1

New Theories / Re: Why the Earth axis rotation is shifted

« on: 03/12/2023 00:51:57 »

I told you not to make any more threads about magnetic fields:

Dave, we have already been through the whole "solid core" with magnets in your previous thread about the Sun. I gave you three chances to back up your claim with a reputable source three times and you failed. That got the thread locked. Since you are bringing up incorrect material from a locked thread, that means you are circumventing a thread lock. That means it's time to lock this thread as well. Since you have a track record of pushing incorrect notions about tidal forces and magnetic fields, let's add those to the list of forbidden topics (along with the quasars, black holes and Theory D).

In your previous thread, you tried to circumvent a thread lock and in this thread you ignored my warning about magnetism. Combining that with the fact that so many of your other threads have gotten locked for your general repetition of false things or other reasons, I believe I can make a good case for finally banning you.

2

New Theories / Re: A Disproof of the Principle and Theory of Relativity

« on: 30/10/2023 23:19:45 »

Cross reference: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132749-a-disproof-of-the-principle-and-theory-of-relativity/

Thanks. In accordance with this rule:

It is not acceptable simply to post material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread.  If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.

This thread will now be closed.

3

New Theories / Re: Structure of electrons, quarks and gluons; preon, preons

« on: 24/10/2023 16:46:30 »

One can also consider the hypothesis that these particles (main particle) are micro black holes that have ended their lives as particles, by evaporating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens to the surplus electrons after an alpha decay?

« on: 08/10/2023 00:52:34 »

The negative charge on the electrons are balanced by the positive charge on the alpha particle. In principle, they could combine to form a helium atom. Alternatively, they might interact with other atoms in the environment to form ions.

5

COVID-19 / Re: Corona impact?

« on: 28/09/2023 21:18:34 »

Hearing today that in the UK the mental illness rate in children has increaced from 12 percent to 18 percent due to lock downs

What evidence was provided that such was the cause?

The pandemic has had a devastating impact on many of the young people

Even in happy Sweden corona had a bad effect, so it may or may not have been exacerbated by lockdown.

https://www.norden.org/en/news/covid-19-has-been-bad-mental-health-vulnerable-children-and-young-people

Where in those sources are the numbers you provided in the first post? How were the mental stresses of lockdown differentiated from the mental stresses caused by people's friends and relatives getting COVID and/or dying, fear of them catching it themselves or other pandemic induced stressors? How was the relative weight of each stressor determined?

6

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: 15/09/2023 23:45:46 »

I thought I banned you... Well, I can always try again. You would do well to try to learn from your mistakes instead of doubling down on them.

7

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Did life evolve twice? Or even more?

« on: 11/09/2023 00:51:27 »

The "RNA world theory" does indeed propose RNA as a precursor to modern life.

8

New Theories / Re: Grand Canyon Formation By Anti-matter

« on: 03/09/2023 18:06:59 »

We have heard this nonsense before, where it was thoroughly debunked. I think the mods should delete this as it is identical to it's previous incarnation.

Or just move it to the bottom of his other thread here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=86292.msg704502

Done.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Quantum Entanglement and Interstellar Communication.

« on: 31/08/2023 21:24:28 »

Yes but the law is an ass.

Can you elaborate?

I believe the way this is got round in siency circles is an "addition". It would be quite easily to add an addition.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

To be clear, faster-than-light communication technically isn't forbidden by relativity. It just has troublesome consequences if it happens (causality violation). In either case, you can't do it with quantum entanglement because quantum entanglement doesn't work that way.

10

Just Chat! / Re: What's your advice on writing a series of story?

« on: 09/08/2023 17:37:36 »

What I meant was to amplify those above average abilities to extraordinary levels as far as permitted by natural laws, like conservation of momentum and thermodynamics.

I'm rather fond of exploring ideas like that myself. I often find it hard not to think deeply about the nature and consequences of superpowers. When trying to come up with my own fictional world, I tried calculating an upper limit on they might be capable of achieving. My idea was that their bodies convert nitrogen in the air that they breathed into energy ala E=mc² (since the body doesn't need the nitrogen we breathe anyway). I still have the resulting power written down in a notebook somewhere. It was a lot, obviously. Didn't have an obvious solution for how they would convert it all into useful work without cooking themselves, though.

11

New Theories / Re: Newest Quantum Gravity and Theory of Everything, TOE

« on: 07/08/2023 17:07:20 »

can the Microgrid Stretch & Bend?

It can probably bend, it is not known if it can stretch.

Gravitational waves passing through space make it stretch and contract. That's how we detect them via LIGO and VIRGO.

12

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: 23/07/2023 05:31:20 »

None of those answers proved anything

It's almost as if you are simply ignoring them instead of understanding them.

they look like whimsical thoughtless responses.

So you think that blue shift literally means that light turns blue?

You think that a gravitational blue shift factor of "about 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000" can be detected by the human eye? By the way, here is an example of just how tiny that factor is. A red photon has a wavelength ranging from 620 to 750 nanometers: https://scied.ucar.edu/image/wavelength-blue-and-red-light-image#:~:text=Red%20light%20has%20longer%20waves,around%20620%20to%20750%20nm.

That would be a change in wavelength of 6.2 to 7.5 x 10^-13 nanometers. So that would be a decrease from 750 nanometers to 749.9999999999999 nanometers or 620 nanometers to 619.9999999999999 nanometers. Now why don't we compare that with the blue shift factor caused by movement (the Doppler effect)? https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1258042695

A 750 nanometer photon emitted by an object travelling at 8 kilometers per hour is blue shifted towards an observe to 749.9999995 nanometers. That is a larger change in wavelength than what the Earth's gravity provides. Now let me ask you, does a person look noticeably bluer when they jog towards you? If the answer is no (and I know that it is), then the sky isn't going to look bluer due to gravitational blue shift either.

Actually Ralley burger cheese racing is what causes the sky to turn orange at sunset. It's when the giant ball of cheese in the sky starts leaking. It goes along with the raleigh thing

Why are you still trolling? I cannot understand what's so hard about acting like a mature adult. Consider this strike two. Three strikes and you're gone for good this time.

13

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.

14

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

« on: 18/07/2023 21:49:42 »

The molten sodium experiments show that you can get a magnetic field without a solid core.
So no reputable source can show that you do need a solid core.
So you might as well close the thread now.

I'm trying to give him a fair chance to admit that he's mistaken.

And then Dave will have to think up some new trolling to do... unless he's banned.

I have decided that I'm going to give all of his future threads the same level of scrutiny that I am now giving this one. Since he is such a repeat offender of making false claims of "science says x", then I'm going to make him start citing his references. If he can't do it, the thread will be locked for trolling or spam. I feel that this is a fair way of dealing with the problem, as it offers him a reasonable way to keep his threads open. All he has to do is either properly cite his evidence or accept correction. Either one of those things would be of benefit to him.

15

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

« on: 09/07/2023 14:11:51 »

Therefore, the total tidal force must be the sum of all the tidal forces on each atom in the object.

The equation takes that into consideration. The tidal force is measured in newtons per meter of distance. That would include all of the atoms in that same distance. As an example, let's say the tidal force is 10 newtons per meter and there are 1 trillion atoms in that meter. That would be an average force of 10^-11 newtons per atom. If you really wanted to, you could calculate the total average force on all of the atoms in a body rather easily.

16

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.

17

New Theories / Re: Do mechanical vibrations of atoms expend energy?

« on: 23/06/2023 03:47:07 »

Telling someone that they are wrong is not bullying.

18

New Theories / Re: Stationary heat vs radiating heat

« on: 18/06/2023 20:14:21 »

Have you noticed how badly  that's working?

Run in circles then what the hell do i care?

If you want people to understand what you are talking about, you should care.

19

New Theories / Re: the forgotten aether,2023

« on: 07/06/2023 21:16:59 »

My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.

why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?

Because you said that it involved the aether.

No pope. I just call it the aether because you people are so high strung on semantics. call it what you want, you still aren't going to find anything in the universe without tempetature?

Words have particular definitions. If you are using a word in a way that goes against its traditional definition, you can end up causing confusion. So if what you are talking about isn't aether, then you probably shouldn't call it aether.

20

New Theories / Re: Why is the sky blue?

« on: 31/05/2023 15:38:17 »

The light emitted by the Sun is red shifted by the Sun's gravitational field by a significantly larger factor than the Earth's gravitational field blue shifts it because the Sun is much more massive than the Earth. Despite this, the Sun's light still appears white from space. The degree of change in wavelength is incredibly small.

Besides, what Bored Chemist said about the sky being red at sunset also demonstrates that gravitational blue shift cannot be the reason behind the sky's color: the Earth's gravity doesn't change at sunset.