1

Physiology & Medicine / Re: What do Caucasians see in their peripheral vision, and how is their visual field

« on: 17/06/2018 03:26:37 »

This is something that I haven't thought about before. I feel fairly qualified to answer as I, admittedly, have a pretty big nose. I can definitely see both sides of it when I try to, including the nostrils and the bridge. I can also see the curve where it blends into the brow ridge and I can see my eyebrows as well. However, doing that requires effort and these aren't things that I see when I'm looking around under most circumstances. I've never thought about it limiting my field of vision.

2

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Could a blue whale fly?

« on: 24/05/2018 22:22:42 »

Wing flap rate is more difficult to calculate. This article describes an equation that can be used to estimate it: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.530.7390&rep=rep1&type=pdf

f = 1.08(m^(1/3)g^(1/2)b^-1S^(-1/4)ρ^(-1/3)), where

f = wing beat frequency (in beats per second)
m = mass (in kilograms)
g = force of gravity (in meters per second squared)
b = wing span (in meters)
S = wing area (in square meters)
ρ = air density (in kilograms per cubic meter)

Unfortunately, we don't know the wing area for this hypothetical flying blue whale. I'll look around to see if any equations are available to help predict it.

EDIT: I found what I was looking for. It's in the very last page of this artlcle: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/materials-science-and-engineering/3-a26-freshman-seminar-the-nature-of-engineering-fall-2005/projects/flght_of_brdv2ed.pdf

By using the graph, I estimated that the needed wing loading for an average blue whale is between 151 and 232 kilograms per square meter. This corresponds to wing areas of 301 and 588 square meters. Now let's go back to the original equation. For the 100,000-pound (45,500-kilogram) blue whale at sea level, this yields:

f = 1.08(m^(1/3)g^(1/2)b^(-1)S^(-1/4)ρ^(-1/3))
f = 1.08(((45,500 kg)^(1/3))((9.8 m/s^2)(1/2))((34.08 m)^(-1))((301 m²)^(-1/4))((1.225 kg/m³)^(-1/3))
f = 1.08((35.7)(3.13)(0.0293)(0.24)(0.9346))
f = 0.793 beats per second (47.58 beats per minute)

3

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 18.05.21 - Could we eat an alien?

« on: 22/05/2018 00:34:23 »

That depends on how similar we are to them. They would need to be sufficiently similar to us biochemically in order for our enzymes to break down whatever their tissues are made of. Even being carbon-based wouldn't be enough of a guarantee. They might, for example, be composed of molecules that are the chiral mirror of our own. Our enzymes would have trouble with those.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Undiscovered energy that could explain dark matter?

« on: 21/05/2018 02:32:55 »

In a sense, yes. Even modelling dark matter as massive particles still means that those particles have an energy associated with their mass.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 20/05/2018 07:29:35 »

then am I way off base asking what effect light has 4.24 light years away from an object,  over millions of years,  multiplied by trillions of stars,  combined with the process repeating for billions of years with new stars replacing dying stars? 4.24 ly is distance to nearest star.  granted,  each photons effect is negligible,  but the accumulated effect must amount to something.  if we can see a photon,  then it must affect an object,  however miniscule.  surely this must add up to a phenomenal amount of "light pressure"........ and if light has mass as some theorize,  could this be the missing mass needed to make the models of the universe work correctly?  ..........perhaps this material is not so dark after all. .....

I'll see what I can come up with calculation-wise, but first I'd like to point out that (as shown by E=mc²) that energy already has an associated mass and therefore a gravitational field all its own. I'm sure scientists would have taken into consideration this fact when calculating how galaxy rotation curves should look. The anomaly remains.

Just for fun, let's see how much radiation pressure Proxima Centauri exerts on Earth. The power flux of the Sun at 1 AU is 1,360.8 watts per square meter. Proxima Centauri has a bolometric (total) luminosity of only 0.0017 times that of the Sun, resulting in a power flux of 2.31336 watts per square meter 1 AU away from it. Proxima Centauri is 4.246 light-years away, which is equal to 268,521.61 AU. Using the inverse-square law:

1/(268,521.61)² = 1/(72,103,855,037) = 1.3868884 x 10^-11

Multiply this by the power flux:

(1.3868884 x 10^-11)(2.31336) = 3.2083721 x 10^-11 watts per square meter

There are two different pressure equations that could be used now: one that assumes all the light is absorbed and one that assumes all the light is reflected. Reflecting all of the light doubles pressure. Earth, however, neither absorbs nor reflects all electromagnetic radiation. So instead, I will assume that the Earth reflects 30.6% of all radiation back into space (based on its bond albedo of 0.306). So to put that into equation form:

P = ((1.306)(I))/c
P = ((1.306)(3.2083721 x 10^-11))/299,792,458
P = 4.190134 x 10^-11/299,792,458
P = 1.3976783 x 10^-19 pascals (a very small pressure)

Since the Earth's mean radius is 6,371,000 meters, that would make its total cross-sectional area:

A = π(6,371,000)²
A = π(4.0589641 x 10¹³)
A = 1.2751612 x 10¹⁴ square meters

Multiply that by the pressure to get the total force on the Earth:

F = (1.2751612 x 10¹⁴)(1.3976783 x 10^-19)
F = 0.00001782265 newtons

To find the acceleration this force gives the Earth, we divide this force by the mass of the Earth:

Acceleration = 0.00001782265/(5.97237 x 10²⁴)
Acceleration = 2.984184 x 10^-30 meters per second squared

To get the total increase in velocity that this would have given the Earth over its entire 4.5 billion-year (1.42 x 10¹⁷ second) lifespan, we multiply the acceleration by the age:

Velocity = (1.42 x 10¹⁷)(2.984184 x 10^-30)
Velocity = 4.2378158 x 10^-13 meters per second (extremely slow)

So even after 4.5 billion years of shining on the Earth, Proxima Centaur's light still has a negligible effect on Earth's speed.

6

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Is this fools gold or real gold?

« on: 19/05/2018 21:32:27 »

Some tips:

- Gold is far more dense than pyrite (19.3 g/cc vs.4.8-5 g/cc).
- Pyrite is much harder than gold (6-6.5 vs.2.5-3 on the Moh's scale).
- Gold is diamagnetic, whereas pyrite is paramagnetic.
- Pyrite is much more brittle than gold.
- Gold has a gold streak, whereas pyrite has a brown-black to green-black streak.

7

Physiology & Medicine / Re: How to increase or improve cognitive neuroimmunity?

« on: 19/05/2018 04:33:49 »

If you did science I'd start by asking you to explain the terms you are using.
What are " neuroimmune attacks"?
If you are going to respond (rather than doing the decent thing and  deciding not to waste more bandwidth) please base your reply in actual evinced facts rather than made up dross.

I assume he's talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroimmune_system. Typing "neuroimmune attack" does bring up a few hits from legitimate scientific papers:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190016/. As best as I can tell, a "neuroimmune attack" is an attack on the central nervous system by the autoimmune system.

8

New Theories / Re: The Theory of Everything!

« on: 14/05/2018 20:48:02 »

For I am the God of science.

That's a new quote for my signature, right there.

9

New Theories / Re: Electrons and Protons do not have gravity

« on: 14/05/2018 20:37:26 »

Looks like my skepticism that you were going to stop posting was well-founded.

10

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: Could a chemical solvent reduce the strength of limestone rock?

« on: 03/05/2018 07:16:46 »

Limestone is mostly calcium carbonate, which is (as far as minerals go) fairly reactive. Acidic chemicals break it down into carbon dioxide and water (calcium carbonate is sometimes used as an antacid for this reason). Even water that has carbon dioxide dissolved in it can be enough to change it chemically into calcium bicarbonate, which is very water-soluble.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Would your eyeballs really freeze up when exposed to space?

« on: 28/04/2018 15:29:01 »

The boiling of liquids in a vacuum causes heat to be drawn away from them, resulting in the remainder of the liquid decreasing in temperature:

12

General Science / Re: What would happen to the continuation of Life if the Earth evaporated?

« on: 28/04/2018 05:49:27 »

There's no need to apologize for anything.

It sounds like you are talking about the concept of vitalism:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism. As best as modern science can tell, there aren't any processes associated with life that cannot be explained purely by physical mechanisms. One possible exception would be conscious awareness, but that's because we really don't fully understand its nature or what the minimum requirements are to produce it. It too could be a physically emergent phenomenon. The fact that a functioning brain is necessary for it seems to support that.

13

New Theories / Re: What is cognitive control?

« on: 18/04/2018 22:51:02 »

Might you mean this? http://carterlab.ucdavis.edu/research/control.php

14

New Theories / Re: What is Project STREET WISE?

« on: 16/04/2018 19:45:42 »

3. You seem to forget the evidences that mobile devices and brain-computer interfaces share many common features, including the possibility to inject commands to the host using ultrasounds.

You have yet to demonstrate that mobile phones can inject commands into a human brain.

15

New Theories / Re: Effects of Gravity

« on: 16/04/2018 19:40:37 »

By creating vacuum, it only reduces force or pressure of gravity.

No it doesn't. Gravity pulls on objects just as hard in a vacuum as it does in air. The only difference is that air resistance slows objects down in accordance with their drag. Look at the following video. It shows that the metal object falls at the same rate in air as it does in a vacuum:

Things such as TNT that can explode very easily, still explode in vacuum, yet it may not as it is in the open area

The presence of oxygen aids TNT's combustion, so you're right in that case. 

In fact perfect vacuum is possible in between two solar systems only.

Not even that is a "perfect" vacuum. 

It is true and known fact that energy travels with maximum speed in vacuum.  So even if you create vacuum there is energy, only thing is that it may not be able to group or concentrate.  This is the reason, if we light a candle and close it by a glass, still it burns for some time.  Some of the things such as candle needs high pressure to burn.

A candle needs an oxidizing agent such as oxygen to burn. If you held the candle under a 100% oxygen atmosphere at one-fifth normal atmospheric pressure, it would still get just as much oxygen as it would in normal air. The reason that candle eventually goes out is because the oxygen gets used up.

When E=MC2 is correct and if total TNT is converted into Energy, it must be equal or the same at all places.

TNT doesn't come even remotely close to 100% conversion of mass to energy.

It is incorrect to say, there is no climate on moon.  Only thing is that it is weak and particles are not raising as it is on Earth.

The Moon does have an atmosphere, but it is so extraordinarily thin that it might as well be ignored (it is over 300 trillion times thinner than Earth's atmosphere).

16

New Theories / Re: Quantum entanglement communication

« on: 12/04/2018 21:26:22 »

Yes, you are right. I thought that if you start with a polarized beam, let it go through the BBO crystal the entangled particles will have the initial polarization. But entangled particles always have opposite spin upon measurement. I don't see how this can work.

Quantum spin isn't the same as light polarization though, so I don't see how this is a problem.

17

New Theories / Re: Quantum entanglement communication

« on: 12/04/2018 20:56:00 »

If you have set the experiment up so that both beams are definitely known to be vertically-polarized, I'm not sure why you think putting one of the beams through a filter would change that fact for either beam. It seems more likely that the filter would simply break the entanglement. You can't force entangled particles to be in one state or another.

18

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Do we need to bring out our tinfoil hats?

« on: 07/04/2018 21:03:56 »

I'm not surprised that this is possible. I think I tend to move my mouth more than normal when I think of words myself (enough for others to notice).

You may have given tkadm30 more paranoia fuel, though...

19

New Theories / Re: Where should neurosurveillance stop?

« on: 03/04/2018 14:09:11 »

Neuromonitoring and neurosurveillance are basically the same thing. Both concepts involves recording and analyzing neuronal activity in very specific areas of the brain.

How do you propose that it's possible to do that at a distance without being noticed by the person being analyzed? All current technology requires devices to be very close to the brain (usually by wearing them on the head).

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can black holes rotate along more than one axis?

« on: 03/04/2018 05:11:36 »

(Just to be sure I am interpreting the smoke-ring bit correctly, JeffryH and Kryptid... If we had a cylinder spinning along its axis (clearly with net angular momentum), and then bent it around into a torus while maintaining the "spinning" motion so that the surface of the torus moves from the inside (facing the donut hole) to the outside (facing out) and back, is that what you are calling "smoke ring like rotation"?)

Yes.