Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/16/19 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Then you would need evidence. What if it happened that way? What if it didn't? How do we decide. Oh yes: evidence. That is how science works. That is why it is not a scientific hypothesis: because it is impossible to come up with an objective test. What if the universe was created last Thursday but exactly as if it were 13.8 billions years old? Or because it just doesn't exist. A simulation does not require that it doesn't exist. If it is discovered, you will say, "ah but they decided to simulate it because ..." I predict that if the universe is simulated then tomorrow will be Thursday. I predict that if the universe is simulated then there is no visible colour beyond red. I predict that if the universe is simulated then black holes will have event horizons. We have already detected dark matter. But even so, simulation does not require that it does or doesn't exist. If the nature of dark matter is discovered, you will say, "ah but they decided to simulate it because ..." And this highlights the complete failure of the idea as an explanatory principle. Can it answer these questions: Why does this "setting" exist? (Because the Simulators felt like it) Why does the setting have this value? (Because the Simulators felt like it) No. It can't. Therefore it is not a scientific explanation. Even in a simulated universe, the scientific answer to "what is dark matter?" is "we don't know (yet). But we do know a lot about it and can build models and test them against what we observe." All your hypothesis can do, for any observation, is say "well, it is what it is because that is what it is." Again, absolutely nothing to do with simulation. A simulation could have aliens around every star. Or one in a million stars. O just one star in each gravity. Or just here on Earth. But so could an entirely natural universe. None of these are predictions of simulation. They are guesses. They are non sequiturs. There is no logical connection between the premise (simulation) and the conclusion. Just sticking the word "because" in there does not make it a logical argument. Apparently not.
  2. 2 points
    You should avoid seeking employment with Oxford or Merriam Websters. Your definition of time is perhaps the single worst I've ever seen. I thought the question was about life and consciousness. It's even right there in the thread title.
  3. 1 point
    If I have this right it says that ,whatever the inertial frame any physical experiment gives the same result. What might be the simplest such experiment that one could devise to show this to be the case ? By simplest I mean perhaps involving the smallest amount of energy and ideally involving just a system being measured in one of two possible states. If such an experiment exists I would like to set up a scenario where two observers are in motion wrt each other (so we have a v and a -v) and take measurements of an experiment like the one I have wondered about above . The site of the experiment should be moving at v/2 and -v/2 wrt to the two observers. (so at an equal rate of motion to either) Is there any mileage in my set up ? I got the idea from this document which I am attempting to understand https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0302045.pdf Any comments on that document would also be welcome (eg is it well worked) There is also this related document which I have not looked at yet https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9d55/944b5c5bd8698ab2e9576ad8e69836e43601.pdf
  4. 1 point
    interesting but i dont think the atheist is 'betting' on anything. i think they are just being honest with themselves. I for example, dont think belief is a choice. I could try to believe ,but then i will have these constant voices nagging at me with questions like "but what about this? and what about that?". you just cant believe in something which doesn't hold up.
  5. 1 point
    Just so we’re clear and in case there was any confusion, I was not under the influence when typing my post. ✌️
  6. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note As this thread does not meet the requirements for discussion in speculations, it is closed. If you just want to post your pictures of molecules, get a Tumblr or Instagram account.
  7. 1 point
    Aren't you guys busy enough buying Greenland?
  8. 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.
  9. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note OK. That's enough. If you are not able to explain you idea or answer questions, this thread is closed. Do not bring this up again.
  10. 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.
  11. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note You have had several threads on the same thing. All have been closed because of your inability to present any evidence or math to support your ideas. Do not bring the subject up again.
  12. 1 point
    The fact that you can count swan’s eyes is what makes it falsifiable. As it is impossible to check every Sean that ever lived or will live, all you can do is hope to find a swan with one or three eyes to disprove the hypothesis. Says the guy who doesn’t even know the difference between “falsify” and “falsifiable”.
  13. 1 point
    This is where your mistake lies. False, falsify, and falsifiable are three different concepts in science. All swans have two eyes is a false statement (I found a picture of a one-eyed swan). The picture falsified the statement "all swans have two eyes". The fact that finding swans with more or less than two eyes would make the statement "all swans have two eyes" false means the statement is falsifiable. All swans have two eyes is a statement that can be checked to see if it's false (making it falsifiable), but we can't do any checks to be certain it's true.
  14. 1 point
    For someone banging on about clarity etc, I’m rather surprised you haven’t provided a reference. I agree that the first bit of text you quote appears pretty bad. But as I don’t know where it is from, I can’t say much more. That is a hypothesis not a theory. It is falsifiable because we can specify ways of testing it. As it happens, these show that the hypothesis is false. Which it is why it is not a theory. You seem to confusing “falsified” with “falsifiable” The idea here is that you only need one example to disprove something (eg your room without a green unicorn) but it is much harder to prove something. Let’s say you have looked in every room in your house and, yes, there is a green unicorn there (obviously, this is just to explain the point). Then you check every room in every building in your town. Yep, the hypothesis still holds. You check every room in your country and then on the planet. Still no rooms without green unicorns. But by now, thousands of new buildings have gone up; they all need to be checked. And can you be certain that there weren’t some secret or hidden rooms you missed. And what about buildings on other planets (if they exist). It is usually impossible or impractical to test something exhaustively. So science more often relies on finding a counter-example, rather than trying to confirm every possible case. Good. I think you need to go and chill out
  15. 1 point
    ST and multiverse theories are attempts to solve problems of the day. Simulated reality solves nothing at this point in time. Simulated reality implies a reality outside of our own and god-like consciousness to create/control it. It's essentially a religious concept with modern details..
  16. 1 point
    Actually there is little evidence that biotin improves hair growth, unless a person has biotin deficiency. Various forms of hair loss and skin conditions are associated with biotin deficiency and for the most part the cause is that carboxylases require biotin as a cofactor. I.e. hair loss and other conditions are the result of certain carboxylases not functioning any more. Otoh, there is little to no evidence that in patients with sufficient biotin intake will improve hair growth.
  17. 1 point
    Vinegar is usually a mixture of water and between 4 and 5% acetic acid. This versatile acid can mix with water, oil, alcohol and almost any other kind of liquid -- even gasoline -- reaching places that other cleaning products can't. When dissolved in water, acetic acid breaks into two components, the hydrogen and the remainder of the molecule, called the acetate. The hydrogen will try to bond to any molecule that it encounters, acting like a third wheel that weakens the molecule's structure. These hydrogens are great at cleaning stains made from alkali substances, like soap, urine, and limestone. The acetate component has an extra electron that hangs off the molecule. The electron acts as a magnet to other atoms, especially metals, to make new molecules. For example, the acetate reacts with molecules in rust and grime and changes their makeup so the water can dissolve them. Acetic acid also gets rid of odors by killing off the bacteria and fungi that cause them. Its acidic nature destroys the cell structure of bacteria, and it stops fungi from turning sugar into energy. https://www.networx.com/article/the-science-of-vinegar So not by magic, no, but actually there doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence about its ability to remove residue due to pesticides.
  18. 1 point
    I recall from many years ago similar projects being discussed. My recollection is that there were no structural issues-- but there were efficiency issues. Solar power already evaporates water for the entire surface of the ocean and delivers it to land in the form of precipitation. This, of course, is of limited efficiency because some of the precipitations falls on the oceans, or in places it cannot be efficiently used. However, since floating desalination systems detract from the natural evaporation, they would have to be correspondingly more efficient to make a net benefit. The challenge is in making the floating system, and the energy required to retrieve the water thus produced, sufficiently efficient to make it financially superior to capturing the natural precipitation.
  19. 1 point
    A clock measures time by definition. We are in a science section, so let's not wander off on a whimsy.
  20. 1 point
    Among my proposals for the oboe and similar, the D even fingering variant takes the fewest and simplest keys. How many bare holes can it use? None at the five thumb holes. Not at the second index hole that should be placed properly a semitone higher than the first. Supposedly not at the pinkies as they are short. 6 holes remain. They can all be bare at the oboe and oboe d'amore, for agile, silent, reliable, light and cheap instruments. At the oboe da caccia and cor anglais, the left hand holes can be bare, plus two at right hand: same R1 to R2 spacing as on the bassoon, comfortable but for children. The baritone oboe can have two bare holes at left hand. The real distances will be slightly smaller. The table takes half-wavelengths in air, but small tone holes are higher on the air column. I would not have long skewed tone holes as the bassoon has. They behave differently at the upper register, but the cross-fingerings there should fit a whole instrument family. Chambers eccentric above the tone hole narrow bore can gain a few mm. Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy
  21. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note You need to immediately seek the help of local professionals. We don't give medical or legal advice here. Please contact people who can physically help you. We want you to have the best chance to solve these problems.
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    The assumptions here are that 1) you’d build and own the robots, and 2) you’d still get paid. If those apply, you’re surely right that this is all motherhood and apple pie. However, much more likely is that a tiny handful of ultra rich will build and own all robots, workers will be both displaced and cutout of any profits or income, and the classes will further separate while people starve and struggle to keep a roof over their heads... unless we proactively put policies in place to support the masses irrespective of robot ownership.
  24. 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.
  25. 1 point
    And while we are now just seeing this, it occurred 27,000 years ago; during the Upper Paleolithic, and while we were in the Last Glacial Period. Woolly mammoth still roamed the mainland.
  26. 1 point
    "Dark" in reference to "dark matter" simply means undetectable by electromagnetic radiation, either consisting of MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo objects, e.g, Black holes, neutron stars etc. ) or WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles; basically a type of matter that does not participate via the electromagnetic interaction; something similar to the neutrino)* "Dark" if reference to dark energy is just a placeholder label chosen because we had already coined the term "dark matter" and Science isn't always overly creative when when comes to naming stuff. In other words, don't make too much of the usage of the word here. * Observations tend to limit how much dark matter can be made up of MACHOs. Basically, an large amount of mass consisting of MACHOS today would have had effects on how the universe evolved during its earlier stages, and would had led to a universe that would look different than what we see.
  27. 1 point
    For me, lately the purpose of life is to find purpose. Sometimes life feels overwhelming. But it's always the small things that lift me. People saying hello, helping me out when they have no reason to, being nice, small things like that. So I guess my purpose would be to remember you only have to do small things to really help someone. And try to be less of a socially awkward dick too, that would help.
  28. 1 point
    Why else do governments seek to destroy the unions?
  29. 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).
  30. 1 point
    I have three points nobody seems to have considered, to add to this discussion. Firstly this idea of a virgin body that has never felt a force. That’s why they might actually be stationary, in other words, no momentum.  If an object has experienced a force to make it move surely it has momentum, wouldn’t it make sense to then choose a frame of reference that hasn’t had a force applied to it? Within the bounds aof all known mathematics this requires a single body in an otherwise empty universe. As soon as you introduce more than one body there will always be some sort of force between them. Secondly zero momentum could be momentary (and frame dependant), but the requirement has always been zero net force, not zero force. Thirdly there is no magic in pair production from radiation.
  31. 1 point
    Moore isn't a climate expert. Where did he get it? I'm betting you don't know that. Yes. That's not in contention. No, I seriously doubt that. Fossilization as a carbon sink? How does that work, changing bone into minerals capturing carbon? And the graph you posted showed 150 ppm, going to zero in the future (15 million years in the future, but still). How does any of this support that claim? Here the graph flattens out at about ~2 mya. I don't see how this can be claimed to support the graph in question. You seem to be missing the point: the only data we have from planets is, at best, several decades old. We don't have a handle on longer-term cycles that might be present. If it was the sun, we should see warming everywhere, in a predictable fashion based on distance from the sun. Triton, for example. You can calculate how much further away it is, and how much energy it gets compared to us. The temperature rise should be related to that. If Triton's temperature went up 7 ºF in a certain window of time, what should have happened on earth in the same time frame? Did that happen? Do some science! (I have to think we would have seen a larger rise in temperature than Triton would) Note that the moon rise in temperature (which you dismiss as silly with no actual scientific analysis) does not happen in the same time window. Again, if the moon's temperature went up in the 70s, why didn't that happen on earth? (the temperature was pretty flat https://phys.org/news/2017-01-earth-global-temperature.html) We are exposed to the same sun, after all. This any-port-in-a-storm attempt at rebuttal lacks any scientific merit whatsoever. It's crap. It might fool some of the people some of the time, but it really doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is devoid of intellectual honesty.
  32. 1 point
    Nationalists are increasing tensions between "our country" and "foreign country" (whatever they are). That's what they fed on. If there used to be war between one country and other country, nationalists will be celebrating loss and/or win. Over and over again, in year ceremonies to sustain remembership of the victory, or better (for them) remembership of the loss. They (nationalists) are poisoning minds of newly born kids with their crap, to hate foreigners, and to hate people from different cultures, different races, different religions, different worldviews, and so on, so on.
  33. 1 point
    Both Orion and myself do, we're breaking apart the relations that went into the OP Langrene. Right now I'm trying to determine if it's canonical or conformal by looking at the EW Langrene through symmetry break via the Higgs. Which will confirm the Higgs and Yukawa couplings underbrace sections. We're both learning from this gives us a refreshing challenge. The Yukawa section is rather challenging. I've already confirmed the Higgs and Dirac covariant derivative forms.
  34. 1 point
    Any of the above! It could be either a completely new theory that "replaces" GR, or it could be a realisation that a particular small tweak is needed, or it could be the discovery of completely new particles, forces, or something not yet thought of.
  35. 1 point
    There is another related paper that our local region may be an underdensity region which would account for some of the discrepancies https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.12402.pdf
  36. 1 point
    Did somebody already said this is nonsense? Oh, I see, Strange already did. Listen, it is obvious to us all that you lack the most elementary understanding of QM, and still you go on spouting wrong ideas. You are a victim of your tendency to make concepts vaguer than they are in science and philosophy, replacing real understanding with a feeling of understanding. You throw different meanings of concepts in one concept, like you did with scattering, Doppler effect, 'theory', etc. Nothing is gained by that. What a nonsense again. Studiot told you why, and you gave no explanation of why you viewpoint would be correct. You also gave no explanation of the band spread in radio waves: These questions might help you in answering the question: what is the exact frequency of a wave pulse of 2 seconds? what is the exact position of a wave pulse of 2 seconds? what is the consequence of this, given that quantum particles have wave character? Remember: the observer effect is based on the fact that measurement always implies a causal relationship, and understanding this causal relationship might help in lessening the effect, or in some situations compensate for it by calculating the effect and subtracting it. The HUP can principally not be removed from the measurement, because it is not due to the measurement. E.g. one can give a pretty well estimation of the size of the hydrogen atom based on the fact that the HUP does not allow for an energy state being exactly 0, which would mean you have exact information about its energy. Now do you think that the energy of the electron in hydrogen, and therefore the size of its orbital, is dependent on our measurement? How does the spectrum of hydrogen depend on our measuring of the light, that already appeared independent of our measuring (ups, just realise this is a similar question Studiot asked). As suggestion to the administrators: I would move every posting von Itoero immediately into 'Speculations' when it is in a science topic and is wrong or highly speculative. Just think about people like druS, who might not know who is talking nonsense, and who is an expert.
  37. 1 point
    I answer the OP's question, only to get a downvote. Not that I care a lot. But seriously, in a forum is it really supposed to be better rewarded not to answer questions? Possibly not as familiar as you are. But the transfer principle immediately allows me to ascertain that the limit p in (2) is identically equal to 0. I did not say that (2) does not make sense. What I said was that it only makes sense if p is 0.
  38. 1 point
    No, scientists remain unsure whether gravity can be quantised or not.
  39. 1 point
    They haven't yet been able to work out how to quantify gravity into a discrete unit, like photons, which is necessary to define it as a particle. That's why gravitons are still theoretical.
  40. 0 points
    I have noticed that this term gets thrown around quite often when people debate what's "scientific" and what is not. What I have NOT found is a definition or explanation of "falsifiability" that is unambiguous, coherent and logical! Apparently it's an alleged "property" of a theory or hypothesis, which for some mysterious reason makes it "scientific" (whatever that might mean - I'll get back to that later) So we need a "test" which could tell us whether a theory/hypothesis is "falsifiable" or not. In the context of science any such a "test" should be rigorously and unambiguously defined. The problem is, the only things I found are ambiguous and nonsensical ramblings made by people who seem very unfamiliar with the clarity, rigor and logical soundness that actual science requires. And I haven't even touched on the issue of how such a "test" would prove that something is "scientific" and what that would really mean. Let's explore a few examples ... first, wikipedia: So we have: "basic statement" - what does it mean? how does it differ from non-"basic statements"? do you just have to "say something"? "successful or failed falsification" - a theory is falsifiabile if [something], which, in eventual successful or failed falsification [some other stuff] - what is the meaning of falsification here, as it sounds like a circular statement "must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation" - what's the meaning of "hypothetical observation"? it kinda sounds like oxymoron! are imaginary things are ok? unicorns? aliens? or just scenarios that are imaginary but seem plausible due to similar actual facts that exists or perhaps laws of physics? OK, let's now explore the concrete example... from the same wikipedia: 1. what if that "basic statement" were not a "true observation" but some imaginary stuff? 2. how about this one: "all swans have two eyes" ... good luck finding a three eyed swan! OK, now let's try to falsify one popular "theory": "The earth is flat!" - well, this is contradicted by many statements and experiments that back them! So "the earth is flat" is a scientific theory according to Popper! WOW! How does it help us in separating non-scientific stuff from scientific stuff? We can even try to formulate theories related to imaginary friends: "In every room in every building on earth, there's a green unicorn!" Finding just one room without an unicorn would make the theory "scientific". You can replace unicorns with angels, gods or whatever. Then there's the nonsense that a theory can only be "disproved" and never "proved" - which is hugely wrong and nonsensical(you might get to "disprove" an infinity of things and won't be able to reach any conclusion)! Actually the whole story about "falsifiability" comes from this philosophical idea of Popper that "nothing is certain" and theories can only be shown to be false. Besides being wrong, is completely unhelpful, as that's not the way we use science to our benefit. I'll stop here for now.
  41. 0 points
    Continuous information about space.
  42. -1 points
    Letting a target person hear sounds using microwaves is well-established science. It was observed during WWII as the first radars were put into service. You all have had enough time to hear about it. It was investigated during the 1950, and even published in peer-reviewed science journals - just in case someone imagines this is what makes science. It's called the Frey effect, and the experiments let the target person hear distinctly the figures from 1 to 9. The company Raytheon proposed the US navy to build hardware for it. All people here are not scientists who criticize or insult the OP based on their wrong believes and prejudices. They should ask themselves how to improve their reasoning to avoid such gross mistakes in the future.
  43. -1 points
    The Universe is infinite - its always been here here - and yet you get banned in this room for writing the truth.
  44. -1 points
    Hi, I am new on this forum, and English is also not my home language. But I think I can explain my questions in English. I read an article of Valentina Zharkova in nature Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 (is'nt it possible to create an hyperlink?) That article claimed (among other things) that the earth is in a cycle of 2000 years, started around 1600. In that cycle the global temperature will rice until 2600 (+2.5 C), after that it will decrease for 1000 years. Similar cycles were responsible for the roman warm period and the medieval warm period (between 900 and 1100). There are also other cycles, which are even larger in time, related to precession and tile of the planet earth, but that is not the subject of this topic. This is how it works, according to Zharkova. And also how I interpreted it, because it is also possible that I misunderstood the theorie. The plantes in the solar system makes their orbits, not around the sun but around the barycentre. The barycentre is the magnetic middle of the solar system. The sun is almost never situated on the focus of the barycentre but wobble around the barycentre. It can move from the centre away but also to the centre of the barycentre. In the current cycle, it moves away from the centre. If the sun is closer to the earth, the terrestrial temperature will increase, what is very logic. If the sun was on the focus of the bary centre, In aphelion ( then summer in northern hemisphere) the sun is at a distance of 1.53 * 108 and in perihelion 1.47 * 108 (closer in winter in northern hemisphere). However, the sun is not at the focus. If the sun moves to perihelion, the earth wil be shortest to sun 1.44 *108. while at aphelion it will increase to 1.55 × 108 km. This was the case during millennium prior the maunder minimum (until around 1600). If the Sun moves in its SIM closer to Earth’s aphelion decreasing the Earth orbit eccentricity (which mean orbit is more simular to a circle) as it is happening in the current millennium starting from Maunder Minimum (around 1600), then the distance between Sun and Earth at the aphelion will become shorter approaching 1.49 × 108 km during the summer in the Northern and winter in the Southern hemispheres, and longer at the perihelion approaching 1.50 × 108, or during a winter in the Northern and summer in the Southern hemispheres.Hence, at this SIM position of the Sun, the Earth in aphelion should receive higher solar irradiance (and temperature) during the Northern hemisphere summers and Southern hemisphere winters. When the Earth moves to its perihelion, the distance to the Sun will become longer and thus, the solar irradiance will become lower leading to colder winters in the Northern hemisphere and colder summers in the Southern one. This is what happening in the terrestrial temperature in the current millennium starting since Maunder minimum and lasting until ≈2600. My question is WHY DOES THIS MEAN THAT TSI (solar warmth per square metre) INCREASE OVER ONE YEAR UNTIL 2600, SO TERRESTRIAL TEMPERATURE PER YEAR INCREASE? So the SUN is moving away from its center, in the direction of the aphelion, resulting in higher total TSI per year. Why? If the sun is closer to earth in Aphelion, it will be less closer to earth in prehilion. So isn't that mean, more TSI in aphelion and less TSI in prehelium equeals zero?? Or Is TSI increase over one year because the orbit is less exentric, so earth catch more TSI ??????? I hope somebode can explain this to me. Zharkova received a lot of critics (in particularly from AGW supporters) so she explained in more detail. https://thegrandsolarminimum.com/valentina-zharkovas-critics-should-be-embarrassed/ Some critic said that the theory is against the laws of Kepler. Zharkova explained that the wobbling orbit of the sun around the barycentre is not a Kepler motion but is triggered by the gravity laws of Newton and caused by the gravity of the planets. The sun wobbles, and if the planets remain the same distance to the sun, its orbits would wobble also, but that is not the case, because the orbits are not around the sun, but around the barycenter. They do not chaotic wobbles like the sun does around the barycentre. Besides the sun, the gravity of the planets also influence the position of the barycentre. The sun makes a circle of max 4.3 solar radii (696,000 km) around its barycentre.
  45. -1 points
    What law of Physics are you trying to protect with your breasts now?
  46. -1 points
    Oh?! "Force" = "change in momentum" [math]\vec F = \frac{{{\rm{d}}\vec p}}{{{\rm{d}}t}} = \frac{{{\rm{d}}\left( {m\vec v} \right)}}{{{\rm{d}}t}}[/math] This is Physics. The science is ... Bad answer. The response of the layman. I repeat again. Watch and read carefully. Material Point System: The total momentum of this point system is defined as follows: [math]\vec P = \sum {{{\vec p}_i}} = \sum {{m_i}{v_i}} = {m_1}{{\vec v}_1} + {m_2}{{\vec v}_2} + {m_3}{{\vec v}_3} + ... + {m_i}{{\vec v}_i}[/math] If all these points would have the same speed, then this speed could be taken out of the sign of the sum, and sum the mass: And it would turn out like this: [math] \ vec P = M {\ vec V_c} [/math] In order for the speeds of all points of the system to become equal, all these points need to be simply connected! Connect inelastically! [math]{m_1}{{\vec v}_1} + {m_2}{{\vec v}_2} + {m_3}{{\vec v}_3} + ... + {m_i}{{\vec v}_i} \to Boom!!! \to ({m_1} + {m_2} + {m_3} + ... + {m_i}){V_c} = M{V_c}[/math] Actually, what you schoolchildren only know how to do! .... But here is the misfortune in this "simple" task .... As the author of this task, I came up with an inelastic connection of system components according to a special law. Like this: And in the total momentum for this system, the following regularity was determined: [math]{m_1}{{\vec v}_1} + {m_2}{{\vec v}_2} + {m_3}{{\vec v}_3} + ... + {m_n}{{\vec v}_n} = ({m_{i1}} + {m_{i2}} + {m_{i3}} + ... + {m_{in}}){{\vec V}_{ic}} + ({m_{k1}} + {m_{k2}} + {m_{k3}} + ... + {m_{kn}}){{\vec V}_{kc}}[/math] And what is very curious - the masses of particle systems with the same velocity (i.e. material points, material bodies!) - are constantly changing! Look: [math]{m_1}{{\vec v}_1} + {m_2}{{\vec v}_2} + {m_3}{{\vec v}_3} + ... + {m_n}{{\vec v}_n} = ({m_{i1}} + {m_{i2}} + {m_{i3}} + ... + {m_{in}}){{\vec V}_{ic}}({t_1}) + ({m_{k1}} + {m_{k2}} + {m_{k3}} + ... + {m_{kn}}){{\vec V}_{kc}}({t_1})[/math] [math]{m_1}{{\vec v}_1} + {m_2}{{\vec v}_2} + {m_3}{{\vec v}_3} + ... + {m_n}{{\vec v}_n} = ({m_{i1}} + {m_{i2}} + {m_{i3}} + ... + {m_{in - 1}}){{\vec V}_{ic}}({t_2}) + ({m_{k1}} + {m_{k2}} + {m_{k3}} + ... + {m_{kn + 1}}){{\vec V}_{kc}}({t_2})[/math] [math]{m_1}{{\vec v}_1} + {m_2}{{\vec v}_2} + {m_3}{{\vec v}_3} + ... + {m_n}{{\vec v}_n} = ({m_{i1}} + {m_{i2}} + {m_{i3}} + ... + {m_{in - 2}}){{\vec V}_{ic}}({t_3}) + ({m_{k1}} + {m_{k2}} + {m_{k3}} + ... + {m_{kn + 2}}){{\vec V}_{kc}}({t_3})[/math] Therefore, the total momentum of the entire system as a whole can be written as follows: [math]{p_{var}}(t) = {m_{liquid}}(t){{\vec v}_1}(t) + {m_{case}}(t){{\vec v}_2}(t)[/math] And this total momentum cannot change without an external energy source. This is the Law! Called: Law of Conservation of Momentum. [math]{p_{var}}(t) = {m_{liquid}}(t){{\vec v}_1}(t) + {m_{case}}(t){{\vec v}_2}(t)=const=0[/math] if [math]{{\vec F}^e} = 0[/math] Can anyone solve this differential equation? Or is it not necessary to solve it, because instead of this equation it is possible to solve the "brick equation" easily, even in the mind? [math]{{\vec R}_c}(t) = {{\vec R}_c}(0) + {{\vec V}_c}(t)t + \frac{1}{2}\frac{{{{\vec F}^e}}}{M}{t^2}[/math] Just because this equation is much simpler and more understandable to any student? Write this mathematical dependence, "a connoisseur of physics"! Write, please! I really hope that I will be able to explain to you what Real Physics is.
  47. -1 points
    I beg your pardon if I did not answer any question. Ready to answer any question! There are no secrets! True?! [math]\vec F = \frac{{{\rm{d}}\vec p}}{{{\rm{d}}t}} = \frac{{d(m\vec v)}}{{dt}} = m\frac{{d\vec v}}{{dt}} = m\vec a[/math] Something is wrong? Butov did not study well at school ?! In general, the change in momentum looks like this: [math]\vec F = \frac{{{\rm{d}}\vec p}}{{{\rm{d}}t}} = \frac{{d(m\vec v)}}{{dt}} = m\frac{{d\vec v}}{{dt}} + {{\vec v}_r}\frac{{dm}}{{dt}} = m\vec a + {{\vec F}^{jet}}[/math] And, once again, you have failed to explain what is going on in your diagrams, that people might have a chance to make some sense out of them. I will show how the Mass Center of the Varipend system is calculated: [math]{r_c}(t) = \frac{{{m_{liquid}}(t){r_1}(t) + {m_{case}}(t){r_2}(t)}}{M}[/math] In order to calculate the coordinates of the CM system at any time, it is necessary to know the masses and coordinates of the parts of the system. And the masses and coordinates of the parts of the system change over time. These CHANGES are subject to conservation laws: the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the Law of Conservation of Energy. In order to calculate the coordinates of the system at any time , it is enough to solve the differential equation of the momentum balance of the parts of the system: [math]{p_{var}}(t) = {m_{liquid}}(t){{\vec v}_1}(t) + {m_{case}}(t){{\vec v}_2}(t)=0[/math] Oh! Or maybe you want to solve the differential equation of a "brick" of the same mass as the Varipend system? [math]{m_{brik}}{{\vec v}_{brik}} = 0[/math] Because there is a very respectable competent reason for this - is this equation a little easier?
  48. -1 points
    In my many many many discussion online, over the years, I've argued in a similar way to what you do here. People called that hand-waving.
  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?
  50. -2 points
    a picture of what was around it. get real