Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/23/19 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    OK let's clarify something here. First consider the following definitions. Mass is resistance to inertia change Energy the ability to perform work. Spacetime a geometric model system with 3 spatial dimensions with 1 time dimension. In physics dimension is an independent variable or value that can change without affecting any other mathematical object. So how does mass curve spacetime. Well GR models bodies in free fall that is without any force applied. Time is given units of length and can be called an interval. This is done by setting c which is constant to all observers and adding a unit of time. So the time coordinate is given units of length by ct. [latex] (t,x,y,z)=(ct,x,y,z)=(x^1,x^2x^3x,x^4)[/latex] the last is in four momentum form for convenience as its useful to model a particle trajectory along the x axis. Now what is spacetime curvature. Well space is just volume... (Very important ) it isn't a stretchable bendable fabric... Those are just analogy descriptive. What spacetime truly means by curvature is the worldline paths for light it us the null geodesic. If you shoot two laser beams in flat spacetime those beams stay parallel. If spacetime is curved then the beams converge for positive curvature and spread apart for negative curvature. This is a consequence of how the mass term affects the time it takes for a particle to go from emitter to observer. That whole resistance to inertia. So let's drop two objects toward a planet. You have the usual Centre of mass. As the objects free fall they do not stay parallel. They will converge upon one another as they approach the center of mass. That what is really meant by curvature the free fall paths are curved. Not the volume of space.
  2. 2 points
    This is the key. Right now, insurance money (which the taxpayer has paid) and tax subsidies (which the taxpayer has paid) are being based on maximum profit like any growth business model. The problem is that healthcare needs to be aimed at caring for people's health in order to be effective. In the US, the focus on profit allows businesses to leech away funds that the taxpayer needs. One example among many is durable medical devices. Businesses are allowed to create monopolistic deals with doctors offices for oxygen, blood, and sleep devices. There's no competition for them with your provider, so you have no choice when they fail to provide their services, or overbill, or send the wrong filters/tubes/parts. They learned this from the cable TV giants, who similarly have no competition within their protected areas. Customer service becomes a big joke (google Apria Healthcare or Comcast customer service and look at the comments!). We definitely need a more European attitude about spending on social requirements (which I feel healthcare is). In the US, we let capitalism build the paths our socialism takes, and wonder why all our money gets leeched away.
  3. 2 points
    I think this means you're showing a cognitive bias that's hijacking your critical thinking skills. It's causing you to mis-hear, mis-read, and misinterpret what's really being presented. My advice is to stop watching videos for your science, and start reading more. We're so used to video as an uninterrupted medium that we forget we're supposed to interrupt when we don't understand something. Reading and your natural pattern recognition are better tools for learning beyond the basics, imo.
  4. 2 points
    Here is what one average person (me) thinks. Trying to make big progress is good! But you reference concepts such as bosons, gravitons, entanglement, spin, black holes, invariant speed of light from currently accepted theories. That means you are working in the framework where those concepts makes sense and are applicable. Things that are inherently incompatible with these concepts will not impress on professionals. Example; faster than light travel and information exchange and anti gravity cannot work in the current theories of relativity and standard model of particles as far as I know. That means that your proposed ideas is not possible within the currently accepted theories and models as pointed out by members more skilled than me. And these theories are supported by loads of evidence. You need to find some way to make progress outside current theories. Something completely new and novel is required by you. Not adjustments or adoptions of concepts in current theories, that is not enough to fundamentally change the basis for current theories.
  5. 2 points
    What's wrong with that? Compassion is a huge part of many religions: the academic study of compassion might be useful - but it's not the same as the practice of compassion. When was the soul put into humans? Who cares - the answer won't make you a better human being, which is what religious teaching should be trying to help with. All this pretence at academia by 'religious' people seems to belie an insecurity and need for validation with science. Spiritual practices should stand on their own merits, anything that needs propping up with pseudo-pseudoscience should be left to fall. And honestly Gees, though there are some aloof people on this site, likely including myself, you are among the worst for it. Look at yourself before casting stones.
  6. 2 points
    This site supports Mathjax with the "math" and "\math" tags in square brackets surrounding your markup. In (1) your proof is fine but I'd reword it for clarity. You wrote, "I assumed [math]A = \{2,3,4,5]\}[/math] is the subset of the power set ..." I would reword that as, "Suppose [math]A = \{2, 3, 4, 5\}[/math]. Then [math]A \cap A = A \neq \emptyset[/math]. Or you could just say, For any nonempty set [math]A[/math], we have [math]A \cap A = A \neq \emptyset[/math]. That would be sufficient for me. Also note that you meant that [math]A[/math] is an element of the power set. It's a subset of the integers, but an element of the power set.
  7. 1 point
    Beside the fact that Greenland is semi-autonomous which, I presume, would make the legal situation quite difficult, the sale of the Virgin Islands was part of the overall imperialist strategies of the 19th/20th century, which are (at least in the overt form) declining from the second half of the 20th century. While negotiations started in the latter half of the 19th century, various negotiations negotiations ultimately failed, despite the fact that the main interest for the US was imperialist expansion, whereas on the Danish side, decline in the same (as well as increasing cost) were a factor. The sale ultimately happened due to militarist threats from the US. Drawing parallel to current political situations are, tenuous at best (hopefully). Because it is either that or things have gone really insane.
  8. 1 point
    There’s a lot right with your post (which is admittedly more philosophical than astronomical... don’t feel hurt if mods move it). A few points stand out to me: - We ARE different now than before. Every cell in our body is always getting recycled. I think the average to complete this for every single cell is 8 years. You’re not even exactly the same person reading this as you were when writing that original post. You’ve drank water, eaten food, the connections in your brain have been pruned and reinforced, the bacteria in your belly has evolved countless different colonies. Change is the only constant. - Infinity IS hard for our human minds to grasp. We evolved counting seeds and arrow head and antelope. We can barely conceive of thousands or millions, let alone infinities. With that said, it’s important to recall that infinity is just another abstraction. A useful tool in math. It’s not somehow magical and doesn’t make impossible things possible. It’s another type of number. - Probabilities DO get really interesting when considered over vast epochs of time. The probability that something unlikely will happen changes when considered in the next 5 minutes, 5 days, 5 months, 5 years, 5 centuries, 5 millennia, 5 infinities... Its easy to speculate that another “you” could exist, but the amount of time required is likely several times older than the universe itself. - Not everything can be compared to a roll of the dice. If you roll a dice enough times, you can achieve nearly any combination of results. In our reality, however, certain rules apply. Certain chemicals attract and repel to form certain molecules. Certain forms are more successful in an environment than others and evolve more successfully. Certain forces apply, and all of this is well before you get to the level of complex organisms and life forms, or even cultures. Given enough time, nearly anything is possible, if considered within the rules of the system. The main problem here is the amount of time required for these things is several times older than the entire universe. - Most concepts of reincarnation are pretty silly. We are formed from atoms formed by exploded stars, and we do get recycled by other organisms when we die. Our molecules decompose or get eaten by a beetle or burned into the air or absorbed by a mushroom or a tree. In that sense, we reincarnate, sure, but much like you’re not even the same person now as you were when you wrote that post, you’re most certainly not the same “person” after death as you were while alive... while you were “the universe expressing itself as a human being for a little while.” I probably missed the important parts of your question. Sorry for that. These are just a few thoughts off the top of my head. Thanks for letting me share them with you and for the opportunity to do so presented when you asked your kind thought provoking questions. Not all questions have answers, but that doesn’t make it any less fun discussing them. Cheers.
  9. 1 point
    Dutchman - The mainstream science conclusions are sound; much more competent people than you or I have been all over climate science and again and again confirm the CO2 and warming connection. No matter whether called for by governments leaning Left or those leaning Right, no matter which nation's science institutions, the conclusion remains that we face a serious climate problem of immense proportions - due mostly to excessive fossil fuel burning. That is based on a good understanding of the underlying processes. We continue to learn more all the time, around the edges of understanding, that the Anything-But-CO2 crowd keep trying to nibble at in lieu of having any sound basis for rejecting the CO2 and climate connection. That includes recently establishing a link between mass mortality in the 1500's across the Americas, massive regrowth of forests and a drop in global CO2 levels of around 7ppm, contributing to the Little Ice Age. As did major volcanic eruptions in close succession, making a feedback loop from increased snow cover that lasted several decades. The closer we look at these kinds of past climate variations the more confirmation of the mainstream science view we get, not less. Which is consistent with that view being correct. I am not going to waste much more time on this - I will continue to trust those decades of top level expert advice and advocate for governments to make that advice the bottom line - and urge them to reject rather than encourage the kinds of pseudo expertise you espouse.
  10. 1 point
    All good points. That is certainly true if you consider gravity a force (a la Newton). And if you take the GR interpretation, then you get relative motion with no force on the objects (which is the point I was making, albeit not very explicitly).
  11. 1 point
    You can always try tomorrow after you sleep tonight. I liked it, too, for its clarity and the good natured help it provided.
  12. 1 point
    I was keeping it simple, but yes, there is some small variation in sun-earth distances due to orbital motions being altered by other planets - but the principle point is the overall solar system barycentre most closely follows the Sun-Jupiter barycentre but the Earth most closely orbits the sun and that combined orbit moves around that Solar system barycentre (very close to Sun-Jupiter barycentre) without change to distances from Sun to Earth. However I am not an astrophysicist and and deferring to the expertise of others This paper got some discussion at https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/ and I will lift a comment from the host (who is an astronomer) there - No they are not. The Medieval Warm Period (or Roman or Little Ice Age) doesn't really present any problem for current best understanding of why our climate is currently warming - no matter that you and a small minority of pseudo experts may think otherwise; we've already far exceeded the temperatures during the MWP. Some "greening" does indeed appear a consequence of raised CO2 levels but so does raised temperatures - and depending on circumstances it will be other factors besides CO2 levels, including especially changes to rainfall and evaporation; I can assure you higher temperatures in places where dry conditions dominate (like where I live) mean less greening. No matter what conditions were like in the distant past it is the conditions that are recent, current and near future that matter - ie the period affecting people, agriculture, infrastructure and remnant ecosystems in the lifetimes of people now living. The claim that, without human emissions from fossil fuel burning atmospheric CO2 levels will drop to below that required for plant growth has no foundation; like everything else in this, it is the physical processes that matter - not blindly eyeing a graph and presuming a trend continues without physical processes that will make it continue. Do you think it is even possible keep burning fossil fuels for (going by the graph of declining CO2 provided) for the purpose of saving plant life for the next 5 million years? Utter nonsense! No, the Carbon Cycle will still be around and so will plants and CO2. I suggest you look to more reputable and non-partisan sources of information about climate change - such as the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society. They draw on the world's most accomplished and respected scientists to review and make sense of complex science. I continue to urge politicians and governments to treat such advice seriously and not fall for the illusion that the current understanding of climate and how it changes is inconsistent or uncertain or in serious doubt.
  13. 1 point
    There is NO evolution if length does not exit. Therefore length drives evolution. And while we are at it, width drives radioactive decay, and depth drives fermentation.
  14. 1 point
    Here is an interesting article on the effect of anaesthetics on brain function and consciousness. I'm not sure it answers the question, but does suggest that all the brain activity that corresponds to "conscious" activity (even when asleep) can be stopped and replace with something else, but we still wake up and are (or think we are!) the same person.
  15. 1 point
    Remember this: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence,.. he pulled it out of his ass.
  16. 1 point
    More seriously (!?) though, humour probably does tell us something about consciousness: the way that laughter is contagious (even hearing a recording of laughter with no context can make us laugh) probably says something about the way we understand that other people are conscious in the same way that we are ("theory of mind"). There has been a lot of research on this, such as how people react to real versus faked laughter, laughter being culture-specific, etc.
  17. 1 point
    You're obviously smart, so I have to wonder why you stopped studying science formally, and started making up the parts you didn't understand? It's a horrible habit. You have so many fundamental errors ("infinitely faster than the speed of light"), and you keep building on areas where you're misinformed so it compounds the misunderstandings. If you don't find a bit of science "plausible", you should ask questions instead of making it up. The biggest problem with this is your mind is only working with what you know, so your explanations seem PERFECT to you. They make sense on a basic level because you crafted them to be exactly what you need. Not good science.
  18. 1 point
    There is nothing wrong with the law of conservation of mass in the right context. Certainly it should be taught (in context) to high school students. In Chemistry (which you seem to do most) it is the basis of chemical stochiometry (the balancing of chemical equations) It also appears as the Law of Mass Action in Themodynamics, The Continuity Equation in Fluid Mechanics, Conservation of Momentum in classical mechanics. In fact I suspect that a very small percentage of your students will go on to work in disciplines where it does not apply such as sub atomic physics and chemistry, or relativistic physics and chemistry. For the bulk of Science and Engineering it is just fine.
  19. 1 point
    I found an interesting report in which the position in terms of immigration and economics are outlined.
  20. 1 point
    I agree. And the end the presentation moves into what I think is his purpose with the analogy: Some things that we describe correctly but that is not intuitive in our current models may make more sense in higher dimensions. And that is an aspect of what higher dimension physics are trying to establish. Note that as far as I can tell Niel Degrasse Tyson did not post nor create this video. The audio is from an interview made during the presentation of his book “Astrophysics for the rest of us”, Neil deGrasse Tyson answers questions about events that cannot be explained by our traditional senses. Longer version of the interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM_HPAXwJFw.
  21. 1 point
    If the police wanted to know the answer they could repeat the experiment with the same barrel + fuels and using a small pig in place of the victim. If they don't try it, then it looks like they don't want to know.
  22. 1 point
    I don't know they get stopped by intelligence - very often, and very deliberately, it has the bad guy offered the opportunity to surrender but he is so crazy-bad he forces the good guys to shoot him - in self defense of course. Entire televisions series have contrived endings that result in a shootout, so the bad guy can be killed. The reality of messy aftermaths is almost never part of the story. My own view is that there is a universal human capacity for getting enjoyment and satisfaction from knowing someone deemed bad is made to suffer or die - but it does not require any weighing of evidence or certainty; just being told someone is bad can be enough. Just being like someone bad - the same religion, ethnicity, political associations or appearance even - can be enough. Our institutions and laws work to channel and moderate such urges, but entertainment too often plays upon them - we get shown how bad they are and after that we can enjoy seeing confessions beaten out the suspect or their premises searched without warrants and ultimately see them get shot and killed. I do think the style of entertainment reflects (with exaggeration) some real elements of the culture and vigilantism seems to be more celebrated by Americans than it is amongst, say Australians. Not that it doesn't exist here, but I don't think it has the same cultural approval. How many Americans are routinely carrying guns - and are on the lookout for opportunities to be a hero? Surely just carrying weapons requires an extra watchfulness for the people and situations that might warrant their use - but I really do prefer the idea that my society's armed protectors are well trained and resort to use of arms is not something random citizens are encouraged to do.
  23. 1 point
    I think the trouble I have with his policies are that they are often presented as pitches, rather than a cohesive plan. I.e. you have on proposal that involves issues and mechanisms on the federal level, right next to proposals that appear to be very local in application. There are grand proposal such as overhauling the welfare system, next to unionizing MMA fighters. Based on that it looks a lot like a brain storming session with mixed priorities rather than cohesive policy proposals. I think part of it is based on his background, which includes little policy experience but more solutions pitching. While not necessarily against this approach, a bit of more prioritization and a cohesive write-up would inspire more confidence. On the opposite end I would put Warren, where the issues around a theme are outlined and then the pitches are that describe specifically these issues are going to be solved. Just to bring up the MMA example, why isn't it framed around strengthening union? The latter would make more sense in demonstrating a position. Or why is the GI bill filed under foreign policy? Again, it reads a bit student essays to me. They can have good ideas, but have trouble to form a cohesive narrative and contextualize the ideas properly. A little bit more polishing from someone would help a lot to make it look, well, more professional.
  24. 1 point
    OK, have a good evening.
  25. 1 point
    The diagram might be interesting if you replaced the word god with a reasonable definition of god. Without an indication of which god, or more likely which version of the christian god are you talking about, it's pretty tired.
  26. 1 point
    Don't we have animal insulin etc already? If the animals aren't in pain then in the short term it is ok (in the hope we could eventually be able to grow custom organs in a lab eliminating the need for animals to be used at all.) What advances are we missing out on because we didn't make the attempt? It really depends, a lot of diseases can be traced back to animals and will it create a new epidemic?
  27. 1 point
    I'm sorry did I miss something? I was listening to the cricket...
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    Sorry Koti, and Sensei, have been away a while. Very interesting and unfortunate view. Most polish people are appalled by such extremists as I'm sure Koti is as well. In my humble opinion from this point, the young educated people just need to vote in bigger number for the right government. I really love that country and I have traveled to most EU countries and few other and it's hands down my favorite. I dream to return there in my later days. Sorry for the subjective rant.
  30. 1 point
    In Galilean relativity the primary differences is that the speed of light had no speed limit. Time itself is absolute. The principle of invariance however remains the same. The definition of an inertial frame is also identical. We know today that Newtonian/ Galilean physics is wrong on two major points. The speed of light is limited and so is all information exchange by the constant c. We also know that time is not absolute and that the absolute frame does not exist. An Eather has medium like properties that if it did exist would cause directional drag aka the one way speed of light tests. All tests on c show there is no directional difference in the speed of light between two observers. In Lorentz transformations you have both length contraction and time dilation however in each reference frame the laws of physics such as Pythagoras theorem remain the same (per the reference frame) this is the same within the reference frame for Galilean relativity. Conjecturing some medium or Eather is very commonly done by far more posters than you realize you'd be amazed how often it crops up. Now two observers that see different densities do apply in gravitational redshift but why would the two observers see different densities in non relativistic Doppler ? Here is the details for the Michelson Morley test for an Eather https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://faculty.etsu.edu/gardnerr/5310/5310pdf/dg2-2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjWksX-tuLjAhUFj54KHVpeBC0QFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3fVRCzr82fWGmyXI9J2AD3 Ok let's try this we will stick to sound waves for now and show why moving relative to the wavefronts changes the wavelength. First you have a wave that emits a wavelength [math]\lambda[/math] this wavelength emits a continuous sequence of wavefronts given at a rate of [latex]\frac{1}{\nu}[/latex] which is it's given frequency so let's say the source is moving slowly towards you the observer at speed [latex]\mu[/latex] now each time the source transmits it's signal it has moved a distance [latex] \mu t[/latex] this changes the distance of the frequency wavefronts from [latex]\frac{1}{\nu}[/latex] Which now becomes [math]\lambda=\frac{c}{v}-\mu t=\frac{c}{\nu}-\frac{\mu}{\nu}=\frac{c}{\nu}(1-\beta)[/math] It's apparent frequency becomes [math]\acute{\nu}=\frac{c_s}{\nu}=\frac{\nu}{1-\beta}[/math] There you have it the source is moving so each time it emits a frequency wave pulse its position is different thus changing the frequency. You do not require any medium to get this effect nor does this in any way violate Galilean relativity (however sound waves itself required a medium) the effect itself doesn't require a medium if the density of the two emitters location differs from the observer location the speed of sound will vary on route and you will need to account for that seperately. However the generalized Doppler effect is based on the medium density being the same between the observer and emitter and the only cause is from a moving source. In essence it is simply addition of velocities for classical physics.
  31. 1 point
    I find that pretty implausible. I don't even know what "watching" would mean in this context (it is all about what is measured or observed). Oh, so first of all we were "snobs" because we were too educated. Now my humble diploma (in loudspeaker design) is not good enough for you! But don't worry, there are some "real" scientists here.
  32. 1 point
    It's almost like we need a new definition of intelligence.
  33. 1 point
    I'm not sure why it's not working. It was working when I tested it earlier and I can still use the link I attached but not the one you copied? Thank you for at least trying.
  34. 1 point
    Maybe you could try using Google Translate instead of writing in English, because I have no idea what you are trying to say.
  35. 1 point
    Show a reference where force (measured in newtons) is detatched.
  36. 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
  37. 1 point
    Type of computer? Operating system? Make of headphones? Type of connection? Wired? BT?
  38. 0 points
    What experiment or experiments? We can also look at the scads of experiments that have been done. But "what stuff is made of" in this context is often metaphysics. Experiments tell us how nature behaves, not how it works. Again, metaphysics. Science investigates how nature behaves. You haven't made a compelling case for why you need them.
  39. 0 points
    You really don't know enough physics to make declarations. Particles don't keep time. You don't need any single type of particle to have spacetime. Any collection of particles of any type resides in spacetime. You don't need virtual photons for that. Photons only mediate the electromagnetic field. Yet particles that do not interact with the EM field still experience gravity. Your also wrong in terms of action. Do you even know how the principle of least action applies to path integrals. Go ahead try and prove me wrong and describe it with the math. You will never be able to prove virtual photons are required to have spacetime. Photons has the wrong properties to be the mediator for spacetime. Mainly spin. Now as I stated the equation you posted was not the equation for a virtual photon You yourself in the previous two posts showed it is the time dependent Schrodinger equation. That is not how you model a photon virtual or otherwise. You don't take the Schrodinger equation and declare it is a particle wave function. Not to repeat the fact that Schrodinger equations are NOT Lorentz invariant.
  40. 0 points
    ! Moderator Note Modnotes aren't up for discussion, they're a warning that you're breaking the rules. ! Moderator Note Please note that "crap" refers to YOUR IDEA, not you. Stop taking this personally, this is supposed to be science.
  41. -1 points
    Also any field is ability to take energy from space and to return it back.
  42. -1 points
    Ah .. here’s the trap, so if momentum isn’t conserved because your rock analogy doesn’t work inside the box, the magnetic field component does still work inside the box. As the force on a current carrying wire in a magnetic field is a known thing, it would now seem that the momentum of the emp is irrelevant factor and the only part that’s now relevant is the magnetic field acting on the current carrying wire, thanks Strange. Obviously the greater the distance the greater the distortion, Im talking about very short distance here
  43. -1 points
    I don't understand. I asked you to cite an example. What?
  44. -1 points
    All I see in your comments are reasons why you will not understand antigravity technology. I speak for a billion human beings who are ready to travel to the stars. If there is anyone here who thinks they understand, I will teach. If not, I will look for someone who can understand the basics of the experiment.
  45. -1 points
    Since you know them why ask for both volume and pressure? I bet you dont know how the engine works. First we study classical mechanics and then your theoretical bollocks.
  46. -1 points
    My true motive is to talk to somebody. I have no one else to talk to. I'm on a month suspension for calling an atheist on Facebook... woo, twice!!! He claimed I was personally attacking him! Well, anyway, I just came back from ... with the word Yahawa, ancient Hebrew name of God. I looked it up on the internet and found this link. https://yahawah-is.blogspot.com/ I'm not trying preach to anyone and I'm not trying to threaten anyone or make you feel uncomfortable. I have argued scientifically that a Creator is required to create the physical laws of this universe. The fact that I hear the name Yahawah, one can infer that the Ancient Hebrew God Yahawah created the universe or claims to have created the universe. One can possibly infer that the universe was created by a Jew, maybe. You're not being threatened with hellfire, that wasn't the message. It was more like, for your information, not only was the universe created, but it was created by a Jew. Just thought you'd like to know.
  47. -1 points
    Exactly, model... LOL! Of COURSE they do! No one KNOWS! Mordred, you are so good at the maths, much more than I can ever hope to be now at my age, where I just don't want to spend the time becoming as proficient as you, I'd like to see you do some within my model, if you can imagine how, which I will wager you can.
  48. -1 points
    The Universe is infinite - its always been here here - and yet you get banned in this room for writing the truth.
  49. -1 points
    Shooting electrons at a surface is supposed to satisfy my question of what happens when you shoot two matter waves at each other?