1

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 02/04/2020 23:45:55 »

Assuming that it does work, this is still far from the end of the pandemic. More vulnerable people are still going to need hospital stays in order to get the treatment and so the medical system can still be overwhelmed.

2

Just Chat! / Re: why would a scientist accept the bible

« on: 02/04/2020 21:15:29 »

BTW, does entanglement disprove C is the fastest anything can go?

It's more correct to say that c is as fast as information can go. Quantum entanglement doesn't transfer information.

3

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

« on: 02/04/2020 00:10:14 »

Why did proofreading enzymes evolve if mutations are good?

Mutations are not, as a whole, good. Nor are they always bad. In theory at least, error correction just reduces the mutation rate to some optimal compromise between good organism function and allowing for the odd mutation here and there so that beneficial mutations will pop up every now and then.

If you are a poor typer like me, random errors in typing will seldom lead to something of enhanced clarity.

That is where natural selection comes it. It edits out the mutations that are harmful to survival. Well, usually. It's also possible that a negative mutation and a positive mutation are paired and thus inherited together as a single unit. If the positive effects outweigh the negative, then selection will work to keep that gene pair and thus the negative mutation.

The next question becomes, why do some typos get past the proofreader enzymes, so as to allow mutations?

Because, (1) it's an imperfect process, and (2) there are long-term benefits from allowing a handful of mutations past (evolution).

4

New Theories / Re: Is the sun made of antimatter?

« on: 04/03/2020 21:00:34 »

To balance the solar system should contains roughly equal amounts of positron enclosed anti-matter in the sun as there is electron enclosed planetary matter in the planets, moons and asteroids.

The stars and their accompanying planets must be made of the same kind of matter because they form from the same gas clouds. We can see via telescope protoplanetary disks surrounding some young stars. Hydrogen and anti-hydrogen have the same mass, same total charge, same radius, etc. There is therefore no reason for antimatter to conveniently clump in the middle while normal matter moves to the outer regions of the disk. Both matter and antimatter would react the same way to gravity and centrifugal forces.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do solar neutrinos have a bypass through the curvature of space/time?

« on: 04/03/2020 17:08:18 »

The path of fast-moving neutrinos should be bent in the same way that light is in gravitational lensing.

6

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

« on: 28/02/2020 21:20:39 »

GG: A photon from the right and a photon from the left of spaceship will have exactly the same energy to a stationary spaceship. Yet the effect of the photon to the spaceship moving toward the photon will be at a higher energy level due to the speed of the spaceship. The spaceship is filled with photonic dot-waves and these will add to the photon  as it hits the spaceship or subtract from the photon when the space ship is traveling in the opposite direction.

Okay, perhaps that's fair. Your model is still incorrect because it predicts the wrong value for known constants. You claim that those constants can vary in strong gravitational fields, but that isn't correct. You don't even need relativity to demonstrate that. Conservation of energy in itself is enough to demonstrate that the gravitational constant does not change in high fields of gravity.

Consider Pluto as it is right now. It has a set gravitational potential energy that is determined by the Sun's mass, its own mass, its distance from the Sun and the gravitational constant. Change any one of those parameters and the potential energy changes as well. Now we collapse the Sun down into a black hole of equal mass. The Sun's mass, Pluto's mass and the distance all remain the same. But what if we assume that the high gravity of the black hole increases the gravitational constant? That would result in more force per unit mass, which would increase the gravitational pull on Pluto. This results in a higher gravitational potential energy.

This, however, cannot happen. More energy cannot spring up spontaneously out of nowhere. That violates conservation of energy. This is how we know that the gravitational constant does not change from one scenario to another.

7

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

8

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).

9

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

« on: 11/02/2020 16:34:16 »

To put some math to this question, I'll use the centrifugal force equation:

F_c = (mv²)/r, where

"F_c" is the force in newtons,
"m" is the mass in kilograms,
"v" is the local rotational velocity in meters per second, and
"r" is the distance from the center of rotation in meters.

For a 70 kilogram human standing along the equator, the resulting centrifugal force acting on them is:

F_c = (mv²)/r
F_c = ((70 kg)(461 m/s)²)/6,334,080 m
F_c = 2.3486 newtons

For comparison, gravity pulls on a 70 kilogram human with a force of 70 kg x 9.807 m/s² = 686.49 newtons. The centrifugal force is only 0.34% of the gravitational force at the equator. The human (or the ocean) is in no danger of being flung off of the Earth.

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does gravity have a longitudinal influence on light?

« on: 11/02/2020 16:09:42 »

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do the electrons that generate an electric current come from the wire's atoms?

« on: 18/12/2019 15:01:12 »

Yes, the electrons come from the atoms in the wire. No, it's not true that light and energy is released when electrons come out of atoms. The opposite is true. Removing an electron from an atom requires the input of energy, not the release of energy. It isn't proper to think of the electrons as "coming out" of the atoms when electric current is passed through a wire anyway. The valence electrons are already distributed between many atoms as an "electron sea". The electrons are simply moved or vibrated through this sea when an electric current is applied.

If by "speed of electric current" you mean "drift velocity", then it's actually very, very slow: on the order of micrometers per second: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity The electric signal itself can travel close to the speed of light.

12

General Science / Re: Can I turn Pixie into a diamond?

« on: 17/12/2019 14:10:14 »

My parents currently have a cat named Pixie as well.

Any carbon-based matter could potentially be turned into a diamond with enough heat and pressure. Like Halc says, you might need to isolate the carbon first. I'm not sure what would happen if you tried to compress it with all of the nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen mixed in. I used to sometimes heat sugar in a spoon until water boiled off of it and left carbon behind, so perhaps most of those extra elements would boil off on their own if the conditions were right.

13

The Environment / Re: How much does human heat contribute to global warming?

« on: 04/12/2019 23:41:31 »

An average adult male produces about 100-120 watts of body heat: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/stevens1/
The current world population is about 7.7 billion. If you multiply the two, you'd get 770 - 924 gigawatts (although this is an over-estimate, since much of the population is made up of children). The total solar energy received by the Earth is around 173,000,000 gigawatts: http://news.mit.edu/2011/energy-scale-part3-1026 That would make the total body heat contribution from human bodies less than 0.00045% of the contribution from the Sun. So it's practically non-existent.

14

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Is the mystery killer of the Bermuda Triangle killer waves?

« on: 29/11/2019 17:41:33 »

The Bermuda Triangle does not appear to experience losses of ships and planes at a greater rate than other areas of the world based on percentage: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bermuda-triangle-mystery-solved-latest-theories-dr-karl-kruszelnicki-debunked-unexplained-a7861731.html

If there was some kind of anomalous loss of vehicles, however, killer waves wouldn't explain the loss of aircraft.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can quantum entanglement be proven?

« on: 10/11/2019 01:48:52 »

Surely this could convey information.

The reason you can't use this to convey information is because you can't force the particle to be in a particular state. It's random.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does information have mass?

« on: 07/11/2019 22:05:35 »

I would say that information as a concept doesn't have mass, but anything that can actually store information will have a mass (at least one associated with its energy via E=mc²). That mass-energy, however, can be arbitrarily small (there is no known upper limit to the wavelength of a photon, except, perhaps, the diameter of the Universe).

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?

« on: 25/10/2019 23:58:22 »

It seems pretty unlikely that laws of physics don't change over time, Entropy would see to that.

Entropy doesn't affect the laws of physics because it is a by-product of the laws of physics. The second law of thermodynamics, in particular.

I mean, honestly, how can chaos be lawful? You either have a descent into chaos or you dont.

Depends on how you define "chaos" and "lawful". The way in which chaos is defined in terms of entropy requires no change in the laws of physics over time.

What's so special about stupid old energy  that only it should suffer entropy, why shouldn't laws be affected too?

Because entropy is defined in terms of energy specifically.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the cosmic microwave background?

« on: 08/10/2019 16:50:24 »

The fact that we're 'seeing' this radiation is proof that it's moving through space, right? It isn't just loitering around in our vicinity with nothing better to do. So the radiation we saw last week must now be gone forever. It sounds like this radiation must have been tavelling past us and 'disappearing forever' for the last umpteen billion years. why is it STIIL travelling past us in a way that we can register with instruments?

It's true that the radiation is constantly on the move. However, that radiation is travelling in all directions at very nearly the same rate. As many photons of this radiation are entering any given cubic meter of space as are leaving it. So there is always radiation present to measure.

19

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity

« on: 28/09/2019 20:44:14 »

In case if it is a gas giant, it is spread in a wide area and more particles are exposed to energy, resulting in curvature.  Though energy is weak particles gets into its grip.

So what you're saying is that it depends on the density of the planet, is that right?

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible for the laws of physics to change in time?

« on: 26/09/2019 21:47:44 »

Albert Einstein for example may have found it a 'big deal' and decided to hide the truth to protect societal interests. I wonder, what may those interests have been?

Maybe you should find some actually evidence for that conspiracy first.

Some recent sources show that the Big Bang theory may be incorrect:

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’

Quote
The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1162808/big-bang-theory-how-old-is-universe-physics-news-astronomy-space-2019 [nofollow]

Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossible

Quote
Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space [nofollow]

Firstly, Express is a sensationalist website. Everything there should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Secondly, there is no problem with that star's age. The uncertainty of its age is large enough to be consistent with the Big Bang. The black hole thing has also been addressed using a "direct collapse" model (as opposed to the idea that it formed from a collapsing star that then consumed matter to become larger).

When the Universe is to be considered infinite, how likely would those ideas remain?

Just as likely as they are now. Evolution is separate from the Big Bang. Evolution was already widely-accepted when the eternal, steady state model of the Universe was also accepted. Neither requires the other.