1

New Theories / Re: More evidence for the origin of the moon.

« on: Today at 11:25:52 »

I'm jot saying  the OP's ideas are any use at all.
But the Moon really does have a near, and a far, side.

2

New Theories / Re: More evidence for the origin of the moon.

« on: Today at 11:01:27 »

To a very good approximation, only one side of the Moon does face the Earth
It looks like this.

Moon.JPG (66.53 kB . 700x692 - viewed 52 times)
Unless you are in the other hemisphere, in which case it's the other way up.

It wobbles a bit, the effect is called libration.

3

Technology / Re: Does electric transportation cause greater pollution than conventional means?

« on: Today at 08:55:55 »

Now add the energy needed for the shower and laundry.
More seriously, the "uptick" at the left hand side of the walking curve may tell you a lot.

4

New Theories / Re: Water and Life

« on: Today at 08:46:01 »

I'm lost for words.

It's a pity PuppyPower is seldom in that position.
I don't know why he hasn't been banned as a troll.

5

Chemistry / Re: Is Molecular Vibration Perpetual Motion?

« on: Today at 08:37:15 »

- In the Quantum world, the amplitude of vibration can only take on specific values (which in some systems, may not include zero)

Don't we need to add superpositions and indeterminacy to it?

Once you add the uncertainty principle to the idea you realise that all molecules must vibrate i.e the amplitude can not include zero.
Because, if it did, the molecules would have exactly defined locations (WRT eachother) and that's forbidden.

6

New Theories / Re: Water and Life

« on: Yesterday at 23:08:53 »

Sometimes people sound confused only due to the dilemma discovery. We make a discovery then try to dismantle it then it takes time to study and reassemble and make meaning of what we have. most of the time we can find the truth embedded within the confusion.

And sometimes people like PuppyPower just keep posting bull.

7

New Theories / Re: Water and Life

« on: Yesterday at 22:16:12 »

Puppy power tells it very well.

No.
He talks a lot of nonsense and says plenty of things that are clearly not true.

8

Chemistry / Re: How to make pottasium permanganate crystals from solution

« on: Yesterday at 20:56:07 »

The obvious answer is to evaporate off the water. If the solution is only pink then you have very little permanganate present.
Strong solutions are practically black.

So, at best, you will get very little crystalline material.

Also, if the solution contains anything else, it will be concentrated along with the permanganate, so you will get an impure product.
And permanganates are not very stable, it is likely that much of the material will decompose when you try to crystallise it

9

COVID-19 / Re: Can we get herd immunity?

« on: Yesterday at 19:52:52 »

It's relatively easy to find out how well a vaccine prevents death.
You take a big group, vaccinate half of them, and then count the deaths in each group.
It's more difficult to measure the prevention of infection where many infections are asymptomatic.
You need to regularly re-test all the people in your survey.

It harder, but it's possible.

But it's difficult to measure the effectiveness of a vaccine in terms of how much it reduces spread, because, in general, we simply don't know who the virus was spread to and from.


So the only thing you can do is vaccinate essentially the whole population and see what happens to the measured value of R (and make the laughable assumption that nothing else has changed).

So, yes, it would be great to know if the vaccine can end the pandemic,
But the only way to find out is to vaccinate the population (or some acceptable subset) and see if it works.

10

Just Chat! / Re: Am I the only one to find weather charts awusing?

« on: Yesterday at 19:45:10 »

There are plans afoot to widen the orbit of the Earth

Not serious ones.

11

New Theories / Re: Water and Life

« on: Yesterday at 17:51:27 »

If we mix water and oil and shake, we will form an emulsion. If we let it settle, the water and oil will separate into two layers. This is driven by water and hydrogen bonding.

If you shake a hydrocarbon oil like cyclohexane with a perfluorocarbon oil, they will form an emulsion, and if you let that settle, the two layers will separate out.

But no hydrogen bonding will be present in either layer.

So, your "explanation" makes no sense.

12

New Theories / Re: Water and Life

« on: Yesterday at 17:41:33 »

I would like to look at the water and oil affect, from the POV of the unification of mass and negative charge

Mass and negative charge are not unified.
You are still talking nonsense.

13

New Theories / Re: I have a theory of why the universe is expanding.

« on: Yesterday at 17:39:39 »

For the benefit of Just Thinking, this:

The flow of heat and/or energy from hot to cold will also create a red shift.

Please cite a source for this.

is the scientists polite way of saying, "You are talking bollocks- if you think you are not, then prove it."

14

New Theories / Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?

« on: Yesterday at 17:35:53 »

But, could you explain this?

Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:15:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:40:26
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..

15

New Theories / Re: Big Bang Theory - How the BBT really works?

« on: Yesterday at 17:21:02 »

You need to explain why they don't say the thing that would win them a Nobel prize.
Do they not say it because they don't observe it, or because they are stupid?

Do you understand what the measurement is here?

They measure the wavelength of some incoming light from the object.

It hardly matters exactly what they look at so we can use made up numbers- it's easier that way.

They look at the light from a flame on Earth and they measure the wavelength of the light.
It has a wavelength of 100nm. There's some spread on it- say they find the light is between 98 and 102 nm.
So that's the broadening they see  (part of it will be Doppler, some will be measurement error, part will be uncertainty broadening- which is not the same thing as the measurement error- and some will be pressure broadening. There may be other contributions.)

And then they look at the spectrum they get from the object.
And they will see that it's 103 to 107 nm.
They conclude two things;
The broadening is the same- it's +/- 2nm
 And that's interesting, so they publish it.
They don't bother to mention the fact that it is red shifted from about 100 to about 105 because nobody cares.
Hubble already posted that result, and it has been  repeated loads of times since (and in a more interesting form where they compare shift vs. distance).

What you are saying is that they got a blue shifted measurement which said the light was between  93 and 97 nm.

And they reported the non- result - that the broadening was essentially the same.
But they somehow did not report the fact that the light was blue shifted from 100 to 95 nm.

That's the point at which you say they threw away their prize.

Now, can you please explain why you think they would do that?
Do you not think they would notice that 95 is smaller than 100?

16

Just Chat! / Re: What is the Fastest Accelerating Species on planet Earth?

« on: Yesterday at 17:19:32 »

I would not expect the tortoise to suffer more than 50 g it depends on the hardness of its shell and that of the rock.

My calculation was based on about 10 metres (or more) and about 10 mm.
What figures did you use?

17

New Theories / Re: Earthquake - the result of an explosion of magmatic gases

« on: Yesterday at 12:28:47 »

The explosions are repeated as much as a combustible mixture comes.

Well, yes.
The combustible mix won't happen, and the explosions don't happen.

18

New Theories / Re: I have a theory of why the universe is expanding.

« on: Yesterday at 10:51:16 »

There are stars that are blue shift and neutral in fact the andromeda galaxy is in the blueshift as the Milkyway and andromeda galaxy are on a colision corse.

As you say, we know that there are some blue shifted  stars, and we know why.
But a model in which the expansion is driven by spin would mean that there were great swathes of space where  almost all the stars were blue shifted.
And that's not what we see.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do you map from two dimensions to 3 dimensions?

« on: Yesterday at 10:47:00 »

Until the OP gets back and tells us what question we are answering, there's not much hope of us giving the best answer.

It could be they were looking for how you map 2D latitude and longitude onto a 3D sphere.

Or they could be talking about mathematical mapping of functions in which case you certainly can map without losing data.

20

New Theories / Re: What Is The Nature Of Photons & EM Radiation?

« on: Yesterday at 09:01:09 »

Well, sorry to inform you, that time keeps going on and science is constantly progressing... Modern-day nanocavities are capable of trapping a single photon...

I know.
For what it's worth, you can trap a single photon in a big cavity too.
But, since we were actually planning to use a bigger chamber your assertion, while true, is irrelevant, isn't it?

That's a completely invalid analogy. Instead try listening simultaneouly to 2 radio stations using one receiver with a single antenna... I might rethink my claims, when you'll manage to do it...

Using one receiver is moving the goalposts; I'm glad you dropped it.

EDIT - you can use 2 receivers with one shared antenna,

.
Using one antenna is easy enough; my house has a combined TV/ FM antenna both signals come down the same wire.

In principle, I  can do a bit better.
I can hook a long wire to the input of a modern oscilloscope and what I see is the sum of all the EM fields which the antenna picks up.
And then I can ask the 'scope to do an FFT on the signal and it will cheerfully "receive" and display all the radio stations etc in the area.
Would you like to buy me a new digital scope?

So, what then defines the energy/mass of EM radiation - momentum or frequency of EM waves? It's a simple question with only 2 options.- please, try better this time...

It's a simple question, but meaningless.
I can calculate the energy of a photon from it's momentum, or from its frequency.
So either of them define it.
Did you not realise that?

But the wavelenght of EM radiation IS very well defined - we know for example the EXACT lenghts of EM waves for each color of visible spectrum - you even said, that you've measured one by yourself. Isn't that quite self-contradictory?

Get back to us when you know what the uncertainty principle tells us about energy.
Until then, you don't have the knowledge to see why you must be wrong and there's no point carrying on the discussion.

Mind you, We won't expect much from the guy who can't face up to having said  that the point of a bat is to make the ball go slower.

Are you going to address this before, or after, learning what the uncertainty principle says about wavelengths?

But you still didn't seem to grasp the fact that bouncing a photon off a mirror that's coming towards you will mean that the photon comes back at you  with a higher energy, and the mirror gets slowed down a bit.
Fundamentally, you still have not answered the question.
What happens to the work done against photon pressure if you compress a box that has light in it?

Instead of answering, you cam up with this tosh

Quote from: CrazyScientist on 14/06/2021 17:11:04
I guess, you slept during physics classes, when the Newton's laws of motion were discussed... If you wouldn't sleep, you would know, that to slow down an object, that moves at constant velocity, you need to use a force - so photons, which are slowing down the mirror are giving up their own energy... It's basic physics - aren't you ashamed to not know such things?


Now, since you framed your bilge in terms of high school physics, then, regardless of any weirdness due to quantum effects, it should work in terms of high school physics.
But you say that if a ball exerts a force on a moving  bat, the bat will gain energy (yet it slows down)  and the ball will lose energy (though its speed increases).

Do you really believe that?

Please don't waste time on energy losses and coefficients of restitution- this is an ideal, perfect mirror.
There are no losses.