1

New Theories / Re: Is Amino Acid a misnomer

« on: 10/09/2024 21:59:51 »

Amino acids are not "a type of carbon". Graphite and diamond and both types of carbon, but molecules that contain other elements like nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen are not. They are compounds.

Acids can contain carbon. Take a look at phenol, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenol

If you have a substance, dissolve it in water, and the resulting solution has a pH below 7, then it is an acid. You can get into deeper details than that, like specific kinds of acids like Lewis acids, Bronsted-Lowry acids and Arrhenius acids.

You are simply mistaken.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How possible is it to find sugar on other planets in our solar system?

« on: 16/08/2024 22:20:39 »

Some meteorites have been found to have sugars in them, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are other planets that have some amount of sugar delivered by meteorites. If you want to harvest that, I would strongly recommend growing your own sugar cane instead. It would be far more practical and profitable.

3

New Theories / Re: Could quantum mechanics be wrong?

« on: 09/08/2024 17:07:29 »

Gemini claims that wave propagation is a crucial aspect of quantum mechanics.
Your claim just confirmed my statement.

Please don't rely on AI to teach you things...

4

New Theories / Re: Redefining Electrons

« on: 12/06/2024 19:15:21 »

We know that atoms experience recoil when they absorb or emit photons because Doppler laser cooling relies on that in order to work:

5

New Theories / Re: Redefining Electrons

« on: 12/06/2024 01:01:44 »

In classical mechanics, the emission of a photon by an atom would cause the atom to recoil due to conservation of momentum. However, in quantum mechanics, the situation is different. The electron cloud's change in energy levels doesn't involve a point-like particle emitting a photon from a single location. Instead, it involves the entire probability distribution of the electron's position changing state.

Where are you quoting from?

6

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 22/05/2024 00:34:31 »

It's a hole in the analysis.

How so? Light doesn't experience length contraction and the speed of the device itself is so low that length contraction shouldn't be an issue.

Any opinion about conservation of angular moment as shown in post #20?

It's been a while since I've studied magnetism and currents, so I'm not equipped at the moment to give an analysis.

7

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 21/05/2024 16:19:53 »

The paper you linked has no word about length contraction.
How is that possible?
The quality of papers is going downhill.

No, the isotropy of the speed of light is not tested here if the length contraction is not being discussed.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

8

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 19/05/2024 14:24:16 »

Isotropy is established by definition.

Only because it was discovered to be true experimentally.

There is no experiment to prove it.

Sure there is. The Michelson-Morley experiment was one, as are more recent optical resonator experiments: https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1284

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the universe really expanding?

« on: 17/05/2024 17:24:15 »

Yes, exactly. The universe looks like it's expending but it really isn't...

How would you tell the difference?

10

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 17/05/2024 17:23:03 »

The two-way speed of light is good enough to detect anisotropy.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the universe really expanding?

« on: 16/05/2024 23:34:42 »

That would still be a form of spatial expansion from our point of view.

12

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 15/05/2024 17:06:26 »

Right, the current relativity does not have explanation for it.

It isn't supposed to, not any more than it's supposed to explain why sugar is sweet.

Having said that, if there is a preferred frame than the force between electron and proton varies based on the hydrogen atom speed in the preferred frame as shown in the thought experiment.
When the hydrogen atom slows down in the preferred frame the force is stronger and the electron is pulled to lower energy state. Suddenly 'spontaneous' emission has a cause.
The 'relativity' anchored in the preferred frame can explain the emissions.

There is no preferred frame. The isotropy of the speed of light has been demonstrated to extremely high precision.

13

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 14/05/2024 22:21:48 »

The 21cm hydrogen line observed from space.
How does relativity explains it?
What is the cause of the emission according to relativity?

I think you'll need to consult quantum physics for that answer, not relativity.

14

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 14/05/2024 16:36:51 »

Is there any 'Einstein' out there to defend it?

No need. We have a lot of observational data to defend it for us.

15

New Theories / Re: How does light propagate? By what means does light get from Point A To Point B?

« on: 09/05/2024 17:09:45 »

If c is constant, wouldn't the edge of observable universe be invisible?

It basically is.

16

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 09/05/2024 17:08:13 »

If a mistake was made here then a theory built on it will fall.

There was no mistake.

17

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 09/05/2024 00:11:12 »

So what's your point?

18

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 08/05/2024 21:45:52 »

Even if you choose another light wave.
How does the light inertial frame calculate time with the Lorentz transformation?
How did you answer your own question from the other thread?

From the jist of what was told to me, it appeared that no such frame existed.

19

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 08/05/2024 16:56:20 »

This is not about motionless light waves but about Einstein's flawed assumption.
The carriage cannot move at v=c.
That frame does not exist, it is undefined according to the Lorentz transformation, right?

My conclusions are correct, there is no real physical inertial frame with mass that moves at c.
Is there any experiment with mass moving at c?
An experiment that disproves my conclusion?

It's a thought experiment. You can imagine the carriage being massless if you really want to. Or you can replace it with another light wave. Besides, he thought this up 10 years before he published his paper on special relativity. He wouldn't have known at the time that objects with mass can't reach the speed of light.

20

New Theories / Re: Jano's relativity denials

« on: 07/05/2024 21:32:46 »

Expect an experiment of a mass moving at v=c.
That's what Einstein was thinking according to Susskind.
Susskind specifically talks about railroad carriage moving with the speed of light in Einstein's thought experiment.

Einstein's thought experiment was intentionally absurd. It shows that the scenario isn't possible. There are no reference frames where light is sitting still.

The conclusion in your thread is that frame is undefined under the Lorentz transformation.

My thread? What thread are you talking about?

By the way, this is still true:

Special relativity has been supported with large amounts of experimental evidence.

If your conclusions disagree with the evidence, then you need to reconsider your conclusions.