1

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!

2

Just Chat! / Re: Why should I be bothered with lockdown?

« on: 29/01/2021 13:32:53 »

A mickey take

www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-55843506

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/29january2021#number-of-people-in-england-who-had-covid-19

You forgot to say anything meaningful.

Were you planning to add something like " about 1 person in 50 has had the virus and 100,000 of them died, so if we let the other 95% catch it we could expect a worst case death toll of about 50 times 100,000 i.e. about 5 million."?

That's certainly an answer to the question "Why should I be bothered with lockdown? " unless you feel that 5 million dead is a reasonable price to pay for your selfishness.

3

New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?

« on: 29/12/2020 05:38:03 »

Talking about levitation, I think this video shows a more interesting case.

4

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: Herd immunity to Covid19, and possibly Covid-20, Covid-21, and Covid-22?

« on: 21/10/2020 11:17:13 »

I dont think I will need a resperator if I get it, I rarily get ill.

I rarely walk in front of a moving bus, but I have reason to believe that once is enough.

5

New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe

« on: 19/08/2020 21:48:02 »

I totally disagree with the assumption that its radius is decreasing.

It isn't an assumption, it's a measurement.

What you are saying there is "I do not agree with reality".
You might want to think about that.

6

New Theories / Re: Theory D - The Ultimate Theory for the Universe

« on: 29/04/2020 03:32:31 »

That proves that something must be wrong.

Clearly.

If my calculation is correct, than there must be an error in the BBT.

Then obviously your calculation is wrong.

7

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 26/03/2020 23:10:43 »

If you could drop the "mentality" stuff, and just clearly show the claimed defect, that would help.

Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to justify an argument from incredulity.

8

New Theories / Re: Redefining simple Arithmetic Expressions that contradict physics

« on: 26/08/2019 09:51:45 »

It is wrong but It is not stupid,

Let's be clear about this.
Claiming that not doing division is the same as  doing division is actually objectively stupid.

9

New Theories / Re: how gravity works

« on: 17/03/2019 09:56:08 »

And i dont understand SR & GR.

It shows.

10

New Theories / Re: There is no scientific method

« on: 02/02/2019 12:30:27 »

I have a explanation why people are so keen to dismiss GR and SR , while on an engineering at Siemens Hell in Kiel I quoted Einstein to the "ex" Nazi instructor his reply "but he was a Jew"l

Awkward...
But it does raise an interesting point.
There was a conference where a bunch of nazi scientists (I use the term loosely) under the direction of their government all pointed out "problems" with Einstein's theories.
He was asked what he thought about such a powerful and prestigious group  attacking his ideas.
His response was that, if they were actually correct, then a single undergraduate student pointing it out would be all that was needed.

So, we had a situation where the political forces went the other way- the nazi government was determined to undermine Einstein and his ideas.
Great  blessings of a powerful elite would rain down on anyone who could do it.

And yet, the Germans continued to try to build an atom bomb that could only work if he was correct.

So the idea that Einstein's theories are only supported by a political conspiracy is nonsense.
We know that when a political conspiracy tried to oppose them, it failed.

All that stuff about
 "

owadays big money hurts science, especially in theusofa.
And politics, especially in theusofa.
And Christians, especially in theusofa.

is nonsense.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What if at all, was found on the dark side of the Moon??

« on: 10/01/2019 23:32:21 »

So, it would be a bit silly to choose that nickname.

Incidentally, the phrase is "nit pick".

in your honor, we should change nit pick to something you do well, how about nose pick!

So, you accept you were talking nonsense about the Moon's rotation.
I guess that's a start.

my mistake,  I have withdrawn most of my posts to this thread. my apology to you and kyptid and to the community on a whole

12

New Theories / Re: Reactionless Drives Possible ?

« on: 04/01/2019 17:49:17 »

This is an actual , practical , form of the Compton Effect-type of engines . 
Mount a dense-plasma container (X-ray transparent)

So "practical" that it starts with unobtanium.

These should generate strong shockwaves , which hit the pad & wall as hammer blows .

Yes, it will create a shockwave.
And,as I keep pointing out (and you keep trying to ignore) the shockwave will spread out in all directions.
It will hammer the tank equally in all directions.
The net force will be practically zero (apart from photon pressure).

THAT is the first working Reactionless Drive !

No.
It's not even a credible start on the way to one.

If the ejected plasma hits a reciever , within a closed system , and is recycled , it ...

... produces no net force..

thus justifying the name "Phaser" , or Phase-change laser .

OK, so that shows that you don't know what a laser is...
No shock there.

Nobody has seen anything except you posting gibberish.

13

New Theories / Re: LIGO -- how (why) do they expect a gravity wave (fringeshift) signal?

« on: 07/11/2018 07:19:22 »

What exactly is their logic?

It worked.

14

Just Chat! / Re: Would it be wrong to try to get somebody kill themselves?

« on: 13/10/2018 17:42:49 »

Yes.

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why do tides disappear in some places?

« on: 05/09/2018 22:24:05 »

That the "lunar tidal wave" is moving from east to west, at a speed of 1600 km per hour, I do not claim. This is written in the lunar theory of tides.

Is there any way to get you to understand the difference between the tidal bulge and a tidal wave?
If not, there is no way  that this thread will ever make progress.

16

New Theories / Re: NFEU MODEL

« on: 31/08/2018 13:02:39 »

Divide a dot of energy by a piece of string,

Srsly?

17

New Theories / Re: NFEU MODEL

« on: 28/08/2018 21:25:05 »

Which proves that you are a mathematically illiterate fool.

I don't mean to sound rude, but obviously you do not understand if you think the maths is meaningless and illiterate.  The maths works with my conceptual envision I have explained with theory .  The NFEU model does not ignore present Physics, to the contrary the model is based on some of the present physics such as Coulombs law, space-time and Dirac. I think you are possibly not considering Alpha or Beta point energy particle manifestations , popping into and out of existence , the dissipate resulting in dispersion to 0 value.

This is like a child saying 'you can't speak to my imaginary friend because they use a language that only I can understand'.

18

New Theories / Re: NFEU MODEL

« on: 27/08/2018 20:49:33 »

If my notion is so wrong, then why isn't there a single attempt to falsify my notions? 

Because people have learned by past experience it is just pigeon chess.

19

New Theories / Re: Discussion on Reactionless drive (extracted)

« on: 26/08/2018 18:01:43 »

To:Kryptid
Must have logic , live by it !
Speaking of planetary systems , how do you like that Earth-Moon system ?  Much of Earth's initial angular momentum has been transferred to Luna , BUT much of it was converted to heat in the process .  Were it a perfect transfer , the E.-M. system would be in a different location , with a different momentum .  If you now spun the Earth in the opposite direction , the opposite effect would occur . Bottom line , destroying energy of momentum works as well as removing mass.  Sounds like a propellantless rocket to me ! 
 Hokay , next victim !      P.M.

 P.S.-" l'm freakin' Bobby Fisher ! "

As already noted the Earth Moon barycenter doesn't shift due to the tidal acceleration of the Moon.
If we consider the angular momentum of the Earth -Moon system:
The Moon's orbital radius grows by some 4 cm per year, and if we use 384,000 km as its average orbital radius, We find that moving out by 4 meters ( the expected distance in one century) puts it into an orbit with an orbital velocity of 1018.9608624m/sec , vs its starting velocity of 1018.9608677 m/s with the Moon's mass, that works out to a gain of angular momentum of 1.348e26 kgm^2/s  ( the Moon will also gain orbital energy by the relationship of E_0 = mv^2/2-u/r = -u/2a where u is the gravitational parameter for the Earth, GM= 3.987e14 m^3/s^2, and a is the semi-major axis of the orbit.)
The Earth, in that same century, increases its period of rotation by 1.7 milliseconds.  Using the Earth mass, and assuming it is a sphere of uniform density in order to calculate its moment of inertia, we get a loss of 1.39e26 kgm^2/s
Pretty damn close considering we took a number of shortcuts along the way. (treating the Moon as a point mass, and assuming uniform density for the Earth, etc)
If we were to accurately account for all the factors we would get agreement in the numbers to whatever level of accuracy we had for those factors.

Now the Earth does heat up in this exchange, so some part of its remaining angular momentum will be due to the "effective" mass increase due to that thermal energy, And the Earth will radiate that energy.   But this does not mean that there is any net change in total angular momentum.  Because, as I already mentioned earlier Electromagnetic radiation exhibits the property of momentum and this "lost" angular momentum is being carried off by this radiation.   Thus, if you take the Moon, Earth and the radiation emitted by the system all into account, there is no net gain or loss of momentum, angular or otherwise.
There is nothing "reaction-less" about this at all.

20

New Theories / Re: Why in some bays a large range of amplitude of tides?

« on: 21/08/2018 21:00:54 »

You answered only two questions

Learn to count, or stop being silly.