^2 = 1/2(1 kg)*(3 m/s)^2 = 4.5 J
Total KE = 8 J + 4.5 J = 12.5 J

KE after the collision.

Blue ball:  I say the x component of the velocity is 4 m/s and the y component of the velocity is 3 m/s, this gives an overall velocity of 5 m/s.

You say the x component of the velocity is 2.6 m/s and the y component of velocity is 3 m/s, this gives an overall velocity of 4 m/s.  (A 2.6 m/s velocity in the x direction does not give an exact overall velocity of 4 m/s, but it is close enough).

We both agree that the red ball is stationary.

So the KE after the collision should still be 12.5 J.

Red ball:  1/2m*v^2 = 1/2(1kg)*(0m/s)^2 = 0 J.
Your numbers, Blue ball:  1/2m*v^2 = 1/2(1kg)*(4m/s)^2 = 8 J.
Total KE:  0 J +8 J = 8J
KEi = 12.5 J
KEf = 8 J
For your numbers KEi ≠ KEf.
Your answer cannot be correct.

Red ball:  1/2m*v^2 = 1/2(1kg)*(0m/s)^2 = 0 J.
My numbers, Blue ball:  1/2m*v^2 = 1/2(1kg)*(5m/s)^2 = 12.5 J.
Total KE:  0 J + 12.5 J = 12.5 J
KEi = 12.5 J
KEf = 12.5 J
For my numbers KEi = KEf.
The final speed must be 5 m/s not 4 m/s.

7

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

« on: 25/08/2023 13:03:02 »

Einstein called quantum entanglement "spooky action at a distance". I certainly don't understand it. Maybe people like Einstein really didn't either.

Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen came up with the thought experiment in which they proposed quantum entanglement, the purpose was to show that quantum mechanics must be wrong or incomplete.  What they actually did was to add more support to the theory of quantum mechanics.

My question is, could it be used to things like interstellar communication?

No, you cannot send any useful information using entangled particles.
Let's say I have an entangled particle and I am on a space ship 10 ly away from earth and back on earth you have the other entangled particle.  Neither particle has a defined orientation, they are both in a superposition state.  If I measure the particle as being 'up' then I immediately know the other particle is 'down'.  Since I had no idea what the orientation was before I measured the particle there cannot be any information other than the other particle is in the opposite direction.  In other words when I measure the particle the orientation is completely random and when the person back on earth measures the particle the results will be completely random.  The only thing I can know is the random results I got means the other particle will have an opposite orientation.  Each person will only see a random result, even though there is correlation between the 2 particles.

8

New Theories / Re: Dark Motion. Is it the answer to the Dark Matter and Dark energy problem

« on: 25/08/2023 12:27:36 »

Still we have the problem where the OP will not accept that a force at right angles can influence the speed of the mass.

Agreed. 
The only part of the problem that the OP got correct is that the blue balls speed in the y direction goes from 0 m/s before the collision to 3 m/s in the negative y direction after the collision.
It is rather humorous that the OP says a force that is perpendicular to a moving ball cannot change the speed of the ball and then turns around and says that the blue ball does increase in speed from 0 to 3 m/s in the y direction.
Since he says the blue balls speed increases to 3 m/s in the y direction (which is correct) he has to say the blue balls speed in the x direction decreases from 4 m/s to 2.6 m/s (which is wrong) so that his fantasy that the overall speed of the blue ball doesn't change.
The reality is that the blue balls speed in the x direction will not change since the impulse from the collision is only in the y direction.  So after the collision the blue ball has an x component of velocity that is 4 m/s and a y component of velocity that is 3 m/s.  The overall velocity is 5 m/s after the collision.  That is pure Newtonian mechanics.

9

New Theories / Re: Dark Motion. Is it the answer to the Dark Matter and Dark energy problem

« on: 21/08/2023 14:09:13 »

Newton's "chart" shows that the speed does not increase.

Newtonian mechanics says the speed increases.

My chart is the same as Newton's "chart".

Your chart shows that the speed increases.  It is right there in your math and you show that the speed is 5 units.  The fact that you show the speed increases and then state that the speed doesn't increase is rather insane.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge this.?

Because I'm not insane.

This is pointless!  Normally I would do the math to show you that you are incorrect and the speed increases except you have already done that and proven that you are wrong.
Absolutely bizarre. 

10

New Theories / Re: Dark Motion. Is it the answer to the Dark Matter and Dark energy problem

« on: 21/08/2023 12:35:19 »

He shows that a perpendicular impulse changes the direction of a mass and does not change the speed, just as the diagram I have posted.

No, your chart clearly shows that the speed increases.
Before the collision the blue ball is moving at 4 units of speed along the x direction and 0 units in the y direction so the overall speed is 4 units.
After the collision the blue ball is moving 4 units in the x direction and 3 units in the y direction so the overall speed of the blue ball is 5 units.

You have shown in your diagram that the speed increases.

The only conclusion I can come up with is either you simply unable to understand basic math and basic Newtonian mechanics or you are a troll. 
If it is simple ignorance, it is too bad you refuse to accept any help to clear up your understanding.

11

New Theories / Re: Dark Motion. Is it the answer to the Dark Matter and Dark energy problem

« on: 16/08/2023 23:34:07 »

Yes. do that please. Give an answer. The question is what happens according to Newton's laws?
I get a lot of good advice as to what I need to do. What happens when two perfect bodies collide? If you know, share it, for the sake of whatever deity you hold dear.

I agree with your results and the are perfectly in line with Newtons laws. 
The blue ball is moving along the x-axis at 4 m/s and the red ball is moving along the y-axis at 3 m/s.  The collision occurs in such a way that the impact is on top of the blue ball, so the momentum transfer is in the y direction.  Assuming a instantaneous perfectly elastic collision on the y axis the momentum of the red ball would be transferred to the blue ball.  This will result in the red ball stopping and the blue ball moving in the y direction at 3 m/s.  The blue ball will continue to move in the x direction at 4 m/s.  The resultant speed of the blue ball will be 5 m/s.

12

Just Chat! / Re: Radiesthesia, shape radiation, device for developing paranormal abilities

« on: 10/08/2023 13:05:55 »

Whaaaaatttt......?

13

General Science / Re: Is Medicine A Science Or An Art?

« on: 13/07/2023 18:25:11 »

For sure it is science.
Are you telling me you signed a form saying medicine is more of an art than science?  I would have run out of that place no matter what shape I was in.

14

COVID-19 / Re: Covid19 & Mental Health?

« on: 06/07/2023 14:26:39 »

I recently came across a helpful resource that offers information on identifying unknown pills

Right, it's called Google, it certainly is helpful isn't it!

15

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Has natural selection been nullified in humans ?

« on: 05/07/2023 22:11:27 »

Do any Other species conduct Agriculture or Farming?

Ants do ranching with aphids and leaf cutter ants grow a fungus that is the only thing they eat.
Edit:
I just saw someone used the exact same examples before me - oops.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do we know that particles are entangled?

« on: 27/06/2023 18:53:26 »

How do they know that the spins of each electron were not predetermined when they were entangled. 

Bells inequality.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Talking about Physics

« on: 16/06/2023 14:48:15 »

A physics joke.

A proton and a neutron go into a magnetic field bar. The neutron heads straight towards the bartender, but the proton tries to and ends up smacking into a wall.

The bartender says to the neutron, "Your mate ok?", The neutron says, "I think he's a bit charged up about something".

I believe the neutron would also be affected by a magnetic field due to the neutrons magnetic moment.  Of course it would be much less than the proton.

18

Science Experiments / Re: Double | slit | Experiment?

« on: 15/06/2023 15:41:13 »

Why is it even called Quantum physics or mechanics, one could simply call it Irrational Insanity!

Quantum physics is neither irrational nor insanity, it is mind boggling though.  The reason it is so mind boggling is because quantum effects are not seen in our macroscopic world experience.  People are not born with a knowledge of physics we learn physics as we grow and experience the world around us.  We learn things like object permanence, forces, momentum and velocity on an intuitive level before we ever learn physics in school.

We never directly experience quantum effects so we have not developed an intuition about them, so they seem strange.  Even the comment that quantum objects have a wave and particle duality is misleading.  Quantum objects are not waves and they are not particles and they aren't half waves and half particles.  Quantum particles are objects that cannot be described classically and when you try to describe them using classical terms you will end up incorrectly describing them and will come away with a false understanding.
Quantum physics is real, consistent and can be clearly described with mathematics, but it is definitely NOT intuitive.
I often hear people say you cannot develop an intuition about quantum mechanics without doing the math.  I disagree with this idea.  The problem with trying to understand quantum effects from articles that don't use the math is that they will invariably try to use classic analogies.  This will leave you with a mistaken understanding.  To get an understanding of quantum effects you need to concentrate on the experimental results and refrain from trying to make those results 'fit into' your classical intuition.  There are some excellent Youtube videos that will help you to get a bit of an intuitive understanding quantum physics.  Unfortunately, there are many more terrible videos on quantum mechanics.
 

19

New Theories / Re: What are they saying about Quantum Gravity?

« on: 08/06/2023 15:17:00 »

I just wanted to stick my toe back in the water here and refresh my memory of posts on this thread and see if it seems right to restart posting ...

I hope not, you are basically writing a blog that is pseudoscience and just taking up space in a science forum.
I guess I will put this thread on ignore and not be bothered by it.  Have a good life and enjoy your number of views.

20

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: No Evidence of the Exodus?

« on: 28/05/2023 15:20:25 »

There is evidence and lost evidence

Of the biblical exodus?  What are they?

For Jews and Christians the readings are alike carvings in stone in Egypt.

What does that mean, I don't understand.