1

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

« on: 15/07/2022 17:35:18 »

I have also said that trying to explain something to you is about as productive as explaining it to my cat.
You display negligible reading comprehension skills, and mathematics and logic skills are also lacking.

This topic seems to be devolving into assertions of slander against these 'astonomers' that have so little clue, so I am once again threatening to close the topic that has long since passed any hope of making progress.
But let me put a little reading comprehension test, based on some past responses. Apologies for treating you like an 8 year old in a quiz here, but you're determined to act like one.

What is being violated without dark matter is basic Newtonian law. We have objects (our solar system say) that accelerate far more than can be accounted for by the sum of the forces applied by all the various baryonic masses in the galaxy. Thus there must either be more (a lot more) mass that isn't baryonic, or Newton's laws (the inverse square one concerning gravitational attraction) are wrong.

Your explanation is valid as long as we ignore the arms.

What exactly do you think I was saying in that quote?
Please don't just copy my words. Tell me in your own words what the post was about.
You don't have to agree with the words, just give an indication the comprehension isn't totally absent.
Why do you think mention of arms was necessary?
Who was the comment addressed to?
What was the purpose of my posting that when I've been mostly keeping out of this?
Was the purpose served?

You go on to reference the same comment again, like it somehow backs some assertion of yours.

There is no "arm" in [Halc's same] explanation.
In order to get better understanding, please also see the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's center."

The rotation curve comment you quote also does not mention 'arms'. What do you think the wiki comment says? Why was a reference to my comment (especially my lack of mention of 'arms') relevant to this comment?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
So please, based on your superior logic, how many orbital cycles (for the one at 15KPC) are needed in order to break the spiral arm structure?

Here you actually make a point. Stars closer to the center go around much more often than the ones further out. The ratio of 5 is poor mathematics, but the ratio is not far from that. You're giving evidence that your assertions are wrong. Not sure why you're doing this.
As for superior logic, you commit a straw man fallacy here, asserting facts that are not held by these 'clueless' astronomers, only by you. So that's the demonstration of 'superior logic' you've been requesting.

As you think that you do understand, then please advice what is the meaning of the following message:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
"The bar in the center and the spiral arms are thought to rotate at different speeds. If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left). Every time they meet, the bar appears longer and its rotation slower (right). Credit: T. Hilmi / University of Surrey"

OK, since you quoted that, what do you think it says? This is a reading comprehension test remember.
Why do you think this comment is relevant here?
The comment is a caption, and is obviously commenting on the images above it. What is it saying that you think is worthy of being introduced in this topic?


If this is too difficult, you've really no business wasting all our time on this site.

2

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Why do birds tap on my windows?

« on: 14/07/2022 13:08:08 »

In all seriousness though, since birds are born into a world that has glass, then it would seem that glass is part of a birds natural environment.

Seriously ?
Birds dont know glass.
But after millions of years of evolution they know water in liquid and solid form.
It is amazing to know that they dont even need to learn what water is.
So if a bird tap on a windows, he try to peck ice or drink water.
 
Conclusion : A bird taping on a window is a thirsty bird.
To verify this hypothesis, just put a water bowl near the window and see if they prefer the strange "ice" or the known water.

3

Just Chat! / Re: appreciation

« on: 06/06/2022 15:59:28 »

Click the 'Actions' pull down and the first option is 'Say Thanks'.

4

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Have animal reactions to mirrors and windows been studied?

« on: 27/05/2022 04:19:41 »

Well, this cat certainly appears to perceive motion in this static picture:

Perhaps just like we do:

rotsnake.jpg (613.75 kB . 1024x768 - viewed 2209 times)

5

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?

6

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.

7

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.

8

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

« on: 02/01/2022 18:57:56 »

9

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'.

10

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.

11

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.

12

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.

13

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.

14

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! - ...

15

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.

16

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. 

17

Just Chat! / Re: Is the jig up?

« on: 03/02/2021 02:13:27 »

What happened with game stop according to wallstreet

18

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.   

19

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.   

20

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?