1

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 03/10/2024 12:08:03 »

What a load of irrelevant rubbish, completely devoid of any coherent meaning. Where do we get them from?

2

New Theories / Re: Isn’t dark energy & mass explained by power line theory & energy conservation?

« on: 31/08/2024 17:41:05 »

Worst blog ever.

3

COVID-19 / Re: Was the Covid Pandemic Panic justified?

« on: 01/08/2024 19:02:40 »

Hi BC, I think you have an error: i'm sure you meant to say "the vaccine reduced mortality and infectivity".

4

New Theories / Re: Origin of magnetic force

« on: 13/06/2024 19:26:59 »

Quote from: alancalverd on 11/06/2024 10:14:33
So you have disproved Ohm's law. Amazing.
Not really. It's more likely that your understanding of the law is incomplete.

V=IR
What's to understand? If the solution containers are conductive, R = 0 so V = 0. If the supporting cans are insulated from the containers (R = ∞) , whatever voltage you measured between them has nothing to do with the current flowing in the isolated apparatus above them.

5

New Theories / Re: How do we measure the energy of a photon?

« on: 20/04/2024 16:11:12 »

https://arwill50.blogspot.com/2011/03/phenylalanine.html

In what way is that "central"?

Because the word appears on the diagram, and everything you find on the internet is true.

6

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is HCQ the antidote to Trump?

« on: 09/01/2024 14:39:53 »

Job done, sir.

7

New Theories / Re: The secrets of gravity, antimatter, black hole, and gravitational lensing?

« on: 03/01/2024 13:17:37 »

What a monumental waste of time and effort.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do the Earth's satellites orbit longer than the Moon's?

« on: 07/12/2023 23:49:15 »

Maybe it's just me

Not just you.

Why do artificial satellites of the Earth rotate by inertia longer than artificial satellites of the Moon?

I think a citation is needed. Conservation of angular momentum says that any rotating object will continue rotating unless an external torque is applied to it.  I have never heard of any artificial satellites ever being anywhere long enough for enough external torque to be applied to halt its rotation. Slow a tiny bit perhaps, but tidal forces are the only force I can think of that would do this, and they're just not strong enough when acting on something as small as any artificial satellite we've put up anywhere, regardless of which object it happens to orbit.

The Hubble telescope is an interesting example.  Its angular momentum is very near zero, and it needs to halt its rotation for hours/weeks at a time, but then it will rotate to a new orientation using gyros, all of which work without ever altering the total angular momentum of the satellite.

Also, please stop posting any topics in Question of the Week. The sub-forum is reserved for topics by radio listeners and is not for new posts by any forum members. I have been known to just delete invalid topics from there rather than move them.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do the Earth's satellites orbit longer than the Moon's?

« on: 07/12/2023 22:45:42 »

Why do artificial satellites of the Earth rotate by inertia longer than artificial satellites of the Moon?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't know what you mean.  Could you rephrase the question?

10

New Theories / Re: Big bang red shift resolved

« on: 19/07/2023 21:01:27 »

Bored Chemist, I think you might be confused as to who the OP is.

11

New Theories / Re: How the Solar energy is created?

« on: 10/07/2023 16:11:19 »

That is perfectly OK
The oort cloud extends up to 3.2LY away from the Sun and sets the border of the solar system.
Therefore, it is very clear that even if we just focus on the 400 stars that are located up to 20 LY away from the sun (and ignore all the other millions that are located further away) we should discover that they set severe tidal heat forces on the Sun while each one works from different location.

Except that's not how any of this works.  Masses spread out surrounding the Solar system would cancel each other's tidal influences on the Sun out, they would not add up.  We see this same thing when the Sun and Moon are at right angles to each other in the sky. We get less intense tides as they work against each other.
In addition, tidal forces increase across the size of the region they are acting.  Therefore, tidal forces powerful enough to produce the type of heat energy the Sun outputs would rip the planets away from the Sun. The Sun's Hill sphere would be too small to allow for it to hold on to orbiting bodies

12

New Theories / Re: How the Solar energy is created?

« on: 04/07/2023 01:24:35 »

Let's refer back to the link calculating tidal forces I posted earlier: https://www.astro.uvic.ca/~jwillis/teaching/astr201/maths.7.tidal_heating.pdf

According to the equation calculating the power of the tidal forces affecting Io, the total power is 6 x 10¹⁷ watts. The power is inversely proportional to the tidal cycle period, so if we reduce the period from the 1.769 days of Io to the 25.05 days of the Sun, that reduces the total power to 4.24 x 10¹⁷ watts. The power is also linearly proportional to the tidal force. Since the tidal force on the Sun from Alpha Centauri A is 50 million times lower than that of Io, then the power also reduces 50 million-fold to 8.47 x 10⁸ watts.

The Sun's total power output is 3.828 x 10²⁶ watts. If we assume (very, very generously) that tidal power is converted into heat with 100% efficiency, then the heights of the tides on the Sun would need to be 4.519 x 10¹⁷ times higher than they are on Io (according to the equation). Since Io's tidal heights are about 50 meters, that corresponds to tidal heights on the Sun of 2.26 x 10¹⁶ kilometers. That's over 16 billion times larger than the Sun's own diameter. So even if every star in the Milky Way (400 billion of them) could exert the same amount of tidal force on the Sun that Alpha Centauri A does (which, of course, is impossible because they are much too far away), that would still require tides nearly 112,000 kilometers high (about the size of the planet Saturn) on the Sun.

Since the Sun does not have such extreme tides (despite extremely unrealistic assumptions that would help your model), then we know that your model cannot possibly be correct.

13

Just Chat! / Re: Why is Brexit a right-wing cause?

« on: 31/05/2023 16:36:44 »

....before the NHS was established.

14

New Theories / Re: It Can Apply + the Newton III Law of Motion as Cycle System in a Motor Engine?

« on: 22/05/2023 14:21:42 »

"Changing rotation inside a mass makes it possible to change its inertial properties. It is the equation for a jet motion without rejection of any mass.? Albert Einstein.

I never said that.
 -Albert Einstein

15

New Theories / Re: Biblical Flood

« on: 04/02/2023 21:11:37 »

My theory predicts PE2 particles (anti-protons) should be unstable in a positively charged universe.

Well then your model has been falsified, as antiprotons are very much real.

Since you have ignored my last post yet again, and you were warned about it, this thread is getting closed. Don't open a new thread about your model or it too will be closed and you will be suspended for trying to bypass a thread locking.

16

New Theories / Re: Does science assume aether

« on: 11/12/2022 06:29:38 »

AFAIK, every model of aether that has been proposed so far makes predictions contrary to at least one experimental result. Thus, this word comes with too much baggage for anyone who wants to propose a new theory of light. Perhaps it would be better for them to invent a new word for their idea.

17

Just Chat! / Re: Anyone here have any good penis jokes?

« on: 19/11/2022 19:59:03 »

This is not the place for them. We aim to keep the forum "family friendly", so children can safely come here for answers to scientific questions.

18

New Theories / Re: Can you trust temperature measurements made by Climate Change 'experts'?

« on: 04/10/2022 23:45:01 »

Look:

1) CO2 has gone above 400 ppm in the first time in the whole of human history and this has been traced to being caused by fossil fuels being burnt

2) we've had 8 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history in the last ten years. That cannot happen by chance.

3) California and Australia were both on fire.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when climate change is significant enough that even meteorologists can easily see it in their data, that it's very, very, very real.

19

New Theories / Re: What is the real meaning of the most-distant-quasar/galaxy?

« on: 15/07/2022 17:35:18 »

I have also said that trying to explain something to you is about as productive as explaining it to my cat.
You display negligible reading comprehension skills, and mathematics and logic skills are also lacking.

This topic seems to be devolving into assertions of slander against these 'astonomers' that have so little clue, so I am once again threatening to close the topic that has long since passed any hope of making progress.
But let me put a little reading comprehension test, based on some past responses. Apologies for treating you like an 8 year old in a quiz here, but you're determined to act like one.

What is being violated without dark matter is basic Newtonian law. We have objects (our solar system say) that accelerate far more than can be accounted for by the sum of the forces applied by all the various baryonic masses in the galaxy. Thus there must either be more (a lot more) mass that isn't baryonic, or Newton's laws (the inverse square one concerning gravitational attraction) are wrong.

Your explanation is valid as long as we ignore the arms.

What exactly do you think I was saying in that quote?
Please don't just copy my words. Tell me in your own words what the post was about.
You don't have to agree with the words, just give an indication the comprehension isn't totally absent.
Why do you think mention of arms was necessary?
Who was the comment addressed to?
What was the purpose of my posting that when I've been mostly keeping out of this?
Was the purpose served?

You go on to reference the same comment again, like it somehow backs some assertion of yours.

There is no "arm" in [Halc's same] explanation.
In order to get better understanding, please also see the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
"The rotation curve of a disc galaxy (also called a velocity curve) is a plot of the orbital speeds of visible stars or gas in that galaxy versus their radial distance from that galaxy's center."

The rotation curve comment you quote also does not mention 'arms'. What do you think the wiki comment says? Why was a reference to my comment (especially my lack of mention of 'arms') relevant to this comment?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2022 06:22:55
Please set each star at a fixed velocity and fixed orbital radius.
Based on my basic logic, while a star at 15KPC complete only one galactic cycle, a star at the same arm at 3KPC would have to set 5 orbital cycles.
So please, based on your superior logic, how many orbital cycles (for the one at 15KPC) are needed in order to break the spiral arm structure?

Here you actually make a point. Stars closer to the center go around much more often than the ones further out. The ratio of 5 is poor mathematics, but the ratio is not far from that. You're giving evidence that your assertions are wrong. Not sure why you're doing this.
As for superior logic, you commit a straw man fallacy here, asserting facts that are not held by these 'clueless' astronomers, only by you. So that's the demonstration of 'superior logic' you've been requesting.

As you think that you do understand, then please advice what is the meaning of the following message:
https://scitechdaily.com/galactic-bar-paradox-a-mysterious-and-long-standing-cosmic-conundrum-resolved-in-cosmic-dance/
"The bar in the center and the spiral arms are thought to rotate at different speeds. If they are disconnected the bar shows its true and smaller structure (left). Every time they meet, the bar appears longer and its rotation slower (right). Credit: T. Hilmi / University of Surrey"

OK, since you quoted that, what do you think it says? This is a reading comprehension test remember.
Why do you think this comment is relevant here?
The comment is a caption, and is obviously commenting on the images above it. What is it saying that you think is worthy of being introduced in this topic?


If this is too difficult, you've really no business wasting all our time on this site.

20

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Why do birds tap on my windows?

« on: 14/07/2022 13:08:08 »

In all seriousness though, since birds are born into a world that has glass, then it would seem that glass is part of a birds natural environment.

Seriously ?
Birds dont know glass.
But after millions of years of evolution they know water in liquid and solid form.
It is amazing to know that they dont even need to learn what water is.
So if a bird tap on a windows, he try to peck ice or drink water.
 
Conclusion : A bird taping on a window is a thirsty bird.
To verify this hypothesis, just put a water bowl near the window and see if they prefer the strange "ice" or the known water.