Show Posts
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.
I'm not a very observant person but it's come to my attention that after each thread there's a section that claims to identify "similar topics".Yeah, it's been there as long as I've been a member.
1. Is that new or was I really not paying attention?
Are these dogs point particlesLOL, good question...
What do you think will happen then? will any university try to do the experiment to make it public?If I am on a scale and I weigh 60 kg, if I raise up on my toes the scale will not read 120 kg as I am rising up, I believe that is your experiment. But that result is the expected out come based on simple physics. You seem to think the scale should read 120 kg but no one who has a basic grasp of mechanics would come to that conclusion.
.The distribution curve of the radiation is different at different temperatures I believe, so I think the curve for say 800C would have the same shape it would just be shifted in the moving frame.
In the rest frame of the observer, is the radiation they receive from the black body still going to have the right distribution to be consistent with a Black body spectrum but just with a different temperature T2?
What is the x force on the scale ?The force on the scale when you are not moving is about 588 N.
This is an assumption of the preview. If there is a minimum value for the physical quantities action, charge and temperature, then maybe some other physical quantities may be minimally limited too.That may or may not be true. But there is no reason to think this is true :
Nevertheless, some scientists, including myself, follows in the footsteps of Dirac, searching for a meaning of dimensionless numbersI didn't realize you were a scientist. Could you explain how the Hubble constant can have a frequency and what that frequency is? Thanks.
Now, if you read the preprint, you will notice that all physical values are referred to as constants, including the proton radius. So, your conclusion about my idea is unjustified.When I said you were doing numerology and not physics I was referring to things like this from your paper.
Since I am looking for some feedback on this hypothesis, your comments are welcome.I looked at your PDF and it appears to me that what you are doing is called numerology. That is you are taking a bunch of unrelated constants and combining them in such a way that you get known quantities. In other words the equations have no physical meaning they are essentially just a bunch of random numbers put together to equal a predetermined quantity.
I wonder if the minimum massMinimum mass of what?
the Hubble constant and the proton radius could be calculated precisely using the observed ratio of the electrostatic force to the gravitational force?Electrostatic force of what and the gravitational force of what? You could pick values for the electrostatic and gravitational forces so that they would equal the Hubble constant ant the radius of a proton, but I don't see what use that would be.
If you look at the various definitions of life, such as;Please don't hijack threads. If you want to post your inane thoughts start your own thread, don't post them in someone else's inane thread.
Life is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death., the phenomena called fire checks all the boxes. Fire can metabolize, grow and even reproduce via sparks and radiational heating. It is connected to continual change from its birth to its death; forest fire. It is lowering free energy and increasing entropy just like life. Life is type of dynamics more than it is a type of thing.
Fire is not the conventional way we look at life, since we think in terms of protein, DNA and water, but since fire does check all the boxes for most definitions of the state called life, then one may ask can fire, such as the nuclear fire of a star, evolve its unique state of life, to states that we might called fire's version of consciousness? It will not look like we expect it to look; ego centric, but it would be able to adapt and even resolve issues as it metabolizes and changes with time. it may be more instinctive looking; animal impulse, than willful and choice based; uses the laws or instincts of physics.
With organic life, the state called life; checks all the boxes, does not appear without water. Dehydrated cells are not alive even with all the organics in place. Water is what makes life possible. If we add the water back to dehydrated cells everything works and al things now coordinates for the state called life. No other solvent can replace water; it checks all the boxes. Does water have a type of consciousness since it was key to the "natural selection process" at the nanoscale, that led to the organic chemical states associated with life.
Life would not appear if water was not mediating; natural selection at the nanoscale, and integrating everything within the cell. If we add it all up, it appears that fire and water are both alive, but since they cancel each other, they define two divergent directions for life. Water by canceling fire helps make the life of fire more manageable; metabolism
'is it now agreed that cosmic inflation occurred before the big bang?No, of course not.
Also is there a reliable source of information I could access regarding this point?https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html
Something you will not find great thunder harping on about. Nor the widespread media.
www.euronews.com/amp/2021/09/29/iceland-hit-by-earlier-than-normal-snowstorm
Damn global warming.
I think they're pretty good at developing our imagination and allowing us to think creatively. But what about IQ? Do they affect IQ levels? I don't even know what to answer that question.You'd know the answer if you didn't watch so much science fiction! Just kidding, welcome to the forum.
Even if CO2 were a plausible driver of historic temperature, we still need to find a reason why its concentration varied in the way it did.Historical causes of warming are beside the point, what humans are doing is a unique situation.
It is when I read that 'a particle' can be in two separate locations at oncePerhaps you are referring to the 2 slit experiments, where an electron passes through both slits? This is not a particle being in 2 places at on time, this is a demonstration of the wave nature of an electron. An electron is not a particle in the classical sense, so the 2 slit experiment does not say a particle is in 2 places at the same time.