1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do red-dwarf stars eat their planets ?

« on: Today at 00:50:48 »

The clinching evidence for this effect is the relative dearth of close-in planets around slower-spinning stellar bodies . 

Can you run those numbers by us, please?

2

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: To what extent can Biblical accounts of Noah's flood be believed?

« on: Yesterday at 23:56:08 »

What happened to the water?
It is still here; polar ice caps, glaciers, mountain ice, deeper undersea trenches, and oceans that are higher than pre-flood times.

There is not enough ice present on Earth for the melted water to cover Mount Everest. Not by a long shot.

Where did the water come from?
From suspension above the atmosphere. The entire planet was encapsulated in a bubble of water. This bubble modified the climate on earth so that even the polar regions were sub-tropical.

What was holding that water there?

There is fossil evidence of sub-tropical vegitation in polar regions.

Of course, since those regions used to be at lower latitudes due to plate tectonics (not to mention that the Earth as a whole was warmer during certain periods in prehistory).

Remains of wooley mamoths with grass still in their mouths have been excavated in Russia. This implies sudden death due to catastophic flooding.

How does "sudden death" automatically imply "sudden death due to catastrophic flooding" and how does "catastrophic flooding" automatically imply "global flooding"?

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do red-dwarf stars eat their planets ?

« on: Yesterday at 23:43:32 »

If a planet was 25,500,000 kilometers from the Sun, it would complete an orbit about as quickly as the Sun's equator rotates. Closer than that, and the planet orbits faster than the Sun's rotation. Under such circumstances, you'd expect tidal forces to draw the planet in towards the Sun instead of pushing it outward (very, very slowly, as evan_au points out). Once the planet passes within the Sun's roche limit (around 500,000 to 2,000,000 kilometers, depending on the physical nature of the planet itself), it would break up.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do red-dwarf stars eat their planets ?

« on: Yesterday at 21:54:05 »

Let's try to focus on evidences (For real Moons and Planets).
1.Rise away:
Do you agree that all planets in the solar system rise away from the Sun while all real moons rise away from their host planets?

No, I don't. As has already been pointed out, Triton and Phobos are both slowly spiraling in towards their host planets. They are "real" moons and I don't know what dictionary definition of "moon" you would be using to disqualify them as such.

2. Rotational speed
Do you agree that all planets and moons in the solar system slow down their rotational speed over time?

Without any external forces at work, yes, they would. However, tidal forces have the potential to speed them up under the right circumstances. Such should be happening with the Mars-Phobos system right now.

It seems to me that objects can't keep their current orbital radius forever. They must rise away or draw in closer over time.
Kepler formula is Ok for very limited time frame.
However, the time effect is missing in that formula.

Correct. Orbits change over long periods.

Do you agree that due to this time effect, all real moons and planet must rise away?

No. They can only rise away if there is some source of energy they can exploit that allows them to enter a higher state of potential energy (i.e. a higher orbit). Tidal forces are one such source, although solar wind and radiation pressure might also contribute a very small amount.

If that is correct, then "Tidal" might not be the correct answer for our discussion.

Tidal effects are not the only thing that affects orbits. Gravitational radiation causes planets and satellites to lose energy over time and for their orbits to decay. The Moon is rising away from us at the moment, but will eventually stop and begin moving back in once gravitational radiation becomes the dominant force at work (barring that the Sun is likely to destroy the Earth and Moon long before that happens, of course). However, orbital decay due to gravitational radiation it is an extremely slow process that is easily overwhelmed in the short term by other factors on the scale of mere planets.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do red-dwarf stars eat their planets ?

« on: Yesterday at 15:45:44 »

I contrast red-dwarfs with yellow dwarfs because , as you realized , yellow dwarfs lift their satellites to higher orbit ( Earth ~1Mkm. , while red-dwarfs draw theirs in .  The nearest examples of this effect are Luna ( rising tidal ) , and Phobos 

The reason that our Moon rises away from the Earth whereas Phobos falls towards Mars is due to the transfer of tidal energy. The Earth spins faster than the Moon orbits around it, so the Moon can gain energy through tidal interactions with the Earth. In the process, the Earth's rotation slows down. The opposite is true of Phobos because it orbits Mars faster than Mars rotates. Neptune's satellite Triton orbits the planet in the opposite direction of its spin, which means that tidal forces slow down both Triton's orbit (drawing it in closer) and slow Neptune's rotational speed as well.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the barycenter of the Earth Moon system shifting as the Moons orbit increases

« on: Yesterday at 15:33:15 »

If we set the calculation, we can find that the current Sun - Moon gravitational force is stronger than the Earth - Moon gravitational force.
So, technically, based on that force ratio, it is expected that the Moon will prefer to orbit directly around the Sun.

The Moon is inside of the Earth's Hill Sphere (the region of space where the Earth's gravity is dominant over other sources of gravity), so I'm very skeptical about this claim.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is the barycenter of the Earth Moon system shifting as the Moons orbit increases

« on: 18/09/2018 22:41:51 »

The equation used to calculate the location of the barycenter is as follows:

r = a/(1 + (m₁/m₂)), where:

r = the distance from the center of the primary body to the barycenter
a = the distance between the centers of the two bodies
m₁ = the mass of the primary body
m₂ = the mass of the secondary body

Putting in the numbers for the current Earth-Moon system, we get:

r = (384,000 km)/(1 + (1 Earth mass/0.0123 Earth masses))
r = (384,000 km)/(1 + 81.3)
r= (384,000 km)/(82.3)
r = 4,665.86 km

The distance of the barycenter varies linearly with the distance between the two bodies. So in order to increase the existing barycenter from 4,665.86 kilometers to 6,371 kilometers (the Earth's average radius), you would need to increase the Moon's distance from the Earth by the factor 6,371/4,665.86 = 1.365 times. That is equivalent to increasing the Moon's average orbital distance from 384,000 kilometers to about 524,300 kilometers.

I recall from some past reading that the Moon is expected to continue to move away from the Earth until it appears to be only about 40% of its current size in the sky (sorry, I don't recall where I read this). That's an increase in distance of 2.5-fold (960,000 km). If this is true, then yes, the barycenter should definitely move outside of the Earth's surface in the future if the Earth-Moon system survives long enough (the Sun turning into a red giant might complicate this).

8

Chemistry / Re: Why NO₂- ion got the negative charge?

« on: 16/09/2018 17:38:47 »

In order to have the octet of each atom filled, an extra electron is required. Here is a website that shows the structure of the nitrite ion. Count the number of valence electrons that each atom contributes: https://chemfiesta.org/2015/09/18/resonance-structures/

9

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What do explosions look like in space?

« on: 15/09/2018 22:51:59 »

Nuclear weapons tests have been performed in space. The explosion is indeed spherical.

10

New Theories / Re: Cyclone alley, storm surges: wheres the techs to harness that huge energy?

« on: 15/09/2018 22:02:02 »

Hurricanes do produce large amounts of power, but they tend to occur only during particular times of the year in each hemisphere. Combine that with the very low likelihood of a hurricane passing over any given location during the year and the prospect of using some kind of power plant to capture its energy seems slim. Even if you built many such systems and spread them around the coasts, the majority of those plants will not be producing power during most of the year, which makes their cost-effectiveness highly questionable.

11

New Theories / Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity, Unified Ether Theory

« on: 15/09/2018 21:57:22 »

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the existence of gravitational waves refutes your idea that gravity is caused by electromagnetism.

In addition to that, gravitational lensing also falsifies your model. Photons do not have electric charge and therefore are neither attracted to nor repelled by electric fields. If gravity was just a residual electromagnetic field, then the Sun's gravity would not be capable of deflecting the path of starlight and the observation that confirmed the existence of this phenomenon way back in 1919 would not have occurred.

A third physical fact in contradiction to your model is the existence of proton-proton fusion. You simultaneously claim that the strong nuclear force does not actually exist and that mass deficits do not exist. If this were true, then protons fusing together to form a deuterium or helium-4 nucleus would be impossible since, (1) the only force present is the repulsive electromagnetic force between the protons, since you deny that an attractive strong nuclear force exists and (2) since you claim that a neutron is a simple addition of a proton and an electron, you shouldn't be capable of converting protons into neutrons since the neutron weighs more than the proton. The only way this can be the case would be if a bound neutron actually does indeed weigh less than a free proton. However, your model denies that this is possible because such a thing requires mass deficits to exist.

And yes, we have confirmed the existence of proton-proton fusion: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/underground-experiment-confirms-what-powers-sun

and

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.02432

12

Technology / Re: could this clockwork supply a city with renewable energy?

« on: 15/09/2018 21:49:39 »

Physics is not important here engineering is .

Engineering depends upon physics. How could you not know that?

13

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Re: To what extent can Biblical accounts of Noah's flood be believed?

« on: 15/09/2018 21:47:17 »

It couldn't have been worldwide. Isotopic analysis of soil from the Atacama desert reveals that it has been very dry for millions of years.

14

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

« on: 15/09/2018 21:44:46 »

A generator of 377 watts has 1 N.m torque since P=torque*angular speed . Now let's say the flywheel of one meter radius rotates 3000 rpm although linear velocity varies from centre to edge let's assume the linear velocity of the flywheel at every point on it equals the maximum .i.e when radius=1 meter:
v=ωr=314*1=314 m/s
v=314 m/s
Also resistance force varies from centre to edge but let's take average force.i.e when radius=0.5 meter:
force=2 newton
Now let's say the flywheel is 3 tonnes let's calculate friction:
friction=normal force*coefficient
the Kinetic CE of steel with lubricant is about 0.13:
3000*9.8*0.13=3822 N     f=3822+2=3824 N
f=ma       a=f/m=3824/3000= 1.27 m/s/s
Now I have acceleration of  -1.27 m/s/s and initial velocity of 314 m/s let's see when it would stop:
t=314/1.27=247.2 seconds or 4 minutes.
The bad news is the more the flywheel is massive " or many flywheels" the more friction is if you take small amount of power and multiply the number of fly wheels you end up with much friction .
only 377 watts for 4 minutes, notice the amount of energy consumed by the generator not important the most important factor is the friction force:
friction force=3822 N
force from generator resistance= only 2 N
The thing which will slow it down is friction not the energy consumer " generator" as I said "anything"

Your calculations obviously do not apply to the flywheel mentioned in the link I provided, given that it utilized magnetic levitation instead of the lubricated steel your calculations posit. It could spin for 36 hours despite air friction being at work. Put it in a vacuum chamber and it will spin even longer, as I have stated before.

15

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

« on: 15/09/2018 15:30:53 »

but if it powers anything it will last very short periods.

That depends entirely upon how much power you draw from it. If you draw a total of one kilowatt of power from ten flywheels, they will spin down much more slowly than if you drew that much power from only a single flywheel.

16

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

« on: 14/09/2018 22:10:41 »

In principle an object in vacuum could rotate forever

Technically, no. Matter contains electric charges and any accelerating electric charge radiates electromagnetic radiation. Although it would take an enormous span of time, any spinning object would eventually slow down even in a perfect vacuum.

but in practice when there is friction and the energy is in fact consumed as  the example of the gyrobus it is not more than 6 km , 50 km/h  and 7.2 minutes

Maybe for the gyrobus, but the flywheel I posted spins for 36 hours (and that includes air friction). In a vacuum chamber it would spin even longer.

17

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

« on: 14/09/2018 20:11:42 »

Interesting article about using flywheels for energy storage: https://books.google.com/books?id=WAEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=longest+spinning+flywheel&source=bl&ots=AOJl886SCY&sig=w1vt_vU2N1pQhWU6QRZLFwUaljU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwioo-D9l7vdAhVN-6wKHaJTAmAQ6AEwDnoECAQQAQ#v=snippet&q=36%20hours&f=false

Here's a quote of importance from page 76: "The longest it's spun without power has been about 36 hours."

This was from an issue of Popular Science from 1979. No doubt the technology has improved a lot since then.

18

New Theories / Re: Are tides the same strength with new and full moons?

« on: 14/09/2018 16:58:12 »

The heaviness of the Moon does not reach the Earth, the gravity of the Earth does not reach the Sun, the Earth's gravity does not reach Venus, because it is not needed.

You seem to have forgotten about that video from Mythbusters I posted where the Moon's gravity was proven to be detectable at the Earth's surface. You are also forgetting about the inverse square law, which states that the force of gravity gets weaker as distance increases but it never goes to zero: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#Gravitation

Here is another website stating that the gravitational effects of the Moon on the Earth are detectable with gravimeters: https://physicsworld.com/a/new-gravimeter-on-a-chip-is-tiny-yet-extremely-sensitive/

Here is a quote of significance:

To test the gravimeter, the device was set running for several days to measure Earth tides. This is the tiny oscillation in the strength of the gravitational field caused by the distortion of the shape of the Earth by the tug of the Moon. Sure enough, the gravimeter data showed a clear oscillation with a period of about 12 h that matched what is expected from the Earth tides.

If the earth's gravity reached the Sun, then the Earth was burned.

What does that even mean?

If the Earth's gravity reached the Sun, the Earth would collect space debris, why would he need it.

What makes you think that the Earth "needs" anything? It isn't a living thing. It can't make decisions. Even if it could, it couldn't control how far its own gravity reaches. The laws of physics do that.

19

New Theories / Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity, Unified Ether Theory

« on: 13/09/2018 16:29:28 »

It is also not proven yet that the mass spectrometry weighing giving mass defects correct.

We understand enough about physics to know that it is. Do you really not think that we are capable of measuring the strength of electric fields in the laboratory?

Now assuming mass conservation good (mass spectrometry wrong)

Conservation of mass does not make mass spectrometry wrong. The photons released when an atomic nucleus is formed have relativistic mass. Add that to the mass of the newly formed nucleus and you get a mass equal to each nucleon which it is composed of. Besides, when an electron and a positron annihilate, they turn into nothing but photons. Those photons have the energies predicted by relativity. E=mc² is not in question. It has been verified to high accuracy.

gives an electric gravity which explains all planetary gravitation per current universal gravitation and this is like verification of electric gravitation.

No it doesn't. If gravity was merely the result of electromagnetic interactions, then gravitational waves would be identical to electromagnetic waves. They are not. Gravitational waves were detected in 2015 and behaved in the manner predicted by relativity. They stretch and compress space, which is something that LIGO was designed specifically to detect. Electromagnetic waves do not do that.

20

New Theories / Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity, Unified Ether Theory

« on: 13/09/2018 05:42:05 »

It is not proven yet

So... are you using an experiment that hasn't even been done as evidence that mass spectroscopy is wrong or what?