1

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

« on: 29/10/2020 19:00:50 »

Don't know how you find the energy Bored chemist,

A combination of monumental bloodymindedness, and the desire to see that nonsense doesn't get the last word on science sites.

2

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 29/04/2020 20:33:12 »

If you ask with google, you may find many text about flaws of SR.

I can find many texts about the benefits of homeopathy on Google, too.

3

New Theories / Re: I solved Feigenbaum constant, the mechanism for Time, and found Math Cycles (Man

« on: 19/04/2020 23:31:42 »

First digit for each instance

It seems that your calculations are using Base-10 numbers.

That makes it rather anthropocentric (octopi would use Base-8, and starfish would use Base-5 numbers;computers count on their fists).

If you have discovered some fundamental mathematical theorem or some fundamental property of the universe, then it will work in any number base.

The universe is not anthropocentric (but humans are).

Pi x Pi 350 times

To represent Pi in a computer, you need a computer with an infinite number of bits. These don't come cheap.

If you are only interested in the first Base-10 digit of Pi, you can get away with double precision floating point

To multiply Pi x Pi 350 times, you are effectively calculating something like π³⁵⁰, which is a around 10¹⁷⁴.
- according to my calculator, π³⁵⁰ is 10^174.00245..., which almost looks like a round number in Base-10 (but it isn't)
- according to my calculator, π³⁵¹ is about π x 10¹⁷⁴, which almost looks like π in Base-10 (but it isn't)

If you want to take this further, you will run into the limits of double-precision floating point, which is about 10³⁰⁸
- And very small errors in the least significant bits grow to become quite significant
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-precision_floating-point_format#Double-precision_examples

For this type of numerology game, you need to use multiple-precision arithmetic, which can give you millions of digits (leave it running overnight on your home computer).
- You can get these maths packages from a number of vendors (I think Wolfram Mathematica is one; gnu have a free one for programmers).
See: https://www.wolframalpha.com/examples/mathematics/numbers/arbitrary-precision/

4

New Theories / Re: Weakest point of special relativity

« on: 31/03/2020 20:02:33 »

This probably gives enough information to make a start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

You can follow the references if you need more.

But the interesting thing is that you don't seem to have known about it.

Why didn't you find out about relativity, before trying to prove it wrong?

5

New Theories / Re: THE REFUTATION EVOLUTIONARY THEORY: NATURAL SELECTION SHOWN TO BE WRONG

« on: 23/03/2020 19:51:20 »

By the way, am I the only one who finds it particularly hard to take someone seriously when they refer to themselves as "Magister"?

6

New Theories / Re: New Super Moon theory

« on: 05/03/2020 20:41:45 »

In winter, the earth comes closer to the sun

Not from my Australian friend's point of view.

7

New Theories / Re: Earthquake hypothesis

« on: 23/02/2020 16:12:15 »

You can install a crank on Earth

Apparently.

Tidal power draws energy from the Moon's orbit.
A bit more practical than a pump.

8

New Theories / Re: Has a logical presumption misdirected science down a cul-de-sac?

« on: 19/02/2020 23:51:50 »

I want to point out that I detected a mistake in the calculations I did in reply #130. I ended up with 4.92117 x 10^-11 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m, but I should have replaced the meters with feet. When I make this correction, the answer ends up being 1.499973 x 10^-11 (slug•ft²/s²•A[/sup]2)/ft. This new number is still different from the imperial gravitational constant (3.4397 x 10^-8 ft³•slug^-1•s^-2).

Likewise, the vacuum permeability of 9.2685 x 10^-7 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/m would be more properly stated as  2.8250387 x 10^-7 (slug•ft²/s²•A²)/ft

9

New Theories / Re: What is the relationahip between mass and charge?

« on: 16/02/2020 22:53:09 »

One relationship between charge and mass, based on the preponderance of natural data, is positive charge appears to prefer to merge with the heavy mass; proton. The negative charge prefers to merge with the lessor mass; electron.  There is more of these two change-mass configurations in the universe, than the alternative, where charge-mass is reversed.

Since when did charge merge with anything? Protons and electrons automatically come with their charge. Also, the W bosons are both much more massive than either the proton or the neutron, but they come in either positively or negatively-charged forms.

Equation one for the MKS system is not valid for any other system unless we change the constants.

Which means the equation is wrong. You don't have to change the constants to get the right answer between measurement systems in truly accurate equations such as the kinetic energy equation. It is 0.5mv². This works for any measurement system without having to change the constants. Here is an example:

For metric:

E_k = (0.5) x (1 kilogram) x (100 meters per second)²
E_k = 0.5 x 1 x 10,000
E_k = 0.5 x 10,000
E_k = 5,000 joules

For imperial:

E_k = (0.5) x (0.0685218 slugs) x (328.084 feet per second)²
E_k = 0.5 x 0.0685218 x 107,639.111
E_k = 0.0342609 x 107,639.111
E_k = 3687.81 foot-pounds

Since 1 joules equals 0.737562 foot-pounds, multiplying 5,000 joules by 0.737562 should give the same result as calculated in the Imperial equation. And, indeed, 5,000 x 0.737562 = 3,687.81 foot-pounds. So the equation gives the same result without having to change either of the constants (the 0.5 and the exponent of 2).

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do the oceans ignore centrifugal force?

« on: 13/02/2020 15:00:21 »

How much centrifuge force would it take to displace 1g of mass of water carefully placed onto a disk shape that was about to be spun?

A centrifuge force is actually a linear force as I suspect you must already know .  In fluid dynamics , water has little to no way of 'gripping'' a surface . 

It was explained earlier that the centrifuge force of the earth has sufficient magnitude to alter the shape of the earth. 

Am I to believe that this force isn't enough to bulge all the water ?

Why would some water bulge and the above and under remain in location when as mentioned it has no ''grip'' ?

The spinning dish analogy fails to reproduce what we observe precisely because the earth has a gripping force that the dish/water doesn't: gravity.

A simple tweak to the analogy can work though. Put the water in a large conical dish and spin it--the water will experience a force away from the axis of rotation, but it has to flow uphill to move outwards. There will be an equilibrium established between those two opposing forces, and the equilibrium will be set by the angle of the cone (slope of the side of the dish, ie how far up does it have to go up to go 1 cm out?) and the rate of the rotation (assuming gravity is fixed). If the dish is spun quickly enough all the water would fly up and out, but for any sufficiently slow spinning, the equilibrium will allow all of the water to remain in the dish.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do Peking and Helsinki lie on a straight line through Earth's core?

« on: 22/06/2019 01:16:02 »

The red line represents the straight-line path.  The yellow sphere represents the extent of the outer core.


core.png (122.53 kB . 960x540 - viewed 2172 times)

So the question is, What do you mean by "pass the core"?   Do you mean "pass through" the core, or do you mean "bypass" the core without entering it?  An if you mean bypass, do you mean it has to be close miss or does any miss count?  It is obvious that the line never enters the outer core, nor does it come very close.  so the answer to your question depends on exactly what the question is. 

12

New Theories / Re: How will buckyballs fired at a double slit behave?

« on: 19/06/2019 18:34:06 »

If you describe a matter wave better than me you win a prize.

What would I get if I could describe it worse?
I ask because it seems more like an interesting challenge?

13

New Theories / Re: What time does the rocket arrive at point B?

« on: 27/08/2016 23:36:06 »

How can you be seeing the light as it was 8 minutes ago?

That light has been red shifted away from the gravitational field of the sun, and then blue shifted into the gravitational field of the earth.

We observe light when it reaches our eye, and to reach our eye the light travels through conditions that change its frequency...

No?

In order to simplify this to the very simple question of transit times we are specifically ignoring relativistic and other effects eg redshift.
The question is when is the image of the rocket seen, not whether it has changed colour, length, etc.
Hope that clarifies.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: I visually ''see'' a beam of light in different time dimensions?

« on: 06/07/2016 14:29:33 »

MOD EDIT: This thread has become bogged down by the OPs inability to understand basic timekeeping.
Rather than descend to the level of "the big hand points to ....." this thread is locked.

15

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How does darkness enter my eyes so I can ''see'' it?

« on: 30/06/2016 21:38:26 »

Our eyes see the dark the same way that our ears hear silence.

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: How did I get to October before the Earth did?

« on: 27/06/2016 21:43:57 »

Navigation is no joke.

Our trajectories will cross but we will not meet. If this were not so, every crossroads, shipping lane and flight corridor would be full of scrap metal. At most, I'll be seeing where you were about 3 minutes ago, not 4 months.

Our trajectories would meet if we predicted the event timing and synchronised speed to this timing, a sniper shooting a moving target shows this to be true. Although I have got to admit a long range target has more room for error with the shot.

I know navigation is not a joke.

I will see you in your July orbital position , you would see me in your October orbital position, You are not seeing me in your past or future, you are seeing me in July and I am also in reality in July with you although I get the cold end of the ''stick''.

I am baffled as to why you have so many "Thanks" Maybe because some think your unreadable ambiguous posts contain some truth , which they do not!. You go making meaningless, convoluted posts, regardless of how many times you are informed by the members that what you write is utter nonsense!

Alan

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the subjective ''visual'' experience throw difficulties on time dilation?

« on: 22/06/2016 15:26:30 »

Yes indeed, but so people understand me I wish to precise with my meanings.

When you miss-use the words, they don't add understanding.

For several years science told me I was wrong about my subjective experience explanation of ''gin-clear'', yet you agree with me, this tells me nobody understood me because they only looked at my ideas from an objective perception. Your two words you gave me will expand my ideas and now get them understood.

No, I'm not agreeing with you in the way you think.

I'm saying that what you feel about something, or how you perceive it, is your business.

Where you are wrong (and this applies whether or not you sprinkle the latest words you've learned into your posts) is in using your subjective experience to pass judgement on reality. Those several years where science told you you were wrong, science was right.

The experiments are correct I do agree, but what you are not objectively considering is that the objective experiments are done in the subjective whole of ''gin'clear'', a whole that is constant in it's ''gin-clear''.
It may indeed take 8 minutes for a photon to arrive from the sun, but subjectively my interpretation of distance  is correct and we ''see'' the start and end point of the photons journey subjectively simultaneous.

Again, you show how you are trying to overturn objective science with your subjective experience. That'll never work.

Subjectively, you may well think you see the start and end point of a photons journey simultaneously; but that has absolutely zero impact on reality.

Actual experiments have shown that light travel is not instant, so you can't in reality be seeing the start and end simultaneously. How you feel about it can not overturn those experiments.

This is a concern to me in that something is just not correct somewhere in the objective science thinking and it is incomplete by not considering the subjective which is the interwoven mind experience.

Then you have no idea what science is.

You are ''attacking'' me and not discussing the actual content of the post in an objective manner, it is not my failure to communicate , it is a person's failure to discuss objectively what I have said in the past and what I am saying in this thread.  Your intentions are to defend all science, to say all science is fact and does not have room for improvement.
This is subjective education and the very fact that what you learnt you had to accept even if you had a biased opinion.
You are not being objective if you are not willing to think and only willing to reply defending the present information .
You clearly have not thought in any detail about the constant whole you and I subjectively ''see''.

The poster wasn't attacking you whatsoever, and was absolutely replying to content.  Trust me... I know the difference... lmao

But seriously, you seem hell bent on this idea of yours, and it honestly seems to not make sense, and your overuse as well as misuse of those words makes it even harder to understand what it is you're trying to say.  But I agree with the other poster's critiques completely.  Just because you have such a strong, subjective, biased opinion towards something, doesn't mean it has the power to overturn reality; no matter how much passion is put behind it, no matter how much feet stomping there is, no matter how many times it's repeated.  Science and reality just don't work that way.  But I find it just hilariously ironic how you are pointing your finger at the other poster and labeling him as biased, subjective and unwilling to learn...  Just hilariously ironic lol.