1

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Is it possible to increase muscle mass by doing endurance training?

« on: 17/07/2018 08:01:21 »

You should be able to walk 3.5 to 4km within the hour even at a gentle pace. How long were you walking for?

Endurance exercise such as walking builds slow-twitch muscle fibres, these are not the ones that bodybuilders create for big muscles - they use progressive overloading by lifting heavy weights for only seconds at a time, to make their muscles grow. Aerobic exercise such as walking, running, and cycling builds slow-twitch muscle fibres and long, lean muscles.

Slow twitch are very vascular, meaning they have greater blood flow, which allows faster delivery of nutrients and removal of waste products and are excellent at using stored fat as fuel which means they can be very fatigue resistant.

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How real is (my understanding of) the Copenhagen Interpretation?

« on: 06/07/2018 08:43:46 »

I agree with @chiralSPO it is our attempt to rationalise the quantum world which gets us into trouble. We try to find mental hooks to hang ideas on so we say that because a wave’s energy can be counted in integer units and because it carries momentum it has particle properties (and we end up forgetting that other waves can carry momentum). We also talk about tunneling, but no one suggests that the particle/wave digs a little hole!
I view Copenhagen as a set of rules for using a methodology that gives amazingly accurate answers, but like most analogies and methodologies these rules can be overextended to give even greater confusion.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How to read the pull force of a magnet?

« on: 29/06/2018 14:50:04 »

I think it is using inches. I put in 0.5 OD and 0.2 thick which is a C5 they sell and it returned 0.9lb which sounds reasonable.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How to read the pull force of a magnet?

« on: 28/06/2018 23:05:48 »

I think (in this case) Kg is kilo Gauss rather than kilo grams.

Correct, Br is the remanence in milliTesla and kiloGauss

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How to read the pull force of a magnet?

« on: 28/06/2018 15:55:39 »

You can’t read pull strength from these charts, you will need to look at a specific magnet shape and size on a supplier website.
Y30 is a ferrite and won’t be very powerful eg 0.25 - 0.4kg could be less depending on configuration.

6

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Can a plant recognize someone looking into his direction?

« on: 20/06/2018 15:41:54 »

To answer the top line question, no because the photoreceptors cannot distinguish enough detail to discriminate direction of gaze.
It is thought that the early animal eye was no more than a few light sensitive cells that could detect night & day + the shadow of a predator.
There is certainly a lot more going on in plants than you might imagine. Plants under attack by aphids appear to be able to communicate to nearby plants either by roots or scent.

7

Guest Book / Re: New ideas for future development?

« on: 15/06/2018 18:36:49 »

I love it. A place specially made for mathematical physics and numerical analysis. Cool ideal. Bravo!

A @PmbPhy shaped sandpit?

8

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What are the pressure differences within sound waves?

« on: 12/06/2018 17:47:13 »

The sound pressure of 100dB is not an absolute measure against local air pressure, but a measure against a reference auditory threshold of 2x10^-5 Pa.
So to find the actual pressure you would need to use:



Where p₀=2x10^-5 Pa
L_p=100

P is rms pressure and it is pressure swing either side of ambient - there are compressions & rarefactions so pressure difference between these two is 2p.

In a free field - no reflections - p decreases at 6dB for every doubling of distance so p varies as 1/r not 1/r².

The air molecules vibrate rather than move so there is no net movement of air.

9

Chemistry / Re: What are ice cream cones made of?

« on: 11/06/2018 11:14:00 »

They are basically a waffle mixture with no added liquid which makes them flat & crispy: flour, sugar, fat in 3:2:2 with egg and small salt, the dry ingredients are beaten to give a fluffy texture & then egg mixed in. No raising agent.
Like bread they will swell when wet so not good for birds in large quantities, small amount of salt shouldn’t be a problem again because you are only feeding small quantities - unless the pesky seagull swoops down and scoffs the lot out of your hand, in which case serves him right!

10

Technology / Re: What determines when a steel spring develops metal fatigue?

« on: 10/06/2018 17:47:04 »

Depends on the quality of the spring. Many postwar alarm clocks failed after <20yrs and hairspring failure was even more common, although that might have been through people throwing them across the room!

11

New Theories / Re: Is the Hubble Shift due to time dilation?

« on: 09/06/2018 15:56:04 »

I notice in the latest issue of your paper you seem to be saying that as well as an event horizon at the centre of the universe there is one at the event horizon of a black hole at ~13.9 Gly looking outwards. I’m assuming this is what you view as the expanding horizon of the big bang?
Has discussion of this moved to ‘What is Space’? In which case I will read that and see if I have questions.

12

Just Chat! / Re: Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life,

« on: 07/06/2018 22:50:33 »

@Zer0 - talking to yourself again? 
@baa0 is banned, not here, gone, deceased, etc
Not to be confused with our resident sheepy.

13

New Theories / Re: Link between atomic spatial displacement and why galaxies are disked shaped?

« on: 07/06/2018 22:42:33 »

  However , atoms have a mechanism for change and they either exist or they don't exist. 

Quite right, they wouldn’t decay otherwise.

14

General Science / Re: How Can I Change the Mind Of A Flat-Earther ?

« on: 05/06/2018 13:25:22 »

Re: How Can I Change the Mind Of A Flat-Earther ?
But why?
Why would you want to waste your time & energy in converting an unwilling religious fanatic into a being with scientific rational thinking?.........
...........Isn't that Individual allowed/entitled to hold onto his/her/its Faith?

How Fair is it to Force wisdom down someone's throat in the name of Science?

Well, you could take that view about anyone who posts here with an incorrect view on a science topic.
We don’t force anyone to believe correct science, but we do feel it is our duty to explain reality.

15

New Theories / Re: Wave particle duality

« on: 04/06/2018 22:33:03 »

I assume and use the Earth as the reference frame?

You assume correctly. However, you have to recognise that the aircraft and ground station can’t be considered inertial relative to each other so you have to make both relative to earth centre and assume the earth rotates which is why you get an east-west difference. Gravitational time dilation is easier as you just have to work out the difference in gravitational potential, to simplify you can assume a constant altitude for the plane if it reaches cruising height quickly (compared to length of flight).

16

New Theories / Re: Rotating earth theory of two high tides a day

« on: 25/05/2018 16:13:22 »

You claim that a current of 15km/h is required in the Northern part of the Gulf of Maine, but buoy data from this area shows a maximum of 2.34km/h over the first 5 months of this year.

At a maximum of 2.34 km / h, what is the height of the tides?
Find the height of the tides of 15 meters, the speed should be 15 km / h?
If this does not happen, I will apologize to everyone for losing my time and yours.

Yesterday the Fundy tide was 11m and the buoy in N Gulf of Maine registered 1.98km/h

17

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

« on: 21/05/2018 14:23:02 »

This isn’t really a question on a science topic but a presentation of a new theory and an alternative to the current scientific method.
As such it will get better coverage in New Theories section

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 20/05/2018 08:15:44 »

There is always a gravitational potential between two objects, though often it is negligible? Can we say that the gravitational potential between two bodies would be the mutual effect they have on each other’s spacetime curvature, i.e., their geodesics?

If so, am I right to think that their mutual gravitational attraction qualifies as an acceleration, and is included in the calculation of the geodesics that they will follow?

Depends what you are considering.
In SR the assumption is flat spacetime far away from gravitational influence and small objects far enough apart for the gravitational attraction to be negligible. So non-accelerating motion is possible.
GR considers spacetime under the influence of gravitational forces including bodies where there is significant mutual attraction, so as you say, there will be relative acceleration included.

then am I way off base asking what effect light has 4.24 light years away from an object,  over millions of years,  multiplied by trillions of stars,  combined with the process repeating for billions of years with new stars replacing dying stars? 4.24 ly is distance to nearest star.  granted,  each photons effect is negligible,  but the accumulated effect must amount to something.  if we can see a photon,  then it must affect an object,  however miniscule.  surely this must add up to a phenomenal amount of "light pressure"........ and if light has mass as some theorize,  could this be the missing mass needed to make the models of the universe work correctly?  ..........perhaps this material is not so dark after all. .....

EDIT: while I was typing @Kryptid posted the one above, so this is to be read with what he wrote.

There are 2 things to consider, the ability of an object to move and the ability of something to move it.
Elsewhere there is a question about whether a rocket taking off from the moon can change the moon’s orbit and the same principles apply if we consider some examples.

- Starlight falling on the earth is of very low intensity due to inverse square law. However, the earth has a large surface area and so can collect a lot of starlight, but each photon of starlight carries an unbelievably small amount of momentum and the earth’s inertia is phenomenal - even large asteroids won’t kick it off orbit. So the earth does not move.
- a solar sail has a very large surface area, so can collect a lot of photons, it also has a very low mass (inertia) so near a large source of light eg the sun, it will move. As it gets further away the effect diminishes and the drive will stop working, also there comes a point where the sail is equidistant from 2 stars and the pressure from both would cancel out.
- take interstellar dust and gas. Very low mass, easy to move, but small cross sectional area so it won’t collect many photons and even then their momentum is minuscule compared to the inertia of the particles. Yes, over time they might move, but remember, wherever you are in the universe you are surrounded by stars so the net pressure on this interstellar material is zero. Question: would that, over time, lead to any form of gas/dust clumping and can it be detected? Would that clumping force be greater than the ability of gravity from nearby stars to attract the dust/gas, I suspect not.

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does light have a weight?

« on: 18/05/2018 09:13:44 »

I am curious of the difference in definition between propagate and travel,  I will look this up next break if I remember.

Although I agree with @PmbPhy sometimes I find dictionaries can be less than clear.
Consider a car, you can say it travels, but clearly it does not propagate ie make a new copy, or object.
However, waves do propagate. When you see waves approaching the shore it looks as though the water is moving, this is an illusion. The water does not flow as in a current, but the height of the wave is passed on (propagated, created anew) from one point to another. This is also true of sound and light waves.

sadly,  I cannot seem to download the "apparent weight of photons" and I can't figure out how to edit my last post or do the quote thing y'all do.

The paper is rather technical, start with wiki.
I’ll send you a pm on editing

.....if all particles with mass emit gravitational waves

But, they don’t. Only accelerating masses emit gravitational waves and photons are not accelerating.
Also gravitational waves do not behave like em waves, very different properties, very different phenomena.

I might be wrong,  but I don't think you can see light from the side,  only the photons headed your way.  I speculate the photons headed at right angles to ones observation point are "unseen". but nonetheless,  very much there. but again,  I'm not well educated and might be missing something. ...

You are right, only light reaching your retina, or a sensor are detected. However, if you move around a star you can check that light is emitted in all directions.

but if correct,  this its a huge volume of unobserved photons,  and if they have mass (does mass indicate that they would have gravity? ) then regardless of the inverse square law,  this is a tremendously large amount of "material" affecting its environment. However minutely, over millions of years surely this must amount to something,  either with the push imparted by a photons velocity,  or a pull from the photons mass.  multiplied by the amount of estimated stars,  makes for quite a wrestling match. .....unless they just canceled each other out. ........ugh. ......

No they don’t cancel out, but the critical point is where you say “regardless of the inverse square law”. I’m sorry but you can’t disregard it, it is key to understanding why the force at a distance becomes negligible regardless of how much you start off with.

20

New Theories / Re: Rotating earth theory of two high tides a day

« on: 16/05/2018 09:49:32 »

According to the lunar theory of the tides  ...

There is very little point quoting lunar theory of tides if you are unable to answer questions about your own theory eg:

What is the height of the tidal hill at the equator?

You really are missing the point here. The question is not the height of any bulge, but the periodicity of the variation in heights. This periodicity is, as explained previously, the combined effect of Moon and Sun.
Please show your calculations to explain spring and neap tides and their exact periodicity.

Are you able to show in detail how your whirlpool theory accounts for spring and neap tides and their periodicity?
I don’t think you can. Until you do there is very little point in posting more as you are just wasting our time.