1

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 11/06/2021 20:20:04 »

Don't you think that modern "Physics" has been almost entirely captured by "Mathematicians"

No.

Just like they did in earlier centuries, when they told astronomers that the Moon must revolve around the Earth in a mathematically perfect circle.

So, you also don't understand what the church did- as well as thinking that mathematicians gathered the evidence of red-shifts.

The mathematicians prevailed over the astronomers, and for 1500 years astronomers had to believe that all celestial movements are circular.

To a pretty good approximation, they are.
It was only when the observations were good enough to show that they weren't circular that the mathematicians did some more arithmetic and realised they were elliptical (to a very good approximation)

You seem not to understand that the mathematicians are, at best, the slaves of the experimentalists.

You really should find out how science works before you try to overturn it.

2

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: How did horns evolve in mammals and why?

« on: 11/06/2021 13:02:17 »

Horns are Nature's boxing gloves

Specifically, they are the spikey sort of boxing gloves...

3

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 10/06/2021 08:40:50 »

Where's the evidence for it?

Literally all around us.

4

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 09/06/2021 23:19:29 »

Until practical scientists like Galileo

One of Galileo's most famous works was a thought-experiment.
He realised that, while Aristotle had noticed that heavy things often fell faster than light ones, Aristotle's conclusion- that the rate of fall was proportional to the mass- was wrong.
Apart from very light things, everything must fall at the same speed.
And he realised that before he did the famous experiment of dropping things.
He was a good enough theoretician to realise this.
He only did the experiment because the practical  "experimental scientists" of the day wouldn't accept logic.
They needed him to "prove" the obvious.

5

The Environment / Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?

« on: 09/06/2021 18:54:00 »

No.
Ask a lion.

6

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

« on: 07/06/2021 19:42:33 »

But from your post I might conclude, that according to GR photons can if fact interact with each other gravitationally(). Is this true?

As far as I'm aware.
And the alternative would be weird for two reasons.
1
Imagine a big strong box with an atom bomb in it floating in a bigger box in deep space.
And imagine that there's a pendulum clock sitting on the bigger box.


It is ticking away because the bomb is so big that it produces a gravitational field (at the wall of the box) that is the same as the Earth's gravity.

When the bomb goes off, all the debris is caught by the inner box. But, in doing so, it gets very hot.
That heat means that (briefly) there will be lots of photons rattling round in the inner box.
Their mass corresponds to the mass which is annihilated by firing the bomb.
Either the clock on the outer box carries on keeping time, in which case the photons must have an gravitational attraction for the pendulum, or it doesn't keep time- in which case you have to explain how it "knows" what has happened inside the box.

2
The easier proof is simple.
We know that light going past a star is diverted from its path.
And we know that  light carries momentum.
So we know that the gravity of the star changes the momentum of the light.
But a change in momentum requires a force.
So we know that the start exerts a force on the light.

And by Newton's third  law we know that the light must exert an equal and opposite force on the star.
That's the gravitational attraction of the photon for the star.

So we know that the relativistic mass of a photon has a gravitational attraction.
And ew know that the photon is also subject to gravitational attraction.
So we know that two photons attract each other (in a tiny way) via gravity.

That effect is usually too small to consider but, if you keep putting photons into a "box", eventually you end up with enough mass to form a black hole.

Don't try this at home.

7

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

« on: 07/06/2021 18:42:22 »

what should happen if we apply here your way of thinking

What would happen is that we wouldn't waste time thinking about sound- which is very different from light.

8

The Environment / Re: Why is Global Warming a threat?

« on: 06/06/2021 10:38:49 »

The real answer to "Why is Global Warming a threat?" is
"Because it is fast."

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What would happen if every neutron on Earth disappeared?

« on: 02/06/2021 17:24:37 »

Any thoughts?

Nope; no further thoughts would happen.

10

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is it possible for a psychoactive drug to take effect within seconds?

« on: 02/06/2021 17:15:57 »

Nicotine reaches the brain within about 10 seconds of smoking.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are black holes really holes?

« on: 02/06/2021 14:09:30 »

I think that.
No, a black hole is not really a hole at all. A black hole is an object just like any other, except that it is extremely dense. This gives it such a high gravitational field that nothing, not even light, can escape. Because no light escapes a black hole, it is invisible – or ‘black’ – although they can be detected by their effect on the material around them. The term ‘hole’ was used because whatever falls ‘into’ a black hole is trapped forever.

I think you copied that from someone else/.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/is-a-black-hole-a-hole/

12

General Science / Re: Why can I see the moon during the day?

« on: 02/06/2021 13:56:57 »

Are you stealing other people's work?

https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/why-do-we-sometimes-see-the-moon-during-daytime.html

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we turn waste plastic into rocket fuel?

« on: 02/06/2021 08:41:28 »

As a chemist, I can play "shuffle the atoms" pretty much however you like.
So the question isn't "can we do this?" - obviously, we can-  but "should we do this?".

Are there better ways to get rocket fuel?- Probably; notably hydrogen.
Are there better things to do with plastic? Probably- notably recycling it.

14

Chemistry / Re: what is this molecule please?

« on: 01/06/2021 15:32:45 »

A molecule is an electrically neutral group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds. Molecules are distinguished from ions by their lack of electrical charge.

Molecular ions are still molecules.

I'm more worried that William Hardy just seems to post bits from wiki pages without adding to them or even crediting them.

15

Chemistry / Re: InOrganic Chemistry

« on: 01/06/2021 14:06:52 »

just to write a definition of inorganic chemistry?

... just to copy + paste Wiki's view on the subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inorganic_chemistry

16

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

« on: 01/06/2021 12:39:34 »

Electric cars are a great idea, just 100 years too late to save the planet.

Reminds me of the observation that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago.The second best time is today.

17

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

« on: 01/06/2021 12:38:02 »

And what about the carbon dioxide needed to make the diesel car? That's zero is it???

Yes, because we already have 30,000,000 perfectly good ICE cars and enough recyclable scrap to keep them running for another 20 years with negligible additional carbon emission.

Why not "upcycle" them and make them electric?

18

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: How can I keep my grass short?

« on: 01/06/2021 10:52:43 »

Redefine "short" to "about 3 feet".
Now you never need to mow it, and the local wildlife will benefit.

19

Geek Speak / Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?

« on: 31/05/2021 23:30:07 »

But fascism wasn't destroyed.

It';s like weeding the garden.
You have to keep doing it.

20

Geek Speak / Re: Do we have enough safeguards for the advancement of science?

« on: 31/05/2021 12:39:50 »

Then it is a sad day for mankind that a scientist relishes the thought of civilian death. This is why we are doomed.

I don't often agree with Alan but...

The imperative to destroy fascism is absolute