1

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« on: Yesterday at 07:16:55 »

Bored chemist, much as I hate to do this, you are in error. I have it on good authority that there is only one unicorn. Hence the correct expression is "the unicorn did it". I don't have to remind you of the rigour needed in all such scientific matters, correct units, correct dimensions and of course correct unicorn.

Please state your authority.
I have it on excellent authority, my granddaughter, that multiple unicorns exist, apparently in many colours. However, I will concede that it is possible that only one unicorn was involved in the action (usually the pink one if I recall @Bored chemist correctly), so your expression would remain correct.

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: does tourmaline have magical beneficial powers?

« on: 24/06/2022 15:04:34 »

Oh, it keeps like vampires and werewolves away.  Does it also work on dementors?

It certainly works on spammers, this one went very quickly 

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would we know whether space,time or spacetime were continuous or discrete?

« on: 11/06/2022 23:44:03 »

@Colin2B    I'm not certain what you're trying to say there.   

Sorry, I was in too much of a hurry to expand.
The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames yes, but not necessarily between frames. Take conservation of energy, true within any frame but not between frames, we need to take into account of relativity.
So you say “ If you decide that the minimum distance or granularity of space is a "law of Physics", it should be the same in all inertial frames of reference.”
What I would say is yes, assume there is a minimum distance, but don’t assume that specific distance is the same when measured from any other frame.
How are you making the measurements? In your lab frame at rest relative to what you are measuring, you are using one set of clocks and rulers, which you cannot apply to another lab moving relative to you unless you convert using relatively. However, that other lab making local measurements of their ‘at rest’ set up will get exactly the same results as you. So, the laws of physics are the same in all frames.

Of course I may have completely misunderstood what you were saying, so I’ll try to find time to read all the recent replies.

4

Just Chat! / To answer a question from Pseudoscience-is-malarkey

« on: 11/06/2022 12:58:47 »

I notice one of the other moderators has removed your post, so I’ll answer your question here

Why do we have to be subjected to such juvenile garbage on a science site???

It's the "Just Chat" section of a science sight. Anything goes, as the description pretty much states.

No, anything does not go.
We give more leeway in this section than others so it doesn’t need to be science. However, it does need to be family friendly.

Also, I do for some levity.

Levity is one thing, but you often use this section for posts in bad taste and/or of a sexual or crude nature. That’s not what this section (or any other) is for.

5

New Theories / Re: The source of dark energy?

« on: 06/06/2022 13:02:34 »

   Also, if those videos are publically accessible,  I'd be interested in seeing them.

You might also be interested in the rest of the site https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bh/schwp.html#geometry

I thought I had posted these in a previous discussion with @geordief but it looks as though the post was truncated without giving the full answer.
I can vouch for the authenticity of these simulations having been involved on proof checking some of the original work, but funding has been diverted to other projects rather than extending to cover other scenarios.

6

Just Chat! / Re: A Short puzzle with dogs.

« on: 12/05/2022 18:37:43 »

Ok, I’m limited on wifi time available so complete guess (based on other physics)
I describe route by 2 straight lines, one towards the river which when hits river 2nd line goes to home. Angles on either side of perpendicular to river have to be the same.

7

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: How can I find tardigrades?

« on: 04/04/2022 08:31:21 »

Perhaps the moss I have been examining has been to dry.

They can become dormant and difficult to see if too dry. Try soaking the moss overnight then look at it with a hand lens - best with top or side lighting (try both) against a dark background.
Although they like damp moss, they seem to prefer drying out occasionally so don’t choose moss that’s damp all the time.
When you are looking under the microscope try spacing the cover slip by putting 2 others underneath on either side, it leaves a small gap between slide and cover slip.
Best of luck

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can sand/salt permanently molecules absorb resonate frequency?

« on: 07/03/2022 08:56:50 »

Hi.

The patterns formed on Chladni plates are a result of the properties of the plates themselves, and has nothing to do with the sand/salt/sugar/dust/etc. placed on top for visualization purposes.

   Almost entirely true.
   If you get silly and start using extremely fine grained powders you sometimes do get alternative patterns forming.   

Chladni also saw this effect on very fine particles, Faraday thought it was due to air currents carrying the particles around.
Interestingly, you get an effect in water where even large particles move to the antinodes. It’s been suggested that the drag force of the water makes it harder for them to lift off the surface and they are driven horizontally by surface waves on the plate and gravity. In order to see why it happens you have to average the horizontal forces over a complete cycle, otherwise it appears counterintuitive.

However, the supposition by the OP of a memory effect is still incorrect 

9

General Science / Re: Do air sealing machines really preserve our food?

« on: 26/02/2022 22:49:59 »

Is it better to air seal our food or simply put it in the freezer?

Both

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can sand/salt permanently molecules absorb resonate frequency?

« on: 22/02/2022 20:28:31 »

The patterns formed on Chladni plates are a result of the properties of the plates themselves, and has nothing to do with the sand/salt/sugar/dust/etc. placed on top for visualization purposes. ..... The pattern that the nodes make is a function of the frequency of the vibration and the size/shape of the plate.

Fully agree, acid test is that the pattern changes with frequency, so there is no memory effect.
PS I use tea leaves, but don’t read anything into that 

11

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a maximum frequency for a gamma ray?

« on: 22/02/2022 00:17:24 »

....we did all just step around the possibility that if you push the frequency of the gamma ray higher then we could get outside the range of energy that most of the current scientific theories work with.

As this is informal, otherwise much would go into new theories, although the new theorists proposing these ideas are orders of magnitude brighter than the ones we get here. There is interesting work being done at CERN, some on photon/photon collisions which don’t happen at low energies. Some work on questioning whether high energies might reveal extra dimensions via Kaluza-Klein states, or might reveal gravitons which wouldn’t be detected, but could be lost into the extra dimension leaving an energy momentum imbalance.
Don’t worry about the discussions on the very short wavelengths/high energies needed to make measurements near planck length creating a black hole. As you’ve no doubt realised, the energy needed to create John Wheeler's kugleblitz put it out of being a credible possibility. However, it’s still a lot less than Asimov’s suggestion.

12

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a maximum frequency for a gamma ray?

« on: 21/02/2022 09:05:23 »

Isaac Asimov says that the photon energy of a gamma ray cannot exceed to the total mass-energy of the universe.

Great writer with lots of good ideas, but, although he’s right in principle  I think the limit is much lower than this.
Most assessments I’ve seen on this suggest that the amount of energy needed to probe something at the plank length is around that needed to create a black hole.
This is one reason why we think that although plank length probably isn’t the smallest length that could exist, it might be the smallest we can investigate.

13

New Theories / Re: Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's

« on: 19/02/2022 18:46:24 »

Oh please, don't give me the wrong advice of explaining reality and don't use Darwin's invented criteria of falsification. To falsify ToE, you need to use this approach: ToE vs reality, and never, ever rely on Darwin's idea. Behe had done that. He was ashamed.

You claim to have reviewed all ToE papers and falsified them. You have 24hrs to provide the list you claim or you posts will be locked until you provide that list.
You agreed not to post false information when you registered on this forum.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If space-time can curve near a black hole, can we drag + move it?

« on: 04/02/2022 08:53:47 »

Hi.

   Could someone clarify how these things work?   Whenever the posts start of with  "Donald presented this...."  or   "Donald wrote in to ask this.....",    then   we're never going to get any interactivity with Donald are we?   
   So am I right that if I asked Donald to clarify a few details, then I'd be wasting my time?

As @evan_au says, these are emailed in. However, they are not from forum viewers but from podcast listeners, so the questioners are not usually from a formal scientific background. The site aims to generate an interest in science rather than present it as impenetrable, so many of the questions are from a very basic understanding of the topic, often from popsci articles (as @Halc pointed out), and the listener is unlikely to be versed in the subtleties of scientific terminology. So a good reply will try to answer the question at the level of the questioner with more details in any followup discussion.
Some of the questions are followed up in later programmes, and some of the responses are put on the main podcast/articles site.
As evan said, the questioners are notified and directed here and some do register to ask follow up questions if they found the answer helpful.

15

General Science / Re: history assignment help

« on: 20/12/2021 08:21:18 »

Sorry mate, but all spammers are history on this forum

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How long does a gravitational wave last?

« on: 24/11/2021 08:46:33 »

@Harri
I’ve changed the title of your question from gravity wave to gravitational wave.
A gravity wave is one that uses gravity as the returning force eg water waves.

17

The Environment / Re: Should we conserve for a Single Species or Habitat

« on: 18/11/2021 06:30:54 »

I help look after a Trust reserve where Hazel Dormice have been reintroduced. There is Hazel coppice, that is degrading as time goes on.

Which group is running this reintroduction? I assume PTES who have been releasing. They ought to be aware of the importance of habitat management for dormice.
Have you spoken to the mammal society? https://www.mammal.org.uk/species-hub/full-species-hub/discover-mammals/species-hazel-dormouse/
It might be worth contacting researchers in this field eg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326126680_Habitat_preferences_of_hazel_dormice_Muscardinus_avellanarius_and_the_effects_of_tree-felling_on_their_movement
Who are part of this team https://wildlifescience.org/portfolio/dormouse-conservation/
This document outlines the importance of hazel coppicing and tree cover management https://ptes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Dormouse-Conservation-Handbook.pdf

I can’t give specific advice as this isn’t my field, but if you have problems finding the right people I have a personal interest in conservation and can ask around my contacts.

18

General Science / Re: Matter is Apparently Made of Fields, But How the Heck does that Work?!

« on: 16/11/2021 00:07:45 »

Soooo... fields, as I've described them in my question don't actually exist and are just an easy way to describe how something in the physical world works and behaves?

They don’t exist in the way you think about them, but what they measure and model are real enough.
Temperature exists, wind exists, the effect of what we call a magnetic field exists.
The last one is a really good example. We define a magnetic field by the force and direction of that force (vector) on a test magnet at a particular point. The force on the magnet is very real, it’s effect is one we can feel. The field is how we describe it.
This field does exist in all space, because in theory the field from one fridge magnet goes out to infinity, although it would be so small as to be impossible to measure it even at a few meters. So now you need to ask a question, does the field cause the magnet or does the magnet cause the field. Field theory doesn’t care, it just describes and predicts the behaviour of things affected by the magnetic field - there you see, our limited language forces us to attribute action to the field 
Not everything is cut and dried, as @Halc says current view is that particle & antiparticle are described by the same field, but we might find something in the future that changes that.

19

Just Chat! / Re: test

« on: 13/11/2021 14:40:59 »

Geeze!!  I was testing how to download a picture.  The test was a success, but I deleted the picture.  Now move along and let this meaningless post move down the list of unread posts until it disappears into the aether.

There is no aether 

20

New Theories / Re: Does man's use of energy in the last 200 years mean global warming is man-made?

« on: 13/11/2021 08:58:42 »

Ps - I did not quite understand the reference towards tryin to be
 " BRITISH " .
I Strongly Object Racism.
(Are you trying to be a Racist?)

Is it racist to mention a general characteristic of a nation or group? Not sure whether we do talk about the weather more than other nations, but we have a lot to talk about in the local weather:
https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/why-do-the-british-talk-about-the-weather-so-much/
https://www.rabbies.com/en/blog/why-british-always-talk-about-weather