281
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
282
Complementary Medicine / Re: Chinese herbal medicines against Corona virus
« on: 13/06/2020 20:52:14 »Bored Chemist, Looks to me you are bored with science and you are now rambling on with prejudices.
In what way is he "rambling on with prejudices"?
The following users thanked this post: Zer0
283
COVID-19 / Re: Why isn’t it possible to inject antibodies as a preventative measure?
« on: 12/06/2020 06:13:18 »
It is possible, but it doesn't confer lasting immunity the way that a vaccine does. Here's a relevant quote from this source: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/04/coronavirus-covid-survivors-treatments-convalescent-plasma-answers/
"There is a simple difference between vaccines and antibody treatments: Vaccines basically teach your immune system to fight a virus, while antibody treatments help your immune system fight a virus. It’s sort of like, if you wanted to eat a pie, you have two options—learn to bake the pie or buy one that’s already made. Buying a pie from the store may satisfy your craving immediately. But if you learn to bake, you can make as many pies as you want in the future."
"There is a simple difference between vaccines and antibody treatments: Vaccines basically teach your immune system to fight a virus, while antibody treatments help your immune system fight a virus. It’s sort of like, if you wanted to eat a pie, you have two options—learn to bake the pie or buy one that’s already made. Buying a pie from the store may satisfy your craving immediately. But if you learn to bake, you can make as many pies as you want in the future."
The following users thanked this post: evan_au
284
New Theories / Re: Are natural intrinsic properties exclusive to a field?
« on: 08/06/2020 22:42:23 »Well, how about a changing gravitational field producing a dark matter field?
The magnetic equivalent to the gravitational field is called gravitomagnetism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
It is responsible for the phenomenon of frame-dragging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
The following users thanked this post: ron123456
285
New Theories / Re: How Can We Time Travel into the Past?
« on: 02/06/2020 14:04:19 »This will change the past.
Not necessarily: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov_self-consistency_principle
The following users thanked this post: Travis Tremlee
286
New Theories / Re: How Can We Time Travel into the Past?
« on: 01/06/2020 22:43:12 »We usually do not notice any differences between the parallels because we are shifting to realities that are almost exactly like what we remember...
How could you know the difference?
Wormholes seem more like a quantum phenomena
It has been suggested that wormholes are form of quantum entanglement: https://www.zmescience.com/research/quantum-entanglement-wormholes-0424/#:~:text=New%20theory%20suggests%20quantum%20entanglement%20and%20wormholes%20are%20linked%20together,-byTibi%20Puiu&text=In%20a%20pair%20of%20entangled,are%20millions%20of%20miles%20away.
They explain that gravitational waves – and thus gravitons, cannot travel faster than the speed of light either, so I am not completely sure about warp drive...
That is indeed an objection that I've seen to a faster-than-light warp drive. You would need some way to send a signal to the space in front of you to tell it how to warp. If that signal is limited to the speed of light, that would seem to limit how fast the warp drive can go.
The following users thanked this post: Travis Tremlee
287
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is this gyroscopic antigravity?
« on: 01/06/2020 05:55:38 »
I found an article by NASA speaking about Laithwaite's idea. Scroll down to the section titled "Gyroscopic Antigravity": https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070004897.pdf
So far, I haven't found any information about a test of such a device aboard the ISS.
So far, I haven't found any information about a test of such a device aboard the ISS.
The following users thanked this post: Edwina Lee
288
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Questions on wormholes, string theory, multiverse
« on: 24/05/2020 05:22:02 »
I can't answer all of your questions, but I can answer some:
Space has some net energy density even when it is devoid of all matter. This may, or may not, represent the minimum possible energy of the vacuum. If it isn't the minimum energy, then it is possible for the vacuum to lose energy and thus transition into a true (or at least "more true") vacuum with a lower energy density than the original. Whether or not this will happen is down to probability because of quantum physics. Wait long enough, and it should happen.
This release of energy should spread throughout the entire Universe, starting at the point where the vacuum transitioned into a lower energy state. This would presumably take the form of a sphere expanding at the speed of light. Since the energy of the vacuum is lower inside of the sphere than outside, the laws of physics may also be different. If this is true, then matter (and even life) as we know it may not be possible inside of the sphere. So if the edge of the expanding sphere were to pass through our Solar System, it could result in the eradication of all life.
This is unknown. If I remember correctly, different inflation models produce different values for the total size of the Universe. This paper suggests that it could be above 10 to the 10th to the 10th to the 122nd mega-parsecs across: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610199
The second law of thermodynamics is probabilistic in itself. It is extraordinarily likely to be held for complex systems because there are exponentially more ways that entropy can increase over time rather than decrease. However, a multiverse where literally every possibility is realized, then there would be quite a few where entropy runs, as least temporarily, backwards.
In principle, I don't see why there should be an upper limit.
3. Please explain false vacuum decay event. And how it is used in doomsday event.
Space has some net energy density even when it is devoid of all matter. This may, or may not, represent the minimum possible energy of the vacuum. If it isn't the minimum energy, then it is possible for the vacuum to lose energy and thus transition into a true (or at least "more true") vacuum with a lower energy density than the original. Whether or not this will happen is down to probability because of quantum physics. Wait long enough, and it should happen.
This release of energy should spread throughout the entire Universe, starting at the point where the vacuum transitioned into a lower energy state. This would presumably take the form of a sphere expanding at the speed of light. Since the energy of the vacuum is lower inside of the sphere than outside, the laws of physics may also be different. If this is true, then matter (and even life) as we know it may not be possible inside of the sphere. So if the edge of the expanding sphere were to pass through our Solar System, it could result in the eradication of all life.
6. What is the estimated size of the whole universe? How can that be calculated?
This is unknown. If I remember correctly, different inflation models produce different values for the total size of the Universe. This paper suggests that it could be above 10 to the 10th to the 10th to the 122nd mega-parsecs across: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610199
9. In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, one universe keeps splitting into copies of itself, like the cat dead found in one universe with one timeline and the cat alive in a different universe with different timeline, all probabilities happen in different universes, does this mean all those universes aren't time displaced and continue to go towards the future of increasing entropy and eventually heat death for every universe? For example, one universe is 13.8 billion years old and another is 1e+100 years old when all black holes evaporated, can they co-exist in a multiverse of many-worlds interpretation?
The second law of thermodynamics is probabilistic in itself. It is extraordinarily likely to be held for complex systems because there are exponentially more ways that entropy can increase over time rather than decrease. However, a multiverse where literally every possibility is realized, then there would be quite a few where entropy runs, as least temporarily, backwards.
10. Can there be an infinite number of dimensions? What is the upper limit and why are dimensions limited?
In principle, I don't see why there should be an upper limit.
The following users thanked this post: John369
289
New Theories / Re: Is There Credible Evidence That God Exists?
« on: 09/05/2020 06:16:57 »
The rule says:
The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.
I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.
Quote
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.
The essence of the rule seems to be that it's okay to discuss a personal theory so long as actual debate takes place. My own interpretation would be that one should defend their position using rational arguments and evidence rather than ignoring or downplaying arguments against them, repeating a claim over and over without offering evidence (or in the face of counter-evidence) or simply advertising without any discussion at all.
I'm relatively new as a moderator, so these views may or may not be shared by the other moderators.
The following users thanked this post: duffyd
290
New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity
« on: 29/04/2020 20:33:12 »If you ask with google, you may find many text about flaws of SR.
I can find many texts about the benefits of homeopathy on Google, too.
The following users thanked this post: pzkpfw
291
New Theories / Re: Member qualifications to aswer questions. PHD etc
« on: 26/04/2020 17:22:04 »Why does this forum allow anti-science soap boxing. If someone has a non-mainstream idea that's fine, but having some bozo hijack a thread simply rant about how bad science is seems like it should deserve a warning of some sort.
What does pushing the report button accomplish? I guess I don't know what the rules are for this forum.
The "On the Lighter Side" section is more relaxed about such things. As long as members don't do this in the main forum section, it's allowed. I don't like the anti-science sentiment either, but at least keeping it confined here helps it not to interfere when people come along asking for genuine answers to their science questions.
The following users thanked this post: Bobolink
292
General Science / MOVED: What are you doing in quarantine?
« on: 11/04/2020 05:16:49 »
This topic has been moved to Just Chat!.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79226.0
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79226.0
The following users thanked this post: QuincyQC
293
Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?
« on: 02/04/2020 23:45:55 »
Assuming that it does work, this is still far from the end of the pandemic. More vulnerable people are still going to need hospital stays in order to get the treatment and so the medical system can still be overwhelmed.
The following users thanked this post: duffyd
294
Just Chat! / Re: why would a scientist accept the bible
« on: 02/04/2020 21:15:29 »BTW, does entanglement disprove C is the fastest anything can go?
It's more correct to say that c is as fast as information can go. Quantum entanglement doesn't transfer information.
The following users thanked this post: duffyd
295
New Theories / Re: THE REFUTATION EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG
« on: 02/04/2020 00:10:14 »Why did proofreading enzymes evolve if mutations are good?
Mutations are not, as a whole, good. Nor are they always bad. In theory at least, error correction just reduces the mutation rate to some optimal compromise between good organism function and allowing for the odd mutation here and there so that beneficial mutations will pop up every now and then.
If you are a poor typer like me, random errors in typing will seldom lead to something of enhanced clarity.
That is where natural selection comes it. It edits out the mutations that are harmful to survival. Well, usually. It's also possible that a negative mutation and a positive mutation are paired and thus inherited together as a single unit. If the positive effects outweigh the negative, then selection will work to keep that gene pair and thus the negative mutation.
The next question becomes, why do some typos get past the proofreader enzymes, so as to allow mutations?
Because, (1) it's an imperfect process, and (2) there are long-term benefits from allowing a handful of mutations past (evolution).
The following users thanked this post: hamdani yusuf
296
New Theories / Re: Is the sun made of antimatter?
« on: 04/03/2020 21:00:34 »To balance the solar system should contains roughly equal amounts of positron enclosed anti-matter in the sun as there is electron enclosed planetary matter in the planets, moons and asteroids.
The stars and their accompanying planets must be made of the same kind of matter because they form from the same gas clouds. We can see via telescope protoplanetary disks surrounding some young stars. Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen have the same mass, same total charge, same radius, etc. There is therefore no reason for antimatter to conveniently clump in the middle while normal matter moves to the outer regions of the disk. Both matter and antimatter would react the same way to gravity and centrifugal forces.
The following users thanked this post: syhprum
297
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do solar neutrinos have a bypass through the curvature of space/time?
« on: 04/03/2020 17:08:18 »
The path of fast-moving neutrinos should be bent in the same way that light is in gravitational lensing.
The following users thanked this post: Harri
298
New Theories / Re: What is the relationahip between mass and charge?
« on: 28/02/2020 21:20:39 »GG: A photon from the right and a photon from the left of spaceship will have exactly the same energy to a stationary spaceship. Yet the effect of the photon to the spaceship moving toward the photon will be at a higher energy level due to the speed of the spaceship. The spaceship is filled with photonic dot-waves and these will add to the photon as it hits the spaceship or subtract from the photon when the space ship is traveling in the opposite direction.
Okay, perhaps that's fair. Your model is still incorrect because it predicts the wrong value for known constants. You claim that those constants can vary in strong gravitational fields, but that isn't correct. You don't even need relativity to demonstrate that. Conservation of energy in itself is enough to demonstrate that the gravitational constant does not change in high fields of gravity.
Consider Pluto as it is right now. It has a set gravitational potential energy that is determined by the Sun's mass, its own mass, its distance from the Sun and the gravitational constant. Change any one of those parameters and the potential energy changes as well. Now we collapse the Sun down into a black hole of equal mass. The Sun's mass, Pluto's mass and the distance all remain the same. But what if we assume that the high gravity of the black hole increases the gravitational constant? That would result in more force per unit mass, which would increase the gravitational pull on Pluto. This results in a higher gravitational potential energy.
This, however, cannot happen. More energy cannot spring up spontaneously out of nowhere. That violates conservation of energy. This is how we know that the gravitational constant does not change from one scenario to another.
The following users thanked this post: Bored chemist
299
New Theories / Re: Has a logical presumption misdirected science down a cul-de-sac?
« on: 19/02/2020 23:51:50 »
I want to point out that I detected a mistake in the calculations I did in reply #130. I ended up with 4.92117 x 10-11 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m, but I should have replaced the meters with feet. When I make this correction, the answer ends up being 1.499973 x 10-11 (slug•ft2/s2•A[/sup]2)/ft. This new number is still different from the imperial gravitational constant (3.4397 x 10-8 ft3•slug-1•s-2).
Likewise, the vacuum permeability of 9.2685 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m would be more properly stated as 2.8250387 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/ft
Likewise, the vacuum permeability of 9.2685 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/m would be more properly stated as 2.8250387 x 10-7 (slug•ft2/s2•A2)/ft
The following users thanked this post: pzkpfw
300
New Theories / Re: What is the relationahip between mass and charge?
« on: 16/02/2020 22:53:09 »One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron. There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.
Since when did charge merge with anything? Protons and electrons automatically come with their charge. Also, the W bosons are both much more massive than either the proton or the neutron, but they come in either positively or negatively-charged forms.
Equation one for the MKS system is not valid for any other system unless we change the constants.
Which means the equation is wrong. You don't have to change the constants to get the right answer between measurement systems in truly accurate equations such as the kinetic energy equation. It is 0.5mv2. This works for any measurement system without having to change the constants. Here is an example:
For metric:
Ek = (0.5) x (1 kilogram) x (100 meters per second)2
Ek = 0.5 x 1 x 10,000
Ek = 0.5 x 10,000
Ek = 5,000 joules
For imperial:
Ek = (0.5) x (0.0685218 slugs) x (328.084 feet per second)2
Ek = 0.5 x 0.0685218 x 107,639.111
Ek = 0.0342609 x 107,639.111
Ek = 3687.81 foot-pounds
Since 1 joules equals 0.737562 foot-pounds, multiplying 5,000 joules by 0.737562 should give the same result as calculated in the Imperial equation. And, indeed, 5,000 x 0.737562 = 3,687.81 foot-pounds. So the equation gives the same result without having to change either of the constants (the 0.5 and the exponent of 2).
The following users thanked this post: pzkpfw