71

New Theories / Re: Has a logical presumption misdirected science down a cul-de-sac?

« Last post by Bored chemist on 16/01/2020 18:17:30 »

For a start, they don't "orbit".

but circle protons to create hydrogen?

Why say that after you have been told it's wrong?

72

New Theories / Re: Has a logical presumption misdirected science down a cul-de-sac?

« Last post by Bored chemist on 16/01/2020 18:15:18 »

I keep repeating my opinion because NOBODY is answering my question.

Everybody answered it.
You failed to put the effort in to learn what the answer means.
Whose fault is that?

73

New Theories / Re: What is the Frequency Universe Reality Theory

« Last post by Bored chemist on 16/01/2020 18:12:41 »

The mainstream science still has no clue how gravity really works and it is all conjecture .

Plain wrong.
We have data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

It is precisely because you say foolish things like that that I think you need to learn some science.
It also makes your comment

the guy who feels the need to insult

look a bit silly.
What you did there was insult all the scientists who (unlike you) do understand gravity.

But what if i'm right ?

The evidence makes it plain that you are not.

By the way, you forgot to address most of the points I made.

74

New Theories / Re: what units should entropy really have? A debate

« Last post by puppypower on 16/01/2020 17:55:02 »

The units for entropy comes from the Gibbs Free Energy Equation G=H-TS, where G is the Gibbs free energy, H is enthalpy and T is temperature and S is entropy. The current units of Entropy are J*Mol/Kelvin. The Kelvin unit was added to Entropy to cancel out the units of temperature T, so the product of T and S has the final units of energy*mole.

Entropy in Chemistry is a state variable, meaning it is a fixed value for any given state. If we go from state A to state B the entropy change would be the difference between these two states, no matter how fast or how slow we go.

Your intuition about the speed of the reaction or the amount of time for change, is more connected to the T variable or temperature in the Gibbs Free energy equation. An explosion will give off more heat as the reaction proceeds to the same final state. TS product will be much higher; more free energy, but same entropy change between the two states.

75

New Theories / Re: ORIGIN OF OUR UNIVERSE

« Last post by Daxiazun on 16/01/2020 17:50:27 »

What if all we see is the expanding of the universe at this point? We could never know what was before , we don't even know what is really happening now. For all we know , it could be a constant cycle of rinse and repeat . Maybe this isn't the first time . Might just expand so far then come back in on itself. Nature loves to recycle .Maybe that's your answer , we have been and always will be , there fore the big bang will happen over and over again . If that's the answer ...my next question would be , does it follow the same course over and over or is it new every time it renews?

76

New Theories / Re: ORIGIN OF OUR UNIVERSE

« Last post by puppypower on 16/01/2020 17:36:26 »

If you were traveling near the speed of light and looked out your window, the universe would appear contracted. At the speed of light, the universe would appear as a point. With a point universe perspective, one can be everywhere in that universe, at the same time, since all points in the original universal space appear to overlap as a single point; omnipresent. I am thinking from the POV of a speed of light reference, since this is the ground state.

What I said is still true. To a photon, neither time nor movement exist. It does not "move in space without the constraint of time" because it doesn't even move.

There is a work around for this. Say we were traveling at the speed of light and the universe appears as a point-instant. This allows us to be omnipresent. Everything in the universe appears to overlap as a point so we see everywhere at the same time.

What I am going to do now, is take out my trusty microscope and magnify that point so it now appears 1 meter in diameter. I am still traveling at the speed of the light, so the point-instant and omnipresent still applies.

My microscope is not changing the point-instant affect that took a lot of propulsion energy to achieve.  All the microscope is doing is giving me a different view of the point-instant in terms of distance, Microscopes do not impact time, and therefore has no impact on the instant.

The affect is similar to looking through a telescope outward toward distance galaxies. On the one hand, we see things that are very far away. But on the other hand, what we really are seeing is energy, that is up close, that once came from far away. We can imagine being there, a million light years away, while never leaving here, so only an instant passes.

This is different than if we apply the brakes to our space-ship and cause our velocity to decrease to below C. Besides the brake heat, that meter size universe is now attached to a finite amount of time. Now space-time is in affect.

77

New Theories / Re: What is the Frequency Universe Reality Theory

« Last post by Daxiazun on 16/01/2020 17:26:58 »

Ok , for the guy who feels the need to insult . The frequency I am referring to is data . Everything is data no matter how you look at it . What I mean by mirror universe is this , looking in the mirror with a mirror results in seeing many of the same scene over and over , still not sure I explained that right. Tell you what , explain to me how the universal data works and I will listen intently . My Theory is we have it wrong on how the basics of the universe works. Some have the concept that we live in a holographic universe . That still indicates a data universe . Since data can and is transferred no stop everyday all day, it is not hard to believe our lives are just one big code .

 Where gravity comes in . What do we know about gravity? Nothing. If you think otherwise you are gluing . The mainstream science still has no clue how gravity really works and it is all conjecture . The problem is we are missing certain equations to fill in the gaps . If the universe is data , and if it followed a mathematical routine , You could look at every instance as a frequency wave length . If there were millions of them , gravity may permeate them all . Which would explain why gravity is so weak and strong  at the same time. It would also mean other universal frequencies would be endless and so would gravity. I understand people disliking new ideas , or flopping their toxic ways to discourage . But what if i'm right ? Every new science gets laughed at , poked , discredited. Its fine . Telling someone to learn science because you clearly misunderstood or the concept was laid down wrong is a douche move! If anyone has anything relating to this, any credited papers referring to the universe being data , or experiments that have been documented . Please let me know . Once again its an idea I would like to investigate.

78

New Theories / Re: Has a logical presumption misdirected science down a cul-de-sac?

« Last post by Kryptid on 16/01/2020 16:47:02 »

Never mind the bluster, in plain language, if protons attract electrons why do they not HIT?

Because electrons are not solid little balls. They have a wave-like nature. They are already touching the proton as much as they can.

79

New Theories / Re: Has a logical presumption misdirected science down a cul-de-sac?

« Last post by rstormview on 16/01/2020 16:42:06 »

I keep repeating my opinion because NOBODY is answering my question. I say again and again, if protons attract electrons why do electrons not hit, but circle protons to create hydrogen?
Never mind the bluster, in plain language, if protons attract electrons why do they not HIT?

80

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 20.01.12 - Why doesn't a woman's body reject sperm as a foreign object?

« Last post by alancalverd on 16/01/2020 16:12:30 »

Most of it is indeed rejected most of the time.