Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/25/20 in all areas

  1. If the handedness of the glucose molecule they use/produce was different to that on Earth, that would confirm a different origin.
    2 points
  2. You could pump some gas like butane into the pipe and then walk around where you believe the pipe to be with a gas detector.
    2 points
  3. Since michel123456 just asks the same questions over and over I think I will look through his threads to copy and paste the answers to his questions to one post. I can then number the answers so that when he asks one of his group of repeating questions you can just write down the number. It will take some time up front but in the long run it will save time for everybody.
    2 points
  4. If microbial life is discovered in Venus' atmosphere, and samples are collected, will science be able to tell us whether its ancestry somehow found its way there from Earth, or whether it's definitely a product of abiogenesis on Venus? Thanks GIAN 🙂
    1 point
  5. Reminds me of a fix we did a long time ago at my parents' place. We dug down to a broken pipe at both ends and guided a slightly smaller hose through the pipe. That worked since the pipe had a larger than required dimension and the pipe wasn't too long.
    1 point
  6. The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant as it is c. This not only means that the speed you measure for it doesn't depend of the motion of the source, or your motion. Light in a medium doesn't travel at c, but as Swansont said, is c/n. Any speed less than c is not invariant. In this case, the measured speed will depend on whether it is the observer or source that it moving relative to the medium. But also as already mentioned, you need to use Relativistic velocity addition to get the correct answer. Relativity doesn't "just go away" because light is now longer moving at c. It is also important to understand that is the speed "c" that is important and not the speed of light itself. When someone says that you cannot exceed the "speed of light", they mean "c", which is the speed light travels in a vacuum. It is possible to exceed the speed of light for a given medium, even in that medium. For instance, there is a type of nuclear reactor which is surrounded by water. It produces subatomic particles which travel through the water at speeds greater than the speed of light through the water. This produces a type of electromagnetic "shock wave", which is seen as a faint blue glow known as Cerenkov radiation.
    1 point
  7. It is a bit sad that "never again" was just a pretty lie. I understand what you are saying and just focusing on the major member states is a rather narrow view. However, I think it is quite clear that the overall point was that the EU was instrumental in avoiding a continuous conflict between these member states, resulting in the longest peace period between those nations.
    1 point
  8. In the good old days, theoretical Physicists used to add dimensions to make problems more tractable; Kaluza-Klein and SString theory come to mind. Now the Holographic Principle is going the other way, and subtracting dimensions. But is this an indication of 'reality', or just a mathematical 'trick' to facilitate modelling of that 'reality' ?
    1 point
  9. Point taken. I see other knowledgeable users are addressing the more traditional/geometric point of view. Just to try to be complete, and because I have a feeling that your idea that gravity may not "be real" might come from a certain trend in theoretical physics that started in the late 90's, let me tackle the "information" perspective: In the last decades some messages have been filtering out from the community of theoretical physics in the way of "gravity is an illusion", "gravity is not a real force", "gravity is entropic", etc. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-illusion-of-gravity-2007-04/ Sometimes physicists try to develop an intuitive picture of what really is much more subtle and complicated, and involves a high level of mathematical sophistication to express precisely. Strong suggestions have cropped up that the best language to describe what gravity consists of is the language of information. That gravity is made up of information. That may turn out not to be the case, but it's the direction the research seems to be going. Now, it is for you to decide whether information is real or not. I'll take the view that an action is real if it can destroy something, crash it to smithereens, modify it, change its course of motion. Do you think information can modify, change the course of events, even destroy things? If you do, and it is true that gravity is made up of information, then gravity is real. Gravity can bend your spine, and it will, if you live long enough. So can information. Information can bend your spine, make you turn your head, nod in agreement, etc.
    1 point
  10. AFAIK, the real problem he wanted to solve is that Newtonian gravity does not fit to Special Relativity, especially that nothing can go faster than light. In Newtonian gravity, gravity is instantaneous. To say it a bit more technically: Newtonian gravity is not Lorentz invariant. @DEFinning: Just to tell you: on the day that somebody joins the forum, he can only post 5 times. So you reached the limit for today. From tomorrow on you can post again, and as much as you want.
    1 point
  11. The deflection of light rays by the mass of the sun was twice as large as predicted by Newton's theory. Einstein's theory explained this (although an alternative explanation has recently been found for this effect within the framework of a small analogy of Newton's theory). In addition, Einstein's theory explained the precession of mercury's orbit, and here no alternative explanations have yet been found.
    1 point
  12. As you see technical folks here are willing to give you a fair hearing. +1 to Bufofrog and Ghideon. Are you relying solely on the presence of geometric structures to indicate the presence of intelligent life or indeed any life at all? 'Geometric structures' is a very loose and ill defined term, structures that deserve to be so described abound in our Universe, from the very small to the very large. As a result, much of Science is devoted to understanding these. Our understanding to date is that they can arise from non living causes, living but not intelligent causes and a few from living and intelligent causes.
    1 point
  13. Good morning, Well I will take you at face value about being able to think logically, despite the aattitude expressed in the title by the use of the word 'farce'. Before you can understand the answer, you have to know and understand that we employ (consider) two kinds of 'force' in Science and Technology. Real forces such as those which hold the atom together, and imaginary forces which appear to be acting because of circumstances. The commonest example of an imaginary force is 'centrifugal force', which is 'felt' by someone on a roundabout, but not by an observer standing by. So your question boils down to is the force of gravity real or imaginary and what are the implications of each.
    1 point
  14. If I understand this correctly, for your idea to be correct it is required that planets can make calculations, make decisions and orient themselves? Are the planets, per your idea, sentient beings?
    1 point
  15. Mars has no magnetic field and a 25 degree tilt. Venus has no magnetic field and no tilt. How does this mesh with your idea?
    1 point
  16. Up to ~0.1c, non-relativistic equations are reasonably accurate, so v = at (thus, t = v/a, where v= 0.1c) and the displacement is s = 1/2 at^2
    1 point
  17. On 9/20/2020 at 10:40 AM, farsideofourmoon said: I can prove time travel is real and occurs all the time but that is for another discussion all together Moderator Note We require more rigor than you’ve been providing, so please, do not open a new thread if it’s going to be like this one: assertion with no science to back it up.Don’t open a new thread in this topic, either” Swansont, you take things far too seriously. At one point in the past I was posting to another poster who was actually in Europe somewhere and at the time/date of our exchange was as follows The European poster made the post @ 3:45 on a Saturday I received the post and responded back within minutes while my time was 5:15 Friday That poster was posting to me on a day that had not yet arrived where I live. Jokingly I refer to this as time travel. chill out
    -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.