1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why does the light arrive after the gravity waves from colliding neutron stars?

« on: 17/10/2017 22:23:58 »

A big difference between the light and gravitational waves in this scenario is that gravitational waves have been emitted constantly over the course of the neutron star pair's orbit, whereas the light was only emitted during the collision itself. As the pair spiral closer to each other, the gravitational waves grow stronger and stronger. I imagine the reason that we detected the waves before we detected the light was because the waves grew strong enough to detect 2 seconds before the actual collision took place.

2

New Theories / Re: Post-mortem analysis of the neuropsychiatric profile of the Las Vegas shooter

« on: 09/10/2017 20:53:41 »

In summary, I believe the effects of chronic exposure to aerosolized particulate matter from clandestine geoengineering activity may represent the tip of the iceberg on the neuropathology of various criminal activity, including mass murder.

(1) You don't know that manganese poisoning caused the shooting in Las Vegas. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
(2) Even if manganese poisoning did influence him, you don't know that it came from air pollution. You'd need to rule out other causes first.
(3) Even if air pollution gave him manganese poisoning, you don't know that it came from clandestine geoengineering projects. You'd need to rule out other causes first.

Good luck on getting past those three hurdles.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would the universe change if the speed of light increased?

« on: 03/10/2017 21:35:04 »

The speed of light is 1, and the square of that is 1.

By that reasoning, E=mc² might as well be written as E=mc.

Can you show me an example of something where a difference would show up. The only possible candidate I can think of is with dark energy where the rate of expansion of space may not be governed by the speed of light.

The ratio of the diameter of a hydrogen atom to the distance that the orbit of the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star decays in 1 year. If we double the speed of light, the diameter of a hydrogen atom will decrease by 1/2 = 0.5 whereas the orbital decay of the neutrons stars will decrease by 1/2⁵ = 0.03125. Since these values have not changed by the same amount, the ratio between them must change as well.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would the universe change if the speed of light increased?

« on: 02/10/2017 20:01:42 »

Any process that is governed in every aspect by the speed of light would happen faster, but no difference would be apparent if the functionality of all the observers was speeded up to match, and that might happen if every part of the functionality of the observers is also governed by the speed of light. The only differences that would show up would be in things that have functionality not governed by the speed of light, and it isn't clear to me that there are any such things.

You'd definitely be able to tell a difference (at least in theory) because the ratios between different phenomena would be different. Some things are determined by the speed of light squared, other things are determined linearly by the speed of light while others are inversely proportional to the speed of light.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How would the universe change if the speed of light increased?

« on: 02/10/2017 01:48:54 »

A lot of things would be very, very different:

- The Schwarzchild radius of an object would dramatically decrease (it scales inversely to the square of the speed of light).
- Orbital decay due to gravitational radiation would be much, much slower (it scales inversely to the fifth power of the speed of light).
- Reactions (nuclear, chemical, etc.) would release significantly more energy (remember E=mc²?
- Atoms would be smaller (the diameter of atoms scale inversely with the speed of light according to the Bohr radius equation).
- The greatly enhanced speed of signal propagation would cause many processes to speed up dramatically (such as chemical reactions or radioactive decay).
- Objects with mass could move much faster before experiencing significant mass gain or length contraction.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: If the Moon fragmented, could pieces hit the Earth?

« on: 01/10/2017 17:29:27 »

The answer is most definitely yes. The reason that objects break up around the Roche limit is because of (1) scaling laws, which means that the strength-to-weight ratio of materials decreases as objects become larger, and (2) large objects experience a greater difference in tidal forces on the side that is facing the object they are orbiting than on the side that is facing away from it. That creates a "pulling" effect that stretches the satellite. These two factors are why something like the Moon will break up if it gets too close to the Earth but something like the Space Shuttle will not.

If the Moon were to enter the Roche limit, it would break up into pieces that were too small to be further broken up by the tidal forces created by Earth's gravity. Even objects the size of a marble can survive atmospheric reentry, and many Moon fragments would be quite a bit larger than that.

7

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can I hear radio waves?

« on: 01/10/2017 17:20:14 »

Humans can't hear radio waves.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How do electromagnetic waves propagate through a vacuum?

« on: 30/09/2017 19:11:07 »

I thought fields extended indefinitely in space.That image seems to show the two fields  extending a finite distance .Do they actually extend indefinitely in the direction at right angles to the direction of propagation? (the image being for illustrative purposes)

Electromagnetic fields do extend indefinitely into space. What you are seeing in the image is the amplitude of the photon, which is different from the range of the field that makes up the photon. Amplitudes are finite. Even for a hypothetical, infinite ocean, the waves in the ocean will have a limited amplitude.

9

New Theories / Re: Does light really exist or is it?

« on: 28/09/2017 05:15:57 »

>Posts the exact same image (clear.jpg) twice.
>Assures us that the image is not the same as itself.

These threads have a reached a new low in logic...

10

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible to make a shield to block a magnetic field?

« on: 25/09/2017 01:14:41 »

If you are trying to make a "magnet" with just one pole then you are wasting your time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

I am admittedly curious as to what would happen if you constructed a shielded magnet like the type shown in post number 6. Would the magnetic field stop working altogether?

11

Just Chat! / Re: Sociable? discussion

« on: 23/09/2017 16:22:33 »

What's wrong with Gravatron? It's a metal(probably not) that floats because it's the only metal that does not change weight due to it's given temperature? You're find it one day...

Nickle may work but probably will only bend the field in to a different shape. Think some coins are made of nickle. I gave  up, I know there's the sea and all that but were supposed to be here forever.

I came up with the perpetual motion car, guess called  the gravity motion car.
If it can charge for a day may be able to post the Patent application,
To be honest, you're only about 3 years behind me.

I have 2 different types of propeller wind type devices and better motor/generator designs along with my 30 other inventions. And possibly using these propellers on a wire for high altitude wind or sun power generation. Things may be OK.

I have an invention that may surprise you. It moves and can't be moved back. Not built it or have the design fully still in my mind... yea, something like that but different. Came from an idea for earthquake building protection.

What does this post have to do with the original question?

Trying to design a perpetual motion machine is like trying to design a machine made of pumps, tubes and containers that will give more water out than you put into it. It just doesn't work.

12

New Theories / Re: Does the mass of the object increase if...?

« on: 22/09/2017 20:41:26 »

Do you think I have the means, support and equipment to carry out the necessarily experimental tests?

If you don't have the means to perform the necessary confirmatory experiments then you should stop making assertions as if they were facts. Until you get hard evidence, all you have is speculation. There is absolutely no reason to accept your claims without the needed evidence. Now back to something that you said earlier:

There is no  doubt in my mind if shown proof I would gladly accept the proof.

I want to see if this statement is indeed true. Would you like for me to show you how particle physicists know the antiproton is real? I'm going to assume that you are not actually a conspiracy theorist and therefore the only reason you doubt the existence of the majority of particles is because you don't know how they were discovered. Take a look at this page which describes how antiprotons were discovered: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/october-2009/antiproton-discovery

CERN has built a machine specifically designed to generate antiprotons: https://home.cern/about/accelerators/antiproton-decelerator

The Baryon Antibaryon Symmetry Experiment clearly demonstrated that protons and antiprotons have the same mass by comparing their behavior in magnetic fields: https://home.cern/about/updates/2015/08/base-compares-protons-antiprotons-high-precision

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does a fissionable nucleus weigh less than the sum of its components?

« on: 21/09/2017 21:56:33 »

Thanks kryptid .Could you clarify it a bit please, as by the calculations you did add up but it doesnt get me any closer to why. The mass defect , lower potential energy means lower overall mass, so that must mean that the split atom weighs more ? I know the sums check out, but i was just unable to find why.

Yes, a uranium-235 nucleus (plus a neutron) weighs more than the resulting krypton-92 and barium-141 nuclei (plus 3 neutrons) added together. Different isotopes have different stability, which means different levels of binding energy per nucleon.

The products usually weigh more than the original atom due to nuclear binding energy

This is only true if the isotopes you are trying to break apart are very lightweight.

how does it differ in fissile materials.

The interesting thing about that is that you don't always get a net energy release by splitting an atom. It is highly dependent upon the isotope being used. As a general rule of thumb, lightweight nuclei (those that weigh less than iron) will release energy when they are fused together and absorb energy when they are broken apart. The opposite is true of isotopes that are heavier than iron. This is due to differences in the nuclear binding energy per nucleon. Iron-56 has the lowest mass per nucleon of all known isotopes, whereas nickel-62 has the highest binding energy of any known isotope. Fissile materials like uranium-235 are much, much heavier than iron or nickel isotopes, and as such can release energy when they are broken apart. What makes uranium-235 fissile is its ability to sustain a chain reaction by releasing neutrons of the right energy when it undergoes fission. Not all isotopes of uranium can do that. Uranium-238 can undergo fission if it is struck by a fast neutron, but it does not release more fast neutrons in the process to continue the reaction: any neutrons released are so slow that they are very unlikely to be absorbed by another nucleus.

The constituents of a carbon 12 weigh more than the carbon twelve atom, so removing a neutron means you have to add energy.

The reason is because the neutron is strongly bound within the nucleus, so some minimum activation energy is needed to liberate the neutron from the strong nuclear force's grip. In the case of removing a neutron from carbon-12 to create carbon-11:

¹²C → ¹¹C + n

(12 amu) - (11.0114336 amu + 1.00866491588 amu)

= 12 amu - 12.02009851588 amu)

= - 0.02009851588 amu

In the case of this reaction, the products are less stable than the reactant. That's why this reaction requires net input energy while the fission of uranium-235 has a net release of energy instead.

Fissionable materials like uranium 238 will not under go splitting and have to undergo processes to be turned into fissile materials,  so how does  fission material uranium 235 end up weighing less than its constituent parts ? Uranium I know is unstable and the atom decays naturally, qnd this obviously has something to do with it, but I would have thought a 238 was more ready to loose a neutron  than the 235 but apparently not.

As I've already stated, uranium-235 weighs less than its constituent particles because nuclear binding energy makes it more stable than all of those nucleons would be if they were free. It's actually rather like the difference between a rock being held in your hand and that same rock on the ground. The rock on the ground is in a lower gravitational potentially energy state than when it is in your hand. The rock in your hand actually weighs a tiny bit more than when it is on the ground because it's in a higher potential energy state. Bizarre, but true.

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does a fissionable nucleus weigh less than the sum of its components?

« on: 21/09/2017 05:52:46 »

The mass of an atomic nucleus is not merely the sum of protons and neutrons that are contained within it. The fact that the protons and neutrons are in a bound state means that they are in a lower potential energy state than when they are free particles. When you add in E=mc², lower potential energy also means lower overall mass.

The mass of a uranium-235 atomic nucleus, for example, is 235.0439299 atomic mass units. The mass of a free proton is 1.007276466879 amu and the mass of a free neutron is 1.00866491588 amu. If you were to multiply a proton's mass by 92 (the number of protons in ²³⁵U) and a neutron's mass by 143 (the number of neutrons in the same isotope) and add them together, you'd get 236.908517923708 amu. This is higher than the actual mass if ²³⁵U by 1.864588023708 amu. This "mass defect" is the reason that nuclear reactions liberate usable energy.

Let's go with the actual reaction of a neutron and uranium-235 nucleus:

n + ²³⁵U → ⁹²Kr + ¹⁴¹Ba + 3n

Now we calculate the mass change using (reactant mass) - (product mass):

(1.00866491588 amu + 235.0439299 amu) - (91.926156 amu + 140.914411 amu + 3.02599474764 amu)

= (236.05259481588 amu) - (235.86656174764 amu)

= 0.18603306824 amu

The products weigh less than the reactants. The difference in mass results in the changing of a small amount of potential energy held inside the reactants into the kinetic energy of the products (including not only the new elements and neutrons, but also gamma rays). Although it's true that the mass of a fast neutron is greater than that of its rest mass (which I used for the calculations), the principle is ultimately the same.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How is magnet size and shape calculated to provide a given magnetic field?

« on: 20/09/2017 21:47:16 »

This web calculator might be of some help to you: https://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.asp