1

New Theories / Re: Big bang red shift resolved

« on: 19/07/2023 21:01:27 »

Bored Chemist, I think you might be confused as to who the OP is.

2

New Theories / Re: How the Solar energy is created?

« on: 10/07/2023 16:11:19 »

That is perfectly OK
The oort cloud extends up to 3.2LY away from the Sun and sets the border of the solar system.
Therefore, it is very clear that even if we just focus on the 400 stars that are located up to 20 LY away from the sun (and ignore all the other millions that are located further away) we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.

Except that's not how any of this works.  Masses spread out surrounding the Solar system would cancel each other's tidal influences on the Sun out, they would not add up.  We see this same thing when the Sun and Moon are at right angles to each other in the sky. We get less intense tides as they work against each other.
In addition, tidal forces increase across the size of the region they are acting.  Therefore, tidal forces powerful enough to produce the type of heat energy the Sun outputs would rip the planets away from the Sun. The Sun's Hill sphere would be too small to allow for it to hold on to orbiting bodies

3

New Theories / Re: How the Solar energy is created?

« on: 04/07/2023 01:24:35 »

Let's refer back to the link calculating tidal forces I posted earlier: https://www.astro.uvic.ca/~jwillis/teaching/astr201/maths.7.tidal_heating.pdf

According to the equation calculating the power of the tidal forces affecting Io, the total power is 6 x 10¹⁷ watts. The power is inversely proportional to the tidal cycle period, so if we reduce the period from the 1.769 days of Io to the 25.05 days of the Sun, that reduces the total power to 4.24 x 10¹⁷ watts. The power is also linearly proportional to the tidal force. Since the tidal force on the Sun from Alpha Centauri A is 50 million times lower than that of Io, then the power also reduces 50 million-fold to 8.47 x 10⁸ watts.

The Sun's total power output is 3.828 x 10²⁶ watts. If we assume (very, very generously) that tidal power is converted into heat with 100% efficiency, then the heights of the tides on the Sun would need to be 4.519 x 10¹⁷ times higher than they are on Io (according to the equation). Since Io's tidal heights are about 50 meters, that corresponds to tidal heights on the Sun of 2.26 x 10¹⁶ kilometers. That's over 16 billion times larger than the Sun's own diameter. So even if every star in the Milky Way (400 billion of them) could exert the same amount of tidal force on the Sun that Alpha Centauri A does (which, of course, is impossible because they are much too far away), that would still require tides nearly 112,000 kilometers high (about the size of the planet Saturn) on the Sun.

Since the Sun does not have such extreme tides (despite extremely unrealistic assumptions that would help your model), then we know that your model cannot possibly be correct.

4

Just Chat! / Re: Why is Brexit a right-wing cause?

« on: 31/05/2023 16:36:44 »

....before the NHS was established.

5

New Theories / Re: It Can Apply + the Newton III Law of Motion as Cycle System in a Motor Engine?

« on: 22/05/2023 14:21:42 »

"Changing rotation inside a mass makes it possible to change its inertial properties. It is the equation for a jet motion without rejection of any mass.? Albert Einstein.

I never said that.
 -Albert Einstein

6

New Theories / Re: Biblical Flood

« on: 04/02/2023 21:11:37 »

My theory predicts PE2 particles (anti-protons) should be unstable in a positively charged universe.

Well then your model has been falsified, as antiprotons are very much real.

Since you have ignored my last post yet again, and you were warned about it, this thread is getting closed. Don't open a new thread about your model or it too will be closed and you will be suspended for trying to bypass a thread locking.

7

New Theories / Re: Does science assume aether

« on: 11/12/2022 06:29:38 »

AFAIK, every model of aether that has been proposed so far makes predictions contrary to at least one experimental result. Thus, this word comes with too much baggage for anyone who wants to propose a new theory of light. Perhaps it would be better for them to invent a new word for their idea.

8

Just Chat! / Re: Anyone here have any good penis jokes?

« on: 19/11/2022 19:59:03 »

This is not the place for them. We aim to keep the forum "family friendly", so children can safely come here for answers to scientific questions.

9

New Theories / Re: Can you trust temperature measurements made by Climate Change 'experts'?

« on: 04/10/2022 23:45:01 »

Look:

1) CO2 has gone above 400 ppm in the first time in the whole of human history and this has been traced to being caused by fossil fuels being burnt

2) we've had 8 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history in the last ten years. That cannot happen by chance.

3) California and Australia were both on fire.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when climate change is significant enough that even meteorologists can easily see it in their data, that it's very, very, very real.

10

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.

11

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.

12

Just Chat! / Re: appreciation

« on: 06/06/2022 15:59:28 »

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

13

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 5811 times)

14

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?

15

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.

16

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.

17

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

« on: 02/01/2022 18:57:56 »

18

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'.

19

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.

20

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.