All Activity

That's the thing about the written word, a typo can cause so much confusion down the line. The him, and to some extent the it is, I think, pretty clear in the OP. Perhaps you could be more specific. That not everyone is equal doesn't mean not everyone is capable of greatness, the situation/context mould's the person, and when the hour cometh the most capable rises to greatness... Neither was Hitler... 😉

A setup to separate fools from their money. But there have been efforts such as SETI, so a coordinated scientific effort is possible. But that also means you’d potentially have to admit that you’ve found nothing after years of searching.

Hi, again I still have some remaining issues; can one notice the Higgs field only "visible" through the QFT fluctuations which are delectated as the VEV amount? I.e. Higgs field is hiding behind the VEV and only theoretically confirmed via this stance? There is no other way we can confirm Higgs field, for the moment? (Only at the LHC and ATLAS studies?) /chron44

Ok, thank you.

After I left yesterday, I realized that Markus Hanke answer regarding the blueshift: ignored that the source of light, the Sun, is not comoving with the travelling twin. For a light source situated in the accelerating spaceship, in front of the twin, there would be the blueshift that Markus Hanke mentioned, but if the source of light, the Sun in this case, is in front of the spaceship, outside, not comoving, the blueshift would continue to grow as the velocity of the ship increases. My point is that if an accelerometer indicates an acceleration and the blueshift of the stars in the direction of acceleration is not increasing, the acceleration is not real, it is not associated with an increase in velocity. In this way we can distinguish between uniform acceleration and uniform gravitational field.

What exchemist is referring to here is that the lowest energy state in quantum mechanics doesn’t have zero kinetic energy, unlike in classical systems.

It is unfortunate that most observation stations have been set up like this one at Hooper, Colorado.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_Watchtower So instead of attracting scientists who can set up proper recording arrays, it attracts the true believers (or tourists looking for something offbeat). Or nuts, e.g. Me too. I figured "providence" was provenance.

The potential term has variables of acceleration * distance (a*h); the product is larger Even though the acceleration is the same, the position has changed. It is the equivalent to being deeper in a potential well

Yes, of course. That was/is my line of thinking as well. I don't know. No, on the contrary, I think that only the speed of the travelling twin is the cause, but the acceleration is important to establish which twin is travelling and also his path in spacetime, if I understood correctly. What do you mean with "ah is bigger"?

Usually first and second year QM. However I should mention those boring lessons your getting now will apply at every level of physics. In particular any physics involving kinematics. However this prevent you from learning QM early on.

! Moderator Note This was explained to you in your thread ! Moderator Note Mainstream threads are not the place to bring up objections to mainstream science.

There’s no suggestion of anything that’s testable in the context of some new model.

Correct, but how do you explain that acceleration produces a blueshift and redshift from the point of view of the one accelerating if it does not change its speed relative to the waves? ---------------------------------------- The equivalence principle only works inside the rocket, without the possibility of seeing what is happening outside. You just need to study the blueshift and redshift that emanate from inside the rocket. It is only local, which is why we cannot resolve the twin paradox within the framework of general relativity.

The equivalence of frequency let's term it Mj or Kihara equivalence....mmm... selfish... 😋. Pliz give the reason for a red tick,think about it is complicated without reasoning.

Are there simple methods for extraction of chitinase from food such as bananas, avocados, kiwis, chestnut, beans and so on? That is, the extracted chitinase need not be entirely pure, just in significantly higher concentrations than in the food material the process starts with. It does, however, need to avoid degradation that permanently compromises chitinase activity. Temporary inactivation during the extraction process is acceptable as long as it is easily reactivated afterwards, but degraded homologs derived from chitinase that merely retain other attributes such as chemical similarity and allergenicity won't do it if their chitinase activity is permanently lost. Since the question is about simple methods, specialist reagents or chromatographs are not the answers the question seeks. Are there simple methods based on simple "reagents" such as water, ethanol, common household chemicals, easily extracted DIY substances and other easily obtainable chemicals? That is, the product need not be pure but it should increase chitinase levels compared to untreated food.

Here 'tis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_field_entoptic_phenomenon they're the light shining through the spaces in front of large white blood cells randomly stopping while trying to squeeze through tiny capillaries. This momentary halt results in an empty space just ahead in the vessel before the cell again moves with the flow and fills the gap. There are a whole variety of strange things going on in the eye, so to say, that are hiding in plain sight. Once you know how to look at them they become obvious. Otherwise known as Scheerer's phenomenon, 1924. He was an ophthalmologist, so some people took his observation seriously. Other name, 'blue sky sprites' I like that.

You might want to check the Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows

You never know! All kinds of people come up with all kinds of wonderfully unique descriptive words - either because the context is or at some time was significant in their culture, or because one of their poets or jesters coined one that everybody considered worth repeating. There is a Hungarian two-word phrase for spilling food down the front of one's clothes. There is no way anyone could ever have thought that was important to note, but somebody said it and it's funny, so people keep using it. I've heard there is a word in Japanese for the urge old people get to pinch a baby's cheek. It's not that significant, but somebody noticed it and named it. People talk about feelings in many ways, but we share the feelings pretty much all around the world.

Don't know why I thought emotions came in packages.Therein lay my confusion. Maybe that is related to my self assessment as a literalist -or maybe I just don't have the patience to think things through.(unlike my dinner plates) (I know what you mean about the Icelanders- I wonder what is the culture most centred around gastronomy and introspection-I don't think the French would have that kind of vocabulary-maybe the Belgians? )

That is sad All you have to do is make a report, no claims are necessary to labeled a nut.

I’ve mentioned what needs to be done. Anybody who’s serious about the subject needs to do that. If they lack the will to do so, oh well. The status quo will continue. If they are claiming more than what the evidence shows, then they are mistaken.

inflationary gravity waves Weak field limit transverse , traceless components with \(R_{\mu\nu}=0\) \[h^\mu_\mu=0\] \[\partial_\mu h^{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu h^{\nu\mu}=0\] \[R_{\mu\nu}=8\pi G_N(T_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}T^\rho_\rho g_{\mu\nu})\] vacuum T=0 so \(\square h_{\mu\nu}=0\) transverse traceless wave equation \[\nabla^2h-\frac{\partial^2h}{c^2\partial t^2}=\frac{16\pi G_N}{c^4}T\] inhomogeneous perturbations of the RW metric \[ds^2=(1+2A)dt^2-2RB_idtdx^i-R^2[(1+2C)\delta_{ij}+\partial_i\partial_j E+h_{ij}]dx^idx^j\] where A,B,E and C are scalar perturbations while \(h_{ij}\) are the transverse traceless tensor metric perturbations each tensor mode with wave vector k has two transverse traceless polarizations. \[h_{ij}(\vec{k})=h_\vec{k} \bar{q}_{ij}+h_\vec{k} \bar{q}_{ij}\] *+x* polarizations The linearized Einstein equations then yield the same evolution equation for the amplitude as that for a massless field in RW spacetime. \[\ddot{h}_\vec{k}+3H\dot{h}_\vec{k}+\frac{k^2}{R^2}h_\vec{k}=0\] https://pdg.lbl.gov/2018/reviews/rpp2018-rev-inflation.pdf

Then people who want to know what is going on are never going to know because its a random event? And by the way, I do not claim them to be alien, I claim them to be unknown, I specifically said they look like technology, the question is who's tech is it. I never assume aliens, if nothing else I do know the phenomena cannot be shown to be anything specific at this point. Personally I have wondered since I was a kid if these things might be some sort of natural atmospheric phenomena we simply do not understand. The only way we will ever know is for the phenomena to be studied, all we currently have are reports, pics, and videos from regular people... does that mean we should simply ignore those people's reports? Tell them they are nuts? Call them liars? There are some really good well substantiated reports out there, do we ignore them because I scientist didn't manage to measure them with special equipment? If so then we will never know. One thing I believe to be relevant, simply saying a photo is irrelevant because a scientist didn't take it under controlled conditions is how science dies.

What is there to investigate if there isn’t any rigor? It’s not like these phenomena are being held to a different standard that’s present in science. The frustration, apparently, is being held to the same standard. If the necessary information isn’t there, it isn’t there. It would be like LIGO or CERN (or any lab result) getting a signal but something isn’t calibrated (and can’t be retroactively calibrated). Too bad, but the data are worthless. You can assume there is a phenomenon to be investigated, but you can’t just assume a given observation is an alien. Relying on random observations is unlikely to ever give rigorous data. What you can do is set up coordinated, rigorous investigation, just like amateur scientists do in other fields. e.g. instead of one, you have multiple cameras at known locations, so you can triangulate positions and get speeds. But if anybody is doing this, we haven’t been made aware of it. Because that’s all there is under these circumstances

Trump thought he had Pecker in his hand... (he's a one ball man, he's off to the rodeo)