Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/24/19 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    He wasn't a child (20 at the time), but thanks for the advice. I should have been listening to him.
  2. 1 point
    I’m looking for an amateur blog online that talks postulates a future/sci-fi tech/science/Idea/Concept in the style of an “of the Week” feature. I already watch Isaac Arthur but I want something I can read. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in English (I can translate it), it just has to be ongoing as of now, consistent and creative. Some ideas can be broad; others unique and specific. Every week at the least.
  3. 1 point
    I'm not sure how you would define a "Big Bang" in this context, that didn't involve the destruction of the existing universe. Well, dark matter appears to have always existed. Dark energy has always had a constant energy density, so the amount of dark energy has increased over time. That is similar (but more gradual/continuous) than you suggest. More info here: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-when-were-dark-matter-and-dark-energy-created-732fe2b19ed5 That would require different biases in several different measurements, that all conspire to be consistent. From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/31/dark-energy-may-not-be-a-constant-which-would-lead-to-a-revolution-in-physics/#5cbf71d8b737
  4. 1 point
    How long do you think the pension system would last ?
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    Just found this channel and had to share:
  7. 1 point
    I am not prepared to make a specific pronouncement. I know that atoms didn't even exist until about 380,000 years after the BB, and then you'd need for stars to form (that took another few hundred million years) and then go supernova, because at that point you only have H, He and Li in the universe. So you have to add in that life cycle of stars just so you have some Carbon. You probably need a second round of star formation/supernova, too, in order to form the heavier elements that one would need as an advanced civilization — probably not going to do anything advanced without metals. I don't know how many billions of years each stage would take. 1? 2? 3? Even after that, you need a solar system around the star that ignites. Planets have to form and cool, and any early-formed life would have to survive bombardment/collision from anything left over from planet formation, which is more frequent for a young planet. So you likely have a delay before life takes hold on the new planet We know life on earth is billions of years old, so I can't make sense of this. Where? It wasn't in the section on radio. Nothing about interstellar attenuation being the stumbling block, though, which was the claim I objected to. Pretty weak defense for moving the goalposts, IMO.
  8. 1 point
    ...if you're using DC for electrolysis.. If you're using AC, you will get mixture of gases (easily fixable by four rectifying diodes). Boiling point of liquid Oxygen is 90.19 K Boiling point of liquid Hydrogen is 20.28 K. This difference in physical properties could be used to separate them. I know, not very helpful for your car case.
  9. 1 point
    Perhaps the only things beyond human understanding are those for which we willingly accept such disappointing and defeatist attitudes.
  10. 1 point
    Mueller testifies tomorrow. Here’s a handy prep video on what to expect. Relevant portion starts at 22mins into the vid:
  11. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note Well then, you were told that was unacceptable in the last thread, so we’re done. Don’t repeat this behavior.
  12. 1 point
    Quantum four-dimensional geometry has taken 10 years to develop mathematically and to apply to atomic physics. It is based upon data such as the Rydberg quantum formula for the light spectrum of hydrogen, which became the model for the shell/subshell system of orbitales used in the Periodic Table of Elements. Quantum-Dimensional Mathematics have also provided a much more precise model of the nucleus, one which is likely to be rejected out of hand because it is so foreign to current thoughts. However, the nuclear model should be considered because it identifies a bonding function for neutrons which is completely lacking in current confused understandings. The model proposes that heat is conducted by the electron bonds and stored and output as thermal radiation from the nucleus. This contrasts with the current theory that heat is conducted by molecular bonds and stored by the agitation of nuclei within the molecule. The model is confirmed by the non-understood factor "e" in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation as well as a study by MIT which showed that an electrically pumped LED could show greater power output then electrical power input. The needed energy for over unity was provided by certain temperatures but not others. The quantum-dimensional model of the nucleus accurately predicted what temperature would provide over unity and why. The nuclear model can also challenge the CO2 as a greenhouse gas presumption.Carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is central to those who believe in catastrophic, human-caused climate change. The premise that CO2 operates as a greenhouse is built upon the measurement of carbon dioxide gas as having blackbody characteristics. That is, carbon dioxide can absorb radiation and radiate it back as thermal radiation. It is argued that the 400 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation from the earth, radiating it back and, thus preventing the earth’s cooling by restricting thermal radiation escaping into space. The increase in man-caused CO2 levels is said to increase the amount of retained earth temperature to catastrophic levels.This greenhouse gas model, however, Is plagued by an incorrect model of the way that atoms absorb and radiate back heat. The quantum-dimensional model shows that the infrared wavelengths of thermal radiation retain a great proportion of the heat in the nucleus. CO2 may not radiate much of the captured heat back to earth. Perhaps a debate upon consensus climate change might be the best way to introduce quantum-dimensional mathematics and physics. PS I am not a climate-change denier
  13. 1 point
    Humour is perhaps not the best response as this sort of subject is common to certain types of mental issues.
  14. 1 point
    Please be specific, how far back could life have existed? If it's just a few thousand years then you have a point if life could have existed several billion years ago I don't think you have a leg to stand on. Ok, even though it does state .3 light years as the limit. This one says 16 light years for certain signals and explains why military radar is different. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/27/how-far-into-space-can-radio-telescopes-hear/#77c621915de7 http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/131-observational-astronomy/seti-and-extraterrestrial-life/seti/795-wouldn-t-the-vast-distances-of-space-distort-seti-signals-into-unintelligeble-forms-intermediate Ok, I can't find a direct reference to the interstellar medium problem, I know I've seen it, in fact i have posted a link to it in other threads in the past but for some reason I am google blind at the moment. I can't seem to find the right search criteria https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/01/27/how-far-into-space-can-radio-telescopes-hear/#77c621915de7 Now you are just being pedantic... The tech is advancing do rapidly I am not willing to use current problem to condemn the inevitability of autonomous cars... or airplanes...
  15. 1 point
    Not if they were a million years apart in time, there are, estimate, 500 billion stars in the milky way, if one in a million have an advanced civilization then 500,000 of them exist but divide that by the age of the galaxy, I'm not sure what that is but let's just say a ballpark figure of 10 billion years. If an advanced technological civilization lasts 10,000 years then they could be a million years apart from each other in time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox Military radar is both high powered and directional, radio leakage is not. One short message directed at the magellanic clouds is hardly a concentrated effort to draw attention to ourselves... There are Military drones that can take off and land autonomously and autonomous cars already exist as well as tractor trailers.
  16. 1 point
    Self driving cars are already a thing, why not self flying cars?
  17. 1 point
    Everywhere. Yet we do not know the math and physics required to understand what and where they communicate.
  18. 1 point
    I think I am making a point you refuse to consider, technology marches on, I have suggested nothing that requires new physics yet you continue to dismiss the possibilities based on what we can currently do much like the quote I gave.
  19. 1 point
    I do not agree with the opening post, as every point seems to address the theorist, and not the theory. There is no need to examine the theorist's actions or career to determine if his work is pseudoscience. We recently had a discussion about pseudoscience at physicsforums, and I would like to share my posts from that thread. And then I gave an example: Hope that helps, Tom PS: Metaphysics is not pseudoscience, but a legitimate branch of philosophy. I am not sure of why it is included in the forum title. Also, I think you meant to name the Physics/Astrological Sciences department Physics/Astronomical Sciences. Astrology really is pseudoscience. My $0.02.
  20. -1 points
    Do you have any evidence for that.
  21. -1 points
    We can imagine the general science with perfect understanding. The complex analysis can't help you to imagine with theoretically or practically. All theorem stuffs can be combination with infinity space. But that is not reality. That theorems created for the best calculation of the calculate physical or intangible properties of the materials -with needed prices-. I guess that is acceptable for me.
  • 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.