1

New Theories / Re: Emergent TOES

« on: 24/03/2019 17:07:43 »

Inflation fits the data best, preceding hot big bang. I will take it that it is likely inflation took place. If Hawking radiation (which is likely none provable) can convert virtual particles due to a BH into real particles, then like the article above says, inflation can seperate virtual particles having the effect of creating real particles.

Reasonable assumptions, certainly the high energies needed to create particles would be available.
I’ve seen results of experiments to confirm virtual particles can become permanent, so probably no reason to rely on Hawking radiation.

It took me 1 minute and 27.s before I turned off the video ,  that was enough for me  , one line of garbage means the rest is garbage .

So, every good reason not to post in this thread.
Take care not to troll, I might not be in a forgiving mood when you do 

2

General Science / Re: Family tree

« on: 28/01/2019 18:12:30 »

So would Matthew grand kids and Thomas's grand kids Cousins also?
any help would be appreciated thanks Angie

Yes, second cousins.
Second cousins have the same great-grandparents as you, but not the same grandparents.

3

General Science / Re: How does an aircraft altimeter work?

« on: 25/01/2019 09:02:07 »

The altimeter will always be calibrated to read zero at sea level for ‘normal’ air pressure so will read the actual height of the runway at Jo’berg and at the lower airport. It’s up to the pilot to know what height the runway is at.
Using a standard pressure is useful because air traffic control can specify separation heights without worrying about local pressure.

Standard pressure is 29.92 inches of mercury or 1013 hPa, and a report from the destination airfield will give actual local pressure.

I assume @alancalverd  will be able to give a lot more detail.

4

New Theories / Re: Pest control

« on: 22/12/2018 17:02:08 »

This is so frustrating kind of moment when you have to live with bedbugs. I just can't bear a single minute with them.  It is very important to find out the location of the pest infestation to remove it from the bottom line before you start extending problems and risks. Hiring professional pest control <<<SPAM REMOVED>>> will offer a variety of methods to eliminate unwanted pests. However, keeping in mind about the environment, most of the exterminator  <<<SPAM REMOVED>>> companies provide eco-friendly pest control methods to destroy pest.

It would appear that you are just a lousy, bloodsucking spammer trying to put the bite on us.
Well, we have our own method of pest control. Patented ‘Spammoff’ (sound of spray can )

5

Just Chat! / Re: Where did the matter and energy come from in the universe.

« on: 18/12/2018 13:20:04 »

I apparently am not allowed to ask questions or speculate so be careful, the thought police are active.

Most members here, including thebox and @Bogie_smiles would agree that this forum allows far more speculation and questions than most other science fora. However, we do ask members to respect the way we organise our forum and keep speculation to the appropriate sections - eg new theories and the lighter sections.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0

Most people seem happy to do that.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why do we have two high tides a day?

« on: 11/12/2018 21:59:49 »

May I congratulate you both on being able to keep this going for so long with interesting arguments on both sides.
Much more engaging than Wimbledon.

Merry Christmas to both of you 

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What does the term 'time' relate to in time dilation?

« on: 10/12/2018 23:24:16 »

You can count  the clock ticks if you like,

There is probably a meditation method somewhere that suggests this

And talking of death! If I die and no longer observe time passing and experience change no longer, does time still exist?

Well, you certainly won’t experience it (other religious theories are available), but there is no reason to believe that it doesn’t.
To suggest otherwise implies you are the only person in existence and everything is in your imagination.

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What does the term 'time' relate to in time dilation?

« on: 07/12/2018 22:59:48 »

For a person next to a clock on the surface of the earth time appears to run at the rate we all experience. This is also true of someone far away from the influence of earth’s gravitational field, time passes normally.
However, if the person on earth views the clock next to the person in deep space they would say it is running faster, whereas the person in deep space would say that the clock on earth is running slower. This is true for all clocks* including our body clock and aging processes, also chemical reactions and nuclear decay.

* note some clocks eg those with pendulums don’t work without a gravitational field so can’t be used for this.

9

Just Chat! / Re: Can I be in 2 places at the same time?

« on: 01/12/2018 17:28:16 »

Thanks, I read information about the sun somewhere online, maybe this article, it sounded logical so I believed it

https://phys.org/news/2013-04-sunlight-earth.html

It is logical, it is also correct, you should believe it.
Other opinions are available, but they are wrong. Beware of trolls who are working hard to get themselves banned.

10

Just Chat! / Re: Do women actually have "Women's intuition"?

« on: 01/12/2018 09:02:19 »

We see this with young chimps when they're given toy cars and dolls to play with.

A similar test was shown in a TV programme. Researchers put toys on the ground below a troupe of monkeys, the females selected the dolls, the males were interested in the  mechanical toys eg moving wheels. However, these were adults so it was difficult to decide whether this was learnt behaviour, but there is some evidence that maternal is an instinct in monkeys, but might not be in humans - psychologists refer to drives in humans rather than instincts,  because a drive can be over-ridden.

.i have come to the belief that intuition is primarily a defense that women use as an excape from their inability to utilize logic. altho men may have the intuitive ability, men prefer to use logic to solve problems.

this is a weakness that unfortunately women are unable to overcome, since it serves their interest well; given the desire of men to supress women's unhidden abilities of logical reasoning.

this just my opinion...others might disagree.

Researchers would disagree.
Research and testing consistently show that women are as good as men at logic and are just as intelligent.
One major study at the University of Edinburgh with 500,000 enrollees of which a subset of 2750 women and 2466 men underwent brain scans using MRI, found that women tended to have significantly thicker cortices than men. Thicker cortices have been associated with higher scores on a variety of cognitive and general intelligence tests. Cortical thickness between men tended to vary much more than they did between women, but on average, when tested, there were no significant differences between male and female intelligence; this lines up with previous work looking at sex and IQ tests.

Clearly there are males who need the emotional crutch of believing that women are mentally inferior, but research does not back this up. It is likely that these individuals are more susceptible to confirmation bias and may well choose a less intelligent partner to reinforce their false beliefs.

It is also important to understand what @David Cooper says

intuition comes from practice, and the kinds of things you work on to acquire skills are driven by interests driven partly by genetics.

Intuition is not born of some mindless, inbuilt ability, but is gained by observation, logical deduction and practice. It is an intelligent, learnt response.

One study, which involved imaging the brains of nearly 1,000 adolescents, found that male brains had more connections within hemispheres, whereas female brains were more connected between hemispheres. The results suggest that male brains may be optimized for motor skills (mainly front to back connections), and female brains may be optimized for combining analytical and intuitive thinking - greater cross-brain connections give access to a greater range of data/experience and the ability to interconnect that data/experiences.

11

Chemistry / MOVED: The problem

« on: 28/11/2018 14:31:10 »

This topic has been moved to Free Parking!.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75544.0

12

General Science / Re: What is the basis of this optical illusion?

« on: 28/11/2018 11:11:46 »

All that running around affects the balance mechanism in the ears and having to constantly look for new points of focus means that the visual system is still searching. You get a similar effect comming off a ship, the land appears to be moving; I often get it briefly after running on a treadmill.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the 'speed of gravity'?

« on: 28/11/2018 11:00:08 »

David asks:

If light cannot escape from a Black Hole, could one speculate that the gravitational pull from a Black Hole is faster than the speed of light?

What do you think?

What reasoning are you using to reach that conclusion?

14

Physiology & Medicine / Re: How do your ears register whether sounds are coming from above or below?

« on: 23/11/2018 15:07:06 »

The latency of sounds arriving at one ear relative to the other can be used by the brain to resolve the direction of origin of a sound coming from the left or right of you. out?

Not just the latency but phase and ‘head shadow’ - that is the drop in volume due to head being in way of sound from one side.

But what about sounds coming from above or below - how does the brain sort that one out?

When sounds come from above there is less head shadow so less attenuation but same time/phase differences.
Research has also discovered that the shape of the outer ear has a big effect on our ability to detect up, down and behind sounds. They modified shape of the ear folds with silicon and ability to detect these directions fell, after 2 weeks of wearing the modified ear scores were back to normal.

15

General Science / Re: Could a smart tattoo act as a GPS?

« on: 21/11/2018 05:43:17 »

A gps receiver and display is a complex piece of electronics that is currently beyond the capabilities of smart tattoos. Will be interesting to see how the technology develops.

16

General Science / Re: What Is The Goo Stuff That Is Left In My Ioniser ?

« on: 17/11/2018 14:47:18 »

If it’s in a wet area I would assume some sort of bacterial or mold slime.

17

New Theories / Re: Re: Critique of scientific method and will we ever find a theory of everything?

« on: 26/10/2018 09:09:54 »

You did not provide the link to your website.
Does it explain UVS?

Links are ok except for business/commercial sites. We usually ban users who try to use posts here to advertise themselves.
Your’s appears to be ok.

18

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 26/10/2018 08:44:59 »

I find it very difficult to think that you are against science if you write in this forum.

We get quite a lot of anti science posters. Some don’t understand it; some talk about ‘science’, usually hurt because no one will agree with their pet theory; some have religious reasons and disagree with heliocentrism, tectonics, evolution, etc.

if someone attempts to disagree with Einstein, his thread is moved to new theories.

Not strictly true, we have had quite a few discussions around Einstein's views, understanding has moved on since he originally put forward his ideas so there are areas of debate. Nor are we anti aether, just agnostic, because we don’t see clear evidence that it exists - you will find discussion here on LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which gives the same experimental results as relativity, but a different explanation. However, most aetherists are putting forward posts which contradict the results of verified experiments and observations, so they are offering new theories. We (as a forum) are not saying they are wrong, just that we organise the forum with a separate category for new or alternative ideas. As long as folks are polite and don’t troll we are happy to debate, but time is limited and we give priority to the mainstream sections. All who answer questions here do so in their spare time, unpaid, but they have day jobs, projects etc so time is limited. So we can’t debate everything and we can't leave mainstream questions/statements unanswered because people wrongly assume no response = agreement. We would have a real problem of credibility if a schoolchild goes and tells teacher that tides are not due to the moon, but to giant whirlpools, they saw it on a TNS site, so it must be true.

PS - you don’t see many trolls because we weed them out asap, but we do get quite a few.

Appreciate if you let me know your findings on the odd post.

This one caught my eye as I skimmed through this thread:

Re censorship here is a copy of some wordage that i just posted on another thread re The Catt Question some of which details the suppression of Ivor Catt & his ideas.

http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF

I was puzzled by the way this question is presented. If you look at the first document in the list, which I’ve separated out from the rest, the question presented is as shown in the screenshot of the video further down and asks where the current in the bottom wire comes from.
He shows a battery on the left and describes the voltage on the bottom line as 0v. This would probably make any layman go ‘Ooo, good point, no voltage, no current’, but as anyone who has worked with electricity knows, voltage is relative so we could easily describe the top line as 0v and the bottom line as showing a voltage and ask where does the current in the top line come from.
The answer is simple, they both come from the same place. If you connect a battery across a circuit you will provide a push of electrons at one end of the battery and a pull at the other end.
There is another odd comment about source of charge ‘not from somewhere to the left because such charge would have to travel at the speed of light’. This is based on the old idea that charge in a wire was carried by physical movement of electrons from one end of the wire to the other. Invoking Heavyside doesn’t help because he didn’t know what we now know about the atomic structure of conductive metals and electron drift.
A better way to envisage what happens is to imagine a tube full of marbles, push a marble in at one end and another one immediately falls out the other. No marbles travelled from end to end but a ‘unit of marble’ did - at very high speed.
The whole ‘problem’ here is based on a misunderstanding.
It would appear that this is being passed around the internet as an example of a conspiracy of science mafia suppressing alternative views.
Catt is not being suppressed, it’s just that he makes wrong assumptions and draws incorrect conclusions from them, so he is ignored. Example of bad science.

19

New Theories / Re: Can scientific beliefs be compared to religous dogma?

« on: 25/10/2018 09:08:07 »

There are a lot of good points in this thread, but also a lot of misunderstandings. I’m not sure whether this is an anti science thread or an anti bad-science thread. I fully agree that bad science is something we should all try to eliminate and guard against. Feynman is an oft quoted leading light in this area, but he’s not alone. Examples of lack of critical thinking exists in all areas, not just science and I’m glad to see that schools are now teaching critical thinking skills.

The fact that there is the need to separate the "mainstream science" from "new theories", it shows just how fearful science is of debating. If you are confident of yourself, why do you need to create a separate section for new theories? No offence to this forum of course, I am just talking in general.

I can only speak from the specific.
We are primarily an educational site to answer general questions posed by listeners to the podcasts, and readers of the articles. Listeners who pose these questions are usually looking for the current understanding on the topic. We often found that these questions were interrupted by people with their own theory or hobby horse. For example, a question about the moon’s orbit would attract a post by someone saying the answer was wrong because the world is flat not round; or a question on gravity would have the claim that gravity is due to air pressure and buoyancy; or someone else tries to interject aether or wormholes as the answer to most questions (these are real examples). In each case the original question gets lost because the thread gets diverted. So, it is necessary to draw a line about what can be discussed in the main section, but where do you draw that line? Some fora draw a hard line and will not allow any new theory discussion; I can understand that because they want to have an in depth discussion on quite detailed topics in specific areas. We take a more liberal view and will allow discussion in the appropriate area, but in drawing the line we are saying that many famous scientists around today would find themselves in the new/speculative section - and most wouldn’t mind.

In philosophy it was the same window dressing, not with math, but with new words ......, to express something very simple.

I totally agree, I’m a great believer in plain english.

- The empirical observations suffer all sorts of subliminal cognitive paradoxes.
- The hypotheses suffer all sorts of foundational crises with their fallaciously assumed posits.
- The conclusions of the experiments thus suffer all sorts of reifications with its artificial cognitive paradoxes, and were validated by self-referencing with all sorts of circular definition in the subjective realities of their fallaciously postulated hypothetical constructs, which entailed all sorts of physical paradox.

However, take care not to knock the maths. Without it Newton’s laws become unusable.
If you want to know how much force is needed to accelerate a car to 60mph in 1min and how far it will have traveled, you have to use maths.

Interestingly, skimming through this thread I have just spotted an odd post I need to go look at.

20

Just Chat! / Re: Would it be wrong to try to get somebody kill themselves?

« on: 15/10/2018 09:05:08 »

This is a particulary important topic given online bullying where the bullies try to encourage their victim to commit suicide. More support required in this area.