1

New Theories / Re: Can black hole be electrically charged?

« on: Yesterday at 07:03:24 »

If electrons are continuously shot into a black hole (from beta radiation or electron gun), will it be electrically charged?

Yep. That's conservation of electric charge. There is an upper limit of the amount of charge that a black hole can carry (for a given mass, that is), though. For reasons that I do not understand, adding electric charge to a black hole causes the formation of an inner horizon in addition to the outer event horizon. As more charge is added, those two horizons get closer together in size. If the charge was sufficiently large, the horizons would merge (canceling each other out) and you'd end up with a naked singularity. Creating a naked singularity is currently thought to be impossible by general scientific consensus.

Can the charge be sensed from outside, i.e. the Coulomb force?

Yes. That's actually the mechanism that prevents a black hole from becoming "over-charged" and creating a naked singularity. As the black hole becomes more charged, the repulsive force makes it more and more difficult to add extra charge to the hole. In order to overcome that repulsion, the charged particles must be injected with increasingly high energy. Since that energy is the same as mass to a black hole, the black hole's mass also increases along with its charge.

How does the black hole mass affect the strength of Coulomb force, by modifying the distance from an outside object?

I have to admit, I don't know the answer to that one.

2

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 17/04/2022 14:19:53 »

Is it finite or infinite???

Unknown and possibly unknowable.

Do you also agree that Bogie_smiles should get a reward for his understanding that the Universe is Infinite?

I don't think he's provided any kind of new, compelling evidence for that.

3

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 16/04/2022 18:00:31 »

This example represents an ideal Universe without any sort of heat/energy dissipation.

In other words, the real Universe. Where do you think the heat goes? It doesn't just disappear. It just goes to a different location in this same Universe.

I claim that in order to get that kind of infinite activity there is a need for external energy.

A claim that is wrong due to the first law of thermodynamics.

However, when you add the impact of gravity - then you actually add new free force that can add new energy.

No, no it cannot. This was one of those false claims I was talking about when I was referring to your Theory D thread being closed.

He calls it: "the gravitational wave" and I like that name.

Gravitational waves are not tidal forces nor are they just gravity. They are their own, distinct phenomenon. Gravitational waves are to gravity what electromagnetic waves (such as light) are to electromagnetic fields.

In any case, if you don't want me to participate in this discussion - I would stop.

That's entirely up to you. If you start repeating the same nonsense arguments as you did in your Theory D thread (such as gravity being able to create new energy, orbiting objects always drifting outwards, the Big Bang not being able to account for an infinite universe, etc.) then I will, indeed, ask you to stop replying to this thread.

4

New Theories / Re: If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?

« on: 15/04/2022 17:33:12 »

As our Universe is Infinite in its size and age (and that is 100% correct) then after infinite time there would be almost no mass in the Universe.

That's not how that works. Stars may lose mass, but that lost mass still exists in the Universe in the form of particles. The Universe does not lose mass just because stars lose mass.

New energy should come from somewhere.

Not according to the first law of thermodynamics.

I see that you are trying to sneak in a lot of the same controversial statements that you have used in your Theory D discussion. You may not be mentioning Theory D by name, but you are definitely dancing around it.

5

New Theories / Re: Was the universe created by an intelligent entity rather than chance evolution?

« on: 03/03/2022 17:36:48 »

Do you dispute the great possibility of a simulation through quantum physics? Or not?

I don't dispute that it's possible, but I do dispute that it is probable.

6

New Theories / Re: Black Holes are Probably Wrong?

« on: 28/02/2022 01:15:17 »

You are wrong about GRAVITY per Einstein!

If you don't explain plainly what it is exactly that I have wrong about gravity, I am going to consider your continual accusatory dodging as a form of spam. Keep that up and I may well end up locking your thread because spam is against the rules.

7

General Science / Re: evolution

« on: 23/02/2022 04:01:34 »

How come during evolution men evolved keeping facial hair and women lost theirs. Fully realising these are generalisations.

I can only speculate here, but perhaps the beard was a secondary sexual characteristic that was meant to show a man's health and testosterone levels as a sign of fitness to women. If such was the case, it seems to be waning nowadays, as some races have trouble growing thick beards and then there are women who prefer clean-shaven men.

An alternative hypothesis might be that the beard offered some degree of protection in fights between men. I honestly have no idea how plausible that would be, though.

8

New Theories / Re: What is the new Intelligent Design?

« on: 07/02/2022 01:43:49 »

Do you mean that ToE is unfalsifiable?

No, I'm saying that you haven't falsified it.

Now, I will give you time here: what is your best falsification criteria for ToE to be falsified? And why you use that?

The discovery of a large number of out-of-order fossils (such as a pre-Cambrian rabbit) would definitely be a big problem for evolution to explain. The fact that there is a distinct chronological pattern to the fossil record is one of the big pieces of evidence for evolution. You start off with the simplest life forms (prokaryotes) which progress to single-celled eukaryotes then to colonial organisms like sponges, then simple invertebrates like worms, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals then humans. If there was no pattern to the fossil record, that would be evidence against evolution.

Biogeography is also evidence for evolution. The distribution of animals across the Earth's surface isn't random, but is related to what ancestors of those animals could have reached those places in a reasonable manner. From an evolutionary perspective, you'd never expect to find an African elephant on Easter Island, for example, because they would have no way to get there.

Genetic patterns are also strong evidence for evolution. The pattern of endogenous retroviral (ERV) elements (which were inserted by viral infections in the distant past) in chimpanzees and humans are extremely similar, which indicates that both chimpanzees and humans inherited these infection remnants from the same common ancestors. So another potential falsification would come from the discovery that two distantly-related animals (such as a gila monster and a great white shark) have significantly more ERVs in common than two closely-related animals do (a gila monster and beaded lizard).

They do not normally give  a fair fight.

What makes you say that?

9

New Theories / Re: Suns shining for 10 billion years might account for mass of dark matter

« on: 25/01/2022 21:15:09 »

The energy of fusion is nowhere near enough to account for dark matter. Current measurements put dark matter as accounting for 27% the mass of the visible universe whereas visible matter (like stars) account for only 5%. I'll do a bit of math to show how far off it is.

Let's assume a perfect scenario where we can get as much fusion energy as physically possible (which real stars don't actually achieve). We start off with a star that is composed of 100% hydrogen (the simplest, most common isotope with a single proton). We then will fuse all of that hydrogen into just about the most stable isotope we can (iron-56). The mass of a proton is 1.007825 daltons and we will fuse 56 of them together to produce the iron nucleus: that's a total mass of 56.438032 daltons. The iron-56 nucleus has a mass of 55.934936 daltons. 56.438032 - 55.934936 = ~0.5 daltons. So only about 0.9% of the total mass of the hydrogen has been converted into energy (and that's not counting the positrons and neutrinos, which would take away some of that mass as well). So radiation from stars can't be the explanation for dark matter.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Cant decide on a physics project

« on: 22/01/2022 23:49:55 »

Given what's been on my mind lately, I would suggest either an experiment testing the kinetic energy equation or conservation of momentum.

11

New Theories / Re: Coronavirus will get weaker and then what?

« on: 08/11/2021 18:33:41 »

If a person gets the virus, and his immune system is fighting virus, does his sneeze contain both virus and some of his immune factors? If so, can human pass the equivalent of a mini vaccine through sneezing, along with the virus?

No. The virus can replicate when it passes to another person. Any antibodies that might somehow make their way into another person's body cannot replicate.

12

New Theories / Re: Is the Sun alive? Does It have consciousness?

« on: 08/11/2021 04:35:42 »

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of pareidolia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

13

New Theories / Re: Are Voices Spirits Talking to you?

« on: 06/11/2021 15:16:29 »

I have proof that my voices are Spirits of people talking to me. So much for saying it is my active imagination.

Please show us this proof.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What if the universe really is infinite?

« on: 19/10/2021 21:48:29 »

could there not be an infinite variety of the laws of physics applying to each universe

We don't know. Each universe might have the same laws of physics. Or there could be an infinite number of different laws of physics, but with an infinite number of universes having the same laws as each other (and for every possible set of laws).

15

New Theories / Re: Why have the results of the San Grasso experiment were never confirmed?

« on: 19/10/2021 21:46:31 »

Probably because of this:

Shortly thereafter the OPERA collaboration announced that it had conducted the experiment with two technical problems and the results were invalid.

So the evidence for faster-than-light neutrinos was considered invalid. That's significantly more probable than actual faster-than-light motion. Science experiments like this are expensive, so if there isn't any good evidence to investigate something, it's not likely to be done.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What if the universe really is infinite?

« on: 19/10/2021 03:59:13 »

But isolated systems don't exist.

I never said otherwise.

and no other <reasonable> coordinate system reaches that far away

I'm admittedly confused as to why you say this. There is a limited distance for coordination systems?

This again assumes that the universe has a state, unmeasured.

Would not the living things on that hypothetical, far away planet count as doing measurements by making observations? Or are we entering "Wigner's friend" territory?

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What if the universe really is infinite?

« on: 18/10/2021 21:29:22 »

then Earth does indeed occur at an infinite number of places, but not at different times since the age of the universe is part of the current state of Earth.

I'm not sure I fully understand your reply. Are you saying there is some reason that there cannot be a planet out there somewhere that is identical down to the subatomic level to the way the Earth was 60 million years ago?

@Kryptid I see it the other way round.For there to be an identical system to another it has to have identical connections to its environment.

I'm obviously talking about something being identical to within a particular volume.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What if the universe really is infinite?

« on: 18/10/2021 20:43:44 »

The implications of an infinite universe are pretty startling, actually. When you have an infinite amount of matter and energy with a relatively random distribution throughout space, then every possible scenario will have happened an infinite number of times in the past (so long as the scenario doesn't require longer than the current age of the Universe to occur) and will continue to happen an infinite number of times in the future.

Anything you can imagine that doesn't violate the laws of physics (except the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is a statistical law) would happen. There would be a planet out there somewhere where random organic molecules in a pond spontaneously joined together to form a perfect copy of Michael Jackson, including all of his memories. There would be a planet populated entirely by clones that look exactly like you. There would be Boltzmann brains that formed spontaneously from clouds of gas in space that are haunted by false memories of having been tortured for hundreds of years on end.

19

Just Chat! / Re: English literature : Precise definitions .

« on: 16/10/2021 01:07:28 »

why can't we just define space by a single definition and define that space is independent of matter but can be occupied by matter ?

That sounds rather like the conventional definition to me.

20

New Theories / Re: Is the sun photons?

« on: 15/10/2021 21:17:34 »

The frequency of light emitted by the Sun is not 450nm or lower which plasma generates .

That depends upon the temperature of the plasma in question.

that does not excuse the fact that the Sun is neither nothing like Plasma .

It's a hot, ionized gas. That's plasma, by definition.

Additionally the Suns molecular make up  is only theory

"Only theory" is a misunderstanding of what scientific theory is.

we have never been to the Sun to gain a sample of its molecular components .

We don't have to. We can not only sample the solar wind but also deduce its composition from its spectrum.

The wave lengths of light emitted from the Sun are not the same as Plasma

Citation needed.

Perhaps if the magnetic bottling of space-time increased in magnitude

That doesn't make sense.