1

New Theories / Re: New theory about Who Jesus really is and was.

« on: 28/02/2021 14:35:16 »

ANYWAY

To go back on topic.

Repeating the same thing over again doesn't make it true.

2

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

« on: 09/02/2021 12:12:34 »

This situation might be the reason why Alan saw the necessity to add the second rule for his morality.

No, it is necessary to test an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver.

The original golden rule already tests an action from the standpoint of both the doer and the receiver. It works well where all conscious agents engage self preservation. In most cases they do.
Any organism willingly self destruct for no reason can't survive for long, hence it's not an evolutionary stable strategy.
Altruism through kin selection is an evolutionary stable strategy, although it seems to defy self preservation. Nonetheless they survive because they preserve the backup copy of the altruists.
That's when original version of golden rule is no longer adequate to guide morality. Altruists sacrifice themselves to save their kin. Naive golden rule allows them to sacrifice others to save their kin.

3

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 28/01/2021 21:35:25 »

Some of us might be interested in what Martian men would be like.  They'd have evolved in a low-gravity environment.  Which allowed them to grow appendages of extraordinary dimensions, by terrestrial standards.

Isn't that a fascinating subject for speculation?

They also have to live in a dry environment with low pressure, low oxygen and high concentration of CO2 atmosphere. If we find Martian lifeforms, they are most likely microscopic.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the actual explanation of the gyroscopic effect?

« on: 28/01/2021 04:06:13 »

People have made bikes with contrarotating wheels to cancel that out, and they are still rideable.

People investigating bike stability have also made bikes with vertical forks (or even tilted-back forks) and they are still rideable - but it takes more practice, more effort and failures are more frequent.

I imagine that a bike with reversed steering (or wearing glasses that reversed left and right) would also be rideable - but you would have to unlearn a lot of childhood experiences before you could learn to ride it.

Youtube also has videos about it.

5

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 17/01/2021 06:15:50 »

But still, Earth is much better to live on than Mars and Venus, where it`s impossible to live for humans like we do on Earth.

For the time being. But when the sun engulf the earth, the case would be different.

6

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 05/01/2021 21:57:01 »

New species will replace the ones lost. The planet is not in need of being saved.

Unless when entire earth is no longer habitable, such as when it merge into the sun. Unconscious beings need nothing. It's just some conscious agents happen to live there want to survive, and are trying to figure out how. It's  something we can learn from the movie Thor Ragnarok.

7

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 05/01/2021 15:45:33 »

Life is the cradle of the life as we know it, but no one should live in the cradle forever. Or more precisely, no one should die in the cradle without ever going anywhere else.

8

Science Experiments / Re: How do microwaves behave?

« on: 05/01/2021 08:47:03 »

I've uploaded a new video investigating further into the behavior of microwave when interacting with a redirecting grid. Additional conductors to the grid change the behavior depending on their positions on the grid.

9

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 05/01/2021 02:44:53 »

Let's invert the question: Does Mars need humans? The only reasons for going there are (a) curiosity or (b) colonisation.

(a) can be quickly and cheaply satisfied with a very few expendables like myself who would be happy to run whatever experiments are required, die there, and be packaged so as to cause minimal disturbance to the planet.

(b)(i) is only necessary if we have made Earth intolerable, which is a very good reason for not polluting another planet.

(b)(ii) is a Pilgrim Fathers or Botany Bay  exercise, where society has deemed the colonists themselves intolerable, which is a very good reason for not sending them to behave badly on another planet.

As far as I know, currently Mars is lacking of native conscious beings. The only known form of consciousness there are artificial and came from earth. So I think it doesn't need anything, including humans.
Making Mars a habitable planet takes a lot of time. There are many things need to study with a lot of unknowns and uncertainties. If we wait for earth to become intolerable before we start exploring there, we wouldn't have enough time to do that and face the risk for human extinction. Maybe that's acceptable for you, but certainly not for many others.

10

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 03/01/2021 22:00:19 »

Perhaps the colonisation of Mars might offer one advantage:

We could fight our wars on Mars.

For example, armies of Americans, Russians and Chinese, could conduct military campaigns on Mars. For the possession of the Syrtis Major, or Olympus Mons, or the Vastitia Borealis, or the Martian icecaps, or any other suitably prestigious objectives.

Such long-distance "Martian Wars" would provide an outlet for pent-up human aggression. Without incurring disastrous damage to our home planet Earth.  Nuclear weapons could be freely and abundantly used on Mars.

There'd be no fear of them turning Mars into a lifeless desert,  since it already is to start with.

I wonder whether this possible military benefit of Martian colonisation has been considered?

Mars colonizers would disagree.

Why would they fight the war in the first place? Reminding them that they have common international goals and showing them objective reality should be a more efficient method to prevent wars.

11

General Science / Re: The journey to the red planet: does humanity need Mars colonisation?

« on: 30/12/2020 10:28:33 »

Does humanity actually need Mars colonization? Elon Musk and Space X invest a lot of resources in Starship and Mars colonization. But as most people know the journey to this planet is not a piece of cake and it is rather dangerous for the crew of the spacecraft. Also, they did not figure out how to solve the fuel issue to get to the red planet and bring the crew back. ( Not even mentioning the harsh environment of the red planet. To prepare the crew for it will be very costly to invent special suits or capsules )

Elon Musk's speeches available on Youtube have answered most of your questions. His goal is to make humanity a multiplanetary species in order to pass the "great filter". It's a prerequisite to form type 2 civilization in Kardashev scale.
The starships are designed and built using methane as fuel for that very reason. Methane can be produced on Mars using materials available there, i.e. CO2, H2O, and sunlight.

12

New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?

« on: 29/12/2020 05:38:03 »

Talking about levitation, I think this video shows a more interesting case.

13

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

« on: 21/12/2020 07:34:55 »

Here are some logical fallacies we need to avoid in a debate. The examples can help us identify those fallacies more easily when we encounter one.

14

New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?

« on: 19/12/2020 23:44:38 »

“One man’s magic is another man’s engineering” — Robert A. Heinlein

15

New Theories / Re: A new explanation of the electric current

« on: 04/12/2020 13:48:21 »

I found an experiment video on youtube, and I think it's relevant to put here.
(+) vs (-) Underwater Lightning- is there a difference?

16

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

« on: 08/06/2020 04:16:26 »

I get no shock from the wooden door. Also not from a metal spoon in a mug.

To check whether the wood provides a sufficient insulation medium to  your charge, just for us, touch the wood first then the handle second.

And...?

Petrochemicals suggested a 2 steps experiment, but talanum1 had done the first step only.

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the speed of light constant?

« on: 01/06/2020 18:36:41 »

- So sunlight passing through water droplets in the air are diffracted by (slightly) different angles
- This separates out sunlight into its constituent rainbow of colors

In the case of rainbow, it is refraction instead of diffraction which produces color separation.

18

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Which twin is older when they meet again?

« on: 03/04/2020 06:36:18 »

Here's an interesting exercise, at what velocity do you have to be moving towards an observer to see their watch ticking at the same rate as yours after taking both time dilation and Doppler shift into account?

Any non zero longitudinal speed will generate different magnitudes of Doppler blue shift and time dilation which don't cancel each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

[Spoiler:]

19

New Theories / Re: where is your consciousness located?

« on: 30/03/2020 09:21:54 »

The video is titled "The Self - A Thought Experiment".

Spoiler: show

An omniscient conscious being doesn't have subjectivity.

Professor Patrick Stokes of Deakin University gives a thought experiment from Thomas Nagel. This comes from a talk given at the Ethics Centre from an episode of the podcast The Philosopher's Zone.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: 27/01/2020 09:20:58 »

Superheated water can be produced in pure water, in clean vessels without nucleation sites, and as long as it is not too agitated.
- So mechanical heating/stirring would not be a good way to do it
- Pure water is not very magnetic, so magnetic heating would not work so well
- Pure water is not very conductive, so heating by electric conduction would not work so well
- Inductive heating of a clean metal vessel could work
- Infra-red radiation (eg inside an oven) would work well

The information I gathered around this problem doesn't indicate the use of pure water.

The water can be regular drinking water but should not
contain many undissolved particles. It can be heated in any
domestic microwave oven; a research-grade microwave oven
such as used by Kennedy (1) to determine the enthalpy of
vaporization of liquids is unnecessary here. The recommended
heating vessel is a glass teapot sold to be used in the microwave
oven (no metal parts). Using such a teapot generally has several
advantages: its walls have relatively few nucleation
sites for bubble formation, yet enough to put a reasonable
limit on superheating; it has a plastic lid to prevent boiling
water from splashing out of it; and it has a plastic handle so
that it can easily be removed from the microwave oven once the
water is boiling.

Erné, B.H. & Snetsinger, P. (2000). Thermodynamics of water superheated in the microwave oven. Journal of Chemical Education
77(10), 1309-1310. doi: 10.1021/ed077p1309

And this is a comment by someone who can reproduce the phenomenon reliably.

Steven Spielman, PhD in Applied Physics; optical properties of solids
Updated Mar 4, 2019
I was able to accomplish superheating without much effort. I heated water in a small glass bowl, in a microwave oven. Before it reached boiling, tiny air bubbles adhered to the glass, the result of dissolved gases coming out of solution. When the boiling point was reached, (presuming here) water vapor entered these bubbles without bound and they grew quickly. The water boiled normally.

I shut off the microwave for a few seconds, and the boiling stopped. Then I turned it on again. The dissolved gases have already been driven out of the water, so there would have been no air bubbles to get things started. The water just sat there quietly for 10 seconds or so. Then there was a “PUNF!” sound. I opened the oven to find the bowl mostly empty and the walls and ceiling wet.

So, to avoid it, don’t microwave water (including coffee, etc.) which has recently boiled. Keep your face away when you first disturb it with a spoon or sugar.

https://www.quora.com/How-likely-and-how-dangerous-is-superheated-water-in-a-microwave-oven-and-what-everyday-precautions-should-be-used-to-avoid-injury