1

New Theories / Re: An essay in futility, too long to read :)

« on: Today at 16:58:28 »

It is confusing reading " To follow a 1.5°C-consistent pathway, the world will need to decrease fossil fuel production by roughly 6% per year between 2020 and 2030. Countries are instead planning and projecting an average annual increase of 2%, which by 2030 would result in more than double the production consistent with the 1.5°C limit. "

1.5 C* is dead as far as I know.  It's a impossible goal. The report is from November 2020 so that may be one reason.
This graph tells a story by itself though, doesn't it.



https://productiongap.org/2020report/

and yes, I think the discrepancy is a lot bigger than what presented myself.

 

Sadly this is all based on models that are imperfect. 

The real issue is production methods not consumption.  Production methods are increasing pollutants and destroying habitats.  We need a new system of production sadly the corporate producers have a grip over power and are driving changes that benefit them and harm everyone else.

2

New Theories / Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)

« on: Today at 16:51:20 »

I think we'd be better off, if we were governed by women,. Because women don't start wars. Wars are always started by men.

Its a nice idea but an assumption

"New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king."
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-wars-than-kings.html

3

New Theories / Re: New theory of democratic Representation: (Feminists should read this!)

« on: Today at 15:32:24 »

Thatcher, Meir, Bandarinaike, Indira Ghandi....in modern times it seems that, proportionately, women in presidential or prime minsterial positions are more likely to start wars, execute their rivals or preside over internal massacres than men. There just happens to be fewer women with the opportunity to do so. The line of warmongering queens stretches back via Victoria and Elizabeth I to Boudicca.

Alan. that is mere sophistry.  Wars have always been started and  enthusiastically conducted by men.  Not women.

Data doesn't bare that out. Less women have generally had power but when they have wars have been conducted,  it's simplistic to assume men are more war like then women, both sexes are aggressive just in different ways. As any girl inhabiting an all girls school is well aware.

It's character and temperament, not sex,  that is more the issue.

4

Just Chat! / Re: STAR WARS...............The please add one Word or Sentence Story!

« on: Today at 15:26:26 »

While blowing  up party balloons with his nose As he could pop his plugged up ears as the ship gained altitude exiting the space between the two planets..............

"Arr look its baby Yoda" said.mr hedgehog. "He should be careful the cabbage people like to stalk this area between two plants, that's why...

5

Technology / Re: How far away are robots to better sort waste for recycling?

« on: Today at 15:21:39 »

Or do you mean it covers everything else. Honestly people should be separating food waste from other waste.

And exactly how do I remove the grease from the pizza box?

You get in your hands and knees and scrub with tissue paper.

Paper recycling treatment process deals with those issues.

Another major problem for waste processing is things inside other things.
A plastic bag inside a paper bag is easy for a human to recognise and separate.
It's more of an issue for a machine.

Hence robotic development.

6

New Theories / Re: Could Gravity be an emergent property?

« on: Today at 15:13:58 »

Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with mass

Good to see that you accept it.
Do you understand that it proves your hypothesis to be wrong?

Your consistent inability to actually add to the discussion is sad.

No, that which holds atoms together allows their mass to increase. Especially when those atoms combine with others.

The analogy is the drops of water becoming a waterfall.

The drops are the strong force the waterfall is gravity

7

New Theories / Re: Why do quarks, last less time, outside the composites particles they make?

« on: Today at 15:09:45 »

If you look at the proton, as an example, this composite particle can last for billions of years. The proton is composed of subunits called quarks. If we release the quarks from a proton, the released quarks do not last as very long; less than a fraction of a second. But if the quarks remain contained in the proton they can last as long as the proton.  Why do quarks drastically lose life expectancy, if they leave the composites they occupy?

Clearly gluons stabilise them. How they do that is a huge question and as far as I am aware unanswered.

If we go the other way, atoms are made up of protons, electrons and neutrons. If we separate atoms into their components, only the neutrons will show a shorter life expectancy outside the atom composite; neutron decay. The proton and electron continue to exist for billions of years; longer than atoms. If we release the quarks from the proton, all their life expectancies become very brief. Why?

Not sure they simply disappear, there energy no doubt disperses. 

t would be like building a stone wall with field stones. If we knock out any stone from the composite wall, that stone will disappear almost immediately.

No it rests on the floor. A stone isnt a good analogy for proton.

If we could add it back before it disappears, it can last for centuries in the walls or until the wall falls.

Years ago, I pondered this question, and would like to present two possible explanations. The first  explanation is connected to time dilation. Protons were formed at a time when the universe was denser, and had higher gravity and average GR affects. The quarks existed then and had the same life brief expectancy as they do now. However, at that time they were highly time dilated due to GR, when they formed the proton. This time dilation was retained inside the composite. Once you break the composite, the time dilation is lost, and their clocks speed up.

Another explanation is that the energy that particle colliders add, to split a proton, adds energy to the quarks and alters their phase, such that what we see are not the same quarks states as in a low energy protons. At the very least, we add relativistic mass and EM energy, due to high velocity in magnetic fields, which then adds something to the composite not found in protons at ambient conditions. We end up with unstable sub particles.

Like looking at elections under a microscope you effect them by looking,  not sure if its clear what effects we have in that regard.

8

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

« on: Today at 15:02:08 »

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/01/2021 05:26:23
What does it take to make you believe that someone who claim to be Jesus is the real one?

Nothing. Jesus wouldn't calm it.

Dont get me wrong I just have trouble seeing jesus turning up and going. "I'M JESUS! Ehhher(I don't know why now he is doing a fonzy impression. Such a card.) Or maybe "I'm jesusss", no idea where that's going.

Just don't see it. Besides his name is Yehoshua

As my theory suggested Jesus comes back on the day of judgement so obviously he would want to be recognized.

Even if it's a fiction, you need to get your story straight.

Don't you think the story is even stranger than Harry Potter?

Magic isnt a theme in theology.  So no

9

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

« on: Today at 14:58:07 »

John 5.24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

So Jesus claims those that actually listen to him are not judged.

There is the possibility of reincarnation.
1 Samuel 2.6 "The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up."
Raising up from sheol could be seen as possible reincarnation.

The rest rest in Sheol,(the land of the dead) where they sleep til the day of judgement then arise and go to be judged. Those that dont wake up will be dug up and thrown in a pile.

Isaiah 66.24 "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."


Speaks of three possible outcomes, firstly the unjudged will live in heaven and shine like the stars.

Secoundly Those who pass the judgement will stay on earth and live with the messiah.

And third those that fail the judgement will be handed over to satan.
I believe there may once have been an idea to give them a nice place to live,  but when you think about it,  putting all the worst people that ever lived in one place, hell hole is sadly inevitable. So just take the nightmare as read...

What will satan do to them?

"Yes its water" hands them a can of petroleum.

The only thing he can do, he will lie

If he really is god's enemy,

Which he isnt, Satan is servant of God who can only do what God allows him to. He is inherently a liar, the truths evil twin. It's the part of opposites, no light without dark no truth without lies. 

So in this sense the devil was condemned on the day of his creation.

I've kinda narrowed it down to the word having two sides truthful and false. The devil would be the word lies. And gods word truth.

they should be treated well.
All of those assume that that particular part of the bible is true. Otherwise, we shouldn't be bothered.

Yes there is the element of faith involved. I wouldn't say just because you dont believe something doesn't mean you shouldnt worry about it. There may as an example be a mini ice age comming starting in 2024 while some might not believe it that doesnt mean they should just ignore the implications should it be the case.

10

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

« on: Today at 03:32:26 »

The judgement is a very public event.

Will it be broadcasted around television, radio, Youtube, social media?

You'll have to imagine the Yorkshire accent...
"Day 7 in Big judgement house, Will is bout to take deep breath before confessing is sins"

I doubt it.

He comes back to judge all mankind, and has all the time he needs.

What will hapen to people who die while waiting to be judged?

John 5.24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

So Jesus claims those that actually listen to him are not judged.

There is the possibility of reincarnation.
1 Samuel 2.6 "The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up."
Raising up from sheol could be seen as possible reincarnation.

The rest rest in Sheol,(the land of the dead) where they sleep til the day of judgement then arise and go to be judged. Those that dont wake up will be dug up and thrown in a pile.

Isaiah 66.24 "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."


Speaks of three possible outcomes, firstly the unjudged will live in heaven and shine like the stars.

Secoundly Those who pass the judgement will stay on earth and live with the messiah.

And third those that fail the judgement will be handed over to satan.
I believe there may once have been an idea to give them a nice place to live,  but when you think about it,  putting all the worst people that ever lived in one place, hell hole is sadly inevitable. So just take the nightmare as read...

11

New Theories / Re: Could Gravity be an emergent property?

« on: Today at 02:33:19 »

Exactly so why are you going on about leptons?

Because they are a refutation of your claim that the strong force has anything to do with mass, as they don't interact via the strong force.

Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with mass, tell me another one.

Gluons connect quarks together,  after they are connected into a new atomic form they have more altogether then when they where separate.  They act as a body not individually hence more mass in a more concentrated area.

All you did was repeat the claim. I want you to support your claim that they have more mass together than when separate (with evidence, not with more claims).

What happens when they break atoms in the Hadron collider? Do they have more mass or less once broke into their constituent parts?

Sure you dont mean protons?

Yes, I am sure.

Well then at best gluons travel at near light speed.

Relative to the universe?

Relative to anything.

Like a banana?

12

New Theories / Re: Could Gravity be an emergent property?

« on: Today at 02:19:28 »

That the mass of a particle the strong force acts upon isnt important, doesnt mean once the strong force has acted the mass isnt.

There's no evidence that the strong force acts on mass.

Exactly so why are you going on about leptons?

but the result is more mass.

And this is the claim I want you to support.

Gluons connect quarks together,  after they are connected into a new atomic form they have more mass altogether then when they where separate.  They act as a mass body not a mass individually hence more mass in a more concentrated area.

Think I'll call it 'unified mass density' leading to emergent gravity.

Mass and energy are completely interlinked E=Mc2  you cant have forgotten that. Are you suggesting mass is something else?

I wouldn't have said that energy had mass if I had forgotten that. That was my entire point.

Sure, so your point?

My point is that your claim that gluons don't have mass is wrong.

Wasnt my claim.

The relative mass of a gluion relates to its attachments.

Gluons travel at the speed of light, so there is no reference frame where they don't have mass.

Sure you dont mean protons?

"A proton is made of three quarks, yes, but the quarks are infinitesimal—just 2 percent or so of the proton's total mass. They're rattling around at near light speed inside the proton"

Gluons are holding the quarks together.

Hardly I would be suggesting that gravity is being produced by the atom, electron and nucleus combined.

So are you claiming that free electrons don't produce gravity?

Not sure actually.

a relative mass.

Which is always non-zero.

Yes absolutely relative to their connected quarks

No, relative to everything.

Relative to the universe?

13

New Theories / Re: Could Gravity be an emergent property?

« on: Today at 00:59:02 »

Ergo there mass isnt important, regardless of the mass they have they act the same way ergo mass isnt an issue with regards to the strong force.

So then why are you arguing that the strong force has anything to do with mass?

That the mass of a particle the strong force acts upon isnt important, doesnt mean once the strong force has acted the mass isnt.

It means the strong force acts regardless of mass, but the result is more mass.

Yeah Energy.

Energy has mass, so that didn't answer the question.

Mass and energy are completely interlinked E=Mc2  you cant have forgotten that. Are you suggesting mass is something else?

Relative to what they are connecting

Which is still mass.

Sure, so your point? The relative mass of a gluion relates to its attachments.

Why would they? gluons are holding the nucleus together,  the elections are floating around the neculas

So you are now agreeing with me by saying that the gravity produced by an electron's mass has nothing to do with the strong force?

Hardly I would be suggesting that gravity is being produced by the atom, electron and nucleus combined.

I might start defending Mr Feynmans idea that there is only one electron in the entire universe

The same way it can hold mass without having any?

They do have mass:

a relative mass.

they still have a relativistic mass.

[/quote]

Yes absolutely relative to their connected quarks

14

New Theories / Re: Could Gravity be an emergent property?

« on: Today at 00:36:11 »

Meaning mass isn't an element in what causes the strong force to act.

I don't recall anyone saying that it was.

Somehow you were, your claim was that leptons with different masses, are influenced the same way under the strong force. Ergo there mass isnt important, regardless of the mass they have they act the same way ergo mass isnt an issue with regards to the strong force.

It's action gathers different elements of mass.

What evidence is there that mass is made up of anything more fundamental?

Yeah Energy.

Gluons are massless.

Their invariant mass is zero, but they still have a relativistic mass.

Relative to what they are connecting

That also doesn't give a citation for your claim that gluons allow "energy to concentrate." Gluons have nothing to do with the electron's energy, for example.

Why would they? gluons are holding the nucleus together,  the elections are floating around the neculas

They carry energy but dont have any  they combine masses but don't have any.

And how is something supposed to carry energy without having energy?

The same way it can hold mass without having any?

15

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

« on: Today at 00:24:12 »

Nothing. Jesus wouldn't calm it.

Dont get me wrong I just have trouble seeing jesus turning up and going. "I'M JESUS! Ehhher(I don't know why now he is doing a fonzy impression. Such a card.) Or maybe "I'm jesusss", no idea where that's going.

Just don't see it. Besides his name is Yehoshua

What would he say instead if he really comes back?

I have no idea.  Have to see when it happens 

Does he want to be recognized when he come back?

As my theory suggested Jesus comes back on the day of judgement so obviously he would want to be recognized.

Or does he prefer to work in secrecy?

The judgement is a very public event.

Will he come back with a time critical mission, with a real risk of failure?

He comes back to judge all mankind, and has all the time he needs.

Or will he just play a role playing game, where whatever he does can not change the final result?

He will have a role, and a serious one. The judgement is the final result of the world as it stands. Afterwards is a new time.

As I said if you had understood my initial point all these questions were already answered.

16

New Theories / Re: Could Gravity be an emergent property?

« on: Yesterday at 23:32:04 »

How does it follow that if the strong force increases mass, that the three Leptons would have the same mass?

Because they all interact with the strong force in an identical manner.

Meaning mass isn't an element in what causes the strong force to act. It's action gathers different elements of mass.

The strong force doesnt give energy,  it allows the energy that is present to concentrate.

Citation needed.

Gluons are massless.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-glue-that-holds-the-world-together

above all, gluons, which transmit the force that binds the quarks together. Gluons are massless and evanescent, but they carry most of the proton's energy.

That is probably what allows they to serve the function they do. They carry energy but dont have any  they combine masses but don't have any.

17

New Theories / Re: Could Gravity be an emergent property?

« on: Yesterday at 23:09:23 »

rather then asking me to prove it.

I never did. I asked for evidence. There is no proof in science.

So rather then go round in circles can you not use your knowledge
to rather say "if that was true then A would be true or if it was true then B would be"?

That's what I've been doing. If the nuclear forces had anything to do with mass

Considering gluons with the strong force hold atoms together thus allowing their combimed mass to increase I fail to see how you claim the strong force has nothing to do with mass.

(and therefore gravity), then the electron, muon and tau would all have the same mass. They don't.

How does it follow that if the strong force increases mass(allows mass to increase through combinations), that the three Leptons would have the same mass?
The strong force doesnt give energy,  it allows the energy that is present to concentrate.

18

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 21.01.25 - Why do some people shiver when they pee?

« on: Yesterday at 22:57:56 »

Eleonora asks,

"Why does my dad shiver when he pee's"

can you help help with the uncertainty about these urination antics?

I think you need to give more information, like how old is your father? Does he suffer any underlying condition? Does he stand or sit when he goes to the toilet? Does he shiver at other times or only when  he goes to the toilet? Does he need assistance to go to the toilet?

I think there isn't enough information to answer.

So assuming everything is fine, that he is completely healthy doesn't need assistance to go to the toilet, why would he shiver only when going to the toilet?

It's called post-micturition convulsion syndrome. There are a few ideas, as to why post-micturition convulsion syndrome occurs change in temperature could cause the body to shiver when exposed to a cold bathroom there is the other suggestion

:- According to Caleb Backe, a health and wellness expert for Maple Holistics, your autonomic nervous system plays a vital role in the process of urination.

The ANS is divided into two parts. The sympathetic system is the emergency system that regulates your fight-of-flight reflex. The parasympathetic system relaxes the body and returns it to a resting state.

“When your bladder gets full, it activates nerves in the spinal cord known as the sacral nerves. This brings the parasympathetic nervous system into action, causing your bladder wall to prepare to push urine out of the body,” says Backe. “When urine leaves the body, blood pressure drops, prompting a [reactive response] from the sympathetic nervous system. ”The sympathetic nervous system then floods the body with neurotransmitters called catecholamines in an effort to restore blood pressure.

This creates a mixed signal between the two nervous system components, which may in turn trigger an involuntary pee shiver

"The process of urination is overseen by the ANS, the control center that orchestrates many automatic bodily functions, such as temperature and the beating of a heart, Fulford said. Obviously, urination isn't entirely automatic because we do have voluntary control over when we pee. But before that crucial decision point, urination is largely governed by two parts of the ANS, called the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS), and the sympathetic nervous system (SNS).

When the bladder reaches fullness, tiny stretch receptors in its muscular wall detect the motion of the bladder stretching and activate a set of nerves in the spinal cord called the sacral nerves. In turn, these spring the PNS into action, which causes the muscular bladder wall to contract, preparing it to push urine out of the body. This autonomic process works like an on-off switch, suppressing the instructive nerve reflexes while the bladder is still filling up, but "stimulating those reflexes to act when the bladder is full," Fulford told Live Science.

An odd quirk of this arrangement is that when urine leaves the body, blood pressure drops. "There does seem to be good evidence that blood pressure rises slightly with a full bladder, and that this drops on voiding, or soon after," dr Simon Fulford

"men seem to experience this phenomenon more than women do, which might be explained by the fact that men usually stand when they urinate — possibly intensifying the dip in blood pressure that's thought to precede the shudder.

Whatever the cause, this bodily oddity shouldn't be a cause for concern. "There's not been any substantial research on this subject, but it's a normal bodily function and nothing to worry about," Dr. Grant Stewart, an academic urological surgeon at Cambridge University in England

19

New Theories / Re: Could Gravity be an emergent property?

« on: Yesterday at 22:12:58 »

Until you calculate the Implications of it being true

Then please do so.

What am I a physics major?

If I wanted a noble prize I might be bothered.

I posted a guess, rather then asking me to prove it. I believe the point of a discussion forum was to discuss the implications- The first step in the designing an experiment. 

So rather then go round in circles can you not use your knowledge
to rather say "if that was true then A would be true or if it was true then B would be"?

Is the election expelled or repulsed?

By what?

Exactly.

No it wouldn't,  as an emergent property,  it would emerge after they have influenced atoms to join together and be related to the atomic masses they help create.

You seem to have missed this:

Subatomic particles have mass and energy without having to combine into atoms.

Doesnt matter, as

Def:-Emergent properties are properties that manifest themselves as the result of various system components working together, not as a property of any individual component.


Sub atomic particles may have mass,  gluons hold atoms together and the weak force allows decay and for elements to change, the guess is that they together cause gravity to emerge.

20

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Could SARS cov 2 be a mutation of SARS cov1?

« on: Yesterday at 14:14:05 »

Could SARS cov 2 be a mutation of SARS cov1?

SARS Cov 1 has been traced to some very similar viruses living in bats.

SARS Cov 2 is somewhat similar to a bat virus reported in 2015.

SARS Cov 2 is not very similar to SARS Cov 1 - about 80% similarity
- They are both coronaviruses
- They both most likely originated in bats
- As did MERS (another coronavirus disease, affecting camels & humans in the Middle East). But MERS is only 50% similar to SARS Cov 2.

Bats carry lots of viruses, and some of them can affect humans.
- You don't need to assume that SARS Cov 2 is a mutation of SARS Cov 1
- The extent of RNA differences suggests that these mutations would not occur in 18 years

See Figure 1 at:
https://respiratory-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12931-020-01479-w

PS: A young child, asked about where COVID-19 came from replied "Someone ate bat soup, and someone ate the toilet paper!".

We know the laboratory in wuhan was studying a Corona virus 96% identical to that of SARS cov2....

Just an idea, the answer is clearly of course