I challenge the forum, to pick anything in physics I can't explain in a simple "why" language. (not a math contest, my physics major was enough). The only rules are to be respectful and pick something most people know about. People don't have answers for even basic things like, why do objects travel in straight lines and the constancy of the speed of light. I'll answer the first 4 people who ask questions. Let me show you what, "if you can't explain it to your grandmother you don't understand it really means." In my eyes, my "new theories" are Einstein in most of yours their new theories.What's temperature? What makes thermal radiation different than other kinds of electromagnetic radiation, such as near field, radio wave, or light from plasma or fluorescence?
You can answer them here, or alternatively, post your answers in my thread.Seriously? You hijack the thread and then try to direct readers to your own thread. Very rude, reported.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80604.0
To be fair, the OP asked for it- literally.You can answer them here, or alternatively, post your answers in my thread.Seriously? You hijack the thread and then try to direct readers to your own thread. Very rude, reported.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80604.0
I challenge the forum, to pick anything in physics I can't explain in a simple "why" language. (not a math contest, my physics major was enough). The only rules are to be respectful and pick something most people know about.And "Temperature" is one thing that can be tricky to define.
Video #4 : Non-diffractive Obstacle. It shows a case where the edge of an obstacle can block a light beam without producing diffraction pattern. Here the interface between the glass and the air acts as total internal reflector which prevent the light from reaching the area behind the reflector.
Video #13: Non-diffractive slit. Here we put Huygen’s principle as currently accepted explanation for single slit diffraction to the test. To determine whether the space or the edges of the slit as the real interfering point sources, we can conduct an experiment using a slit whose edges are not diffractive. If Huygen’s principle is correct, then we should still get interference pattern even though the edges of the slit doesn’t diffract light.
The rest of the video can be watched here
Come on man. Semantics much? I have always heard DNA was a crystal, but even if it wasn't like you say, the whole premise is that repetitive structures play a role in fields which it obviously has regardless of whether you want to call it a crystal or not.But DNA is not repetitive.
Why are you quoting the original isolation of DNA when the premise is about its shape?because your post talked about the discovery of DNA, not the interpretation of the gross structure of a single molecule.
Lastly, why are you quoting the angle of electrons from one another in a single water molecule? 104.5. Completely irrelevant. Once it is formed into ice, which is what I was talking about it forms sharp 60 degree angles.Because truth matters to me. I am a physicist (ex-crystallographer), not a priest, politician or philosopher. 104.5 degrees is the hydrogen bond angle, not the "angle between electrons".
In ice, oxygen is tetrahedrally surrounded by four hydrogen atoms with a bond angle 109∘28′which goes some way to explaining the anomalous density of the ice-1 solid form, but certainly isn't a multiple of 60.
I challenge the forum, to pick anything in physics I can't explain in a simple "why" language. (not a math contest, my physics major was enough). The only rules are to be respectful and pick something most people know about.And "Temperature" is one thing that can be tricky to define.
First off the bat. Here's a simple yet far reaching idea. I figured this out in middle school. You can tell whether something is exothermic or endothermic with one simple idea. Does it involve something moving closer together? Or does it involve something moving further away? Any experiment where masses move together is exothermic, and any experiment where masses move apart is endothermic.Is exploding grenade endothermic? Or is it exothermic?
why nuclear is so powerful as it's changing distances on the scale of the nucleus which mathematically should be much greater than changing larger distances like in the case of chemical bonds.I don't know how to interpret the phrase I put in bold above.
Also like I said, I'm only going to use three ideas and I'm going to make it appear like I created a brand new theory with them. Fields, Relativity and my Universal Principle.It's okay if your theory doesn't cover some known experimental results. But it's not okay if your theory leads to predictions contrary to experimental results. Except if you can show one or more significant flaws in how the experiments were conducted.
Ideal gas law. Condense the gas, create heat. Spread it out reduce heat.Ideal gas law says PV=nRT.
Condensation as water condenses on you is exothermic.Not necessarily.
I most certainly did literally ask for it. Challenge Accepted. I was starting to think you guys are just chickens.That seems like a strange thing to say considering your explanation for the first example, the snow flake, was shown to be incorrect.
In chemistry if two molecules bond, its always exothermic and if they break apart its always endothermic. 0 exceptions to this rule which is pretty rare for chemistry.Yep. That is well known.
What may appear to be an obvious exception to the rule could be nuclear fission.I would not try to extend the rule for chemistry to nuclear physics. For instance the fusion of elements into a product smaller than iron release energy but products larger than iron absorb energy.
Perhaps when two particles move closer together they "bleed out" their mass/energy/field. There is your new theory of what heat is, it's smaller bits of field that have no home.That is not a theory that is a conjecture. Heat is bits of fields floating around? That makes no sense.
When things move closer it bleeds out the field, and when they move further away it sucks up more field.That doesn't make any sense based on what we currently understand. How could a particle "suck up a field", what does that even mean?
Can you elaborate on that. Condensation is exothermic as far as I'm aware. Is there some special case it is not?Condensation as water condenses on you is exothermic.Not necessarily.
Unless you are trying to tell me snowflakes have 3 and a smidge sides or they don't have repetitive shapes.No, I am just saying that your explanation didn't make sense and the mainstream explanation does make sense.
Perhaps when two particles move closer together they "bleed out" their mass/energy/field. There is your new theory of what heat is, it's smaller bits of field that have no home.That is not a theory that is a conjecture. Heat is bits of fields floating around? That makes no sense.When things move closer it bleeds out the field, and when they move further away it sucks up more field.That doesn't make any sense based on what we currently understand. How could a particle "suck up a field", what does that even mean?
Perhaps when two particles move closer together they "bleed out" their mass/energy/field. There is your new theory of what heat is, it's smaller bits of field that have no home.That is not a theory that is a conjecture. Heat is bits of fields floating around? That makes no sense.When things move closer it bleeds out the field, and when they move further away it sucks up more field.That doesn't make any sense based on what we currently understand. How could a particle "suck up a field", what does that even mean?
There is no mainstream interpretation of how a snowflake works. There is a mainstream political and social belief that scientists "know" everything though. Why doesn't my explanation make sense to you, seriously? Is it because you don't believe fields exist?Unless you are trying to tell me snowflakes have 3 and a smidge sides or they don't have repetitive shapes.No, I am just saying that your explanation didn't make sense and the mainstream explanation does make sense.
why nuclear is so powerful as it's changing distances on the scale of the nucleus which mathematically should be much greater than changing larger distances like in the case of chemical bonds.I don't know how to interpret the phrase I put in bold above.
Let's be real hear, do you think any of you could come up with a plausible sounding new concept for anything somebody asks you? Do you have any idea what it actually takes to be able to do that?I think it is easy to make stuff up. I'm sure your ideas make perfect sense to you, but that is because your ideas are based on your level of understanding of physics.
"oh but it's not proven dee...dee...dee...dee"
There is no mainstream interpretation of how a snowflake works.That is false.
There is a mainstream political and social belief that scientists "know" everything though.I am not aware of anyone who thinks that.
Why doesn't my explanation make sense to you, seriously? Is it because you don't believe fields exist?Actually, I agree with Quantum Field Theory, what I don't agree with is your ideas of how fields operate. Your statement that temperature is bits of fields or something is absurd.
Let's be real hear, do you think any of you could come up with a plausible sounding new concept for anything somebody asks you? Do you have any idea what it actually takes to be able to do that?I think it is easy to make stuff up. I'm sure your ideas make perfect sense to you, but that is because your ideas are based on your level of understanding of physics.
"oh but it's not proven dee...dee...dee...dee"
An exploding grenade is exothermic. But the cause of its explosion and the release of heat is molecules bonding together.Let's consider the explosion of TNT
Why does time dilation exist?According to Einstein, simply because c is a constant. I'm sure you have read the book.
It's so easy right to come up with new theories? Just like you said.That's the problem right there. Your unique concept doesn't make sense. Time dilation has a robust theory, if I make something up it will be as nonsensical as yours.
I formally challenge you Origin to my own "easy" game.
Why does time dilation exist?
Make sure it's in plain simple English, and #make sure it seems like it makes sense in spite of saying only a unique concept.
Or just admit you can't do it. I can do itIt's so easy right to come up with new theories? Just like you said.That's the problem right there. Your unique concept doesn't make sense. Time dilation has a robust theory, if I make something up it will be as nonsensical as yours.
I formally challenge you Origin to my own "easy" game.
Why does time dilation exist?
Make sure it's in plain simple English, and #make sure it seems like it makes sense in spite of saying only a unique concept.
Most of us know the technical definition of heat as the average kinetic energy.A sad reflection on the general quality of physics teaching, but certainly a common misconception.
If you think about the concept of the theory, a complex chemical reaction will bias exothermic. Imagine a negatively charged ball, with positive charged balls stuck to it in a large space. If you switch the charge it flies everywhere. If you switch it back it does not return as easily. This is just a cuter example of the same thing I've already said multiple times. Stronger bonds can over power weaker one especially in the exothermic direction.An exploding grenade is exothermic. But the cause of its explosion and the release of heat is molecules bonding together.Let's consider the explosion of TNT
2 C 7 H 5 N 3 O 6 → 3 N 2 + 5 H 2 + 12 CO + 2 C
Looks very much a molecule coming apart, to me. We start with two molecules of a solid and end up with 22 gas molecules plus a lot of heat. And the "two solids" isn't an essential "coming together", it's just a mathematical convention to avoid having 1.5 nitrogen molecules on the other side.
It is true that most of the endothermic processes demonstrated in school laboratories involve the dispersion of crystalline salts (e.g. NH4Cl) in a solvent (H2O) but doing the same thing with NaOH is exothermic.
There is no mainstream interpretation of how a snowflake works.That is false.There is a mainstream political and social belief that scientists "know" everything though.I am not aware of anyone who thinks that.Why doesn't my explanation make sense to you, seriously? Is it because you don't believe fields exist?Actually, I agree with Quantum Field Theory, what I don't agree with is your ideas of how fields operate. Your statement that temperature is bits of fields or something is absurd.
The concept for how much heat is created could be best approximated by how gravity changes with proximity to mass.Chemical reactions (like the decomposition of TNT) are based on the electromagnetic forces within molecules.
It's so easy right to come up with new theories?No
The fact that you don't think anybody has political and social biases in science,That's not a "fact" it's just dross you made up.
I never heard the diatribe that electromagnetism is orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. Oh wait yes I did.The concept for how much heat is created could be best approximated by how gravity changes with proximity to mass.Chemical reactions (like the decomposition of TNT) are based on the electromagnetic forces within molecules.
These are about 37 orders of magnitude (100000000000000000000000000000000000000) times bigger than the gravitational effects.
Are you aiming to claim the prize for "wrongest thing said on the site"?
I've never heard the diatribe of the difference between a theory and hypothesis. Oh wait yes I did.It's so easy right to come up with new theories?No
You need to look at what the word means.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. "
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
It is difficult to come up with valid theories.
But it is easy to come up with tripe.
You have done the easy thing, but are trying to seek credit for the difficult thing.
Dude you're totally right boredchemist. Politics and social standings have nothing to do with science. Science has totally persevered over the natural biases of mankind because of like the scientific method or something.The fact that you don't think anybody has political and social biases in science,That's not a "fact" it's just dross you made up.
Do you guys know anything I don't know?Apparently.
It's clear you have no ability to synthesize or judge new theories.We know exactly how to make that judgement.
I never heard the diatribe that electromagnetism is orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force. Oh wait yes I did.So, why are you ignoring the fact?
This is what I mean and Einstein means by a field, its just spread out energy/mass. Whatever it is.How does the field create electric charges?
Thank you Hamdamni for actually asking questions about things I actually said. It's not exactly accurate to say that fields create electric charges, but it is meant more as an analogy. I'm suggesting that if the idea (that there are fields undercutting and forming into particles) is true like Einstein visualized with the equivalence of mass and energy then there must be something keeping the masses relatively steady, that's not exactly the same as electric force, but it worked with Einstein's analogy.This is what I mean and Einstein means by a field, its just spread out energy/mass. Whatever it is.How does the field create electric charges?
In order to think like this you need to abandon the notion that we know everything about physics, we are not even close. It's an illusion, never obvious to the people living through it, always obvious to the people who come after.It reminds me of Columbus'egg.
In school, teachers say this is how everything acts, this math equation. The students memorize that equation and believe with no doubt in their minds that everything works exactly like that.LOL, no university physics is not like grade school, you do not memorize math equations that you don't really understand. In physics classes you derive the equations and then you do experimention to prove to yourself that the equations match experimental data.
In real life science is much messier and not everything follows neat simple math equations.Translation - you can't understand the math. There is no doubt in my mind that you could understand the math and physics but that would take time and effort, it is much easier to watch some youtube videos and make up some stuff and try to arm wave your way through it. You just end up with pseudoscience that way though.
Einstein is totally different, he takes shots at an over-reliance of math repeatedly, and is deeply critical of this style of thinking.Seriously? Here is a little secret that's bull crap. Tell you what, try doing some tensor calculus, which is at the center of General Relativity, and then get back to me.
Name drops tensor calculus to try to sound smart without explaining anything. Typical. Also, what youtube video did I watch to formulate that calc based math argument? I'd love to know since I invented the whole mathematics of it. It would be fun to find somebody who actually has talent instead of somebody who says "inventings easy" and then wusses out to the challenge.In school, teachers say this is how everything acts, this math equation. The students memorize that equation and believe with no doubt in their minds that everything works exactly like that.LOL, no university physics is not like grade school, you do not memorize math equations that you don't really understand. In physics classes you derive the equations and then you do experimention to prove to yourself that the equations match experimental data.In real life science is much messier and not everything follows neat simple math equations.Translation - you can't understand the math. There is no doubt in my mind that you could understand the math and physics but that would take time and effort, it is much easier to watch some youtube videos and make up some stuff and try to arm wave your way through it. You just end up with pseudoscience that way though.Einstein is totally different, he takes shots at an over-reliance of math repeatedly, and is deeply critical of this style of thinking.Seriously? Here is a little secret that's bull crap. Tell you what, try doing some tensor calculus, which is at the center of General Relativity, and then get back to me.
Name drops tensor calculus to try to sound smart without explaining anything.Name drops? You made a claim about Einstein and I was refuting that bogus claim, that's all.
I'd love to know since I invented the whole mathematics of it.Hmmm, I didn't see any math in your posts.
It would be fun to find somebody who actually has talent instead of somebody who says "inventings easy" and then wusses out to the challenge.I absolutely think it is easy to make up nonsense, your example of temperature being 'pieces of fields' is a case in point.
Name drops tensor calculus to try to sound smart without explaining anything.Name drops? You made a claim about Einstein and I was refuting that bogus claim, that's all.I'd love to know since I invented the whole mathematics of it.Hmmm, I didn't see any math in your posts.It would be fun to find somebody who actually has talent instead of somebody who says "inventings easy" and then wusses out to the challenge.I absolutely think it is easy to make up nonsense, your example of temperature being 'pieces of fields' is a case in point.
This is why you can plug in escape velocity to 'arcsin for G.R. time dilation and you can plug in velocity to 'arcsin in S.R. to get the twin paradox version of time dilation.You didn't talk about the derivatives; you talked about the arcsin itself.
And if I didn't I'll do it for you once you tell me this "bogus" claim.This bogus claim.
Einstein is totally different, he takes shots at an over-reliance of math repeatedly,
I'd love to know since I invented the whole mathematics of it.Could you give an example of the mathematics you invented?
No, I was talking about the derivative of arcsin the whole time which is 1 over the square root of 1-x^2. Which if you've seen the math of time dilation, you could easily see why that may be relevant.This is why you can plug in escape velocity to 'arcsin for G.R. time dilation and you can plug in velocity to 'arcsin in S.R. to get the twin paradox version of time dilation.You didn't talk about the derivatives; you talked about the arcsin itself.
Or are you so good at calculus that you forgot where to put the prime?
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain they do not refer to reality." -Einstein-And if I didn't I'll do it for you once you tell me this "bogus" claim.This bogus claim.Einstein is totally different, he takes shots at an over-reliance of math repeatedly,
"Before relativity there were books full of complicated mathematical formulae about the ether that would make your head hurt"OK, he does take shots at math, but the reality is that his mathematical formulation of gravity is extremely difficult and complicated. Most of his negative comments about math are directed at quantum theory which he never embraced, which was really too bad.
-Einstein-
"Once mathematicians got a hold of my relativity theory, I know longer understood it." -Einstein-
I understand you guys don't question math or science, it's a political archetype,Huh?
but I try to spend as much time as possible learning from people who can actually invent.The scientists that I know who invented things and processes used math and math modelling to a high degree.
Because that's what I do on a daily basis, pretty much every day of my life. People who actually invent talk very differently about math than people who don't. I feel very strongly about this.All you have shown on this site are fantasies that are not science.
Most people are not keeping track of where all that math they are learning comes from, not really. It's all about ideas. I don't even feel like debating it anymore, this thread is a giant waist. I feel foolish for even spending this much time out of my day to respond,I agree this thread is a waste.
as it's blatantly clear, you guys want to "win" the argument and feel smart.No, that is not the issue. The issue is that this is a science site and when someone starts writing pseudoscience and tries to pass it off as science, it will be challenged, it's that simple.
If I erase the brain13 profile, will it erase all records of what I wrote? I'd rather they not be on the internet down the line.Are you not proud of your work?
I erase the brain13 profile, will it erase all records of what I wrote?No, that is not how it works. You could PM the mods to see if they would delete your threads, but I don't think they'll do that.
I'm literally 100 times more talented right now than any of you three ever were. That is 100 percent the truth.It is a good thing to have self confidence, but there is nothing wrong with asking questions.
You, Origin, Lord Calvert are not better me,I whole heartedly agree, I have never even met you and for all I know you may be the finest gentleman that I could ever meet.
You know NOTHING about meAlmost true, all I know about you are the few words you have written on this forum, which is a bit more than nothing, but just a bit.
You know NOTHING about ... scienceI have to disagree with that. I know a fair amount about science. I am certainly not a scientist or expert and there are many here that have way more knowledge me, but that is part of the fun, I learn new things on this site and others every day.
I'm literally 100 times more talented right now than any of you three ever were.So, what have you done?
Knowing how good I actually am today after fighting the long road of wondering if I should remain alive makes me want to put you in your place, now that I'm 100 times stronger than you. But it's foolish and impossible because you're a giants in your own minds.No,
You know NOTHING about me or science,I get paid to do science; it's unrealistic to claim I have been faking it for 30 years,
I see right through your little gameWhat game do you imagine is being played?