Leaderboard

Yes we should see variations as one approaches the cosmological event horizon. Let toy model this, by descriptive as most likely few will understand the math but if requested I will happily provide. Lets assume for a moment the a universe portion just on the outside our observable. Now if this portion has a different mass density this will cause a response by the nearby regions within our observable universe. A higher or lower mass density will result in a net flow of mass, this in turn affects the temperature as well as redshift. The direction of flow will be that which supports an equalization of mass density between the two regions. We don't see this as far as we can measure. The temperature distribution of the CMB for example is incredibly uniform. This uniformity also limits a rotating universe. The upper bounds on the rotational speed is such that it needs to be low enough to explain why we haven't bee able to detect a rotating universe. However that's just a side note. We can safely assume the regions of shared causality just outside our observable portion but within another observable portion say just at the edge of our observable portion is of the same uniform distribution. As we can see regions that can be affected by regions we cannot see via its shared causality that within this limit we can infer that it is much the same as our observable. Beyond any possible shared causality with our observable portion we have absolutely no clue.

Yes, I've got that... But, can waves in a gravity field be attenuated or reflected?

Where is the nickel?! For about 65 million years ago, GMT (Greenwich Mean Time), a terrible, immense, explosion occured over the gulf of Mexico leaving (th)a(t) (great=big) crater there. All over the earth, 2 layers of iridium (sediment) (with quartz), are found in the rock sediment (clay), ruffly each (layer) are about 1 cm thick & spaced=separated about 1 cm apart. Please notice: Meteorites are (extraterrestrial (origin)) iron "nickel" rocks coming from outer space. Typical example: Sudbury mines (company) Ontario, Canada, extract the(ir meteor's) nickel from the ore; & a small percentage of that nickel has platinums; & a small percentage of those platinums is iridium. Thus iridium is an extraterrestrial metal but should be only a tiny percent of a nickel ore. But according to the iridium anomaly (hypothesis) it(s percentages pyramid) is the other way around. Instead of finding (small percentages of) iridium (mixed) in nickel (ore) sediment, we find only iridium as though nickel never existed (in the 2 layers) at all. My big question (here) is, where is(=has) the nickel (gone) for such a (so_called) meteorite (explosion)? -- Otherwise, there is no indication that the earth was "struck" by a (nickel containing) meteorite ~65 million years ago. I.e. None, =no evidence to support the meteorite (struck the earth) hypothesis. Thus the meteorite ("stuck") hypothesis does NOT make sense. =It's NON_SENSE, =NOT based on facts. No(t enough) nickel was found (by the explosion site) to validate the hypothesis (that a meteorite hit the earth). E.g. Was it a meteorite that caused the explosion? If not? What then (was the cause, for the explosion)? Instead an above earth explosion seems more possible. But that (=because) pure iridium was the fallout (dust), indicates an atomic nuclear explosion of severe (radiation) intensity. E.g. (Increasing by_products (=residue (mass), tendency) due to radiation, produces mass): I-131 (8 days), Cs-137 (30 years) & Sr-90 (29 years), Si-32 (153 years), Ir-192(m2 241 years, 2nd densest, earth metal), .. . (as ruff (approx.) idea, but those are the unstables). A kind of fusion (produced mass, similar to pair production) caused by too much (gamma) radiation. (E.g. producing larger mass (e.g. transmutation, nuclear chemistry); & it is (also) an indication of atomic mass's age. But that's another theme, on its own.) 2. I'll assume, even though iridium is the 2nd densest metal, aerosol floating would (have) be(en) possible to carry it (Ir dust) far distances, all over the earth('s surface). Otherwise, that Ir smoke would have landed locally, e.g. near the crater (to some extent); instead of throughout the whole earth's surface. But I still find it peculiar to think a meteorite struck, (that it) could have been vaporized to release its (nickel's) iridium, without a single trace, of iron, nickel nor platinums. QED.

This is a good question, and good thinking on your part as far as it goes. +1 But do you have any evidence that nickel was tested for and found absent or not present in enhanced quantities? What is the normal concentration of nickel? the so called iridium spike of Alvarez was found to be an increase of 30 times from 0.3 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion I think that nickel and iron are more abundant that that. It is an interesting exercise to take an average % nickel for (say 20%) the chixelub meteorite and calculate what increase it would make to the average crustal concentration of the Earth if spread out over it. Would it produce as spectacular a spike ie increase the concentration by a factor of 30?

Ignoring the rest of your rather weird rhetoric, let me correct you on your absolute gross misunderstandings and errors in the above. [1] You have given no explanation that I have seen on anything other then your false, rather silly conclusions based on your interpretation of pi. [2] The equations and maths are the language of physics and a requirement of any viable scientific theory. [3] Science/physics constructs explanatory models based on our observations, with the support of maths/language, rather then made up word salad rhetoric.

ENGA-LUND!

Hated seeing Nigeria leave the tournament after that lucky, half-hearted attempt by Argentina. Should have gone the other way. I'm reminded of a quote by Michael Jordan... " Some athletes want great things to happen, and, some athletes wish for great things to happen. Great athletes make great things happen." As much as I detest C Ronaldo's smugness, it is by his determination that Portugal is playing as well as they are. L Messi, on the other hand, seems disinterested in the tournament. Hope France puts an end to his misery.

The basic premise upon which you base your whole argument is flawed. Elementary particles cannot be spheres. That implies they have a volume, and so, cannot be elementary or fundamental, because they can then be subdivided. What exactly is half an electron ? Or a quarter photon ? And what does that imply for charge/energy quantization ? The foundation of your argument is wrong; that makes the rest of it gibberish. ( especially the part about accuracy and significant digits )

May have been a chondite. Different composition and actually more common. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrite

I think the gist here is that the OP wants a "nuts and bolts" step-by-step explanation of a how a photon is created, and physics can't supply that. There's no way to investigate it, and no way to test any model that one might come up with. It is outside of the realm of physics. IOW, physics/science tells you how the world behaves. It does not tell you about the details of how it works. It does not reveal "reality". Are photons real objects? We can't say. Nature behaves as if they are, so our models using them work. But we're always open to a better model.

I think some sort of law requiring bots (to include information shared, liked, or tagged by bots) be identifiable. Social media companies could more easily just delete accounts or remove post from those in violation. I also think the propaganda would be far less effective if the person receiving it understand it was generic info routed to them by a marketing algorithm. Just as product labels in stores must contain information about their origins and contents so too should products online.

Two thousands years ago, you would have wife and awaiting children at such age.. Surround test tube by aluminum foil, place precise thermometer inside. The easiest would be to use Arduino, with temperature sensor, with custom made program which will read temperature and keep steady temperature..

Unitive mystic, either way these are not serious problems that I think would lead to migrations - more akin to the health risks populations would face regardless of location. I think rereading my posts will tell you why I think that - and the reasons others give support that conclusion also. Unless you have something new to add I'll leave it at that.

Actually, I just came up with a salve (made from... um, lizard oil) that will grow big, hairy breasts on your willie. It's not cheap, though.

I think this was symptomatic of an ill-acquired management trained in business techniques - as was common then - that had no clue as to the requirements of each hospital and instead treating each one as identical clones of a franchise. Health administration on a universal healthcare platform, like the NHS, is whole different ball game.

I think if you are eating a good variety of foods that's as fast as it's going to grow. There's plenty of snake oil advice and sellers on the internet which you should avoid. It's up there with bigger willies and bigger breasts for scammers and general BSers

Eat healthy and don't overstress your hair. There's no evidence you can increase growth rate significantly beyond that with products.

Not seeing much in the way of scientific/medical knowledge at this time to answer your question. https://www.curlcentric.com/rice-water-for-hair/

What sort of bull shit is this? Do you imagine a failed civilisation is like a soft brexit?

Why the diminishing reactions against a simple question? Is it that hard to look into it than trying to mock someone who presents a different point of view? Is this how present science forums work? I'm not trying to advertise anything. I published my views already and I don't expect to receive any prize for it. Time will tell who was right and who wasn't...that's all!

Domestication of cattle happened just relatively recently, approximately 10,500 years ago. There was not enough time for natural selection. Also, intolerance does not kill, so even if tolerance would be developed in some people, people with intolerance would still survive, still spreading their genes, and mixing with people with tolerance (disallowing tolerance to lactose in genes to prevail, and becoming dominant in population). There is also very easy way to turn milk to become drinkable by people with intolerance - simply make kefir. Put spoon of old kefir to container with fresh milk and wait couple hours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefir "As a result of the fermentation, very little lactose remains in kefir. People with lactose intolerance are able to tolerate kefir, provided the number of live bacteria present in this beverage consumed is high enough (i.e., fermentation has proceeded for adequate time). It has also been shown that fermented milk products have a slower transit time than milk, which may further improve lactose digestion.[11]"

Slaves only lived to be in their 20s north and south. And before the north abolished slavery, the northern slaves were seen to be in worst condition than southern slaves.

Is this the way scientists think? How does what you believe have any bearing on what is real?

when you read my articles you'll understand. There are much more deeper interests in ignoring the mathematical infinite in science today than you are capable of imagining... if you're interested in knowing what I'm trying to convey, just try reading first and then comment. thanks

Please excuse me for being pinched here but I'm afraid to attempt any more than one reply to one statement otherwise the platform shuffles the cards and there goes intelligence. Our observable portion of the universe is the only part that we can verify and test and observe (by definition of "observable"). By what means could we ever arrive at any degree of confidence that SOMETHING ELSE, OTHER THAN this observable "part" exists? Furthermore, by what means could we ever hope to observe, test, know or verify that which is beyond our ability to observe, test, know or verify? I personally appreciate the various diagrams you have drawn previously. I think you did a good job. I'm having some trouble, however, in reconciling concepts being presented here that impute relevance to "parts" of the Universe which are not "parts" of the observable universe. We can all collectively thank the retarded platform for "merging" my two posts again, effectively DARING you to distinguish between them when or if you quote me.

I referred as a circle and it is posted as a circle before if you look for it. Yes, a sine wave can be represented in a plane 2 d as a circle. my reference to a sphere is this: Space is, as you already know mt point, a fabric of an infinite inward "universe" if you wish. The presence of pi in the volume equation makes it infinite, fractionally but infinite. I spoke about the incompatibility of space and energy together. Energy as EM energy in the electron is in a constant oscillation (resonance) within its own PERFECT VOLUME. (this capital letter is for another member who argued about the spherical shape of electrons. As electron oscillates between two states 'particle' electric charge and 'cloud' magnetic field the magnetic polarity also oscillates into two polarity states and as the EM energy of the electron recoils back into its particle state, it becomes mass-charge but also it's an alternating oscillatory process where charges alternate from one spin to the opposite. In the case of bosons or photons, there's no charge because they don'e have rest mass but they do have a particle state (photons) and a cloud state that alternates into two polarities as well. you have heard that light has two polarities just as electrons have two magnetic momenta. All these processes are easily seen if we linked the oscillation aka resonance with the incompatibility between space and energy. Without my interpretation all you get is the same phenomenon without a theoretical explanation. yes you have equations and math ready to calculate those parameters but no argument that you could rely to in plain words. Physics is missing the explanation and the argument to explain in simple words how these processes take place and what's behind them. as for the concept "point particle" you have to be careful. a mathematical point could mean that the EM energy (mass and charge) of the electron in its particle state would be infinite and that's is an impossibility. The charge of the electron is not infinite and neither it's its magnetic momenta. the spin is 1/2 because around the atomic orbital electrons alternate their charge just as the example I posted of the LC circuit. a resonance process keeps alternating opposite spins and opposite magnetic polarities within one complete oscillation. the process is the same inside atomic orbits and outside. when outside or in the vacuum, electrons keep oscillating and alternating their magnetic polarities and their spins. I'm not talking that charges became positive or negative, please. spin is just the direction of the charge in space. the azimuth as it's also known.

Einstein was wrong about the existence of "Eather" as it's known in official texts. He agreed that it was not tangible; it couldn't be observed and it couldn't be measured by any instrument. He was obviously justifying his space-time theory of space although he never explained how EM waves (light for example) is produced or even what is the propagation mechanism employed by space. I have a layman proposition that I'm suggesting you for comments. I'm not in the mood for engaging into an empty heated arguing with fellow members, just a pleasant conversation about your personal feelings about it. My argument is very simple really, I believe that there is no space-time fabric. Time is indeed observed differently as well events are delayed too but it has nothing to do with an assumed fabric of space but with its infinite nature, both outwardly and inwardly. I posed an inconvenient question in my very first posting, I see the general reaction to it, but I was expecting a more civilized discussion and acceptance on the part of this forum of physics enthusiasts. Why attacking me instead of trying to answer my simple questions? What's wrong in trying to see my point? https://docs.google.com/document/d/19lln6kSwHhKg6K60YFyni4lX1k3CifTH_DF0fRpDEr8/edit?usp=sharing Good luck!

My only evidence is that the universe exists.