1

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?

« on: 14/04/2019 07:40:25 »

Your friend will count at a slower frequency than you and the sound wave emitted will also have a slower frequency than your faster frequency .

Then that doesn't line up with the way that the time dilation experiment was set up. In their experiment, the frequency of the cesium atom aboard the airplane would be measured by people aboard the same airplane as unchanged from the textbook value of a cesium atom's frequency. Same thing for those people measuring the frequency of their cesium atom on the ground. If you took a slow-counting person on the airplane, the other people on the plane would be able to measure that the person was counting slow. The fast-counting person on the ground would likewise be measured by the people on the ground as counting fast. So it's a faulty analogy that cannot replicate the scenario of the actual experiment.

2

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Does science think we are all stupid as they create more lies ?

« on: 13/04/2019 22:07:46 »

The stationary clock at the naval base if I need to be a bit more precise .

Relative to that clock, yes, the frequency will change.

3

Chemistry / Re: Is there an easy way to make oxalic acid at home without nitric acid?

« on: 09/04/2019 07:33:06 »

Page 499 of this old chemistry book states that oxalic acid can be acquired by mixing sawdust with potassium hydroxide: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t3tt4gz1p;view=1up;seq=527

4

New Theories / Re: 5d interwoven model and tensor force .

« on: 07/04/2019 15:29:40 »

I don't do make believe .

Says the guy who thought a deviantART picture was proof of aliens.

5

New Theories / Re: 5d interwoven model and tensor force .

« on: 02/04/2019 23:15:09 »

Arr , ok, I see what you're on about , pressure equalling density I presume ?  Obviously density also plays a part , there will be more energy per mm³ of hydrogen if pressured compared to less pressured .

If we are assuming normal atmospheric pressure, then knowing that we have one gram of hydrogen will already give us the volume (and therefore the density).

Unless you have anything else to add, I think I have all I need to do the math. Should I start?

EDIT: I've got to go do something, but I'll be back in a little bit.

6

New Theories / Re: A forum test theory and poll .

« on: 31/03/2019 17:39:17 »

If this is meant to be a stand-alone abstract with no relation to anything posted before, then I would have to say that there is not sufficient information presented to properly answer the poll.

If, on the other hand, this abstract is meant to reference what you've already posted here (such as your "5d interwoven model and tensor force") then I would say that you should add "nonsense" as an option in the poll.

7

New Theories / Re: Levity proportion system

« on: 30/03/2019 20:06:59 »

I think you mean "propulsion" system. Although electrons do repel each other electrostatically, I can see three problems with this idea:

(1) There are limits to how much charge separation you can get. This is partly due to energy limitations (it takes more and more energy to push negatively-charged electrons against the repulsion of the increasingly negatively-charged shell) and partly due to insulator limitations (electrons will eventually start leaking from the negative shell to the positive shell).

(2) If you can overcome the first problem, then the second problem will be arching. Much as a lightning bolt occurs when too much negative charge builds up in the clouds, you can expect an electric discharge to jump from the negative shell to the ground when its negative charge becomes too strong. This will put another limit on how strongly you can charge the shell.

(3) If you can solve the first two problems, the third problem is with polarizability. Electrons in the ground will be repelled away from the negative electric field while the nuclei in the ground will be attracted towards it. This will create a patch of slight positive charge on the ground directly underneath your vehicle. So counter intuitively, this will actually lead to an overall attraction to the ground instead of a repulsion.

8

Science Experiments / Re: Why does a magnet dropped through a copper pipe move so slowly?

« on: 24/03/2019 03:28:53 »

It's both attraction and repulsion at the same time:

9

Technology / Re: Why are Some Fridges Hard To Open Again Once Just Closed?

« on: 03/03/2019 22:59:07 »

I'm no expert here, but perhaps the magnets holding some refrigerator doors shut are excessively strong. Alternatively, perhaps the seal around the closed door becomes air-tight, making opening it akin to trying to pull a suction cup off a pane of glass.

10

New Theories / Re: The Big Bang is dead -- RIP.

« on: 03/02/2019 23:04:54 »

No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,

Seriously?

11

New Theories / Re: Experiment to test W=mg

« on: 01/02/2019 22:27:43 »

Just a basic simple question...
2 identical cups filled with equal amounts of coffee.

1 is super hot & d other super cold.

Now wich cuppa coffee wud weigh more?

I suppose d heated 1, rite?
Coz in comparison wit d cold 1, d heated 1 has absorbed energy stored inside it in d form of heat, rite???

In this particular case, I'd actually say the hot cup is lighter because evaporation would remove much more mass than the heat would add to it. If the cups were airtight, then yes, the hot cup would be heavier.

12

New Theories / Re: Could the strong nuclear force and gravity be the same force?

« on: 30/01/2019 17:09:29 »

Why do you refer to Uranium nucleus?

Because I was able to find a value for its diameter. I was only using it as an upper bound on the possible size of the helium-3 nucleus because I was unable to find any literature stating the size of the helium-3 nucleus.

I don't know how you get those numbers

The value for the diameter of atomic nuclei came from the "Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii": https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092640X12000265?via%3Dihub

and how to isolate a single atom nucleus from interaction with its environment, including orbiting electrons and adjacent other atoms to measure the binding energy.

The binding energy is calculated from the difference between the mass of an atomic nucleus and each of its component particles. The mass of an atomic nucleus can be determined using mass spectrometry: https://www.livescience.com/20581-weigh-atom.html

What are the lepton numbers of those particles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number#Violations_of_the_lepton_number_conservation_laws

Protons have a lepton number of zero, whereas electrons have a lepton number (more specifically, electron number), of one. The violation mentioned in the article is between specific forms of lepton number (i.e. changing from muon number to electron number). However, the total lepton number is still the same. In other cases where lepton number is violated, the total baryon number minus lepton number (B-L) is still conserved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_%E2%88%92_L

Your model violates B-L because the baryon number remains the same before and after decay whereas the lepton number changes.

13

New Theories / Re: Another Model of Gravity

« on: 22/01/2019 14:21:15 »

LIGO have already admitted that their lovely chirps were drawn by their PR people.

If that was true, then it should have been breaking news everywhere as that would be an admission of conspiracy. Where is this reputable source that you have showing that LIGO admitted to hoaxing its gravitational wave detections? Be careful how you answer that question, as admitting to "hand-tuning" the data for illustrative purposes is not the same as saying "there were no chirps at all".

Also, if the new KAGRA detector in Japan ends up detecting gravitational waves at the same time as LIGO and VIRGO, are you going to claim that they are a part of the conspiracy as well? https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-gravitational-wave-detector-kagra-almost-ready-join-search

14

General Science / Re: Are there aliens made of lava?

« on: 14/01/2019 19:18:23 »

A section of the textbook Life in the Universe: Expectations and Constraints by Dirk Schulz-Makuch and Louis N. Irwin does go into this subject matter. Here's a quote from chapter 6:

Feinberg and Shapiro (1980) suggested that the existence of lavobes, organisms that could exist in lava flows, and magmobes, organisms that could exploit thermal gradients or chemical energy sources within the molten rock. These organisms could make use of the chemical complexity of silicate rocks in which aluminum could replace silicon in the tetrahedrons and cation exchange reactions could occur in interlayer sites between the tetrahedral and octahedral sheets. For this to occur, silicates would have to be in the form of sheets, such as the clay minerals smectite and montmorillonite. Information could be represented as irregularities in the crystal lattice of minerals. A particularly intriguing example is the clay mineral amesite, which has a helical structure. Information could be encoded by substitution of silicon with aluminum.

It goes on later to say:

However, given the environmental conditions of Earth's crust and its composition (46% oxygen, 28% silicon) with abundant silicate melts, Earth should be more favorable than most other planets and moons in our Solar System for such a form of life. Yet no fossilized remnants or structures consistent with such an organism have been found, even though outcrops of igneous and volcanic rocks are abundant. Thus, the existence of such organisms seems very unlikely.

15

New Theories / Re: All opinions for and against something are equally valid

« on: 13/01/2019 06:21:26 »

All opinions for and against something are equally valid

So if I'm of the opinion that this statement is nonsense, then that opinion is equally valid to your opinion that it is true. That means you can't really say that all opinions are equally valid with any certainty, because that opinion in itself is disputable.

16

New Theories / Re: Axiomatic set theory ZFC is inconsistent thus mathematics ends in contradiction

« on: 11/01/2019 23:51:12 »

The meaninglessness of mathematics

If mathematics is meaningless, then why not donate all of your money to charity? If math is meaningless, then so is the amount of money you have.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a detectable direction in which the universe is expanding?

« on: 19/12/2018 22:12:12 »

It's expanding in all directions at once.

18

Just Chat! / Re: Can I be in 2 places at the same time?

« on: 01/12/2018 22:24:58 »

Thanks, I read information about the sun somewhere online, maybe this article, it sounded logical so I believed it

Please do be careful when you read what Thebox has to say. He is a strong denier of mainstream science. To say that his beliefs are eccentric would be an understatement.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Could a star orbit a planet?

« on: 24/11/2018 19:13:16 »

Under natural formation scenarios, massive planets tend to accumulate large amounts of hydrogen. This, in turn, means that any sufficiently massive object formed with a large hydrogen content would be capable of performing thermonuclear fusion in its core. That would put an upper limit on planet mass.

However, this might change in the distant future. Once most of the hydrogen in the universe had been burned into heavier elements by stars, then the formation of super-massive planets with very little hydrogen content may be possible. In that scenario, you certainly could have planets that are heavier than some currently existing stars.

In the case of a planet composed entirely out of iron and heavier elements, it would have no thermonuclear-based upper limit on its mass because those elements cannot release energy by fusing. The mass could keep increasing until it collapses into a white dwarf. If the mass exceeds about 1.4 solar masses, it would collapse into a neutron star.

This brings up another question I have regarding Binary Solar Systems:
If one star within a binary solar system should die and ( if both stars had their own planets revolving), would it be possible for the remaining planets of the dead star to be incorporated into the system of the remaining star, should that star be close enough to attract these planets into it's gravitational pull? Therefore adding new planets into the now singular System?

That depends on what you mean by "die". If you are talking about a star going supernova, that most certainly could disrupt the orbits of the planets around it. Maybe under the right circumstances that could push a planet or two on a favorable course to have them captured by the other star. It's probably not a particularly likely event, though.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How much force does a torch or flashlight beam apply to a dust particle?

« on: 11/11/2018 01:02:12 »

The pressure is going to fall off the further away from the light you are, so I'll assume a best case scenario where we are looking at the pressure the light is producing right at the face of the flashlight.

The equation for calculating radiation pressure is P = I_f/c, where:

P is pressure in pascals
I_f is the irradiance in watts per square meter
c is the speed of light in meters per second

If I have a 5 watt flashlight with a lens radius of 2.5 centimeters (0.025 meters, 0.0019634954 square meters), then the irradiance will be about 2,546.48 watts per square meter. This assumes that 100% of those watts are going into the creation of electromagnetic radiation, which we know it wouldn't be. The actual efficiency might run anywhere from 10% to 90% depending on the kind of bulb used.

So now we put the relevant numbers into the equation:

P = 2,546.48 watts per square meter/299,792,458 meters per second
P = 0.00000849414 pascals (newtons per square meter)

Multiply that number by a value from 0.1 to 0.9 depending on how efficient the lightbulb is to get a better estimate.

EDIT: According to Engineering Toolbox, household dust particles range in size from 0.05 to 100 microns across. For the sake of convenience, I'll assume they are spherical, resulting in cross-sectional areas of 0.0019634954 square microns (1.9634954 x 10^-15 square meters) and 7,853.98163397 square microns (7.85398163397 x 10^-8 square meters) respectively. Now to calculate the force on these particles:

F = 0.00000849414 newtons per square meter x 1.9634954 x 10^-15 square meters
F = 1.6678205 x 10^-20 newtons

F = 0.00000849414 newtons per square meter x 7.85398163397 x 10^-8 square meters
F = 6.671282 x 10^-13 newtons

To find the acceleration that the light imparts on these particles, their mass will need to be known. If I assume that they are made of organic matter, then a density similar to water might not be far off the mark (if it is, we can modify this later). A sphere 0.05 microns across has a volume of 6.54 x 10^-5 cubic microns (6.54 x 10^-23 cubic meters). A sphere 100 microns across has a volume of 5.24 x 10[/sup]5[/sup] cubic microns (5.24 x 10^-13 cubic meters). The density of water is 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter, so:

m = 6.54 x 10^-23 cubic meters x 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter
m = 6.54 x 10^-20 kilograms

m = 5.24 x 10^-13 cubic meters x 1,000 kilograms per cubic meters
m = 5.24 x 10^-10 kilograms

Now for the acceleration:

A = F/m
A = 1.6678205 x 10^-20 newtons / 6.54 x 10^-20 kilograms
A = 0.255 meters per second squared (for 100% efficient light)
A = 0.23 meters per second squared (for 90% efficient light)
A = 0.0255 meters per second squared for (for 10% efficient light)

A = F/m
A = 6.671282 x 10^-13 newtons / 5.24 x 10^-10 kilograms
A = 0.00127 meters per second squared (for 100% efficient light)
A = 0.00114 meters per second squared (for 90% efficient light)
A = 0.000127 meters per second squared (for 10% efficient light)