1

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can You Define What a Woman Is ?

« on: Yesterday at 12:23:10 »

A female human.

2

Just Chat! / Re: There's a section with "similar topics" appearing.

« on: 13/04/2022 02:54:19 »

   I'm not a very observant person but it's come to my attention that after each thread there's a section that claims to identify "similar topics".   
1.   Is that new or was I really not paying attention?

Yeah, it's been there as long as I've been a member.

3

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

« on: 12/04/2022 17:53:03 »

Are these dogs point particles

LOL, good question...

4

New Theories / Re: The theory of the human body special mass

« on: 07/04/2022 15:23:53 »

What do you think will happen then?  will any university try to do the experiment to make it public?

If I am on a scale and I weigh 60 kg, if I raise up on my toes the scale will not read 120 kg as I am rising up, I believe that is your experiment.  But that result is the expected out come based on simple physics.  You seem to think the scale should read 120 kg but no one who has a basic grasp of mechanics would come to that conclusion.   

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does a red-shift affect a black body spectrum?

« on: 05/04/2022 01:41:10 »

.
    In the rest frame of the observer, is the radiation they receive from the black body still going to have the right distribution to be consistent with a Black body spectrum but just with a different temperature T₂? 

The distribution curve of the radiation is different at different temperatures I believe, so I think the curve for say 800C would have the same shape it would just be shifted in the moving frame.

6

New Theories / Re: I'm a discoverer

« on: 27/03/2022 22:02:01 »

What is the x force on the scale ?

The force on the scale when you are not moving is about 588 N.
If you take 0.5 seconds to stand on your toes your 'X' would be about 8 N.

7

New Theories / Re: Evolution is Universe Wide

« on: 25/03/2022 00:52:49 »

This thread is absurd.  It is just a bunch of stuff you made up.  It makes no sense and is impossible.  If you don't stop this I shall write  Snuffleupagus.

8

New Theories / Re: Could the Hubble constant be related to the proton radius?

« on: 21/03/2022 19:40:26 »

This is an assumption of the preview. If there is a minimum value for the physical quantities action, charge and temperature, then maybe some other physical quantities may be minimally limited too.

That may or may not be true.  But there is no reason to think this is true :
The Hubble constant H (of dimension T-1) would correspond to the minimum frequency:
fmin = H.

9

New Theories / Re: Could the Hubble constant be related to the proton radius?

« on: 20/03/2022 15:10:44 »

Nevertheless, some scientists, including myself, follows in the footsteps of Dirac, searching for a meaning of dimensionless numbers

I didn't realize you were a scientist.  Could you explain how the Hubble constant can have a frequency and what that frequency is?  Thanks.

10

New Theories / Re: Could the Hubble constant be related to the proton radius?

« on: 19/03/2022 15:25:20 »

Now, if you read the preprint, you will notice that all physical values are referred to as constants, including the proton radius. So, your conclusion about my idea is unjustified.

When I said you were doing numerology and not physics I was referring to things like this from your paper.
You wrote:
The Hubble constant H (of dimension T-1) would correspond to the minimum frequency:
fmin = H.

Let's think about this for a second, what is the frequency of a constant?  There is no frequency of a constant.  The Hubble constant is the speed of the expansion of space per Mpc.  A constant speed doesn't have a frequency.

You then take the formula for the energy of a photon  and substitute in the bogus frequency of the Hubble constant.

None of that makes any physical sense and that is just the first couple of equations.

11

New Theories / Re: Could the Hubble constant be related to the proton radius?

« on: 19/03/2022 14:33:02 »

Since I am looking for some feedback on this hypothesis, your comments are welcome.

I looked at your PDF and it appears to me that what you are doing is called numerology.  That is you are taking a bunch of unrelated constants and combining them in such a way that you get known quantities.  In other words the equations have no physical meaning they are essentially just a bunch of random numbers put together to equal a predetermined quantity.

12

New Theories / Re: Could the Hubble constant be related to the proton radius?

« on: 16/03/2022 22:57:57 »

I wonder if the minimum mass

Minimum mass of what?

the Hubble constant and the proton radius could be calculated precisely using the observed ratio of the electrostatic force to the gravitational force?

Electrostatic force of what and the gravitational force of what?  You could pick values for the electrostatic and gravitational forces so that they would equal the Hubble constant ant the radius of a proton, but I don't see what use that would be.
I don't see any physical reason that these different phenomena would be related like that.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why does luminosity vary predictably in Cepheid variable stars?

« on: 13/03/2022 01:44:29 »

That's a good question.  Last I knew there was not a very good answer as to what causes that relationship.  Maybe someone here knows of some recent theories.

14

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Why does an earthworm look the same on both ends?

« on: 26/01/2022 12:50:58 »

Earthworms do not look the same at both ends.  If you google earthworms and look at a picture it would be clear to you too.  Your son was correct that their ends do look similar and they do in fact move forwards and backwards through tunnels.

15

New Theories / Re: Is the Sun alive? Does It have consciousness?

« on: 02/12/2021 18:39:35 »

If you look at the various definitions of life, such as;

 Life is the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death., the phenomena called fire checks all the boxes. Fire can metabolize, grow and even reproduce via sparks and radiational heating. It is connected to continual change from its birth to its death; forest fire. It is lowering free energy and increasing entropy just like life. Life is type of dynamics more than it is a type of thing.

Fire is not the conventional way we look at life, since we think in terms of protein, DNA and  water, but since fire does check all the boxes for most definitions of the state called life, then one may ask can fire, such as the nuclear fire of a star, evolve its unique state of life, to states that we might called fire's version of consciousness? It will not look like we expect it to look; ego centric, but it would be able to adapt and even resolve issues as it metabolizes and changes with time. it may be more instinctive looking; animal impulse, than willful and choice based; uses the laws or instincts of physics.

With organic life, the state called life; checks all the boxes, does not appear without water. Dehydrated cells are not alive even with all the organics in place. Water is what makes life possible. If we add the water back to dehydrated cells everything works and al things now coordinates for the state called life. No other solvent can replace water; it checks all the boxes.  Does water have a type of consciousness since it was key to the "natural selection process" at the nanoscale, that led to the organic chemical states associated with life.

Life would not appear if water was not mediating; natural selection at the nanoscale, and integrating everything within the cell. If we add it all up, it appears that fire and water are both alive, but since they cancel each other, they define two divergent directions for life. Water by canceling fire helps make the life of fire more manageable; metabolism

Please don't hijack threads.  If you want to post your inane thoughts start your own thread, don't post them in someone else's  inane thread.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Cosmic inflation, before or after the big bang?

« on: 26/11/2021 13:46:30 »

'is it now agreed that cosmic inflation occurred before the big bang?

No, of course not.

Also is there a reliable source of information I could access regarding this point?

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

17

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

« on: 11/11/2021 15:02:25 »

Something you will not find great thunder harping on about. Nor the widespread media.

www.euronews.com/amp/2021/09/29/iceland-hit-by-earlier-than-normal-snowstorm

Damn global warming.

It must be confusing living in your simplistic world. 

If there is an unusual cold spell somewhere in the world then you think global warming must wrong.  So of course if there is a hot spell somewhere in the world global warming must be right.  If there is an unusual hot spell and an unusual cold spell in the world at the same time then you are probably just completely befuddled.

18

Geek Speak / Re: Are the Lorentz transform curve and inverse square law curve the same?

« on: 08/11/2021 15:56:15 »

They are completely different concepts.
The r-squared law tells how the intensity of a radiating point source decreases with distance.
The Lorentz transforms relate the coordinates of one frame of reference to the coordinates of another frame of reference.

19

Just Chat! / Re: Is science fiction and fantasy becoming mainstream a good thing or bad thing?

« on: 04/11/2021 19:49:12 »

I think they're pretty good at developing our imagination and allowing us to think creatively. But what about IQ? Do they affect IQ levels? I don't even know what to answer that question.

You'd know the answer if you didn't watch so much science fiction!  Just kidding, welcome to the forum.

20

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why can't water vapour be the driver of today's climate change?

« on: 02/11/2021 11:54:08 »

Even if CO2 were a plausible driver of historic temperature, we still need to find a reason why its concentration varied in the way it did.

Historical causes of warming are beside the point, what humans are doing is a unique situation.