1

The Environment / Re: Are there examples of rehabilitated uranium mines?

« on: 16/06/2021 22:15:21 »

Can't modern Science be equated with a Uranium mine. You don't know what it will produce next.
Endless energy, in the form of atomic power stations.  Or swift oblivion in the form of atomic bombs.

In past ages, Science was slower and less dramatic.  But now it's boiling up into a kind of crisis, don't you think.

Do we use Science to live longer, or to kill ourselves?

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If a BH singularity defies our mathematics does it also defy our physics?

« on: 16/06/2021 21:26:57 »

Yes I did.  It said that if I refused to believe in the Higgs Boson, I'd get thrown out.
Is that what Science has come to?

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If a BH singularity defies our mathematics does it also defy our physics?

« on: 16/06/2021 21:04:15 »

When you mention "gravitational lensing", does this have to be a proof of Einstein's Relativity Theory?

Couldn't it be explained by optical effects, resulting from the passage of light through the interstellar gas which surrounds a massive object, such as a distant star or galaxy.

The interstellar gas may be very thin.  But it exists, and so may be supposed to influence the light passing through it.

So inducing refractive effects, just like a glass lens does, in the form of a terrestrial "magnifying glass".

Obviously no-one claims that the magnifying effects of glass lenses prove Relativity, so why claim it for Interstellar gas?

4

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 16/06/2021 20:32:06 »

The telescope only collects photons that were emitted long ago, but which reach us now. This creates a good view in distance for that time, but a poor view in real time. This makes inferring the universe not based on real time data. It would be like inferring modern humans from ancient fossils. A lot of time is ignored due to lack of data.

Yes, if we relied on archaeology, wouldn't we infer that humans were skeletons who lived underground.

5

Science Experiments / Re: Can we go downwind faster than the wind?

« on: 16/06/2021 20:18:45 »

Can't sailing-ships go in an opposite direction to the wind.  They can sail westwards against an easterly wind.

That might seem a physical impossibility.  A sailing-ship is blown along by the wind in its sails, so how can the ship go in the opposite direction from the wind?

6

General Science / Re: Can our eye zoom without using a microscope?

« on: 11/06/2021 23:22:37 »

Thanks Kryptid for the link you provided.  After studying it I feel easier in mind, as the "floaters" were worrying me.

Greatly appreciate your post, thanks again!

7

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 11/06/2021 22:55:51 »

You know all this. The Big Bang theory originated because spectroscopic observations seem to indicate that galaxies are presently moving apart from each other.

The mathematicians said that must mean, that in the past, the galaxies were closer to each other.

The mathematicians then said this proved that the galaxies must have come from a single mathematical point.

Isn't that like saying that when a crowd of people go to a football match, and after the match is over, are observed to be dispersing and getting further apart,  that the crowd must have come from a single mathematical point within the football stadium.

8

General Science / Re: Can our eye zoom without using a microscope?

« on: 11/06/2021 22:24:49 »

I've noticed that tiny particles floating inside the eye, which normally aren't perceived, become quite prominent when waking up in the morning, after a heavy night.

The particles look grey and shadowy, but elongated and big - as if they'd been magnified by a microscope.  Also, thin veins in the eye, presumably in the retina, show up in the field of vision when blinking rapidly. They create a network of short crooked black lines.  Resembling a distorted spider's web.

Has anyone else experienced this?  Is it something to worry about?

9

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 11/06/2021 21:23:14 »

Kryptid, no-one can truly explain the Big Bang theory. It seems daft. But is the best one we have so far.

In due course, it will no doubt be replaced by a new and better one.  Doesn't that lead to this principle:

In Science - never, ever, believe unconditionally in any current theory.  Give it no more than guarded acceptance.

Because it'll probably turn out to be wrong.

10

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 11/06/2021 20:08:48 »

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

Who use their mathematical theories to subvert Physics into a mere abstraction, divorced from reality.

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 any variations in the Moon's diameter, as viewed from Earth, were illusions.

The variations are actually caused by the Moon's orbit being elliptical.  But the mathematicians didn't like ellipses, which are lop-sided and thus inferior to neat symmetrical circles.

The mathematicians prevailed over the astronomers, and for 1500 years astronomers had to believe that all celestial movements are circular.  Even Galileo did, which is very surprising.
 

11

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Are there mountains/mountain ranges that existed, but no longer do?

« on: 11/06/2021 19:31:51 »

Following on from the OP's question, if there were mountains, in past ages, which exceeded the height of our present-day highest mountain, Everest - could geologists find enough evidence to find them, and deduce their height?

12

Just Chat! / Re: What is that Black String around peoples wrists?

« on: 11/06/2021 19:21:33 »

Putting a temporary bit of string round your wrist,  at least seems an advance on permanently disfiguring it with tattoos.

13

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 11/06/2021 19:09:04 »

It's clear that the "Big Bang" theory is too firmly established to be challenged. At least, at present.

This has often happened in Science.  Established theories don't get overthrown, until all the scientists who've been seduced by them, die off.  And are replaced by a new generation of young scientists, who exclaim in disbelief:

"What!  They believed in that!  They thought the entire physical mass of the Universe, all the billions of stars in all the billions of galaxies, were once contained in a single mathematical point?  Were they mad?"

To which the answer is:  No, the Scientists weren't mad - they were misled by the Mathematicians.

14

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 10/06/2021 00:45:41 »

What  counts in Science is factual evidence.

You seem to pick and choose what factual evidence to listen to. If you don't understand it, you blow it off. That's the argument from incredulity fallacy. Not at all a good scientific attitude to have.

I understand the modern  theories.  But I don't believe some of them are true.

Specifically,  the  theory that the entire Universe originated from a single tiny particle seems  absurd, and unscientific..  Where's the evidence for it?

There isn't any.  You might just as well claim that the Universe has always existed in a Steady State

15

New Theories / Re: New theory of modern science

« on: 10/06/2021 00:14:19 »

Thanks, when I referred to Galileo as a "practical scientist" I was thinking more of his telescopic observations of the Moon and Jupiter to refute Aristotle.

As regards the falling of objects, I agree with you that Galileo's idea came from a  "thought experiment", which boiled down to " What if you used a piece of string, to connect a heavy object to a light object"...... the rest is obvious

16

Chemistry / Re: Is there a natural way to convert boron into carbon?

« on: 10/06/2021 00:01:46 »

I was suggesting that what isn't possible now, may become so in the future.

However, I take your point.  We should confine ourselves to the present state of the art, when replying to questions.

17

Chemistry / There mayRe: Is there a natural way to convert boron into carbon?

« on: 09/06/2021 23:17:19 »

There may not be a "Natural" way to convert boron into carbon.

However both these elements are ultimately composed of nuclear particles - protons, neutrons and electrons

If these particles can be manipulated, by future Scientific techniques which use a kind of "nuclear chemistry", then it may become possible. 

Who would rule anything out for Science!

18

Just Chat! / Re: What is that Black String around peoples wrists?

« on: 09/06/2021 22:56:43 »

Short intelligence

19

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

« on: 09/06/2021 22:52:58 »

This is all so negative!   Whatever Nature chucks at us, we will defeat it, thanks to Science.

We've already wiped out big nasty predators such as lions.  And the small predators like viruses are being quickly dealt with by our vaccines, which have immunised 40,000,000 people in the UK in just 6 months!

Faced by modern Human Science, old-fashioned Nature can go whistle.

20

New Theories / New theory of modern science

« on: 09/06/2021 22:34:50 »

Who cares what Einstein said?  He was just a "theorist". There've been loads of such "theorists" in the past.

Such as Aristotle in Ancient Greece.  He claimed that the Earth was at the centre of the Universe, which consisted of four "elements": Earth, Air, Fire and Water.  Plus a Fifth element, the "Quintessence" which was responsible for making stars and planets glow, and revolve in perfect circles.

This was all complete cobblers, and set back the progress of Astronomy, Physics and Science generally, for 1,500 years.

Until practical scientists like Galileo, Boyle and Cavendish, blew the nonsense away.

They showed that theoreticians are not to be trusted.  What  counts in Science is factual evidence.  Not some deranged theorising.

Unfortunately, modern science is becoming more and more deranged by absurd ideas like "Black Holes" "Wormholes", "Higgs Bosons", and the entire Universe having sprung from a particle smaller than a pea.

Hopefully, this will be put right soon!