1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does the Higgs field give mass to virtual particles?

« on: 14/11/2018 08:29:09 »

As usual, Strassler’s article is very clear in talking about photon/electron fields etc. The only point he mentions dimensions is in response to a question where he talks about theories which consider extra dimensions.

At that point in the article is probably where my head exploded. But having had time to mull over the article and the soothing wiki link I posted, which had a little more history. I am happy say I have taken the middle view and am jumping firmly onto the fence and declaring all to be correct in their own way.

Matt Strassler’s site is one of my favourites for clarity; over the yrs Bill & I have discussed a number of topics from his articles. It is great to be able to read info without the pop science press misinterpreting it.
I agree that all are correct in their own way, but some points on dimensions. Strassler talks about the theories (pl) with extra dimensions, these are all ‘new theories’ with no real consensus. Also, there is no suggestion that there are separate dimensions for eg photons and electrons, the two fields could use the same dimension perhaps. The main argument for additional dimensions tends to be the local restrictions on interactions between particles/waves, which is also why they are often considered to be extremely small. Whether they are a mathematical abstraction or real is not yet clear, but lots of people looking.

However, the answer to your OP question is still no.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5

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.

6

That CAN'T be true! / Re: The Mind Of A Flat-Earther?

« on: 12/10/2018 15:20:15 »

It's that old story. Sphere today, Energon tomorrow!

I’m told the french have a flat oeuf society. Fried I assume.
No poaching that by the way.

7

Just Chat! / Re: iTunes Podcasts

« on: 09/10/2018 07:48:50 »

Itune is an excellent media resources. It carries more feature which user attract with them. You just have to create a show and sending to the contact list or you have to work on email list building.

Thank you for trying to spam us with your false flag website. We’ve changed it to ours and awarded you a complimentary ban for your efforts.

8

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can you answer my question about "wet dreams" and masturbation please?

« on: 29/09/2018 22:32:12 »

So? Do you have a question?

9

General Science / Re: Washing Machine Service Center

« on: 26/09/2018 08:59:27 »

Thank you for your spam. As a rewards for your efforts please accept a ban.

10

Technology / Re: What application could this clockwork be used for?

« on: 25/09/2018 08:44:01 »

Great Information sharing i am very happy to read this forum. Thanks for giving us go through info. I appreciate your work. 

And thank you for attempting to spam us with your ecommerce site.
We have replaced your commercial advertising with our own site details.
Oh, and by the way, you are banned.

11

General Science / Re: Can a windy day (very windy) hang me on my tie?

« on: 19/09/2018 18:25:09 »

Another possibility I discussed with friends is that if the wind is so strong it will blow the person with the tie together.

a wind speed of 40 to 45 miles an hour will blow you over, when that happens you will be in a zone of slower wind.

In that case, locking the legs in blocks of cement might enable a wind caused tie hanging

That seems a very convoluted way to do it  ;
Get a bigger tie 

12

General Science / Re: Can a windy day (very windy) hang me on my tie?

« on: 19/09/2018 14:01:48 »

It’s all to do with wind resistance, which increases with surface area.
If you tied a parachute to your neck (don’t do this at home - or anywhere else - folks) you would certainly be dragged along and hanged. A large kite could do the same, but a tie just doesn’t have the surface area to create sufficient force.

13

Radio Show & Podcast Feedback / Re: Feedback on "Are we ready for the next Chernobyl?"

« on: 13/09/2018 08:59:25 »

I think that we are not ready for this. And anyway, we can not be ready for this anyway. It should be prevented that this would never happen in the future and will do everything possible to protect our future generation from the tragedy.

You appear to be using your posts to advertise your homework/essay writing business.
We’ve replaced your commercial link with our own so you won’t show on search engines.
Oh, and by the way, you are banned.

14

New Theories / Re: Tides is the result of the rotation of the Earth and whirlpools?

« on: 11/09/2018 10:41:07 »

Wo, give me time to respond to this, it deserves pointed criticism.

before you do, you might take the trouble to find out exactly what science does take into account when calculating tides - it's obvious it will surprise you, the list is a long one.

If Yusuf had produced ideas which accurately predict tides everyone would be interested in his ideas, but they don't. They predict an amplitude in square meters/second and a periodicity of less than 24hrs. Add to this his misunderstanding of the difference in behaviour of a rigid gyroscope and a liquid one, and his confusion of waves and currents, and we would be interested to see your defence of his model.

I have no doubt as to Yusuf's intelligence and his hard work and dedication to his model, but it has to align with reality.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How much dust and debris lands on Earth from space each year?

« on: 04/09/2018 14:44:50 »

Conversely does the Earth ejaculate particulates into space?

Doesn’t exactly ejaculate, just creeps away. About 95,000 tonnes of hydrogen and 1,600 tones of helium escape Earth every year.

16

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why do tides disappear in some places?

« on: 03/09/2018 11:39:58 »

1. Why the height of the tides in the White Sea is 100 times greater than in the Baltic Sea.
The height of the tides in the Baltic Sea is 10 cm, and in the White Sea 10 meters.
http://goo.gl/eYVTo6
http://tapemark.narod.ru/more/22.png
  2. The tidal current in the White and Baltic Sea, moves from the Atlantic Ocean. How.
a). The distance to the throat of the Baltic Sea is 10 km, to the throat of the White Sea 3000 km.
b). The flow from the throat of the White Sea moves from south to north, at a speed of 1 km per hour.

Please answer both questions?

Already answered:

The places where the tidal range is larger are generally where the tide is funneled into a bay or estuary.
Because the tidal bulge (dragged by the moon's gravity) enters the funnel and travels along it, the same volume of water is forced into a narrow passage and so it has to get deeper.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

As you don’t seem interested in the answers, why should we bother?

17

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Honey against sugar: which sweetener should I use?

« on: 27/08/2018 09:41:29 »

Could the phlegm be a biofilm and if so, might BC have found the answer?

No, plegm works against biofilms in the trachea. You might find this interesting. http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/mucus-keeps-us-healthy/

As I said, honey does sooth the throat, maybe it suppresses the biofilm and hence decreases need for phlegm. Did you take it neat? Most people dilute it which reduces any effectiveness. Have you tried ordinary honey? There is no doubt that honey is antibiotic, question is, is Manuka more so?

18

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 26/08/2018 07:06:50 »

Thanks, the link works.
I’ll have a read later.

19

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Has anyone tried hypnosis for chronic pain relief?

« on: 18/08/2018 07:01:18 »

No, because there are risks that poorly implemeted hypnotic suggestions can have undesired effects. Also, chronic pain needs to be accurately diagnosed before deciding on a treatment.
There are some studies that show hypnosis will work for short term pain relief but I havent seen any sound studies that show it works long term.
Perhaps @chris has come across something.

20

New Theories / Re: On what theory was the Chinese calendar of the tides of 1100 formed

« on: 17/08/2018 18:21:56 »

Before Copernicus, Ptolemy was also more accurate.

He was certainly not more accurate than Copernicus, nor was he more accurate than modern physics. He did, however, acknowledge that the tides are the result of moon/sun influences.

Before the discovery of the theory of tides in the whole world there were ports and there were port managers who did not care what was going on in their port.
In any state you can find the old tide tables.

So show us the ones you are basing your statements on.

Can I ask you how often you use tide tables in order to test their accuracy?
I use them very regularly and use a calibrated depth sounder to check depths. I can assure you from observation that modern tide tables are very, very accurate.