Leaderboard

Good point. Probably the mixing of static and dynamic situations* for both gravity and electromagnetism is the main reason behind the proposals made by OP. I asked you to analyse your proposed equation for gravity but I see no response. So here are some comments. As Swanson pointed out you seem so mix static and dynamic things. Here is Newton: [math]F=G \frac{m_{1} m_{2}}{ r^{2} }[/math] Note: there is no time dependency as far as I can see. Here is your modified version. I have changed into what I think you mean, you have not yet responded to my request to take the changing radius into account. This is a best guess: [math]f()=G \frac{m_{1} m_{2}}{ r^{2}(t) } (1-\frac{ | r'(t) | t}{c( t_{0} +t)} )[/math] Assumptions made by me: Since you introduced radial velocity [math]v[/math], radius [math]r[/math] is not constant. So I assume you mean [math]r[/math] as function of time; [math]r(t)[/math]. [math]r(t)[/math] depends on radial velocity [math]v[/math] so I assume [math]v[/math] is time derivate of [math]r[/math], [math]r'(t)[/math]. You stated that direction of the radial velocity is not important, so I use absolute value [math]| r'(t) |[/math]. I assume [math]T[/math] and [math]t[/math] uses same changing time component so [math]T[/math] is some starting time [math]t_{0}[/math]+ elapsed time [math]t[/math]. Instead of an equation from Newton we now seem to have a differential equation. Questions: Do you see what strange things this equation suggests? Hint: what would happen, according to your math, to two ideal pendulums, started at different times? Do you see how it seems to differ from the predictions in mainstream physics, how it can be tested and how its is most likely going to fail such test? Maybe it is time to start from scratch, asking questions about mainstream physics in an appropriate mainstream section of this forum? *) I remember many years ago when I studied. Static and dynamic mechanics were separate courses, first static then dynamic Newtonian mechanics.

That argument can be made about pretty much every aspect of physics. I think most physicists would agree that "virtual particles" are not particles. If you have nothing but an argument from incredulity, I think you should do as you said and stop posting. No one cares about your unsupported beliefs that science is wrong.

Since you note that expertise on standard HR theory is completely absent here, I take this as an acknowledgement that you also lack any expertise in the matter. Consequently we may safely disregard any thoughts you may have on the matter.

Yea - dam those architects from 1163!... always cutting corners on the latest fire tech and health and safety procedures in place of budget constraints. They had enough money for a giant golden cross though didn't they! ;-) At the end of the day - no-one died... in that respect it was a 'good' fire. I was a little sickened by the very pious sounding man on the radio who was quick to donate 100 million dollars for refurb. So far 600 million dollars have been raised... where were these people when the families of Grenfield tower lost their homes and loved ones? Lets get some perspective - it is a building and no-one was killed. Move on and be thankful there was no loss of life... it isn't half as tragic as some are making out.

I have a hard time getting my head around the space that everything occupies, if it does, somehow, go on forever, which I feel is impossible, how can anything have come into existence at a certain point in infinite space where there isn't a reference point?, infinity doesn't make sense. And then again, if the space we occupy IS finite, how can that be possible?, a finite boundary means there is a boundary, but boundaries have two sides to them.

Hi all, I came across a very interesting publication about Free Will: In short: https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/our-brains-reveal-our-choices-we%E2%80%99re-even-aware-them-study and the publication itself: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39813-y Just one thing I didn't understand from what written there, what was the accuracy of the prediction? They say that they could predict what people will consciously chose about 11 seconds before they choose it (which sounds amazing!) but in what accuracy? 70% of the times? 85% of the times? Please let me know if you find this information, Thanks!

Most people don't find that. Maybe you need to think about where the problem might lie. But feel free to leave.

His post likely should read " The un-corrupted or characterised message of religion could be that we should all take responsibility for some thing greater than ourselves, in order to attain 'eternal' life." However, like you, I have no idea what a "characterised message" is. Given his analogy of pedigree dogs and their breeders K.C. may be The Kennel Club. The second sentence would then be "The breeders, who focus exclusively on the definition of a breed, are blind to the existence or role of the environment." I think, until he can express himself with clarity, it is likely that we will find ourselves arguing with a strawman, of his creation, not our devising.

Yea, we spend much more on killing people.

Exactly so, and thus having faith, would become a self-reinforcing, positive-feeback, unchallengable position. "Faith consistently supplies positive profound benefits, therefore faith is a good thing and since it visibly does this it is obviously something to accept and believe in unreservedly." Thank you for your detailed response. If I understood what you meant by it I would be happy to reply, either agreeing, disagreeing, or questioning. Unfortunately, while I understood all the words and the superficial meaning of each sentence, I was unable to assemble the whole into a coherent point of view. I've struggled with several of your earlier posts. Please attribute this to my poor English comprehension* if it makes you more comfortable, but also consider the possibility that you are not as clear in your exposition as you imagine. *As a native English speaker and occassional teacher of communication skills, I'm usually quite good at distilling meaning from word salad.

In what sense? Do you mean some sort of abstract mathematical space characterised by various dimensions that make up "personality"? Or what? I have no idea what that means. How do you define and measure the "value of space"? How do you define and measure the "value of condition"? Can you show that these values are always equal and opposite? What is the connection to biological selection? If it isn't measurable, then it isn't physics. (Which is what I expected.) What are you predicting? How do we test it quantitatively? I have no idea what those words mean when put together in that order. Which is kind of ironic.

I find this line a little funny, Q-reeus... "Given my complete confidence EH's don't and can't exist" Saying a mathematical construct doesn't exist is merely stating the obvious; it has no substance. But stating that there are no consequences to traversing, or position relative to, that mathematical construct would be seriously wrong. If one was to find themselves below the mathematical construct we call sea-level, they may be drowning or at risk of flooding. If one was to be first to cross the mathematical construct we call the 100m mark, at the Olympics, they would receive a gold medal and worldwide recognition. What is any distance where events happen, if not a mathematical construct ? How substantive do they need to be before they exist ? How about where there are consequences of their existence ???

Then you should become aware of quantum vacuum fluctuations, which give rise to virtual particle pairs. Which symmetry is broken here? I was providing supporting information for my statement, to show that this is not just a hypothetical process. It has been answered. You have complained about the level of detail of the answers. If your understanding is that extensive, you should have no trouble following the journal articles. So why are you asking us? Unless your “complete confidence” is the confidence of ignorance. That’s another story altogether Again, read the paper itself. Go to the source.

In principle, yes. But I'm not sure how practical it is. You would need to find out what the resonant frequency of the crystal is between two surfaces. You would need to make two electrons on those surfaces (vacuum deposition or electroplating, perhaps) Then build an oscillator circuit suitable for use with the crystal as a resonant element. From what I remember of oscillator design this would require capacitors to match the capacitance of the crystal (which might be tricky). Getting an oscillator to operate stably at the very low frequency of the crystal might be tricky.

This appears to contradict itself. In your analogy of the Pedigree Dog, the pedigree particulars are specific and quantifiable. The breeders focus on these quantities, rather than, as you claim, blocking all others. Indeed, they have to "measure" non-pedigree features in order to determine that they are non-pedigree. How to measure White Nationalism? For example, determine preferred reactions to hypothetical situations. Or, measure the degree of acceptance of negative stereotypes of non-whites. It should not be too difficult for a comeptent sociologist to come up with several protocols that would ahndle this.

When Woody Allen was asked if he thought sex was dirty, he replied, "it is if you are doing it right."

Does it matter if they are particles, or quanta, as you seem to think there is a difference ??? These virtual pairs exist on energy borrowed from the universe, for a brief period of time according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. And once that time is up the debt must be re-paid to the universe according to stdev(E)*stdev(t) >= hbar/2. If one of the virtual particles ( or quanta ) is no longer available to annihilate with the other, it must become a real ( Hawking ) particle or quanta. That means the universe is owed the equivalent of TWO particle's mass/energy by the Black Hole which has caused this debt. The Black Hole, however, has swallowed ONE particle's mass/energy, so the net effect is that it loses the equivalent of ONE particle's mass/energy. Where is this negative you speak of ??? If I owe you money, does it mean I give you negative currency ???

...and man can love other man, and woman can love other woman also.. just nitpicking.. ...in English often it is called "partnership of souls"... or something like that.. alternatives "unending love", "eternal love", "undying love".. "love" between sexual-partners or sexual-partners-to-be is chemical reaction in the brain. The right pheromones matches pattern and voila! You don't have to see partner. It's even used by some (smarter) matrimonial agencies for joining couples if both parties find attractive smell of second side (without knowing anything about them, including photo). But smell of body changes over time.. and start to mismatch with pattern after years of marriage/partnership/relationship.. In such situation better to be the best friend of your partner, otherwise marriage/partnership/relationship can turn to the nightmare hell, and hate between partners will arise.. It's better to split in peace rather than continue living in hell, in a fake relationship, mendacity... Did you hear about husband who killed a wife, or wife who killed a husband.. ? Some said later: "we have not separated, because divorce is a sin"... Astonishing route of thought..

Absolutely.

When that time comes, if it comes, after all they have been at it for a while now [QGT] I'll take it with a smidgin of salt [careful about my salt intake, reason why I'm fit, taut, and tenacious] and pepper... Then rejoice again, at the inevitable progress of science!

Yes, I misread your post as talking about a circular orbit centered on the observer's viewpoint, which is possible for larger orbits. It should be possible to completely negate the relativistic Doppler effect with such an orbit, leaving only negligible(?) gravitational Doppler shift including due to the observer's acceleration as the Earth rotates. In the case you're speaking of, where the orbit is not centered on the viewpoint, the spaceship approaches then recedes as it passes nearest the observer, and the Doppler shift from that would be much much greater than the shift due to the Earth's rotation. This is true even at normal "slow" satellite speeds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Satellite_communication --- Partial info and does not handle satellite at relativistic speeds.

So the "pair production" is a very simplified analogy. I have seen a better description terms of positive and negative energy (which, I believe, more accurately represents what the math says) but I haven't been able to find it again. But if we stick with the virtual pair explanation, one way of thinking about this is the energy bookkeeping required. For the two particles to be separated, they have to be given energy equivalent to the mass of the two particles in order to convert them to "real" particles. One of the particles falls into the black hole, returning that mass-energy to the black hole. The other ne escapes taking that mass-energy with it. That just moves the question to: "where does the energy come from to make the particles real?" From the black hole's gravitational field. As far as I know, the only way of understanding the details of that is to get into the (very complex) math involved. Another way of thinking about it: the virtual particle pair have net zero energy, so you can think of one having positive energy and one having negative energy. As particles with negative energy don't exist, the one that escapes must have positive energy and the one that falls in subtracts energy (mass) from the BH. There are also explanations in terms of particles escaping the event horizon by quantum tunnelling.

The other part of my OP was to thank you for all the Science announcements you have alerted us to lately.

That is of course until new discoveries open up an entirely new realm of things we cannot explain, perhaps even causing us to question everything we've ever known about a particular subject.

Off topic, but since this seems to be a point people are stuck on I will say thats likely going to be the case until some one comes up with an idea of just what is happening, and how/if we can affect that. Or the person who can provide that evidence. Though I wonder what the future might hold for any who could. Personally, that alone would be incentive to hide deep.

baby dont hurt me no more.

What would your reaction be if I found you at work one day and told you that you were doing it wrong. Your plaster was too wet, your tools were inappropriate and your application technique was wrong? On enquiry you would learn that I had never plastered anything in my life. The closest I had come to it was nailing some plasterboard to a wooden framework. You would, I suspect, shake you head and dismiss my thinking as silly. In reality I would not question your plastering tools or technique, since they would be based upon the evolved practice of thousands of plasterers, coupled with your own practical experience. I'm not sure why you would think it makes sense to doubt a theory that has been validated by experiments, observations and practical processes, carried out by thousands of experts. I guess you have the right to be wrong, but it won't change the facts.

Other than Aman777* in another place, can you name any other Christian individual, or denomination that makes the same unique claims regarding our origins as you do? They not only conflict with science they are contrary to any version of Christianity I am familiar with. It's a rare achievment to combine heresy and pseudoscience in one concept, but you have managed it! *Or just confirm that's who you are and I shan't waste anymore time on you.