Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/03/19 in all areas

  1. probs not - but here it is anyway. Damp squib if ever there was one... https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/118572-i-offer-the-innovation-green-technology-of-generation-of-the-electric-power-by-means-of-a-new-renewable-energy-resource/?tab=comments#comment-1099131 A - "I have a great new ground breaking invention that will change the world forever and no-one will ever need for anything again" B - "Great - what is it" A - "I can't TELL you of course, doh, that would be telling and you might steal my idea - it's SO great though - what can I do to build it and sell it to the world" B - "Whatever". Mods: "yea - whatever - we get 20 of you a month, thread closed unless you want to discuss the science behind the idea".
    2 points
  2. I think the OP should be able to see that creation science is an oxymoron. If you have faith and an unshakable belief in the literal meaning of the bible - then good for you. If you want to use science to prove Noah's flood, or that evolution did not occur, or that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time, then you are doomed to fail.
    2 points
  3. Alright, let's look at one sentence. This is a grammatical nightmare - but let's try to get through it. "The Big Bang a rapid inflation but then the slow then rapid increase in speed of dark energy" This does not make any sense. Energy is not a substance. You cannot have a bucket of energy - so the idea that energy has speed is nonsensical. "can be explained by the implosion effect the falling shrinking yet growing denser singularity theoretically implodes a rapid initial inflation of all the superheated information at x size then the cooling slowing down then speeding up affect of that information" Information cannot be superheated or cooled or speeded up. hypothetically explained by the initial singularity absorbing enough information energy from the field to have a drastic repulsive bounce effect spherically from the initial singularity by the fact that after x expansion of the matter state the fields either already were There at vastly to greatly x size or expanded much faster and pulls the matter universe layer faster and faster. Sorry but I cannot make heads or tails of this. If you are interested science take math and physics courses while you are in school. Good luck! Putting out ideas like this on a science site before you have understood the basics of science are only going to give you negative feedback. Don't worry about it we all had some funny ideas before we had a solid base in a science education
    2 points
  4. And that, I think, is the problem. I think it is great that you are interested in science, but instead of wasting time watching Youtube videos, I would recommend using some of the excellent online courses and other resources to actually study and learn some science. Then you can come to a forum like this and ask questions to clarify anything you don't understand. I know it is hard work but, ultimately, it is much more satisfying than making up stories. Also, you might want to read up on the concept of "paragraphs."
    2 points
  5. If the Chicxulub crater is the smoking gun for the impact theory on the KPg extinction event, then these findings from North Dakota by DePalma and his colleagues are one of the ricochets. Here is the abstract - " The most immediate effects of the terminal-Cretaceous Chicxulub impact, essential to understanding the global-scale environmental and biotic collapses that mark the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction, are poorly resolved despite extensive previous work. Here, we help to resolve this by describing a rapidly emplaced, high-energy onshore surge deposit from the terrestrial Hell Creek Formation in Montana. Associated ejecta and a cap of iridium-rich impactite reveal that its emplacement coincided with the Chicxulub event. Acipenseriform fish, densely packed in the deposit, contain ejecta spherules in their gills and were buried by an inland-directed surge that inundated a deeply incised river channel before accretion of the fine-grained impactite. Although this deposit displays all of the physical characteristics of a tsunami runup, the timing (<1 hour postimpact) is instead consistent with the arrival of strong seismic waves from the magnitude Mw ∼10 to 11 earthquake generated by the Chicxulub impact, identifying a seismically coupled seiche inundation as the likely cause. Our findings present high-resolution chronology of the immediate aftereffects of the Chicxulub impact event in the Western Interior, and report an impact-triggered onshore mix of marine and terrestrial sedimentation—potentially a significant advancement for eventually resolving both the complex dynamics of debris ejection and the full nature and extent of biotic disruptions that took place in the first moments postimpact." The full article is available here on PNAS.
    1 point
  6. I think there is a bit of a disconnect between upper college level and first-year/high school knowledge. The issue is that we got tons of interactions mapped but have not built a simple narrative out of it yet, that can be easily conveyed to students. In addition, fluorescence live imaging and similar techniques have been around for a very long time, but since they are tricky (and often expensive) courses usually only provide hands-on in upper level courses (and sometimes only at the graduate level). Of course, there have been technical improvements (such as new variants of superresolution microscopy), but I think the barrier between textbook and research is less a technical one, but rather the difficulty to create large narratives if bits and pieces are not resolved yet. I.e. we know there are plenty of interactions and various paper have found either some of the mechanisms or figured out that certain disruptions could lead to physiological defects. However, unifying and synthesizing the data is still a bit on the tricky side. If someone intends to re-write a new textbook, it is would be either one of the hideous review-style books, which are not helpful to students (and only sometimes helpful for researchers) or it would be simplified to such a degree that it would not really add anything, except to state that there is more to it. This is not to be a criticism of teachers (regardless of level), of course. Considering the pace of biological sciences almost all college courses are out of date to various degrees. Unless one intends to build lectures entirely from recent lit (which is basically impossible for the fundamental courses) one have to rely on imperfect narratives and then "rebuild" the student's knowledge for certain elements, once they become relevant. What I do not like that much is the title of these reports, which like to pretend that every incremental improvement of our knowledge is the reveal of some big secret that no one was aware of. These, of course, are just another form of narrative, but I do not think that this is an appropriate description of the actual research progress.
    1 point
  7. This is where a formal education in science would help a great deal. Without a firm knowledge foundation, we humans tend to make things up so the patterns feel right. As soon as you start guessing, and then basing more ideas off the guesswork, you're filling in your ignorance with junk that makes PERFECT sense to you (because you made it up using limited resources rather than learning from mainstream science). Gaps in our knowledge should be filled in with trustworthy information. As others have mentioned, learning science from YouTube is pretty sketchy. It's as hit and miss as many popular science articles, where sensational concepts are exaggerated to gain readership rather than educate. If you knew mainstream science a little better, you wouldn't be spending ANY time on overunity devices and buckets of energy. The problem is you're obviously smart, and curious, and capable, but lack special knowledge that would focus your efforts. Without a path, you're floating on this weird stream of consciousness that will always agree with you, always tell you you're right, and always make perfect sense, but only to you. Does THAT make sense?
    1 point
  8. If your NMR matches literature besides those two peaks (that I am fairly sure are residual solvent / grease peaks), I would proceed with whatever you’re using it in. Go small scale first so you don’t blow all your compound (just in case). For future, try and source the compound from another company if Sigma is giving you bad stock. We’ve had to do this on several occasions, with the added bonus that it’s often cheaper. If you’re in the US, I’ve always been fond of Oakwood Chemicals. Edit: For the record, you will sometimes find that your NMR solvent has a grease contaminant in that pops up at about 1.25 ppm or so. Some years ago my lab had a problem where every bottle of CDCl3 we got from Sigma had this peak, and it didn’t go away until we switched back to Cambridge Isotopes. What you may like to try is to run an NMR of just your solvent, to see whether or not those peaks come from there or from your compound.
    1 point
  9. A rot evap won’t get rid of trace water, not to mention you likely have some water in your NMR solvent. I would suspect water and hexane or grease are the culprits here, based on chemical shifts. You need high vac and very dry NMR solvent to completely eliminate the water peaks. Have you run anything else? GCMS? 13C NMR? (edited)
    1 point
  10. If your "theory" has to be taken seriously by scientific community start from calculating something useful in quantum physics using your "theory" equations. Like spectral lines of the all atoms, for instance?
    1 point
  11. It could also be other charged particles, but let's assume the electron case No. It is the number of electrons that pass a through a cross section (e.g. a location in an electrical cable) per time. Simplified said, it is the pressure of the electrons together. No. The question makes no sense. There is not such a thing. However, one can speak of the difference in 'voltage' (better named potential difference) between two places. When there is a difference (voltage > 0) and the two places are connected, an electrical current will level them. The electrical current can be in the form of electrons (e.g. normal current in an electrical connection), ions (e.g. battery), electrical sparks (moving charges through an insulator) etc. No idea where you've got that. This is pure nonsense. Maybe. But the standard model says nothing about this, afaik, A muon is an unstable particle in itself, that decays via the weak interaction in an electron and an anti-neutrino. Then you won't learn real physics, I think. Where Descartes is an important figure in the history of philosophy and science, he is of no importance in actual philosophy and science anymore. It makes no sense to build ideas about his'. That is 400 years ago?
    1 point
  12. I also saw Arp among those names. While otherwise like Hoyle, and Hannes Alfvén, a reasonable astronomer, but he also got things wrong. Enough said. And on checking out your "72kms/s quantum redshift", I pulled up this....https://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show a creationist site claiming similar. Again, enough said. Yep, exactly....we observed redshifts before theorising the universe expanding. Einstein even fell for that one. Later data forthcoming from WMAP and other experiments showed that expansion was accelerating when the knowledge of the day reasoned gravity would be slowing the expansion. So again, so much balony for your silly claims that mainstream science, is hiding or fudging with the real observational data. While other alternatives exist, and papers on those alternatives are published everyday, so far the vast majority of evidence from many different quarters [as opposed to one] support the BB and an expanding universe. In summing, and from what little I do know, is that the hypothetical redshift quantization, is at best poorly understood, hence the usual speculative models being posted on, by those that see other possibilities. At best your claim on redshift is debatable, and at worst, explainable by other poorly understood data. Picking the speculative scenario that best supports a personal position, is this shown by the creationists jumping on the bandwagon. I also find it hard to accept that other galaxies are orbiting our own, and see that as akin to the geocentric thoughts of Ptolemy, more then 2000 years ago...silly.
    1 point
  13. Rubbish...More akin to Astrology as I said. Your remark about science sweeping redshift quantization under the carpet is total ignorance also...Why would science hide any observational data? Why would they try and support the BB underhandedly if evidence showed other alternatives? It just doesn't hold up, and sounds like some of the arguments that god botherers and creationists use, or in your case your own personal agenda and baggage for whatever reasons. http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-research/general/tomes/ Interesting stuff certainly, but also pseudoscience and totally against current observational data. Perhaps people may have been more receptive to your idea, if you had not tried to give it a semblance of respectability and posted in the correct section. But then again, that appears to be a common occurrence from alternative hypothetical pushers. The BB stands as the overwhelmingly supported theory of the evolution of space and time, as we know them. That along with SR/GR go together perfectly, one complementing the other.
    1 point
  14. Today I learned why there are so many disparate words for "bear" in Indo-European languages. Apparently, bears were so terrifying that the word for them was taboo (in case naming them caused them to appear) and so a variety of euphemisms were sued: "bruin" (the brown one) and related forms in Germanic languages (which is where we get bear" from); "medved" (honey eater) and similar names in Slavic languages; and so on. https://www.charlierussellbears.com/LinguisticArchaeology.html
    1 point
  15. You know what’s a disappointing tale? The fact that this dead horse is still being beaten after 3 pages of discussion. It’s an Internet forum, people. Perspective please.
    1 point
  16. I remember after Romney lost in 2012 many people insisting that Republicans had to reach out to latino voters. That demographic shifts in the country were such that Republicans simply could no longer win pandering strictly to white christian voters. Rather than seek broader that support Republicans focused their efforts on voter suppression passing Voter ID laws. We saw how questionable outcomes were during the mid term election just a few months ago. In FL and GA in particular it is likely Republicans stole Senate seats. Their is a Congressional seat in North Carolina that still hasn't been decided since the Nov. election, link. Here in the U.S. their is not a national system for voting. It is handle at the local level across the country. Some locations have multiple days of voting, mail in voting, months of registrations, and etc while other have tightly controlled windows of time and locations where one can vote. The process can take minutes or several hours. I think the idea that democrats winning the popular vote isn't good enough and they must further compromise their position to be even more popular is a losing mentality. City by city and county by county local Democratic officials need to fight harder to ensure voting booths, coherent ballot instructions, adequate voting hours, and etc. Average voter turnout in Canada was 68% 2015's election. Here in the U.S. turnout was 55% for 2016's elections. If the U.S. could achieve turnout numbers closer to Canada's there is no way Trump could be re-elected. Our pitiful turnout numbers exist by design. Voting is made difficult on purpose to suppress turnout. It doesn't matter is it is Biden, Warren, Harris, or whomever on the ballot if the ballot isn't filled out and turned in. Democrats win the popular vote and polls show that they hold the more popular positions across the board on nearly every issue. Stealing away voters isn't what Democrats need to focus. Ensuring people vote, are able to conveniently vote, is what they need to focus on.
    1 point
  17. The last half of that sentence shows why the first half is false. Truth is too subjective, even though it's supposed to be the ultimate in objectivity. Forget truth. Science is looking for the best supported current explanations, and is constantly being challenged. Truths tend to be treated as sacred, and aren't questioned much.
    1 point
  18. do we need to? only for us; we can't force others...
    1 point
  19. iNow, I see your point, and maybe in the most cases you are right. Yep, given that religions exist, you are completely right. But there is also a reason why religions came into existence. And there I think the kind of rationality I referred to (finding causes), did play a role. In the end, one of the questions in the OP was: I think that the first step of rationalising is find reasons that satisfy me. But then, when I e.g. defend my belief in a discussion, i.e. use my reasons as arguments in the discussion, the discussion becomes rational. But of course, when my religious feelings are stronger than my arguments, I will not give up my belief, and search for other arguments, eventually very, very bad ones ("God is not knowable", "it is called 'belief' not 'knowledge'", "The bible says so"). OTOH, there are enough people who leave religion behind, because they thought they had good reasons, but discover that they were not as good as they thought (maybe they just discover that they were indoctrinated).
    1 point
  20. I think that we are hardwired for religion, and even that it is rational to believe in God(s). But latter is not rational enough. 'Rational' means for me that one bases one's opinion on arguments: these arguments can be bad, or not relevant, but everytime somebody honestly defends his position, he is rational. If one would reduce rationality to 'modelled-after-hard-science-only', whole discussions would become irrational: like in politics, ethics or art. It would lead to scientism, the view that only scientific based facts are worth something. Having said that, there is an important aspect that religious and scientific thinking share: looking for causes. I think that the capability of humans to look for causes, and to share what they found by means of language, was the evolutionary factor that gave humans the decisive advantage in evolution. But 'causal rationality' can go haywire when positing causes, without checking if these causes really exist. So natural science and religion in my eyes are based on the same human trait: the inclination to find explanations for what happens to us and in the universe.
    1 point
  21. I independently arrived at what is known as Narlikar 's variable mass hypothesis, in which nucleon masses vary over time. In this view there is no expansion. It solved many problems previously swept under the carpet such as redshift quantization. It is not astrology, but pure science. When it is understood that the fundamental laws of the universe are non linear, then many previously problem areas are solved. And I can explain why we have the hierarchy of scales, hubble, galaxy, stats planets, moons,... Cells, atoms, nucleons. What an ignorant person you are. You prejudge what you have not read while refusing to look at it. I cannot present decades of work in one page here. It will not allow me to put a link. So I suggest a search. Don't read it, I don't care. But don't throw mud when you know nothing.
    -3 points
×
×
  • 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.