1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why Didn't Einstein FULLY Address Simultaneity-at-a-Distance?

« on: 14/04/2021 17:07:51 »

But why should that fact - that we can't see them doing it - mean that they aren't simultaneously doing it?

Because "simultaneous" is still a relative statement, even with taking visual lag due to the speed of light into consideration:

2

General Science / Re: Would you tell the world if you knew an asteroid was coming to Earth?

« on: 08/04/2021 17:27:44 »

Such a strike would have very different consequences for the total global population - depending on which side of the globe the asteroid struck.

If the asteroid struck the "Eastern" side - by which I mean, the side which consists almost entirely of the Pacific Ocean - the consequences wouldn't be too bad.  From a global perspective.

That very much depends on the size of the asteroid. If it was as big as the one at Chicxulub, it wouldn't matter where it hit.

3

Guest Book / Re: Mods...May i have a lil of your Attention, Please?

« on: 04/04/2021 00:30:23 »

I've banned my fair share of spammers, including banning the same person multiple times for ban evasion. Whether I banned those particular users you've mentioned, I can't remember.

4

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is it desirable for Mankind to be smaller in stature?

« on: 24/03/2021 23:19:11 »

The survival benefit in the short-term  perhaps.  But not in the long-term.

Evolution is short-sighted.

5

General Science / Re: What are your opinions of Yuri Gagarin, first cosmonaut?

« on: 24/03/2021 22:17:33 »

If they weren't, why aren't they happening anymore? 

Politics, most probably.

I mean, doesn't that look a bit suspicious.

Only to a conspiracy theorist.

6

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is it desirable for Mankind to be smaller in stature?

« on: 24/03/2021 22:07:16 »

Where's the evolutionary advantage of all that?

It's also allowed us to develop things like medicines, vaccines, surgery and an overabundance of food. The survival benefit of those things is pretty obvious.

7

General Science / Re: What are your opinions of Yuri Gagarin, first cosmonaut?

« on: 24/03/2021 21:59:46 »

If the US Apollo moon-landings were faked

They weren't.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Centre of the universe?

« on: 23/03/2021 21:11:44 »

If it doesn't have an 'edge' then what are we measuring to?

The visible Universe has an edge. The Universe as a whole, not necessarily. It could potentially be infinite. Or it could be a hypersphere of finite size (which still wouldn't have an edge).

If we say that the universe is 13.8 billion years old because that is the furthest we can see, then any stars that are 13.8 billion light years away from us

The visible Universe is actually bigger than that because of space expansion (about 93 billion light-years across).

won't have anything beyond them will they?

There's no reason there shouldn't be. Any galaxies beyond a certain point won't be visible because their light hasn't reached us.

To ask another silly question - why do I have to go through verification every time I post a question or reply to an answer when I'm already logged in?

I don't know. I don't have that problem with posting myself. You might want to contact the administrator.

9

New Theories / Re: Any theories in physics you don't agree with?

« on: 22/03/2021 05:37:58 »

If the universe has walls, then what are the walls made of? I agree that its probably finite.

It doesn't have to have walls to be finite. It could be a hypersphere of finite diameter, where travelling in one direction long enough puts you back where you began (similar to how a plane can fly in a "straight" line around the Earth and arrive back at its starting point).

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Contribution of latent heat of fusion of iron at the Earth’s inner core

« on: 22/03/2021 01:08:11 »

I'm interested in looking into this. I'll do a bit of research and get back to you.

EDIT: the latent heat of fusion of iron is about 0.21 kilojoules per gram, whereas the latent heat of fusion of an iron-nickel alloy called FeNi36 is 0.28 kilojoules per gram. I need to point out that the heat of fusion of iron and iron alloys is very probably different under extreme pressure than under atmospheric pressure. How much different, I don't know. Just to see where the calculations go, I'll just use these numbers.

The mass of the inner core is about 10²⁶ grams. If the inner core was right at its melting point (it isn't, but we're making simplifying assumptions), then going from a molten state to a solid state would involve the release of 2.1 x 10²⁵ kilojoules of heat (if it's pure iron) or 2.8 x 10²⁵ kilojoules of heat (if it's the iron-nickel alloy I'm using).

The Earth's inner core is estimated to be growing at a rate of about 1 millimeter per year (I assumed that was a radius increase of 1 millimeter for the calculations. Maybe I should have made that half a millimeter?). After crunching the numbers using that metric, I calculated that the inner core is currently losing heat at a rate of between 4.9 x 10¹⁶ and 6.5 x 10¹⁶ kilojoules per year (depending on whether one uses iron or the iron-nickel alloy for the math).

You said to assume that the rate of heat loss is constant (it isn't, but again, let's see where the math goes). If we do assume a constant rate of heat loss, you end up with the inner core right at its melting point going from pure liquid to its current size in about 430 million years. I'm honestly surprised that number turned out to be as close to your stated figure of 565 million years as it was.

But, as I pointed out before, my math made a lot of simplifying assumptions. It doesn't take into account the fact that the only place in the core that has a temperature around the core's melting point is roughly the boundary between the inner and outer core (obviously, since that's where it's solidifying). It doesn't take into account changes in heat of fusion due to pressure. It doesn't take frictional heating or radioactive heating into consideration either. Nor does it take the changing rate of heat loss over time into consideration.

11

New Theories / Re: Can something move faster than speed of light?

« on: 22/03/2021 01:00:44 »

I have not found someone willing to help with the equation of this.
I am willing to share the find under contract when the equation is formulated. The irony that this has been looking at us since the start of human research of the stars and yet it has been missed the whole time. Very similar to Newton's law. I know what i have found is correct.
If you are a genius with Physics equations please contact myself.

I give you my word, as a binding contract, that I won't try to steal your idea (whatever it may be). Feel free to take a screenshot of this post if you wish to have this as proof in the future. I will also not discuss your idea outside of our messages. Feel free to send me a private message about your idea and I'll see what I can do. As to whether I can do anything with it equation-wise, I guess that depends upon the specifics of the idea.

12

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 21/03/2021 19:39:56 »

@pasala
Hello Sir!
🙏

Why is it that You always Specify the Apple falling onto the Earth?
🤔

Why can it Not be the other way around...that the whole damm planet is rising up to catch the falling Apple?

P.S. - 🍏

Technically, both accelerate towards each other.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a better way to power a spacecraft than a nuclear source?

« on: 18/03/2021 23:33:33 »

Perhaps we haven't had atomic energy long enough to develop practicable methods for using it to propel spacecraft.

Fission-powered rocket engines were actually developed and tested a long time ago. If I'm not mistaken, politics is why they were never used.

14

New Theories / Re: Split: Attempts to falsify relativity

« on: 17/03/2021 03:12:26 »

So is it not just an energy wave detector, detecting an effect from a cause ?

It is an energy wave detector. The gravitational waves are a cause by which changes in the mirror distance can be detected. That is a cause producing a detectable effect. We can know when they are caused by gravitational waves and not local disturbances because (1) gravitational waves produce predictable, regular and opposite changes between the two different arms of the detectors, and (2) LIGO has two stations very, very far apart: one in Louisiana and one in Washington state. If both detectors pick up the trademark pattern of a gravitational wave at roughly the same time, then that rules out local vibrations as the cause. VIRGO, a similar gravitational wave detector in Italy, can provide further confirmation of the detection.

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 16/03/2021 20:45:07 »

It goes both ways, the Obama administration decided the best way to tackle 911 truth was to proliferate even more crazy conspiracies related to what happened on 911, and so disappearing planes amoung other nonsense were added to list of conspiracies by government.

Please don't tell me you're also a 9-11 truther.

Inherently the security services act in secret, everything they do is a conspiracy.

So how can you ever claim to know what it is that they are doing?

in the current climate, it appears some people feel the only way they can tell the truth is with some degree of protection

Again, since when was it established that these people are telling the truth? For all we know, they real reason they are keeping themselves anonymous is so that they cannot be held accountable if they are, in fact, lying. So yes, it is important whether they are telling the truth or not.

Ultimately that is a climate the security establishment has imposed, and it's a bad sign.

Evidence?

Just because the health care worker spoke serctly is not in of itself a reason to reject the statement.

That's right, but there is also no reason to accept the statement. There is no weight behind it and there won't be any weight behind it until someone can provide objective evidence to support it. Remember, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the debunker.

16

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 16/03/2021 20:35:29 »

The space station is not in earth’s gravitational field.

Yes, it is. If it wasn't, it couldn't be in orbit.

17

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity?

« on: 14/03/2021 16:49:25 »

If there is no gravity, all the planets, like apple, will remain then and there.

Without gravity, there wouldn't be any planets.

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 14/03/2021 14:09:40 »

as they have also shown them false.

The conspiracy theorist can always claim that such documents are disinformation in order to keep their theory from being falsified.

Supressed evidence is evidence, that is not the same as no evidence at all.

The problem is that what a lot of conspiracy theorists consider to be "suppressed evidence" cannot be distinguished from hearsay or rumors because it cannot be confirmed to be true.

19

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are TROLLS being Allowed to run Amok?

« on: 13/03/2021 23:45:56 »

We need more not less discussion.

This sounds like the attitude of a:

Conspiracy Theory Troll who posts Absolute Crap without even a miniscule amount of Evidence

Quite the opposite, discussion allows conspiracies to be proven or disproven. If a suggestion is complete nonsense a discussion can show that.

Trolls generally don't start discussions they generally seek to destroy them

Conspiracy theories, by their very nature, cannot be disproved. It's always possible for the theorist to invoke excuses (including new conspiracies) to explain away either a lack evidence for their theory (such as, "I can't show the evidence beause it's being suppressed") or the presence of evidence against it (such as, "you can't trust that source because it's disinformation to promote their agenda").

20

New Theories / Re: Any theories in physics you don't agree with?

« on: 10/03/2021 22:43:11 »

I once read something to the effect that "all models are wrong", it's just that some are much less wrong and far more useful than others (I know "theory" and "model" aren't quite synonyms, but I suppose it's close enough for discussion purposes).