Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. A charged particle with spin has a magnetic moment. An external field means it can be attracted or repelled (depending on the spin projection) and the energy level shifts accordingly.
  3. Today
  4. motlan

    time reversal

    Time reversal To explain my idea of why time reverses if and when the universe contracts, I shall compare our universe to a black hole. The universe and the black hole are very similar in content. Both the universe and the black hole were created by an explosion of energy. The universe was created by expansion from the Big Bang. The black hole was created by a supernova which has similar traits to the Big Bang. The black hole has a singularity, so does our universe since the Big Bang. The black hole started off as a massive star that gave off energy, this is a process called exothermic. When the massive star exploded into a supernova, it collapsed into a black hole. This time the black hole absorbs energy back to the singularity in a process called endothermic. In reference to the universe, the expansion of the universe gave off energy to expand called exothermic and like the black hole it will eventually collapse absorbing energy back to the singularity. It is so similar that physicists claims our universe may be a black hole of a larger universe. The fact is an object at the event horizon of a black hole will be stuck in time. Beyond the event horizon towards the singularity the object will experience a reversal in time. The universe like the black hole will behave the same way. When the universe contracts towards the singularity, the flow of time will reverse order. E=MC² explains that the expanding mass of the universe is proportional to he energy from the Big Bang. Even dark energy expanding the universe will be diluted to the point that the expanding mass of the universe comes to a halt, setting the stage for contraction. Now I presented to you why the contraction of the universe will bring time back from 3 reasons: the distortion of space-time from contraction reverses time, objects absorbed back to the singularity reverses time, and my reverse order mathematics confirms time will end and reverse order at the end. The effects of the universe and the black hole are similar. The universe may contract possibly a hundred trillion years after the universe is dead and desolate. Nothing will live to predict its outcome. Due to asymmetry, time forward will be followed by time reversal. This purpose is for the higher tier God to end the script of the universe and phaser humans which are the last stage of evolution in the image of God to a place of eternal misery or bliss. This can be termed as hell or heaven. Like the pendulum that starts off as exothermic (giving off energy) will be give rise to endothermic (absorb energy) and then reverse order in the opposite direction as an opposite and equal reaction.
  5. Thanks guys... I am glad that studiot used the term 'energy repository' as I think what bothers me is understanding how the energy is stored during these energy shifts. So could the 'spin' be a possible way to store energy? It would surprise me as the quantum spin is fixed (it can measure only two discrete values of identical magnitude). Here is what I think is the essence of my troubles: A simple atom, with only single electron in a state that only has spin magnetic moment (zero orbital magnetic moment) is immersed into magnetic field. Electron's energy shifts... But there is nothing measurable that changes about this atom. I expect that its orbital shape remains unchanged, and its spin (if measured) remains unchanged. Except, of course, its mass does change (from Einstein) - but is this it, is this mass change all that I should expect to happen with this atom?
  6. I once heard someone say, "any moron can climb Mt. Everest. It is getting back alive that is the hard part." I suspect the same could be said about Mars.
  7. You mean incite, not insight. If you dislike the topic area, just ignore it. No need to impose your personal preferences on every other single member here. Many of us enjoy discussing political topics with other reasonable intelligent members. If that’s not you, just move along. Practically speaking, these topics always come up anyway, so at least by having a dedicated subforum for it we can avoid them polluting the more pure science threads where people like you may prefer to focus.
  8. hi Entalphy, it was very nice to read your this post. but the thing I would it to be understood is probably different." musician" definition , of course, includes many descriptions. but the one I would give as a sample was someone like Akcent, Lalgerino, Zack Knight, etc. at a time when I told this to someone, one of my friend said "it is really expensive" I said "oh my dear, how much?" then he said more than (as I remember correctly (if I remember it correctly) 100.000 $ - 10000$ does anyone agree to this idea?
  9. Its always nice to jump on a science forum and see the activity stream filled, mostly, with politics. If we read the Politics topic, we see under it "....and how it relates to science". I almost wonder how much of it spills over into this side of the internet community by design. Facebook and Youtube are full of posts and comments designed purely to insight anger and frustration amongst a common people and the ignorance of those people rapidly takes over. Foreign entities intent on having us destroy ourselves clearly have the "science" of it figured out. Democrat vs republican, white vs black, police department funding, etc etc etc ~ none of it belongs here.
  10. Oops, reading too fast, thought it meant 0.8-2 kilos not 2000 tons.
  11. I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Yes, we can travel to Mars and have done so many times, in the sense of sending robotic craft to orbit and land upon the planet. Yes, we can travel to Mars in the sense that the technology to do so either exists, or is capable of being developed in reasonable time frame (one or two decades) No, we cannot send people to Mars today, or within the next couple of years with any expectation they might arrive and survive. Which sense of the question did you intend?
  12. “[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan
  13. I go with Professor Wheeler's position: Time is what prevents everything from happening at once.
  14. I'm not sure why you think that is much of a challenge.
  15. I will not attempt to answer that particular 'why', but I will offer you a plausible explanation as to why your thoughts have been generally dismissed by other forum members. In no particular order: You have failed to provide a concise and coherent explanation of your proposal. You have made many assertions, but have offered no meaningful support for those assertions. Your posts have seemed belligerent, discourteous and at times hysterical You have not been attentive to replies Your proposals may have much value and even be the correct way forward, however emotional rants will never be as effective as rational argument. I recommend organising your thoughts, presenting them in a simple, straightforward manner, and toning down on the patronising agression. Of course, if you don't really want to convince anyone, then keep doing what you are doing.
  16. "Worse" and "better" are subjective and depends on the circumstances. The other factor to keep in mind is that evolution acts on populations, not individuals or single family lines. So for example, If you have a population of animals, there is going to be a variation in genetic characteristics within that population. These variations will tend to cluster around an "average" or "norm". If we examine a trait like length or thickness of fur, you will find that it varies around a median. Individuals can have longer than normal or shorter than normal fur. As long as this variation isn't too great everything is hunky dory. Now occasionally an offspring will be born that has fur that is a bit too short or too long for the present climate. They won't do as well and will be less likely to survive to produce offspring. This will end up being a pretty stable scenario as long as environmental conditions remain constant. But, if the climate begins to change, the "ideal" fur length also changes. If the temp goes up on average, offspring which, up until then, would have been born with too short of fur, will fare much better, and those that had been born with long fur but still within an acceptable range will find themselves faring much worse. The change in conditions will lead to slightly The climate change will drive the population towards shorter fur. "Survival of the fittest" means a higher chance of survival( and thus produce offspring) for those that have characteristics that are the best "fit" for the present circumstances. If circumstances change, then the characteristics that "fit" best also change. With your robot example, for it to be more in line with evolution you have to start with a large number of robots at the beginning. Thus while the odds of any individual robot at the start having surviving descendants after 100,000 generations might be low, if you start with a large enough population of robots to begin with, enough of those lines will still be around after 100,000 generations to maintain a robust population.
  17. We make the distinction here that people can open idiotic threads, but it's uncivil and inaccurate to call someone an idiot. One doesn't imply the other, so that can't be the disgusting part. Also, "beliefs" in this context are ideas you're unable to support with reason and proper methodology, including evidence. We make it VERY clear that we consider such to be essential to meaningful discussion. Nothing disgusting about that. Admonishing members about breaking the rules and requiring them NOT to do it again is one of a moderator's duties. If you find this disgusting, there are TONS of sites with little or no supervision, where you can make up anything you like. We aren't one of those, that's all.
  18. Hello nice people! Some objects moving against a gas or liquid, especially wind turbines, aeroplanes and water craft, include a vortex generator at their wing, fuselage or hull, usually before the body recesses. The vortices avoid or ease the "flow separation", so a wing lifts at higher angles of attack, and at fuselages, the drag decreases despite the vortices. wikipedia Heat exchangers can use them too. The common explanations are as undetailed as "turbulent flows separate later" or "introduce energy in the boundary layer". Consistently, usual designs of vortex generators are quite crude, as depicted below or with small variations. While quite a bit of experimenting was done in half a century, the generator's shape varied in small amounts, and the performance gain is limited. But maybe the items can be re-thought. I mean, re-thinking is always possible, but sometimes it improves something.
  19. Is that total weight or the weight of the fissile material? And, as Curious layman’s quote indicates, an implosion device is more efficient than a linear device, so the mechanism matters.
  20. Right, he is able to fool 1/3 of Americans ALL THE TIME. That merits the very excellent moniker "world-class con artist."
  21. @IDoNotCare Sorry if you're feeling attacked but you need to be able to summarize(and no I'm not a sock puppet). Nobody can read minds here. I might hazard a guess that you're talking about a post scarcity society and more specifically 'fully automated luxury communism', but you need to spell that out. Without a good reason to, nobody wants to sit through a bunch of YouTube videos or go offsite to a random link. In some cases there is just an initial investment hump that automation has to be pushed over. Admittedly communist countries also tend to nationalize simultaneously, which is a great way to kill outside investment. I think we'll at least see automated trucks. For long-hauls along a highway it would be simple enough. Even if legally they end up needing a truck tender, you could find someone cheaper than a full time driver. At it's heart most R&D boils down to an optimization problem, so algorithms can work for some things. We might still need either a person or possibly a well trained AI, to define problem constraints. I don't think work will be truly eliminated but it might be more of what people actually like or want to dedicate themselves to.
  22. Thank you Curious Layman, you get a +1 for that. The theoretically possible 19 kg is about 42 pounds, only 10 pounds lighter than the Davy Crockett. Smaller than that is probably not cost effective, according to your article. The Russian SADMs may have a yield of up to 2 kilotons, or 2000 tons, or 4,000,000 pounds of TNT yield, and it is "man-portable". Compare that to the Davy C at only 15 tons, or 30,000 lbs of TNT yield and weighs 51 lbs. The Davy C calculates to 588 pounds of TNT per pound of mass (30,000lbs/51lbs) . The SADM calculates up to 40,000 pounds of TNT per pound of mass (4,000,000lbs/100lbs= 40,000). I suppose a guy could carry a suitcase weighing 100 pounds. Something is not adding up. How can the Russian SADMs be man-portable (100lbs) and also be 68 times the yield per pound (40,000/588=68) as the Davy C? Where is my math wrong?
  23. ! Moderator Note This is a difficult admission, but a sensible one. A couple of things, though. You didn't quit. Your idea was refuted through discussion, and that's the way this works. Discussion helps fill the gaps in our knowledge, and shows us where we need to study more. So the other thing is, you don't need to be sorry for posting your idea. You need to stay and join some other discussions, ask questions, and keep learning. It's obvious you're smart. Thanks for posting and taking the time to respond to critical examination. I'll close this thread and hope to see more.
  24. I’ve seen that attitude elsewhere, and have no reason to think it’s smaller in a profession where it can be exercised as part of the job. I think what’s more damaging is the enabling attitude that gives us the thin blue line. That behavior I have seen, when I was in the military. Covering for a comrade’s bad behaviors instead of doing your duty. So when someone behaves badly, the system fails to expose the culprit, and people fail as well. Can you clarify who are the out of control, hostile ones in this? Aggressive policing is one of the systemic problems.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.