1

General Science / Re: Is energy physical or philosophical?

« on: 24/08/2020 14:26:11 »

sorry to intrude but we do not measure energy . We measure joules etc . Energy is generalised term that we use when not being specific . There is many types of energy . We actually measure output and give it a unit name .

I agree that there are, as I said, many forms of energy. However, Joules is the SI named unit for the quantity of energy. Energy is what we measure, in whatever form it happens to be in eg heat energy, mass energy, etc. Yes, we can also use the term as a general, nonspecific quantity.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Will there ever be no newborn stars?

« on: 23/08/2020 07:24:46 »

I guess I'm wrong about it being obvious, [shrug].

Not necessarily, it’s just that to me the one doesn’t exclude the other in terms of possible options.

My suggestion is that the universe has always existed, and will always exist.

Heat death doesn’t exclude that possibility, it is just the form that that existence takes.

I just don't know where the heat escapes to unless you think the universe is finite and inflating.

The heat doesn’t escape anywhere, it just evens out and everything stops working. The idea was originally put forward in the late 1700s, well before any thoughts of expansion.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does spacetime bend only locally around objects?

« on: 20/08/2020 15:03:32 »

The influence of a gravitational field falls off as an inverse square law, so although it has a theoretical influence to infinity in practice it becomes very small (relative to its local intensity) very quickly. Having said that, a large black hole will influence the path of large stars at a considerable distance.
If you think about our sun at 150 million km it still influences the orbit of the earth and also our tides, and at 1.3 billion km it influences saturn.

By comparison, kicking a football is a negligible effect.
Whether our 4D is considered to be the surface of a hypersphere really depends on which particular theory you are looking at. Remember these are models and there are a lot of them 

4

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Are There Any GOOD Viruses ?

« on: 30/07/2020 13:22:24 »

What about good positive viruses ? do they exist ? if not, why not ?

Apparently they do:
The polydnaviruses of endoparasitoid wasps have evolved with their hosts to become essential. Many of the viral genes are now encoded in the host nucleus.

Endogenous retroviruses are abundant in many genomes of higher eukaryotes, and some have been involved in the evolution of their hosts, such as placental mammals.

Some mammalian viruses can protect their hosts from infection by related viruses or from disease caused by completely unrelated pathogens, such as bubonic plague.

Viruses can protect their hosts by killing off competitors, as is seen with the killer viruses in yeasts.

A fungal virus confers thermal tolerance to a plant in a complex symbiosis involving its fungal host and the plant that the fungus colonizes.

Several acute plant viruses confer conditional mutualism by enhancing drought tolerance in plants.

Insect viruses have numerous mutualistic relationships with their hosts; in addition, viruses play parts in bacterium–insect mutualisms.

Also they are now being used in medicine to carry treatments and gene editing.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What Happens To Photons After You See Them ?

« on: 29/07/2020 12:57:46 »

do they get absorbed ? and if they do get absorbed, something must happen to the structure of the photon ?

Although it is often said they are absorbed in reality they cease to exist (wave function collapses).
Their energy is transferred to the chemicals in the retina which produce electrical impulses that feed as signals to the brain.

Sorry to tell you, but everytime you look at the stars you are killing photons 

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How Did Time Come Into Existence ?

« on: 26/07/2020 14:40:01 »

Time is what separates sequential events. If there are no sequential events, the concept of time is meaningless.

Agreed.  Would you consider it correct to interpret this as implying that time has no independent existence?

Cows occupy fields. If cows did not exist the concept of real cows would be meaningless, but fields would not cease to exist.
We measure and experience time through change ie sequential events. If there were no sequential events then there would be no experience or measurement of time, but there is no evidence in physics that time would cease to exist.
This is the very sort of discussion that @Halc is suggesting is philosophical, because the speculation is not based on physics. We can say a great deal about the behaviour of time based on physics, but almost nothing on its origin, or even if it had one.

7

General Science / Re: The Start of Time?

« on: 07/07/2020 15:22:20 »

If there was no one in the universe who could measure and feel time then for whom would the time exist?

If there were no one in the universe to enjoy the sunset on earth, then for whom would it exist?
Time and space don’t go away just because we are not here, the universe existed for billions of years before life, let alone sentient life, existed.

8

Just Chat! / Re: Where can I download songs from?

« on: 17/06/2020 14:31:34 »

Hi,
Here are 5 sites for you to get free music as BGM:
You can get more details from this source: spammusic.con

I don’t think you are in tune with our spam policy. Take a note as we play you out of the forum

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does static electricity work?

« on: 09/06/2020 04:00:03 »

Ground acts like a source/sink of electrons. I don't believe the door is large enough to act like a sink/source.

Problem is you are not touching the ground.
With wired electricity from mains or battery you have a constant supply of electrons fed into a wire, analogy a hosepipe. With static it’s as if you have a cupful of water. That cupful can either drain away very slowly or you can tip it out all at once, and in order to feel the static in your scenario you usually need to let it out all at once.
To feel a dc electric current you need about 5mA through the fingers. Static discharge is usually over 3kV, but in extreme cases you can build up to 15-30kV, but sitting on the bed is likely to be generating towards the lower end.
The next question is whether you are ‘connected’ to earth. The the conductor/insulator scale is continuous and even the best insulators have some leakage current even if it is negligible. As @Petrochemicals says wood with a water content of 15%+ will be considered a conductor, But dry timber <12% is considered an insulator (usually as good as some rubbers) so we would not usually consider it to provide an adequate earth connection. The standard insulation test quotes a minimum resistance of 1MΩ, although no electrician would be happy with a value under 4-5MΩ. If you look at the measurement taken by @b 200MΩ would be considered a good level of insulation and not an adequate earth connection, but not, as has been pointed out, full isolation - dry wood is also a dielectric with a dielectric constant of 2-6.
If you consider that the minimum level of current for sensation in the finger is 5mA for dc, if we take an upper level of 30kV with 200MΩ the earth leakage would be 150μA, not enough to be felt. So earth leakage is not the direct cause of your shock, it is static discharge to even up the excess electrons on you, as Alan says, it’s a leaky capacitor which will reset ready for your next tingle.

10

Technology / Re: Altering orbits using earth's magnetic field or generated fields from earth?

« on: 27/05/2020 07:10:12 »

Is it possible to use the earth's magnetic field to move around in space, or even take off from earth?

The earth’s magnetic field is very weak compared to the force required to move a spaceship. It can move a magnetised needle on a low friction support, but anything heavier like a bar magnet on a desk doesn’t move. Also even a weak bar magnet will easily overpower the earth’s field and influence a compass needle
As we get further from earth the earth’s magnetic field gets weaker, but a magnet will still be able to align along the field see

Notice how the magnet is stronger than the earth’s magnetic field.

11

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 11/05/2020 23:20:10 »

The bees don't go extinct because they only commit suicide to protect their duplicates.

Not a good example. Bees don’t expect to commit suicide, their sting has evolved to kill other insects and they can sting them repeatedly without dying when protecting the hive. When they (rarely) sting thick skinned mammals eg humans the sting gets lodged in the skin and if torn out will kill the bee.
Sometimes you will see the bee lodged in your skin, if you allow the bee to spin round or help it by holding it by the wings, it is possible for the sting to come out and the bee to survive.

12

Just Chat! / Re: What is the value of life?

« on: 08/05/2020 14:16:42 »

If you ever wrestle a pig in mud, you will realise after an hour or so that pigs enjoy it.

I must say, you have some really odd hobbies!
Point taken however.

13

General Science / Re: Do sounds add together to make louder sounds?

« on: 02/05/2020 08:32:09 »

However , considering that a sound is a unique frequency of crests and troughs , no one sound would be any louder , just the total noise recieved by the ear .
P.M.

Would you mind rewriting this so that it makes sense.

14

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

« on: 27/04/2020 08:56:55 »

If I am right that God is giving me this information and it turns out to be accurate, then it is a boost towards "proving" (a higher probability) the existence of God.

The problem is that it does not offer scientific proof. The only way you can do show accurate prior information is by being subject to rigorous double blind testing as explained previously. Even then it would not prove the source.
This is the whole problem with this thread, no one has approached the question of how you rigorously test and demonstrate the existence of God or any god. Using personal, after the fact, recollection is not a scientific method and offers no scientific credence to the experience which could be due to a number of causes including selective bias. This is also the problem with all personal testimonies.
Overall, I’m quite disappointed that this God sent opportunity has been studiously avoided. @hamdani yusuf did attempt to lay in some guidelines but it was ignored.  The question remains, how would you go about it, what tests or experiments would offer incontrovertible proof? How would you falsify the theory of the existence of God?

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Solving high temp issues upon enhanced thought speed.

« on: 26/04/2020 08:42:15 »

Speed of thought within the brain won’t affect photons outside the body so em frequencies won’t shift to different types of radiation.
What would change is the perception of movement so others around would appear to be slow and clumsy.

What @evan_au was saying about the speed of light limit applies within the brain giving delays between separate parts and delays in nerve transmission. Also, the speed of processing would give a communication delay, similar to that experienced with early satellites, which means the higher speed person could get frustrated by slowness of response from ‘normals’.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Wave-particle duality theory and the observable universe.

« on: 04/04/2020 17:52:00 »

Can the outcomes of wave-particle duality experiments be reflected in the world I observe and experience around me?

Of course. If you can perform an experiment and measure the result then it is part of the reality around you.

If so, does the universe I know and experience only exist because at every moment in space and time I am able to observe it?

No, it has nothing to do with you, or anyone else, observing anything

Or does wave-particle duality theory only refer to the world of quantum?

to be honest, the idea of wave particle duality is just used to describe that in certain circumstances a wave or a particle can each appear to have the properties of either a wave or a particle. Although first described of light and then electrons, some very large molecules have been shown to behave with wave properties.
In theory any object will exhibit wave properties, but for really large objects eg a car the effect is so small as to be unobservable.

17

New Theories / Re: How is the biggest scientific breakthrough since Newton to be recognized?

« on: 01/04/2020 07:38:04 »

Since new theories here are on the "Lighter Side", one can only have general discussions about them. Any realistic new theory is otherwise too mathematically on the "Heavy Side". 

This is an incorrect interpretation of the “Lighter Side”. It is only called the lighter side because the rules are relaxed compared to the educational side, so new theorists do not have to adhere to current accepted theories.
They are, however, free to provide as much mathematical depth as they wish, but it has been to our great sadness that most seem unwilling, and often unable, to do so preferring to remain in the vague and undefined regions.

18

COVID-19 / Re: Are face masks effective against Covid-19 transmission?

« on: 16/03/2020 05:52:04 »

Did your earlier comment mean the humidity of the mask and the breeding ground for bacteria on the wearers intake of breath, rather than infecting anyone else, so possibly infecting the wearer?

Context was supporting @chris in his comment about contamination, when fitting, adding to infection of wearer. Extra humidity can increase risk of viruses in droplet or infected material surviving.

19

General Science / Re: Is there a science behind playing board games?

« on: 02/03/2020 17:24:45 »

Sometimes I think it's a close game and the computer passes and I pass then the points revealed say I was well beaten. Hey ho and away we go.

Yes, if you both pass game ends and it is a good strategy for computer to pass after you if the score shows it is ahead.
It might be worth finding a local club, face to face you could be given explanations of tactics.

20

General Science / Re: Is there a science behind playing board games?

« on: 01/03/2020 23:05:56 »

As @evan_au says, Go is more about pattern recognition than what we usually think of as maths.
You need to be able to recognise many moves ahead when a particular group of stones are going to be captured and block that capture, or lead your opponent into a situation where you can capture their stones.
Seasoned players will often look at you across the board at a very early stage of play and suggest that you have lost, at that point it is usually not worth bothering to play out the inevitable. They have looked further ahead than you can.