1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the gamma and cosmic radiation flux/watts per square meter on the moon?

« on: 05/01/2021 20:02:40 »

Since cosmic rays contain fast-moving, electrically-charged particles, they should be affected by (and therefore affect) magnets and thus you might be able to use those as a means to tap some of that energy. But, as I've pointed out, the extreme low power level makes that a dubious undertaking at best.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the gamma and cosmic radiation flux/watts per square meter on the moon?

« on: 05/01/2021 06:11:18 »

According to this source: https://www.int.washington.edu/PHYS554/winter_2004/chapter8_04.pdf, the energy density of cosmic rays is on the order of 1 electron-volt per cubic centimeter (1.60218 x 10^-19 joules per cubic centimeter). For simplicity's sake, I'll assume that cosmic rays travel at the speed of light (the more energetic ones do travel very close to it). So I can model a series of cubic centimeter-sized cubes traveling through a square meter of space at the speed of light. Light travels at 2.998 x 10¹⁰ centimeters per second.

A square meter contains 10,000 square centimeters, so 10,000 x 2.998 x 10¹⁰ = 2.998 x 10¹⁴ of these cubes travel through the square meter every second. Multiply that by the energy of 1.60218 x 10^-19 joules per cube and you get 4.8 x 10^-5 watts per square meter. That's very, very small.

3

That CAN'T be true! / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: 04/01/2021 00:26:43 »

Again, I'm not addressing that right now. I'm only focusing on my initial objections.

4

That CAN'T be true! / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: 02/01/2021 21:31:28 »

Some of my assumptions about the nature of the aether.

Speaking of the aether:

Why have efforts to detect the aether come up empty?

Besides, official point of view assumes the absence of any resistance for light from outer space medium. Zero resistance for light (one photon) means infinite lifetime of one photon. No physical parameter can have zero or infinite value. In other words - any physical parameter with zero or infinite value - is a scientific nonsense.

Please demonstrate that this is "scientific nonsense". To the best of our scientific knowledge, electrons have an infinite lifetime, for example. Since there are no known electrically-charged particles less massive than an electron, conservation of electric charge means that they can't decay. The electric charge on a neutrino or neutron is zero, another refutation of your claim that nothing can be zero or infinite.

If space had any significant drag, then our calculations for the movement of spacecraft would end up wrong and thus we would know about it.

5

That CAN'T be true! / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: 02/01/2021 20:44:11 »

Almost all the fuel is spent on acceleration (reaching the second cosmic speed of 11 km/s). The remaining amount of fuel is not sufficient for usual braking, so a very durable in time aerobraking is used. Thus, acceleration - several hours (about 8 ) , flight to Mars - several hours (about 8 ) , deceleration near Mars - several months (about 6-7).
newbielink:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking [nonactive]

And what does that have to do with the Voyager probes?

6

That CAN'T be true! / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: 02/01/2021 01:09:52 »

One assumption. Please do not take it as ignorance, because it is not unreasonable.

What is the evidence that such redshift is caused by the aether? Why have efforts to detect the aether come up empty?

the Moon's contour cannot be as clear as in that SDO photo.

How about some evidence instead of assumptions? Science depends upon evidence. You can create a practically unlimited number of models about the Universe that are internally consistent when you ignore the need for evidence.

7

That CAN'T be true! / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: 02/01/2021 00:12:29 »

and looks like it is so

You have demonstrated no such thing.

All celestial, orbital, trigonometrical, mathematical calculations may have (and looks like it is so) one specific feature. They all relatively correct. Look attentively what I mean. Such basic parameters as: distance, size and velocity - they are highly interconnected and directly interdependent. Only one coefficient in calculations directly affects the change in these three parameters, in one direction or another. The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and velocities).

If there is any compelling evidence for any such mathematical errors, please post them. So far, you've got nothing.

The action of the earth's gravity extends over a long distance in space (at least to the Moon).

It extends infinitely, but falls off in strength with the square of the distance.

As I already explained in the previous message, there may be distortions in determining the actual velocity of spacecraft. That is, the calculated telemetry (for example, velocity) may differ from the actual one - this is quite possible. Distortions in the determination of velocity lead to distortions in the determination of the actual distances and sizes of space objects (for example, planets).

Which is something I refuted here:

(1) Even the escape velocity of Earth is about 11 kilometers per second, so they absolutely cannot be moving any more slowly than that. Even at 11 km/s, 1 light-minute is covered in less than 19 days.
(2) Basic physics allows us the calculate the velocity of the probes based on the rocket equations.
(3) Redshift from signals sent by the probes would further confirm their velocities.

8

That CAN'T be true! / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: 01/01/2021 21:17:37 »

The Oort cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the “stars” and “galaxies” formed from the ProtoEarth's mantle, with diameters not exceeding several tens of kilometers, are located. The diameter of the Universe, presumably, does not exceed one light minute.

If that was true, then all of the spacecraft that we have sent to other planets would have either crashed or whizzed past their destinations. We have to program their actions into them in advance because we are not controlling them remotely. That programming assumes the distances measured using conventional physics. The fact that any of them arrived at their destinations means that the conventional distances must be correct. Even Venus and Mars are several light-minutes away.

If the Universe was only 1 light-minute across, both of the Voyager probes would have crashed into the edge of the Universe very early in their mission and thus stopped sending signals. They are traveling at velocities of 15-17 kilometers per second, so they would cover a distance of 1 light-minute in less than 14 days. And that assumes that they started on one side of the Universe and crossed to the other side. The time would only be half that if the Earth is at the center of the Universe. The fact that the Voyager probes spent many years sending us data proves your idea wrong.

And you can't argue that we have their velocities wrong by orders of magnitude, because:

(1) Even the escape velocity of Earth is about 11 kilometers per second, so they absolutely cannot be moving any more slowly than that. Even at 11 km/s, 1 light-minute is covered in less than 19 days.
(2) Basic physics allows us the calculate the velocity of the probes based on the rocket equations.
(3) Redshift from signals sent by the probes would further confirm their velocities.

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does the release of energy increase mass in some circumstances?

« on: 30/12/2020 00:06:56 »

Protons can't transform into neutrons spontaneously. You'd have to have some source of extra mass (or energy) in order to allow such a change to take place. One such source could be an election, as in electron capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

10

That CAN'T be true! / Re: I don’t understand physics: does anyone understand physics these days?

« on: 27/12/2020 20:10:56 »

For example, suppose a Physicist makes some outlandish claim - like Black Holes provide a wormhole through Space and Time.  Who's able to say "No they don't"?  There's no experimental proof that they don't.

That claim is based on implications given by general relativity. So in order to successfully refute it (at least as best as one can without experimenting on actual black holes), then one either needs to demonstrate that general relativity does not, in fact, imply it, that general relativity is wrong, or that it violates the laws of physics in some way.

Whereas, suppose a Chemist were to claim, that mercury can be transmuted into gold, by mixing it with sulphur.. He/she would be a laughing-stock.    Experiment would quickly expose the falsity  of the claim.

What are they basing the claim on? Is it based on (or even predicted by) a highly successful theory, or is it pure speculation? That's the difference between coming up with any random idea that you want and an idea that has grounding in modern physics.

11

That CAN'T be true! / Re: FAKE NEWS: Could the covid vaccine affect female fertility?

« on: 25/12/2020 06:01:36 »

Clearly some scientists

I've already asked you how many "some" scientists is. More importantly, what is their evidence? Have other coronavirus infections in the past (like MERS and SARS) been linked to autoimmune reactions that resulted in infertility? 10-15% of common cold cases are caused by coronaviruses as well. Why haven't we seen huge rates of infertility caused by colds?

12

New Theories / Re: Could this be a new way to prove dark matter?

« on: 28/11/2020 19:49:43 »

The problem here is that dark matter doesn't "stick" to ordinary matter. It passes through it even more easily than neutrinos do. So it wouldn't change the weight of your squares. As far as we can tell so far, dark matter only interacts with ordinary matter through gravitational forces (which are practically non-existent on the level of individual particles).

I like your spirit, though. You remind me a lot of myself when I was your age. Keep on thinking and studying. You'll find many surprises along the way!

13

New Theories / Re: Gravity Waves more GR Fantasy

« on: 21/11/2020 17:30:02 »

14

New Theories / Re: clean fusion

« on: 08/11/2020 05:05:34 »

As a gas becomes more compressed, it becomes increasingly difficult to compress it further. So while the first engine would get efficient compression, the second engine would be less efficient, and the third one even less so. You eventually reach a point where the engines aren't able to compress the gas any further. A second limitation is the strength of the container that is holding the compressed gas. I don't think there is a substance on Earth that can withstand those pressures. A third limitation is the temperature. When a gas is compressed, it becomes hotter. Taking a gas from standard pressure up to fusion pressures is going to melt any container known.

There is an inverse relationship between pressure and temperature when it comes to fusion. The higher the temperature, the less pressure needed to achieve fusion and vice-versa. Since we can't reach the pressures at the center of the Sun, we compensate by making the plasma hotter instead. Current fusion reactors use low-density, extremely hot plasma that is held away from the container walls with magnetic fields.

15

Just Chat! / Re: What in spin causes gravity?

« on: 06/11/2020 20:45:25 »

Does spin of the total atomic internal particles of each atom contribute to gravity?

Nope. The spin of a nucleus is unrelated to its mass (and therefore its gravity). Let's use iron as an example. Iron-58 is heavier than iron-57, which is heavier than iron-56. Iron-56 has a spin of 0, iron-57 has a spin of 1/2, and iron-58 has a spin of 0. So there is no correlation.

16

Chemistry / Re: Can reactions that use oxygen also use Nitrogen?

« on: 06/11/2020 05:54:03 »

Although oxygen and nitrogen are right next to each other on the periodic table, they have very different properties. Oxygen is a powerful oxidizing agent and readily reacts with a wide variety of other elements. Nitrogen, by contrast, is a highly stable molecule and needs to be prodded in order to react with most other elements. Metal nitrides are usually much less stable than metal oxides.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What are “ Higgs boson” particals?

« on: 02/11/2020 01:53:23 »

There should be plenty of information about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

The interaction between the Higgs particle and other fundamental particles is responsible for giving them their rest mass. The Higgs also interacts with other Higgs in order to give them their own rest mass. Not all mass comes from the Higgs, however. Photons technically have a mass associated with their kinetic energy even though the Higgs does not interact with them.

18

New Theories / Re: My Ideas on New Scientific Processes In Our Bodies - What Do You Think?

« on: 27/10/2020 19:58:40 »

In regards to what you say about hearing, I've learned from personal experience that the ears do adapt to local noise levels. I work in a loud facility and have to wear earplugs. One day, one of the plugs came out and I, somehow, did not notice until the end of the work day. When it was time for me to go home, I took the other plug out and discovered that my hearing in the plugged ear was much more sensitive than in the exposed ear.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What happens inside a black hole, and how do black holes evaporate?

« on: 22/09/2020 05:55:11 »

Here are some resources that might help make this tricky issue more clear:

https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/changing_places/

An object traveling faster than light (such as a tachyon) could indeed escape from an event horizon because tachyons travel along space-like geodesics.

There is a way to make black holes evaporate more slowly or even stop them from evaporating altogether: increase the spin or charge on them. When you reach a certain point, what you have is an "extremal" black hole that cannot radiate Hawking radiation and thus does not evaporate. Reversing this and making a black hole evaporate more quickly does not seem to be so straightforward.

As for calculating the probability of a warp drive forming spontaneously from random particles, I'm not sure that can be calculated because we don't know how to construct a warp drive and therefore don't know its required size, density or other such parameters.

20

New Theories / Re: Should Wave-Particle Theory be modified or the Electromagnetic Wave Spectrum?

« on: 10/09/2020 22:04:27 »

This being said, then cosmic rays should be considered on the EM spectrum)?

No, because:

The electromagnetic spectrum applies solely to photons.