71

Complementary Medicine / Re: CBD for cancer...

« Last post by AndreSantos on Yesterday at 07:22:29 »

I can see clearly that no evidence can be posted here.
Still, here it is what I found in Wikipedia links today:
It has not been acknowledged as an official way to help cancer, but CBD has proved to destroy cancer cells and help you with the chemotherapy side-effects.
formulaswiss /source/
Can someone share his opinion?
Andre!

72

New Theories / Re: A comparative analysis of the Solar System with the UVS atomic model

« Last post by Paradigmer on Yesterday at 03:17:07 »

It's plain English; what so word salad about it?

Did you mean something like "You have mixed up the force fields of orthogonal spinning objects as with objects."?

Because, if you did, it still makes no sense.
Objects don't generally have fields to speak of.
There's no good reason for an object to spin about any axis- most don't.
Do you mean orthogonal objects or orthogonal fields?
If so, why didn't you say anything about fields being orthogonal.

And so on.
As written, it is word salad.

As usual, you were always confused with all those stuff you pretend to know.

Don't ask me, go tell Kryptid atoms are spherical.

He knows that.
I know it.
You are the only one pretending otherwise.
Do you understand that the Northern hemisphere of the Earth is not a sphere?
And do you agree that the Southern hemisphere is also not a sphere?

But together they make the whole Earth which is pretty nearly a sphere?

This is like a moron asking "Do you know your mother is a female?" to irrelevantly assert his fallacious argument. 

In the same way, none of the orbitals (other than s orbitals) of an atom is a sphere.
But if you add the orbitals together you get a spherical electron distribution.

So, stop pretending that Kryptid agrees with you.
He doesn't.
It's just that, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Don't dare go ask Kryptid to clarify your goof?

Kryptid agrees with fact, you don't.

It was actually you who as usual, don't know what you are talking about.

73

New Theories / Re: What is gravity???

« Last post by Kryptid on Yesterday at 01:25:45 »

thats why the moon dont spin around he's axis

The Moon does spin on its axis. Its rotation rate is equal to the time it takes to complete one orbit around the Earth.

74

New Theories / Re: What exactly is gravity

« Last post by Kryptid on Yesterday at 01:10:34 »

You are incorrect ,  that is exactly how it works .

Electrons don't even interact via the strong nuclear force. The bond between a proton and electron in an atom is mediated by the electromagnetic force. Also, mass is not correlated to either of the nuclear forces, so you can't say that gravity is somehow caused by the nuclear forces.

Please try to acquire the knowledge of recent developments.

You're going to need to be more specific than that. I can't read your mind.

75

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does gravity exert its influence infinitely?. Times two

« Last post by alancalverd on Yesterday at 00:50:47 »

As far as we know, the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light. It is certainly an inverse square force and cannot logically be anything else since the gravitational field of a point source must be spherically symmetrical.

76

Technology / Re: What is the impact force of dropping a 40kg weight from waist height?

« Last post by Bored chemist on 14/07/2019 22:06:47 »

It's also interesting to note that the 3 tonnes per square meter is roughly a third of the load exerted by the air pressure.
Fortunately, there's air on both sides.

77

New Theories / Re: How can I write a computer simulation to test my theory

« Last post by David Cooper on 14/07/2019 21:53:50 »

I had a look at wiki on aether theories, and I discovered that Einstein wasn't so hot about totally discarding it from SR (at the end of the chapter), so why did he let the whole community discard it? Maybe because he was famous, and that admitting he was wrong about SR would have disappointed everyone.

He was a bit more rational than his followers, but having started up something with massive momentum behind the toleration of contradictions which would in every other field be recognised as invalidating a theory, it set up something like the giant red spot on Jupiter which just keeps on going as a very stable, persistent entity.

You are still trying to prevent Lafrenière's wave from escaping into space while Ivanov and I have a similar one that is already confined. What exactly prevents you from considering our confined wave as an improvement on Lafrenière's unconfined one?

How can you confine it when a wave radiates out in all directions unless you have some kind of container spread all round the outside? But also, we need the energy to leak out as well to produce that medium to produce gravity. The answer may be something QM related. Think about the two slits experiment where parts of a particle take different paths, some going through one slit, some through the other, and most hitting the surrounds.Those parts which make it through the slits then form an interference pattern which dictates where they hit the screen, but then all the energy of the particle is delivered to a single location which one of the parts hit while all the other parts deliver nothing to whatever they collided with. Something similar could be going on to keep restoring energy to the middle of a particle to make sure it keeps returning, while at the same time allowing it to travel out right across the universe.

Here's another possibility though. Suppose each particle is surrounded by associated dark particles, the middle one holding the most energy while the surrounding ones hold less and less of it, all the way out through the universe in every direction. When the visible particle accelerates, the associated dark particles will adjust their positions to maintain their connections to it, while the level of energy held by each is related to the number of other dark particles of the same set leading to the central particle. Each one moves as much as necessary to maintain synchronisation with its associates. We now have the energy reduce with distance away from the centre, but there's never any loss because we always have these associate dark particles maintaining their connections while each also continues to support its own contained standing waves. Clearly, at any point in space, there would need to be astronomical numbers of these dark particles sharing the same location, but each would remain distinct through some kind of entanglement that ties it to its central particle of visible matter. These associate dark particles can now stay linked to their accelerated visible particle and move closer together as they length-contract in accordance with LaFrenière's maths. In this way, a gravity well length-contracts and orbits contract to match.

But what about particles that have descended deep into gravity wells and had their functionality stopped at the EV of a black hole? Their associated dark particles must not collapse to follow them down, and these dark particles must continue to respond to the accelerations of the black hole in order for two black holes to be able to orbit around each other. What exactly happens to a particle that has its functionality stopped by the medium density reducing the speed of light to zero? Where does that energy go if it's frozen in position? Can its associate dark particles continue to function without the frequencies harmonising with the central particle? Does the functionality really stop or might it actually be diverted into some other dimension? When an object goes down a gravity well, its functionality slows as its kinetic energy goes up, because that's where the kinetic energy is drawn from, but if it's going down to a black hole's event horizon, the slowing of the speed of light will eventually slow the object down, so where's the kinetic energy going? That's the key question. The particle stops at the EV and its functionality is stopped too, but that energy must be acting in some way, and all the associate dark particles belonging to that visible particle could still be dancing to its hidden tune.

78

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does gravity exert its influence infinitely?. Times two

« Last post by Yahya A.Sharif on 14/07/2019 21:42:49 »

The reduction in the effect is asymptotic and never reaches zero.

Light intensity is also asymptotic but it reaches zero. when light delay in reaching a place its intensity there is zero.
Although light intensity is proportional to 1/d² , where d is the distance , we can't substitute all possible values of d

It doesn't "reach" zero at a place where it hasn't yet arrived. You just have to wait for it.

Light has a limited range extendable with c speed , even though 1/d² works for it.
If there is another model for gravity where you have to wait for gravity"extendable limited range", the gravitational equation will then be valid for that model , just like 1/d² is valid for light

79

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does gravity exert its influence infinitely?. Times two

« Last post by alancalverd on 14/07/2019 21:02:17 »

The reduction in the effect is asymptotic and never reaches zero.

Light intensity is also asymptotic but it reaches zero. when light delay in reaching a place its intensity there is zero.
Although light intensity is proportional to 1/d² , where d is the distance , we can't substitute all possible values of d

It doesn't "reach" zero at a place where it hasn't yet arrived. You just have to wait for it. Buses don't disappear at Grantham en route from York to London, but they take a couple of hours longer to get to London. And the intensity of York buses in London is low because some of them go to Birmingham.

Same thing with photons.

80

Technology / Re: Could diesel be made clean?

« Last post by alancalverd on 14/07/2019 20:56:28 »

from: alancalverd on Today at 08:13:39 I guess those were the Good Old Days that the green lobby wants to replicate.

Guess again.

Not a guess. I was briefly involved in a pro-horse anti-car group until I pointed out that the horse, standing still in a field, produced as much CO2 in a year as a small car driving 10,000 miles.