1

New Theories / Re: Redefining Electrons

« on: 11/06/2024 10:13:02 »

How does one wave absorb another wave

In this case, it doesn't.

How does an electron cloud emit an energetic photon without recoil,

It doesn't

 

it claims that the frequency of a photon is an abstract concept

It doesn't

And so forth.... There is a world of difference between asking  sensible questions (science) and shouting nonsense (politics, philosophy and religion). 

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the Hopf gauge?

« on: 06/03/2024 20:41:21 »

Hi.

You made some statements that I didn't understand so I asked for some clarity.

   I didn't originate the posts but this is what I think was meant:

What is a "matter field"?

     In QFT (Quantum Field Theory) it is any field for which oscillations in that field or energy in that field could be considered as a particle of matter.   Usually we're thinking of fermions - typical matter particles like an electron, a quark or a composite particle like a proton.   

    I'm not entirely sure that @varsigma really needed to consider QFT for what was being discussed.    The Aharonov-Bohm effect is explainable or can be described with just a non-relativistic, plain vanilla version of quantum mechanics.

   

What is the phase change you are referring to?

     In the standard experiment, it would be a shift in what is called the complex phase of the wave function.   Basic idea:   Wave functions have a value that is a complex number,  they have real and imaginary parts.    So  a wave function might be something that looks like this:



     If you look at the place where the wave function is being measured by the... disc shaped speedometer looking thing with the big arrow spinning around....  you'll see the magnitude of this wave function never changes.  However, the portion of it that is in the imaginary axis  (say running in the up-down direction of the page) compared to the portion of it that is the real axis (say running in the direction that looks like it's coming out of the page or going into the page) does change.  Sometimes all of the magnitude of the value is in the imaginary axis, sometimes all of it is alog the real axis.  Overall the complex valued wave function seems to spin or rotate when you view the bare complex value of the wave function.   The modulus, or overall size of the wave function is what is usually important,   the modulus squared is proportional to the probability of finding the particle at this place,  so in this diagram that never changes and the particle is as likely to be found at place X now as it will be likely to be found there in 20 seconds or tomorrow.    The fact that the complex value of the wave function is rotating in the complex plane doesn't matter in the slightest.   Indeed for almost all purposes, the phase or exact way in which the magnitude of the wave function is spread between the real and imaginary axis doesn't affect any physical observation you could make.   All we usually care about is the overall magnitude of the value and the complex phase of the wave function was, historically, thought to be essentially irrelevant and something that was only there as an artifiact of the mathematics.

     However, the individual oscillations in the real and imaginary axis WILL matter if you brought two quantum mechanical wave functions together,  i.e. made one wave packet approach another wave packet and merge.   On merging, you just add the wave functions much as you would for any other sort of wave mechanics.   However, it is not the modulus or magnitude of the two wave packets that you would add, you add the direct or bare complex value of the two wave functions.   If the two wave packets had their rotations in the complex plane synchronised or "in phase",  then the real part adds to the real part,  imaginary part will add to the imaginary part,   all of it gets made bigger and you end up with one really big valued wave function that still spins or rotates around the Complex plane as before (it's just got a bigger magnitude or longer spinning arrow on the speedometer). 
     On the other hand if the two wave packets that merge had their rotations in the complex plane precisely 180 degrees,  or one half a cycle, out of phase,  then when you add them you end up with the oscillation tending to cancel out:  Whenever one was going big in the positive direction along the real axis, the other is going big in the negative direction of the real axis  etc.   When you add the two wave packets together, you get only destructive interference and 0 oscillation all together.   Hence 0 probability of finding the particle(s) in this place where the wave packets merged but were so badly out of phase.

   

What electron beam?  Where did that come from?

    What the Aharanov-Bohm experiment did was to take a beam of electrons and split it into two.  Pass one of those groups of electrons around the left side of a barrier and the other electrons around the right side of the barrier.  While travelling, the complex phase of any beam doesn't matter at all.   Now re-combine the two beams after they get around the barrier and let the beam hit a screen that will glow on contact with an electron.
     If the two split beams remained in phase,  then you get a certain pattern on the screen.   If the two beams went out of phase then you'll get a different pattern on the screen due to all the destructive interference as discussed just above.

    Here's a diagram (the magnetic field will be explained next):


Aharanov Bohm.jpg (64.35 kB . 978x663 - viewed 443 times)

How do you shield a magnetic potential?

    Well you don't.     What you can shield is an ordinary magnetic field (the thing that should exert force on a moving charge).    The potential, it seems, you can do nothing about.    What was done in the Aharabov-Bohm experiment was to use a special sort of barrier that they sent electrons around.   The simplest one to use is just a very long coil.   As you may know, inside a coil of wire carrying an electric current, there is a very strong magnetic field.   Outside of the coil the magnetic field is really small and effectively negligble at most distances.    The magnetic field wasn't really "shielded", although that could have been done, but it was just easier to use a coil and assume the magnetic field exists only inside of it and not around the outside of it.
     The thinking of the time was that since there wasn't any magnetic field outside the coil and in the space where the electrons were being passed,  the behaviour of the split beams should be much the same regardless of which side of the coil they were passed around.    In particular, the complex phase of their wave functions were in phase before they were split and they ought to just stay in phase.  So, on being recombined at the other side of the coil,  you'll get only the usual pattern on the screen.
    As you may have guessed... you don't.... the complex phase of the beams does seem to be different depending on which side of the coil they were passed around and you end up with a pattern on the screen that suggests destructive interference has occurred when the two beams were recombined.   

      For quite a while this was quite a serious issue:   There was no magnetic field where the electrons were travelling, what on earth was affecting one beam differently to the other?   Turn off the coil and everything is back as it should be... good old pattern 1 on the screen when you recombine the electrons.   Somehow the magnetic field that existed only inside the coil seemed to be influencing the electrons that were only ever outside of the coil.    Sure, if some charged particle was moving and it went through a magentic field you'd expect to see some effect but you need to realise that the magnetic field is precisely 0 valued outside of the coil, there is no magnetic force of any sort to be felt where the electrons were travelling.

    Let's use gravity as an example because that's usually easier for us to appreciate.   Let's assume I can put two equal sized planets next to planet earth,  one on the left and one on the right,  equal distance from the earth,  everything nice and symmetric.   You would have a new gravitational force pulling to the left but also a new one pulling right, so overall no net force.   You would carry on with your life as usual and expect to notice no change in anything whether these pair of planets were there or not.    What the Aharanov-Bohm experiment suggests is that... actually there may be a difference.   Although there is no net gravitational force acting on you, you have certainly changed your gravitational potential.   There are loads of things for which we still think "potential" is fairly arbitrary and all we need is some arbitrary reference point we ca call 0 potential.    In electronics, the earth line is reference 0 volts and everything works provided the +5 Volt line is at a potential 5 Volts higher.   We don't try to guess what the actual potential of the earth line was and we assume it doesn't matter.   If we took the box of electronics to another planet,  drove an earth pylon into the ground there and used their "earth" as our electronic earth, we would still expect the box of electronics to work.   

     The Aharanov-Bohm experiment suggests that for magnetic potential (and possibly other potentials) things are not as we once thought.   It made a difference when the coil was turned on because the magnetic potential of the space the electrons were in had changed, even if there was actually 0 magnetic field (no magnetic force if you prefer) in the space.   It's maybe not that interesting these days where we flippantly add another field whenever required - but back in the day it was important to imagine that magnetism (and possibly every other force) may demand that two fields existed throughout all of space.   There is a magnetic field, which can exert a force on moving particles but there is also a magnetic potential field.   More importantly, the potential field may actually have physical effects rather than just being a mathematical tool.   This alone is important, it means that maybe knowing that the +5V line in your box of electronics is 5 volts higher than the earth line is NOT enough,  it may actually matter what the absolute potential at the earth line really is.

    Unlike the electric or gravitational fields,   the magnetic potential field cannot be described just as a scalar field,  we require a vector valued field for magnetic potential (i.e. it has both a magnitude and also a direction).   This was another reason why the notion of a magnetic potential was contested or considered to be just a mathematical artifact.   An explanation for the Aharanhov-Bohm experiment is not attainable if the magnetic potential is just a scalar field.   There is a perfect symmetry around the coil in the experiment ,  an electron passing on an equivalent path on either side of the coil should have been put into all the same potentials for all the same amounts of time,  so even if it did affect the complex phase of their wave functions, they should be affected equally.   On re-combining the beams at the other side of the coil, you'd still expect to have both beams remain synchronised or in phase - and get a perfectly standard pattern for constructive superposition being shown on the screen.
   If we allow the magnetic potential to be vector valued instead of just a scalar, then we can break this symmetry.   The potential field has direction in addition to numerical value and there can be a net circulation of the vector field around the coil:   We imagine that electrons passing around one side can be travelling against the direction of the magnetic vector field,  the ones travelling around the other side would be travelling in the same direction as the magentic potential vector.

    That's probably all I know about the Aharanov-Bohm effect,  I hope it's of some use to you.

 Best Wishes.

3

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 28/01/2024 12:53:19 »

But the universal moral standard still apply. It asks us to make decisions which are predicted to maximize the chance to achieve the universal terminal goal.

And you have still failed to define or prove the existence of either.

You have posited arbitrary goals and standards and I have repeatedly pointed out that these were not and could not be universal or achievable.

4

New Theories / Re: Solving the puzzle of wave-particle duality, solution of this problem

« on: 10/12/2023 09:54:04 »

So why, in the double-slit experiment mentioned by Zer0, light manifests itself as a wave phenomenon.

Because that's what quantum objects do.

This is a picture of a quagga.

Quagga.png (301.91 kB . 569x399 - viewed 384 times)
From the front it looks like a zebra and from the back it looks like a horse.

Because it sometimes looks like a zebra, we know it is not a horse.
Because it sometimes looks like a horse we know it is not a zebra.

So we know it is "something else". We call that thing a quagga to distinguish it from zebras and horses.

From some viewpoints, light looks like a wave.
From some viewpoints light looks like a particle.

Because it sometimes looks like a wave, we know it is not a particle.
Because it sometimes looks like a particle we know it is not a wave.

So we know it is "something else". We call that thing a quantum object to distinguish it from waves and particles.

There is only a "problem" if you try to pretend that light is a wave or a particle.
To be fair, you can often model it as if it is one or the other.

5

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.

6

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Prebiotics.

« on: 07/09/2023 18:34:09 »

I believe the term is probiotics.

I believe that they refer to different things.

7

New Theories / Re: Dark Motion. Is it the answer to the Dark Matter and Dark energy problem

« on: 03/09/2023 18:25:35 »

Hi Origin, this is futile and I agree that the thread should be locked. The OP is plainly in a "black is white" mode.

8

Physiology & Medicine / Re: How dangerous is it for someone to wean themself off paroxetine?

« on: 01/08/2023 18:02:03 »

You should
(1) check with whoever wrote the prescription and
(2) not try to check with the internet.

Except in dire emergencies (and probably not even then)...
Anyone who gives medical advice on the internet is not qualified to give medical advice.

9

New Theories / Re: How black hole really works

« on: 24/04/2023 16:29:45 »

Dave, you are quite obviously arguing that black holes make their own accretion disks. You might not be saying it directly, but you are saying it indirectly. If you're arguing that matter isn't coming from outside, then you are arguing for the opposite: that it's coming from the black hole. That's Theory D. This thread is taking basically the same path as if you were talking about it explicitly. I see that you are still trying to weasel your way around a thread closure. For that reason, this thread is getting closed as well.

10

General Science / Re: [Asking ChatGPT] Could newborn childs now learn perfect pitch while they sleep?

« on: 12/04/2023 18:13:39 »

Did you know that you can ask chat bots stupid questions without telling us about it?

11

New Theories / Re: Gravity as a unity force

« on: 06/04/2023 19:30:35 »

Hi.

   Well, I thought I'd try this approach.   Some of what you ( @Yahya A.Sharif  ) have said was correct.

Spacetime does not need to be and is not defined as if it is some thing with physcal properties so that you could touch it, see it or move it.    However, PopSci articles do often provide diagrams and sketches where spacetime is thought of as if it was some sort of fabric.   The idea of it being a fabric is just a visual aid.  So it's not entirely your fault to think that it was required to be some physical thing that can be curved.

So this section:

it has dimensions but this is only geometry

   is correct.    Spacetime is just a mathematical tool or structure that allows us to specify the location of an event:
( 1, 2, 3, 4 )    is an event in spacetime which is located at  x=1, y=2, z=3 and time, t =4.

 The next section:

and there is not anything whatsoever to be curved

  is then also correct.   There may not be any physical thing there.    The term "curvature" and the notion of a spacetime being curved developed for historical reasons only.    It does not mean that there is some physical thing there which is curved.
    "Curvature" is just a technical term that has a precise meaning.   We just want to know about the distance between an event  ( 1,2,3,4 ) and some other event like  (0,1,2,3).     If that distance follows conventional Euclidean geometry then we say the spacetime is flat.   Euclid was an ancient Greek who developed most of the ideas of geometry,  you may not have been told that the geometry you studied at school was "Euclidean" but it was.   So to paraphrase the whole thing:   If the geometry we learnt at school works, then that spacetime is said to be "flat".
    (Actually, some people would prefer to say that 4-dimensional spacetime follows  Minkowski geometry but we don't really need to worry too much about the fine details).

   On the other hand, if the distance between two events did not follow the behaviour of Euclidean geometry then we say that the spacetime was curved.     That is all that "curvature" means - it just tells you if distances between two events behave exactly as in Euclidean geometry, or not.

   Now, if we examine the history then we can see why the term  "curvature" was used.    The first mathematician to study some useful geometry  (usefull for developing General Relativity) was Riemann.    I'm going to take some liberties here and greatly distort what he really did - but hopefully it will be easier to understand this way.    This is what he did:
      He imagined you had some small creatures,  perhaps ants, and all they can do is crawl over the surface of some solid object.  So the critical assumption is that the ants only know about 2-dimensions,  they are completely unaware that their world actually exists in 3-dimensions.  They cannot go straight up or straight down so as to go through or come off the surface.   The only directions they can travel in are directions they may refer to as the the x-axis and the y-axis,   there is no  z-axis direction they can move in or are aware of.
     Now, let's say that the object they are crawling over was a large and completely flat sheet of paper.    Provided the paper is flat, they will have distances that make sense and follow Euclidean geometry perfectly.   However if someone comes along and bends the paper so as to make a rounded hill in one place which is quite steep on average, then some things start to go wrong.   The ants realise that the shortest distance between two points that are on opposite sides of that hill do not seem to be a straight line.   If they tried to go straight from point A to point B that may take them over the hill.  If the hill is steep, then they have travelled a long way up in the z-axis direction and also a long way down on the other side BUT they are completely unaware that such a z-axis direction exists.  All they know is that going straight from point A to point B is a long distance they have to move.   However, if they take a curved path, then the distance does not need to be so large.   Out here in the 3-D world, we can see why - the ants have gone around the hill instead of going over the top of it.    However, all the ants know is that going in this curved path does seem to be a shorter distance between points A and points B  instead of trying to go in a straight line.   Euclid was wrong - the shortest distance is not a straight line.
      Now, we have enough to see why this sort of weird or strange geometry has been referred to as "curvature".   Riemann was studying situations where Eucldiean geometry went wrong because a surface was literally curved.   However, the term "curvature" is now just a technical term which means that distances don't follow a Euclidean form and that is all.

   I hope that helps a bit.

Best Wishes.

12

New Theories / Re: New theory of social evolution and social structure

« on: 03/02/2023 08:37:13 »

However, I invite you to read the whole thing

If the synopsis peaks my curiosity I will, otherwise I don't think so.

If I point out that the word is "piques" then this thread will serve some tiny purpose.

13

New Theories / Re: Biblical Flood

« on: 23/01/2023 13:07:38 »

https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15652
That page just shows that you are consistent, not that you are right.
I note he has removed the post....

I did not remove my post. Who removed my post ?

Probably somebody who realised it was pointless obfuscation.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/experiment-to-test-w-mg-t55108.html

I think the rules have something to say about posting here to drive traffic to other sites.
If you think you made a valid point at some other forum, just make the same point here.
We don't need to look through dozens of people telling you why you are wrong.
We already know that.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the exact cause of the time dilation of the twin?

« on: 15/01/2023 16:19:16 »

It's not a function of acceleration, so I cannot say from just that.

Then would you say that Sabine in the video is wrong?

I am actually going to go so far as to say exactly that. I caution against taking a simple comment out of context, and I'm not much on clicking videos and actually watching them (21 minutes to wade through), and it's Sabine, so I presumed the content is accurate. Well it isn't, which is a shame.

At 0:40 she complains about trying to learn relativity from pop-science sources and failing or finding them incorrect. Many are. Here she is creating her own pop-science tutorial and she does the same thing: get it wrong.

At 1:45 she gets into the length of the path between two sets of coordinates, correctly pointing out that different paths are different lengths despite the beginning and end of the paths being the same, as it is in the twins scenario.

At 6:50 she shows how the calculation of the temporal length of an arbitrary path can be done by breaking the path into pieces and integrating over the length of the path. This is what Eternal Student has done in post 16:

Do you know any math formulas to see how acceleration and time dilation are related?

the elapsed time for the travelling twin (who goes to Andromeda) is given by:

Δτ =   

[Eqn 2]

The computation above is completely scalar. Note the complete lack of acceleration reference in the formula. I see time and speed (v) and that's it. It isn't a function of acceleration, as I said above. The formula above is from special relativity, so it only applies to the special case where gravity is not involved. Hossenfelder's video is entitled "Special Relativity: This Is Why You Misunderstand It", which means the content should stay away from gravity, or the video is mistitled.

And what's with Andromeda? Sure, with enough acceleration, Bob can get there and back before he dies, but Alice (and the whole human race for that matter) isn't going to be there upon his return. Sabine should pick a closer target.

Back to the video:
At 11:00 we get into the twins thing and she correctly says that at least one of the twins needs to accelerate to turn around. That's a biased way of putting it, but true. More correctly, at least one of them needs to accelerate in order for their paths to diverge but meet up a second time. Without acceleration, any relative velocity will just have them meet once at best and forever diverge after that. But it isn't the acceleration that causes the dilation, it is the relative temporal lengths of the paths they take, as computed by the above formula.

11:25 She says acceleration is absolute. She means proper acceleration (the kind you feel with an accelerometer) is absolute. Coordinate acceleration is relative to some coordinate system and is thus not absolute. So sitting at your computer reading this, your coordinate acceleration (relative to your house maybe) is stationary, but your proper acceleration is 1g upward because that's how hard the chair under you is accelerating you.

12:52 She correctly points out that the twins scenario has nothing to do with gravity.

13:39 She correctly points out that the twins starting and ending with the same velocity is not necessary (except to explain that they're twins and presumably had reasonably identical velocity at birth. They merely have to meet twice.

15:30 We start getting into gravity, which is out of scope for a video entitled "Special relativity". She starts with pointing out that under Einstein, gravity is not a force. It is in fact spacetime which has a geometery other than flat Minkowskian spacetime. So anything not accelerating (has no force acting on it) follows a geodesic along the local spacetime.

16:55 She first says acceleration causes time dilation. This is blatantly wrong. Contradictions follow.
17:50 Things really start falling apart. The time runs slower at sea level than on a mountain due to greater acceleration at sea level. This is completely wrong. If true, clocks would run fastest at the center of Earth where acceleration would be zero, but they in fact run slowest there than anywhere else on Earth. The acceleration on the surface of Mercury is under 40% of that on Earth, but time on Mercury runs slower, directly contradicting what Sabine is saying.

19:25 She asks if her video was any better than those incomprehensible books from way back? Well it would be if she hadn't mucked it up.

Back to Special relativity, since I want to disassemble her treatment of that as well and not just her botching the gravity bit. A couple examples contradicting her assertions:

Example 1) Alice, Bob and Chuck are triplets and age 20. Alice stays home. Bob and Check set out on a trip and accelerate identically (10g say) for a month and then coast, riding side by side for a while.  After a year on his own clock, Bob accelerates towards Earth at 10g for 2 months, going back towards home at the same speed he went out. He coasts for another year and takes a month to stop. He's aged 2 years coasting and 4 months acceleration and is age 22y4m now and finds Alice at age 23y2m, or 10 months older. They wait together for Chuck to come back.
Chuck coasts twice as long and turns back. So he ages 4 years coasting and the 4 months accelerating and comes home at age 24y4m finding Alice to be 25y5.7m and Bob to be 24y7.7m.
This contradicts what Hossenfelder says since both Bob and Chuck have experienced identical accelerations, just at different times. They should be aged identically per Hossenfelder's words, but they're not. This is one trouble with doing physics in the language of laymen instead of the language of physcs. Time dilation is not a function of acceleration and there's no mathematical formula expressing it in terms of acceleration.

Example 2)
I have a pair of wheels or gears. One wheel is 1000 times the radius of the other, and they meet at one point and move at the same velocity there. I put a clock on each wheel at the point at which they meet. The wheels get turned with the small  one going around at 1000 times the RPM and hence 1000 times the centripetal acceleration. Both clocks are moving at the same speed relative to the inertial frame of the setup. The two clocks will stay in sync indefinitely despite the one acceleration being a thousand times the other. This also contradicts what Hossenfelder says in the video, but is entirely consistent with the formula that ES provided.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Has the speed of light been tested in a vacuum?

« on: 05/01/2023 20:38:30 »

Has the speed of light been tested in a vacuum?

When it comes to the speed of light, air at sea level is a pretty good vacuum.

Light slows down in a medium, compared to its speed in a vacuum
- For example, in glass, light is slowed by a factor of about 1.5
- In air at sea level, light is slowed by a factor of 1.0003
- The amount of slowing is measured by the "Refractive Index"
- See the Refractive Index list at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refractive_indices#List

For non-magnetic materials, you can calculate the amount of slowing from the measured relative permittivity of the medium.
- For air at sea level, the relative permittivity is already close to 1 (almost the same as a vacuum)
- For achievable vacuums (eg at LHC), the relative permittivity is immeasurably close to 1
- See the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_permittivity

From a totally different viewpoint, gravitational waves also travel at "c" (commonly called "the speed of light in a vacuum", but its more fundamental than that).
- Gravitational waves travel almost unaffected through the high density of the Earth, the Sun and neutron stars
- The LIGO observatory observed a neutron star merger, which was accompanied by a gamma-ray burst starting 1.7 seconds later. The source was in a galaxy 130 million light years away.
- This suggests that light travels at a speed through intergalactic space at a speed that is reduced by at most 1.7 seconds in 130 million years, ie pretty much the speed of light in a vacuum.
- See description at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star_merger#Observed_mergers

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Orbiting or descending into the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way?

« on: 27/11/2022 20:49:35 »

Mainly the MW is in orbit around itself.

And the mass of the Milky way is dominated by the (so far) invisible Dark Matter halo.

it looks like the stars are swirling down into the black hole

Out in the fringes (where we live), the stars are well-separated, most of the stars are in a fairly thin disk, have fairly circular orbits, and and have roughly the same angular velocity. So they won't interact very strongly with each other.

However, in the central bulge, stars are closely spaced, they have wildly different orbital planes, and the ones we can see near the central black hole have rather elliptical orbits, so the stars will transfer angular momentum between each other.

Some of these gravitational interactions will "cancel" angular momentum (if the stars have different orbital axes).
I expect that this will result in the central bulge flattening out over time - but the average distance from the central black hole will then be less than it is now. When stars are moving in a disk, they will have fairly stable orbits.

...that is, until the central black hole merges with another black hole; the incoming black hole will add angular momentum into the system on an entirely different axis, and once again send the stars off in all directions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*_cluster

it looks like the stars are swirling down into the black hole

You inferred this from looking at a still image, and imagining the galaxy as a drain emptying in a whirlpool. This is not what "Whirlpool Galaxy" means.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/messier-51-the-whirlpool-galaxy

The Gaia space probe has been able to measure the velocity of stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud, and it is showing the stretching associated with being spaghettified by its close approach to the Milky Way. But the orbits are still roughly elliptical, rather than converging on the central black hole (if it has one...)
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2018/04/Rotation_of_the_Large_Magellanic_Cloud#.Y4PLHulNzqU.link

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Orbiting or descending into the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way?

« on: 27/11/2022 17:55:10 »

The black hole has a mass of about 4.154±0.014 million solar masses.
The milky way has something like  100 thousand million stars
So, if the sun is a "typical" star only about 1 in 25000 of the mass of the milky way  is due to the BH in the middle.
If that BH disappeared it wouldn't make much difference to the motion of the sun.
Mainly the MW is in orbit around itself.

18

New Theories / Re: Why does Mass/Energy Distort Spacetime?

« on: 21/10/2022 22:12:07 »

Then you define it by its affects. You can't pull that definition back to mass/energy itself. In itself it is vague.

I don’t know what you mean by “Then you define it by its affects”. If you mean by its effects, then yes, that is science.
We observe and define everything by the effects they have.

Your ‘theory’ is wandering aimlessly all over the place. You have 48hrs to fulfil the requirement I outlined earlier “You have to show that your idea makes predictions that are correct, as determined by experiment, and which are not predicted by any other theory.”
Failure to do this means you will be considered to be trolling us and you will be removed from the forum.

19

New Theories / Re: Can we use spheres with 2^n to show will to move (perpetual energy creation?)

« on: 17/10/2022 20:52:59 »

he said one system is aloud.

I don't think you understood me. Perpetual motion that doesn't create energy is allowed because it doesn't violate conservation of energy and therefore doesn't violate Noether's theorem.

and the mindset, is that it is proven.

It is.

its proven in instances tried.

That's the great thing about proofs in math: it's proven to be true in all circumstances already. You don't think that the Pythagorean theorem was proven by testing every possible number in the equation, do you? That would be impossible, since there are an infinite number of numbers. So we know for a mathematical certainty that conservation of energy holds in all circumstances where time symmetry also holds. If you want to beat conservation of energy, you also need to beat time symmetry.

This happens in the real world due to the metric expansion of space. This causes radiation in the universe to be redshifted, reducing the energy content of each photon. The energy doesn't actually go anywhere, it's just plain gone. This is allowed because time symmetry is violated: space now is not the same as space later (it's bigger). So that's a real life occasion where time symmetry is violated and thus Noether's theorem doesn't hold.

20

General Science / Re: Why can't radio waves pass through the ionosphere, but a spaceship can?

« on: 05/08/2022 20:02:37 »

The clue is in the name - ionosphere. Ionised air is an electrical  conductor and acts to some extent as a "short circuit" to electromagnetic radiation, but to a solid object it is just "thin air".

Obviously most em radiation does pass through the ionosphere (hence sunlight, radiotelescopes, and communication with spacecraft) but at some frequencies and angles of incidence it acts like a mirror.