The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of Yahya A.Sharif
  3. Show Posts
  4. Messages
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - Yahya A.Sharif

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
Just Chat! / Re: Predictions?
« on: 01/01/2021 18:33:04 »
So why if Nostradamus is right he didn't write clear sentences than writing puzzles? Because nobody will understand his puzzles and he will fool his followers forever.

2
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 21/12/2020 16:28:23 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/12/2020 10:10:07
The interesting question is why does anyone accept religion?

Religion is not science it is what is equivalence to science.It doesn't explore the universe with minds.It explores the universe with feelings. You feel whether you go to after life or not and you feel whether this universe built by a creator or not .Science knows the creation, feelings know the creator Ancient people are not ignorant they just felt it and made imaginations for that.Today's people feel the existence of God  and know the truth which is delivered by prophets.
Human is not just body that will rot , it is also life.What distinguish a dead body and living body ? both have the same matter and cells but the living body has life .The body thinks it will die and rot and spirit feels it will have eternal life. if we stop the body thoughts " death is nothingness "  then we will  feel the spirit feelings which is religion .This what scientists do today they have the body thoughts " death is nothingness "and then they will not make a place for the living human spirit feelings
The body naturally knows harm in not good for the body, harm will cease the body then a body feels pain to alter the human.The spirit knows immorality is harmful and pain of regret alters the human to behave well " for his eternal life "
These feelings and the spirit are in the chest:
"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"
Genesis 2:7

3
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 21/12/2020 16:27:00 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/12/2020 10:10:07
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 20/12/2020 22:39:34
If science describes reality then magic describes non-reality.
OK, Unicorns are not real and so they are magical creatures.
This can be categorized  as imagination

4
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 20/12/2020 22:39:34 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/12/2020 22:33:23
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 20/12/2020 22:27:08

Looking in magic  as undiscovered science is a waste of time magic is not just a unique phenomenon   that we are going to discover to be added to mainstream physics but is a whole of violations.It is like we are going to figure out the non-science or magic will that be useful ? every kid knows what is non-science , what is the not of water is liquid.
Simply magic can be defined as  the non-science with no rules.
No.
Magic is not real.
If science describes reality then magic describes non-reality.

5
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 20/12/2020 22:27:08 »

Looking in magic  as undiscovered science is a waste of time magic is not just a unique phenomenon   that we are going to discover to be added to mainstream physics but is a whole of violations.It is like we are going to figure out the non-science or magic will that be useful ? every kid knows what is non-science , what is the not of water is liquid.
Simply magic can be defined as  the non-science with no rules.

6
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 02/12/2020 22:36:15 »
The universe  is built by an intelligent creator.The creation is well  designed. This is what religious scientists claim.No person observed the big bang ,it didn't happen , but the BBT is how physics works.God built the universe , even though according to science the universe comes from a big bang  but God " magician " did it  in 6 days.
The floating man needs force against gravity " physics behind universe creation " he floats without force " Without big bang " he did it " universe creation " He is the person who did it " God"

7
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 02/12/2020 13:41:32 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/12/2020 13:03:57
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 02/12/2020 10:27:15
If I can not know how he did it through any means then he uses what I can call it magic.
That approach does not make sense.
So, you think your computer works by magic?
I formulate the sentence wrong Kryptid says before I discovered it I already take it as non-magical but what I was trying to say is, before I discovered  it , it  is unknown , after Discovered it I can describe it  as magic.

 

8
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 02/12/2020 10:52:35 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/12/2020 09:01:33
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 01/12/2020 19:56:33
Gravity force is the interaction between two masses inertial force is a push or a pull
The interaction between two masses is a pull.
If you drop something it is pulled to the Earth.
This only a Newtonian thought .In General Relativity gravity force is neither a push nor a pull

9
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 02/12/2020 10:27:15 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 02/12/2020 00:06:50
It sounds like you are still going with the argument from ignorance. You are basically saying, "If I can't figure out how he did it logically through non-magical means, then he must have used magic to do it".
It is not supposed to be "non-magical" means it is supposed to be unknown means.
If I can not know how he did it through any means then he uses what I can call it magic.


10
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 01/12/2020 21:24:49 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/12/2020 21:08:59

* carpet.jpg (97.13 kB . 666x280 - viewed 813 times)If he is using magic, what is the little carpet for?
He uses his stick for balance, and as you imply he uses the disk for balance as well .Anyway still it is not logical to keep his shape  for a long time.

11
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 01/12/2020 21:02:54 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/11/2020 09:04:36
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 29/11/2020 23:45:32
The floating man will not tell what he is doing , but the scientific explanation in the link is impossible The person appears to raise no weight. He keeps his body shape.And he does it for a long time.
Here is a man doing essentially the same thing.
He explains how the "trick" is done,.
It is an illusion.

https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20170630-silver-man-secret/
This is the video of the man in your link and he does it. he simply uses support for his body which is logical.The man in my link can not put any hidden support .
This exact one is a trick version for the real magic man  https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/10-secrets-behind-the-most-famous-magic-tricks-revealed-364360/

12
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 01/12/2020 19:56:33 »
Quote from: Halc on 19/11/2020 16:33:56
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 18/11/2020 21:51:06
Here is my hypothesis :
Let's say:
f=ma , and F=GMm/rē
"The hypothesis is fundamental for Both these Newtonian equations and special relativity equations"
How are
those hypotheses fundamental to SR? 
You put this in quotes like something official says this.
The premises of SR do not involve either of these equations.  They are both Newtonian equations and the latter is only an approximation under relativity theory. SR makes no mention at all of gravitational mass.

You understood it wrong.It is my hypothesis that is fundamental for both these estimate Newtonian equation and RS ones
Quote from: Halc on 19/11/2020 16:33:56

Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 18/11/2020 21:51:06
f in the first equation is the inertial force of object m and F in the second equation is the gravity force on m.
I'd have said that m is inertial mass in the first equation. Force is force, and there's no inertial version of it.
Gravity force is the interaction between two masses inertial force is a push or a pull

I will rewrite it to be more clear
For these estimate Newtonian equations " f=ma and F=GMm/rē" when mass m changes then both f and F changes , and this also works for SR complicated equations.
And if m changes both inertial force f and gravity force F change implying a relation between inertial force and gravity force .The relation is gravity force is space-time curvature and inertia force is space-time resistance  .Rest mass is connected somehow with space-time and curve it , mass still connected to space-time while it is moving.If rest mass is affected by curvature and that results in gravity acceleration then moving mass  is also affected by space-time and that results in inertial acceleration.

13
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 29/11/2020 23:45:32 »
Some easy ones are tricks some are not  ,here are several explained magics
https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/10-secrets-behind-the-most-famous-magic-tricks-revealed-364360/
But I do not have any source in which the magician himself  tell its reason .
The floating man will not tell what he is doing , but the scientific explanation in the link is impossible The person appears to raise no weight. He keeps his body shape.And he does it for a long time. The floating man is simply uses the stick for balance.
The important question is how scientifically this floating person raise himself , keep his body shape and stand still for a long period ? I did not find any explanation in the web than the above .And above all there is not an official scientific source that talk about it.


14
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 29/11/2020 21:19:58 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 29/11/2020 19:58:54
The "magic" done by stage magicians are illusions. Tricks. They are not real.
This how to be describing some phenomena that do not go with science.If we see something " illusions" that it really has been done by "tricks" and when touching a box and touching the 10 men"not real ", so What it left to judge it true?
 If you say the above you will also have a scientific problem by the need to define that illusion how it exists ? how this is out of our scientific observation tool ?

15
New Theories / Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 29/11/2020 19:20:45 »
So , science is real we see phenomena and explain them well.
Magic is real , we see unbelievable actions done by magicians.
Magic is real , but it contradicts  science.

I see those people who fly , gathering many people from inside a small box, etc
Magic is not only about some magical performances that we don't know how they works , but also magical  actions that contracts science .An example of silence contradiction : How a volume of 10 men with specific density be placed inside a small box .Or how these men disappear if mass can't be destroyed.

It is not one thing we are waiting for some scientist to explain , it is a huge reality that contracts science.
We can not ignore scientists who accept religion and have arguments whose they believe are logical and we can not ignore those scientists who reject religion and question its validity . If so why not for religion , God created the universe in 6 days and the world came from a big bang.
An equivalent :
A)  A magician created a person from inside a box " religion " and
B) The person already exists " science".
If silence rejects A then it is against reality , if religion rejects B then it is a against the reality of the universe.

16
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 23/11/2020 10:22:51 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/11/2020 21:32:11
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 22/11/2020 21:27:12
.In case of the cone there must be friction force between the ball and the cone
It would still work with a frictionless cone.
If cone is friction-less then no contact between the cone and the ball which is equivalent to a rotating ball without put on a cone  In this case circular motion equations apply by which small push will change ball path

17
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 22/11/2020 21:27:12 »
So, why moon doesn't leave its orbit when hit by a meteorite , it is a matter of it moving even slight distance from earth?
The fact is the moon will move slightly and return back.
Imaging a ball rotating inside a cone with specific speed , This ball can be pushed small distance and return back again keeping its speed and orbit this is a matter of connection and friction force
So the cone scenario must be for moon as well , space-time represent the cone and ball represent the moon.In case of the cone there must be friction force between the ball and the cone in case of the moon there is " my force I discovered " between the moon and space-time

18
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 19/11/2020 09:57:47 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/11/2020 08:42:53
Quote from: Yahya A.Sharif on 19/11/2020 08:42:02
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/11/2020 22:05:28
Can you propose an experiment to test this idea?
I don't have one yet.
Then it is not science.
It is a hypothesis

19
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 19/11/2020 08:42:02 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/11/2020 22:05:28
Can you propose an experiment to test this idea?
I doesn't have one yet.

20
New Theories / Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 18/11/2020 21:51:06 »
Here is my hypothesis :
Let's say:
f=ma , and F=GMm/rē
"The hypothesis is fundamental for Both these Newtonian equations and special relativity equations"
f in the first equation is the inertial force of object m and F in the second equation is the gravity force on m.
If m changes in its mass then both inertial force and force of gravity will change with the same rate.

There must be a relation between mass m being affected by gravity and mass m being affected by inertial force.

If mass is connected somehow to space-time and this connection enable mass to curve space-time this connection will also enable space-time to affect motion resulting in inertia .Space-time curvature makes mass to move with acceleration and space-time opposes mass motion with inertia acceleration.

Space-time straight geometry lines will resist motion of mass m with a force F=ma in a comparison of straight lines will be curved by a mass m.

If the mass is big both curvature and the effect on moving mass will be big if this effect is big then inertia will be big.

A mass at constant speed has no increment in its mass "special relativity "in this case there will not be my moving object effect, because my effect depends on mass"just like curvature depends on mass".

For some math the difference between my effect is highly large in numbers than curvature"gravity " force of inertia is higher than force of gravity both are for the same mass

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.093 seconds with 67 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.