Leaderboard

Oh really? What about: You are unable to support this claim. Others, who I know have some level of expertise in the subject, have refuted it. You might be better trying some new age woo site, as you are clearly not interested in scientific answers. I'm sure you will find people there who share your wacky beliefs and will sell you some nonsense about drinking onion juice under the full moon, or something.

Robert, It doesn't work that way. If you look at Raytheon's own material and specification for the ATFLIR, you will see that the entire front pod structure, including the external housing, rotates to track the object. It is literally *not possible* for this to be a "bug on the lens" scenario. That is an object out in external space that has been acquired by the tracking system. My own view, as I articulated above, is that it is an amorphous heat and light signature, which is why the system is struggling to get sufficient range data. I also replied to your point about it seeming to stay in the same position. What you are looking at is mainly artefactual IR flare from the object, imo, and the attitude adjustment is not sufficient to change this (think in terms of rotating your camera lens when there is a lens flare in the frame). Only later, when the object itself clearly rotates, do we see a sufficient change. Please understand that the tracking system could NOT acquire this object if it was attached to the system.

As Strange as pointed out, Dark matter, is actually proposed to explain why the observable universe behaves as if it has more mass than we can see in the form of visible matter. Dark energy is the term given to whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate ( you don't need dark matter for the universe to expand, only for that expansion rate to increase over time.) Both contain the word "dark", but that is just due to laziness when it came to naming conventions. "dark" matter was chosen because the matter didn't interact with light. "dark" energy was chosen, because "Hey, we already have "dark" matter", and not because there was any suspected relationship between the two.

Can I just ask what you mean by pathogen here?

People tried. told them they were wrong. Then you told them that you were open minded. Great! Now looking forward to your evidence that we don't throw off practically all the pathogens we meet. Great! Still looking forward to your evidence that we don't throw off practically all the pathogens we meet. and so on.

And yet, a few notable people throughout the ages still aren't enough to explain how we've become the only species capable of leaving the planet, or even understanding why it might be important. Add in the vast majority of humans (by that I usually mean 75%+) that have enough willpower (or motivation?) to turn notable dreams into reality, and your assertion that we're designed for laziness seems unlikely. What you perceive as laziness could just be working smarter instead of harder. Humans are known for adaptations like that. Some have been mentioned, but you opted to make more assertions rather than comment on them. Very frustrating discussion tactic. I think the "speeches" are necessary to open up your perspective a bit. You seem to overgeneralize when talking about this subject. It's hard to know if you understand what we're saying when you don't respond to specific points. The methods mentioned so far have been met with (almost) disinterest on your part, and you seem to revel in the rant more than seeking solutions. We call that soapboxing. It sort of takes the wind out of people's interest in the discussion when all the solutions get rejected, tacitly or not. The speeches are also trying to show that perhaps things aren't as drastic as you make them out to be. I mentioned confirmation bias before, and it's a very common human trait. We get an idea in our heads, and we start selecting for those things that support it, and ignore the rest. This is the sort of thing you should be vigilant about, not some vague "willpower". If you want to have an open mind to better see reasonable options, you just need to stop making sweeping generalizations and assumptions about the world around you.

Both of the above! Firstly, we know the rate of expansion mainly from measuring the red-shift of distant galaxies and comparing that to their distance. It was noticed about 100 years ago, that there is a linear correlation between distance and red-shift. The Hubble-Lemaitre law: the red-shift of distant galaxies (equivalent to their recessional speed) is proportional to their distance. This increase in speed with distance is not "acceleration", it is just expansion. (There is a lot behind that, which I don't really want to go into. For example, how do we know the distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder. And other ways of measuring the rate of expansion give slightly different answers, which may indicate new things to be discovered.) Important thing to understand is that expansion is a scaling effect (so when people say things like "expanding at the speed of light" it is completely meaningless). As a result, the speed at which any two points separate is proportional to how far apart they are. This is just simple arithmetic, nothing to do with cosmology. Consider a number of galaxies separated by the same distance (far enough apart that the expansion of space is significant and the same between all of them). At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B.C.D.E.F After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B..C..D..E..F After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B...C...D...E...F And so on: A....B....C....D....E....F Now, if we look at the distance between B and C, for example, it increases by 1 at every time step. But the distance between B and D increases by 2 at every step. So the distance between B and D is increasing twice as fast as the distance between B and C; i.e. the speed of separation is twice as great. Choose any pairs of galaxies and you will see that apparent the speed of separation is proportional to the distance between them. Take two objects far enough apart and the speed of separation will be greater than the sped of light. This is basically the cause of the Hubble-Lemaitre law. Then in 2011 a team of scientists got the Nobel Prize for having discovered that the relationship is not completely linear. It seems that at some point (about 5 billion years ago?) the rate of expansion had started increasing. The easiest way to model this in the equations describing the expansion is to add a new energy term which is constant for a given volume of space. As space expands, this energy term increases. This is called "dark energy". No one knows if this is the correct explanation (ie if there really is a thing called dark energy) or if this is just a useful way of modelling it.

Watching Elizabeth Warren debate Trump will be like watching a nuclear physicist explain gravity to a giant jar of spoiled mayonnaise. lol

OK, let’s talk about why science and math are important to test ideas. You have come up with an idea that you think it is correct. You think it is correct because it makes perfect sense to you. It makes perfect sense to you because you created it based on what you know. So it exactly matches your expectations. Now you want other people to accept your idea. But here’s the thing. Science forums like this one are full of people with their personal theories. These are all different, relying on aether, vortices, springs, waves, new particles, new types of energy, superfluids, supersolids, supercrystals, harmonic resonance, etc etc. All these different ideas cannot all be right. And yet, their proponents are all as equally convinced that they are correct as you are. And then there are hundreds of “real” scientists with their ideas based on things like symmetry groups, string theory, causal dynamical triangulation, topological defects etc (all of which are completely over my head). So, how can we decide which of these ideas are correct or not? We need some way of testing them. In order to test these ideas (or hypotheses) humans have developed, over several centuries, the idea of science as a process for testing things based on objective quantitative evidence. This requires the theory to make testable predictions. This means they need to be precise. Not just “this will happen” but exactly how large the effect will be and how much it differs from existing theories. Producing such quantitative predictions requires mathematics. Sorry, but that is just a fact. Without testable predictions, and therefore without mathematics, you are not doing science. I have not seen any such tests from you that would objectively distinguish your idea from existing explanations.

Some maths explaining the weight of atomic nuclei. I'm not even going to reply to Strange any more you showed you were out of your depth when you stated that watched or not watched is the most important element of the double slit experiment (cringe). I thought I was talking with proper physicists not people with part time diplomas in science so it makes sense why this is over your heads and you are crying mathematics, because you can't understand the PRINCIPLE which always comes before the maths confirm it. Also why none of you are able to do the modelling or maths that has been sitting waiting to be explained for 100 years. but just in case there are any actual physicists in this forum here's some maths explaining how the action around the quantum balls forms neutrons and protons the video with the visual representation is available on the subscript giving the maths is here A visual example of quarks movements always 2 against one. Each quark made up of 13 quantum balls in Newtons 13 "kissing balls" shape. One "quantum ball" lost by each as a gluon shared or stretched equally between another. All quantum balls essentially the same carrying energy travelling as vibrations/waves as gluons, electrons and collectively as quarks. Hence why the weight of a neutron or proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron. 1728 (12³) being the cumulative spin "weight" of the 12 balls in each quark plus the cumulative spin of the qluons binding them by shared pull and why their weight is not equal to the other 12 balls 12 x 3 directions of 3 objects 12x3x3 108 giving us 1836 altogether. More information about the full unified field theory and the solution to the double slit experiment available on please stop advertising your site here Give me another negative point if you want if you're all only part time diploma level science students. I just post in the off chance there's someone who will understand this among you.

I never said it is right , you have propably misunderstood (as always)

You forgot number 3, the simplest of all: It's just a small insect on the camera lens, but everyone are too blind to see this trivial solution.

Delusion, in your case. 😉

This is useless, you aren't answering my questions. Every one of your replies are rubbish. If all of your replies in here were collected together, written on a piece of paper and given to me, I'd throw it straight in the bin. You've provided nothing. So stop trying to derail the thread. I only want to hear from people who can respond on the following 1. What’s the effect of purposely stimulating the immune system by exposure to an allergen, what effect does this have on the production and release of T-Cells and what’s the effect of this on internal pathogens in general and also specifically on toxoplasma cysts? 2. What’s the effect of pure isolated histidine consumption on histamine levels, the subsequent effect on the immune system and on the production of T-Cells? 3. Any other relevant knowledge which is related to: -Other interesting ways to stimulate T-Cell release (yes I know improving many things in our lifestyle and environment such as correcting a vitamin A deficiency but let’s assume I’m talking about a person with a perfect diet and lifestyle already). -Info on which beneficial microorganisms are harmed by a temporarily heightened immune system (1-2 weeks) and which are not. I believe most have evolved to not be targeted by the immune system but to live alongside it? I need to study much more about this. Perhaps I’ll find a handy list or chart somewhere if I’m lucky, as well as more studies showing various effects caused by a heightened immune system before, during, immediately after and some weeks or months after -Anything else to add sure I’d love to hear anything but not negative, not arguing, not insulting, not petty, not useless, on topic, open minded, and helpful towards what actually want to do or understand e.g. hypothesising how it could be possible in theory to kill a toxoplasma cyst. Or better visualising the chain of events, the cause and effect, and the pros and cons of some of the ideas discussed such as trying to boost T-Cell count for only 1 or 2 weeks what might this do precisely? all youve done is cry that I said humans accumulate pathogens then continually try to argue with me and derail the thread. What I in fact want is knowledge on stimulating activation of T-Cells, way to do this, specific details about the effects it may have etc. I've no time to argue with people like you who wished to hijack the thread and turn it into an argument about a detail you're trying to nitpick which isn't the main question I'm asking, it's not what I came here to do. It's a waste of my time. With all due respect if you don't know anything about stimulating T-Cells and you refuse to or don't have the knowledge to answer on topic the questions I've clearly asked then stop responding in here. For the last time 1. What’s the effect of purposely stimulating the immune system by exposure to an allergen, what effect does this have on the production and release of T-Cells and what’s the effect of this on internal pathogens in general and also specifically on toxoplasma cysts? 2. What’s the effect of pure isolated histidine consumption on histamine levels, the subsequent effect on the immune system and on the production of T-Cells? 3. Any other relevant knowledge which is related to: -Other interesting ways to stimulate T-Cell release (yes I know improving many things in our lifestyle and environment such as correcting a vitamin A deficiency but let’s assume I’m talking about a person with a perfect diet and lifestyle already). -Info on which beneficial microorganisms are harmed by a temporarily heightened immune system (1-2 weeks) and which are not. I believe most have evolved to not be targeted by the immune system but to live alongside it? I need to study much more about this. Perhaps I’ll find a handy list or chart somewhere if I’m lucky, as well as more studies showing various effects caused by a heightened immune system before, during, immediately after and some weeks or months after -Anything else to add sure I’d love to hear anything but not negative, not arguing, not insulting, not petty, not useless, on topic, open minded, and helpful towards what actually want to do or understand e.g. hypothesising how it could be possible in theory to kill a toxoplasma cyst. Or better visualising the chain of events, the cause and effect, and the pros and cons of some of the ideas discussed such as trying to boost T-Cell count for only 1 or 2 weeks what might this do precisely? I'll check back again in a day, I'm reading up and working on something else right now. Either 1 person can actually answer these things or no one can, either way I'll get the info I need on all of these things eventually. I'll do my own reading and find other places to ask too. If tomorrow I come to a nice surprise where an intelligent person has actually answered these things in detail and explained some things to me it will be really amazing, I will love and appreciate it. If what I expect from how people have spoken in here so far, that the thread will be filled with useless comments attacking me, providing no information or attempt to answer the questions I've asked, and the thread is locked and my account banned then lol. "science forums" yeah people pretending to be smart but with no actual knowledge. Let's see what happens.

I gave my argument and posted a link but you broke your contract, your word Strange you agreed it would be allowable if there is an argument to back it. Screenshots have been taken of both threads. I disagree that an idea cannot be copyright that's basically all that can be copyrighted. I would advise you to reinsert the link as soon as you can because I am fairly sure you have no idea just how much trouble you have asked for with your "clever" little trick to dishonestly get privy to the information. Now that you have it you cannot give it back you are stuck with it so best go back and reinstate the link in line with your contract/agreement. I'm helping you here by giving you the option to save your forum and possibly everything else you own. Of that I am certain (I am actually very highly qualified in international law) while for you, you will now have an uncertainty every minute that passes. Serves you right, cheats always get caught sooner or later and you just got caught straight away. Do the right thing and reinsert the link before it's too late that's my advice (Dont even try to delete it, too late for that) Because if you don't you WILL regret it and that is a certainty. I have no wish for your demise, it's in your hands but you better think and act fast....very very fast because if your site is quoted with my equation without reference to me and my site then you and yours are XXXXed (rhymes with tucked).

I have to respectfully disagree with you on that. I believe that providing evidence is something which must be done when conducting one’s own original research. Anyone who comes up with a new and original hypothesis may be asked for evidence to prove their hypothesis (as no one else has proven it yet) and then the onus of proof is on them to prove their hypothesis. I don’t have to prove to anyone that humans accumulate microorganisms and pathogens over their lifetime. This is not my own original hypothesis, this is one of the very first things anyone will learn with an education in microbiology and I’m really not interested in discussing this point any further. The only reason it was brought into question in the first place was to derail the thread and to try to cause an argument because some toxic and argumentative person was upset that I dared to state a fact which didn’t agree with what someone else had just said. There’s plenty of research papers which would show you that humans accumulate more and more pathogens with age, however the focus of the papers is usually something else because that in itself is such a fundamental and commonly established fact. For example off the top of my head a recent paper I read on latent tuberculosis standardised the age of all participants in order to account for the fact that the older you are the more likely you are to have contracted TB or indeed any other pathogen by chance. If you need to learn that humans accumulate pathogens and microorganisms over their lifetime however I think it’s better to get some books on microorganisms from the local library than to look for research papers because I think some good books will give a very clear and in depth guide to this whilst a research paper won’t so much. That said I’m no longer interested in going off topic and having some kind of toxic argument about yes humans do accumulate pathogens no they don’t yes they do you’re stupid I hate u I’m so mad and angry ur so dumb and wrong blah blah blah etc. I’m also really not interested at all in toxic people who feel the need to derail the topic and attack me because they are so upset and offended that I stated a basic fact which I know. I’m busy and I really only want to see relevant information on: 1. What’s the effect of purposely stimulating the immune system by exposure to an allergen, what effect does this have on the production and release of T-Cells and what’s the effect of this on internal pathogens in general and also specifically on toxoplasma cysts? 2. What’s the effect of pure isolated histidine consumption on histamine levels, the subsequent effect on the immune system and on the production of T-Cells? 3. Any other relevant knowledge which is related to: -Other interesting ways to stimulate T-Cell release (yes I know improving many things in our lifestyle and environment such as correcting a vitamin A deficiency but let’s assume I’m talking about a person with a perfect diet and lifestyle already). -Info on which beneficial microorganisms are harmed by a temporarily heightened immune system (1-2 weeks) and which are not. I believe most have evolved to not be targeted by the immune system but to live alongside it? I need to study much more about this. Perhaps I’ll find a handy list or chart somewhere if I’m lucky, as well as more studies showing various effects caused by a heightened immune system before, during, immediately after and some weeks or months after -Anything else to add sure I’d love to hear anything but not negative, not arguing, not insulting, not petty, not useless, on topic, open minded, and helpful towards what actually want to do or understand e.g. hypothesising how it could be possible in theory to kill a toxoplasma cyst. Or better visualising the chain of events, the cause and effect, and the pros and cons of some of the ideas discussed such as trying to boost T-Cell count for only 1 or 2 weeks what might this do precisely? Again so much thanks to anyone who can actually give me some useful knowledge or even just things to think about or pointers in the right direction.