1

New Theories / Re: This is definitely the first Perpetual motion

« on: 03/10/2022 20:51:58 »

Despite sounding similar, theorems and theories aren't the same thing in science

I am glad you agree that the Noether thorem is not a theory, so it only apply to mathematic.
The mathematic of physic of course, so it remains a theorem, not applicable without verifying the physic with experiments.

Noether's theorem holds for all kinds of energy.

It holds for some Lagrangian, thats all.
 

In order for Noether's theorem to not hold, you need a circumstance where time symmetry is violated. A capillary/buoyancy-driven invention like the one talked about here cannot do that, so it cannot violate Noether's theorem.

You cant say anything about the transfer of energy from some kind of phenomenom to another without doing the real experimention.
Mathematic cant say anything about it.

2

Technology / Re: Are trains greener than green?

« on: 03/10/2022 20:12:15 »

Whilst there, I contemplated the attached notice, and rejoiced. Apparently LNER's trains, on the days that they actually run, produce 513% less carbon emissions than a plane.

On my planet, "100% less" = 0, so it seems that these remarkable machines actually absorb five times as much carbon dioxide as a plane emits!

This mean that train use energy.
Plane use energy too, but the energy used by the plane (for transportation, not for the instruments wich are neglectable) is 100% carbon (fuel).
We dont have functional electrical planes actually.

So the train use energy.
This mean that the kind of energy used by the train is composed essentialy of electrical energy.
They dont buy "only" (or they would have sayed that they produce an infinity less carbon than the plane and not 500%) the bad electrical energy coming from coal or gaz or worse.
They buy "good energy", coming from atomic reactors or solar panels or better at a ratio of 4 of 5 (1 of 5 is bad energy)
And they let the bad boys buying the remaining bad energy.

Perhaps in the futur the bad electrical plane will buy this bad electrical energy.
And nothing will change.
 

 

3

New Theories / Re: Magnetic free energy

« on: 03/10/2022 19:55:49 »

In the picture in 1 there is a vertical force between the magnet and the piece of iron.

I dont see any picture in the .jpg, so i cant understand anything you are talking about.
I am surprised that some other are doing some comment, so they probably see something... or perhaps are used about saying nothing about nothing.

4

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Could a chicken fly?

« on: 03/10/2022 19:48:20 »

There is no evolutionary barrier to chickens flying. They all can, but most choose not to do so very far or very often.

Why Can’t Chickens Fly?

When it comes down to it, there are two simple reasons why chickens are terrible flyers. Their bodies are too large and heavy for their small wings to lift in the air. Humans selectively bred chickens for size and weight, prizing the heaviest, fastest-growing specimens; not the ones that could fly the highest or farthest. Because of this, modern domesticated chickens are large, heavy birds with wings that are too small and inadequate for long-distance flight.

https://petkeen.com/why-cant-chickens-fly/

It is like saying that every human can think like Einstein, but most choose not to do so very far or very often.

5

New Theories / Re: This is definitely the first Perpetual motion

« on: 03/10/2022 18:05:47 »

Which particular sort of conversion do you want?
We can start with the conversion of potential to kinetic energy.
Here's a page aimed at explaining it to schoolkids.

We are not schoolkids.
We want the conversion of capillar energy to buoyancy energy (i already explained you that the kinetic potential energy do not apply here).

So what is the experience you claim that you have about it ?

6

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Could a chicken fly?

« on: 03/10/2022 17:45:29 »

    natural chicken could not go over the barrier in the natural environment,

They really do get over barriers- because they fly.
This will remain true, regardless of your protestations.

I dident talk of the farmers barrier.
I mentionned the evolutionary barrier (you can read again to confirm).

What it means, is that if the "barrier" (evolutionary) is too high to go over in some single step, we need to wait for some silent evolution to break trought.
But perhaps human conducted evolution (like domestication) could help to step over ?

7

Geek Speak / Re: Can you copy paste windows 7 programs folder into windows 8.1 programs folder

« on: 03/10/2022 17:41:16 »

i dont care about dates or vulberavlitys

Ok, but why do you cite my post ?

8

General Science / Re: How inexpensive is to identify an individual using a droplet of blood as ID?

« on: 03/10/2022 17:31:25 »

Around $300, according to the internet.

In UK perhaps (even some covid test was so expensive).
Normaly, actually full genetic sequencing (not only some test) cost around 100 euros.

First sequencing costs 3 billions euros and many years.
2007 cost is 1 million and 3 months.
2013 cost is 1000 euros and some hour.
Today, 100 euros (dollars) and some minutes.
One of the best provider (there are some others in China) : https://www.ultimagenomics.com/

9

General Science / Do we sense temperature?

« on: 03/10/2022 17:15:38 »

I just read this : https://www.thenakedscientists.com/get-naked/experiments/how-we-sense-temperature

Here it is explained how we sense temperature.
But this is wrong.

We dont sense temperature, we sense heat transfer.
Here some explanation from Veritasium :

10

New Theories / Re: This is definitely the first Perpetual motion

« on: 03/10/2022 16:46:07 »

And we have.

If you are aware of it, just cite the experience involved.

11

Science Experiments / Re: How to demonstrate polarization of light?

« on: 03/10/2022 16:33:41 »

I don't think that I have to reinvent the wheel. So far, the model I used here haven't lead to contradiction.

There is not even a contradiction because the representation used by the model is totaly unaccurate.
It is like everybody mimic the same representation, avoiding the understanding of the occupation of space by the field(s) (In my opinion)

12

Just Chat! / Re: Is Nuclear War imminent?

« on: 03/10/2022 16:27:28 »

The real threat from nuclear weapons

The real threat from nuclear weapon is the weapon itself.
If something unexpected occure, this could lead to some automatic launch of those weapons (the automation is part of the weapon).
Per example, if some asteroid hit by chance some nuclear nation, how will the weapon system react ?

13

Famous Scientists, Doctors and Inventors / Re: Who is the father of physics?

« on: 03/10/2022 16:19:44 »

But neither of these could be considered the “father of modern physics.” That accolade would go to Einstein.

Ok..
But how many actual applications (i dont say new theories nobody really knows if they are true) did the 2 Einstein's relativity theory lead to ?
3, 4 ?
Not very impressive (he did better with his quantification of light theory).

14

New Theories / Re: How close are we from building a virtual universe?

« on: 03/10/2022 16:07:56 »

End of human labor.

His robot is very ugly (In my opinion)
And it cant really walk (it do not use the dynamic of the fall) like the Boston Dynamics robots (these ones are very impressive, look :

But it is cheap so it could effectivly be used at great scale (around 22000 euros sayed Elon Musk) for some specific tasks.

15

New Theories / Re: Motion is discrete by the Planck length

« on: 03/10/2022 15:55:15 »

What I said is: if measurements are limited to Planck scale, motion of a mass with velocity v and starts from time t =0 must occur after Planck time because it has no meaning that a mass traveled some distance after 10^−90 seconds " before Planck time" because it is smaller than Planck time. If no motion occurs then the mass will stay at stationary.

I think you do the confusiion between the possibility you could observe something and the reality behind the observation.
Measurement are limited to Planck scale, you say it yourself, and it is true.
This do not mean that the space itself cant have some smaller scale.
This only says that, because energy is quantizied, we cant do the observation... at our scale.
At other scale, so the scale of the smalest possible scale (planck scale) the reality can observe itself without our help, so physicality remain.

The best argument for that is that String Theory go beyond the Planck Scale.

 

16

New Theories / Re: Quantum entanglement: Time to transmit Information

« on: 03/10/2022 15:39:54 »

And most important: How do you prove it??

.
We actually never be able to proove the contrary, so it is the actual opinion.

17

New Theories / Re: Quantum entanglement: Time to transmit Information

« on: 03/10/2022 15:37:37 »

how much time does an entangled pair need to convey info? FTL? None? Lightspèed?

This question has been superseed by some other concept.

According to the actual specialists of the domain, there is no need any more for some information travel.
They suppose that everytime (so this is a very common phenomena) some particles interact with each other they "entangle".
Doing so they cant be considered any more as individuals, but must be considered as one whole quantic object.
Per example, when two electrons entangle, if one electron go 1000 kilometers from the other electron, they must be considered as the same quantic dual particle. Therefore whatever happen to one of the electron is instantly echoed to the second particle.
Saying this do not violate the lightspeed limited transmission of information.

18

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Might intermittent fasting lead to premature aging?

« on: 03/10/2022 14:08:55 »

My understanding is that intermittent fasting

24 hours with no food is not what we call fasting.
You need at least 3 days for that.
After this period of 3 days the metabolisme of cells adapt to the new conditions, using new metabolic paths and this mean using some other DNA portions to produce different proteins so as to use new metabolic paths.
No cell is harmed at this point.
But because we are not used to fast in our civilisations, the selection of people capable of fasting and other who dont, has not taken place since a long period. Therefore the alternative metabolic path could be damaged (and you dont know it before you fast), producing per example some intermediate molecules of the metabolism remaining into the cells (killing them or producing some illness, if too much of the molecules stay here in the cells) and therefore fasting is not everytime a good thing. 

What we know of the 24 hour "false fasting", is that the body produce in this case the multiplication of the fat cells so as to be able to store fats better.
These cells are never destroyed after that (unless like you say some cell damaged, but it is anecdoctical)
More cells leads to potentialy more cells with fat, so more diseases due to weight disorder.
So lower life duration (but no premature aging).

19

New Theories / Re: This is definitely the first Perpetual motion

« on: 03/10/2022 13:19:44 »

It looks very much like an elementary text on capillary action. Nothing to do with perpetual motion, just classical hydrostatics.

Not only.
There is also the archimedes principle at work.

An thats the point.
When everyone say that Noether theorem states that the total energy should be constant, they forget how they come to that conclusion.
Noether theorem is a theoretical (mathematical) approach using the Lagrangian (kinetic and potential energy involved), it is not a empirical approach of physic.
Why this distinction ?
Because energy is not something particular but something polymorphic.
Saying "energy" doesent mean anything if you dont specify of what kind of energy you are talking about.

Furthermore, and this is what is here interesting (and it is why i can eventually believe the PM showed could work) :
If you have some formula saying that some physical phenomenom produce some value of energy, and some other physical phenomenom produce the same value of energy, this do not mean, in reality, that the conversion of the first phenomenom into the second phenomenom will lead to the transfer of the same value of energy.
You have to verify every conversion...

In this case, the capilarity energy is linked to electromagnetic kind of energy, and the Archimedes principle (buyoancy) is linked to gravity.
If we were using some bessler wheel of such kind, sure we remain in the kinetic area, so the conversion is obvious.
But here we have two kind of energy, so we need to verify the conversion.
I dont remember any experience showing the conversion of capilarity to gravity energy, so i remain open minded.

Mathematic can not give us the answer when different kind of energy are used, it needs to be verified, using... physic (yes thats what physic is, experimentation).



 

20

Geek Speak / Re: Can you copy paste windows 7 programs folder into windows 8.1 programs folder

« on: 03/10/2022 12:44:19 »

I have windows 7 32bit on SSD1 and installed 64bit Windows 8.1 on SSD2.

Ok, but this do not say what Operating System (WIN7, WIN8 ?) is used when you start your computer.
I suppose you boot on SSD2 with Windows 8.1

I have over 300 programs on windows 7 SSD1 and instead of re-installing every one Can i just copy paste the whole programs folder from windows 7  on SSD1 into the programs folder on windows 8.1 on SSD2.

It depend on the program.
Some programs use registration into the Windows Register Hive, some not.
(It is a file used for programs and windows to retain their usefull informations)
If you are some experienced user you could copy (from SSD1) the corresponding registry file into the active registration file (on SSD2).
But doing so you would need to do a lot of work, and it guess is not what you want...

And some programs use uninstal capabilities, some not.
Etc.

So, the best to do, if you dont want to reinstall everything, is to UPGRADE your windows 7 to windows 8.1
And to choose the option "keep your files" instead of "nothing" (that leads to a fresh copy without any program and users files).
I suppose you have installed a fresh windows 8.1 on the SSD2 but what you should have done is :
First copy the whole SSD1 to the SSD2 (this first step is mandatory but i suggest you do it, so as to have some recovery if something goes wrong, per example using this : https://www.ubackup.com/download.html or any other backup or cloning tool you know), and then upgrade the Windows 7 on the SSD1 to Windows 8.1

There are many tutorials on youtube explaining how to do the upgrade.
Here someone :