exchemist

2 hours ago, jv1 said:

Here is a bit better explanation what is connection between theeiy of relativity and laser range finder .
Range finder emited and receiver are not on the same line 
there is a small angle we are going to call angle alfa
between sent and return signals.
in one second signal travels distance of 3x10e8
this angle is so small that we ignore it.
now if the distances become bigger it can not be ignored.
for example height radio altimeters on the aircraft.

Let’s see flash light ,vaginitis and observer in this set up 
instead of flesh light we will use light bulb.
and both observer and mirror will be disco balls 
and one is positioned at distance 3x10e8 (mirror) and the other disco ball distance changes from 0 to 3x10e8m .
the distances are perpendicular to each other (mimicking flash light,mirror observer).


the light wave leaving the light bulb is circular wave and it spreads 360 degrees in xyz directions from light bulb.
now 
we are pressing the stop watch button
and we are going to follow only one light wave - signal 


signal reaching the disco ball at 3x10r8 distance is constant
and it will be our comparative signal.
in our case the distance is 3x10e8 and Time is 1 s

the same signal travels to observer disco ball at distance d=0to 3x10e8
The time the signal reaches the observer is 
t=d(from to 3x10e8)/ c


These two distance are sides of triangle with 90 degrees angle 
Between them.sides a and b
The distance from observer (disco ball) to mirror disco ball 
can be calculated as hypotenuse. 
the angle between distance to observer and distance to mirror 
Tangent function is 
tan Alfa=d mirror /d observer

OVERLOOK 


In quadrant 3x10e8 x3x10e8 in time of one second 
velocity and distance have the same value.






If the sides of signal triangle length (abC)
where 
a=v 
b=3x10e8
C^2=v^2x9x10^16
are seen as distance (m)
the 
tan Alfa =c/v

if the abC are seen as velocity (m/s)
the 

tan Alfa =gama(lorentz factor)

if the distance observer is bigger than 3x10e 8
only clasic physics approach will work.

now please,go back to the beginning of this thread and you will 
see that theroy of relativity is original electromagnetic range 
Finder.

 

......."vaginitis"..........

🤪

I have just watched an interesting video made by a Marine Chief Engineer, on this incident: 

He is not privy to any inside information but he can make certain deductions from looking at the footage of the incident. They key points I got from this were that:

(i) the emergency generator did not restore power within the 45seconds mandated by SOLAS rules. It came on but after about a minute, too slow, why? and

(ii) there was black smoke from the funnel after the restoration of power after the blackout. He does not believe they would have had time to restart the main engine, which would have shut down when electric power to run its fuel pumps etc was lost. So it cannot have been from the main engine. It must therefore have been from trying to restart the main generators. But these are indeed supposed to run on MDF when manoeuvring close to port, which should not produce black smoke, even during start-up.

So the finger of suspicion points to the fuel fed to the main generators. Possibly there was something badly wrong with the MDF or possibly they were incorrectly trying to run the gensets on RFO too soon and something went wrong with the switchover from MDF to RFO.

The ship should have been able to operate its rudder even on only the emergency backup genset, but without the propeller, the turning effect from the rudder would have been very limited.

He did make the comment at the end, just in passing, that if the port regulations had required tug assistance until out from the bridge channel then the outcome would have been different. That thought had occurred to me too. Expecting these large ships to get out on their own, with the tidal current in the river estuary......well.....I don't know.    

6 hours ago, jv1 said:

Hi 

thank you so much for finding time to answer .

 

Here is closer explanation of part 1

part 1
Theory of relativity is the first system in history which can be described as range finding device using electromagnetic waves.
Dilation of time is the easiest to explain if beside the speed value of distance is put in calculation .
The distance between light source (emiter) to mirror (target ) 
positioned at angle of 45 degrees is d=3d10e8m

Distance from mirror to observer (receiver ) is d=3x10e8m
Case 1
At rest time of 1 second is needed to travel from emiter to target and 1 second to travel from target to receiver.
Hete is a overlook :
when light beam deflect from mirror it delays the the phase for 
90 degrees .

Case 2
when emiter and target start moving at speed v away from 
The receiver the distance between receiver and target is increased in one second by distance of d delay =v x 1 second 

Time dilation for light to reach the observer will be

d delay/ c=T dilation 


The light beam phase shift will cause what we call today
red shift effect.

Conclusion 
there is no relativistic time 

or I owe Mr Einstein a big apology.

 

In radius distance of 3x10r8  the angle Alfa between   light waves is 45 degrees 

 

 

When angle Alfa is  0 degrees we have standard set up for time dilation only diference is that angle of mirror(target ) will be 0
the targeting laser pods in aviation work on this 360 degree principle .

 

 

 

 

 

You owe Einstein an apology then. 

As has been already pointed out, you have no relative motion between any of the components in this setup, so time dilation does not occur anywhere. Look up time dilation and re-establish what it is, before you go any further. You are speaking here about time delay, which is not time dilation.

Secondly, the phase shift on reflection of a wave is 180 deg, not 90deg and it is not a red shift, as it does not alter the frequency.  

Thirdly, this sort of nonsense is starting to have a familiar smell to me. I'm wondering whether neurological reference frames are more your thing............ 😁

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He comes over as a little cross...

Dawkins or @Gian? 😁

Dawkins has I think mellowed somewhat with age and may even realise that throwing coconuts at the Aunt Sally caricature of religion he has spent years attacking is a is bit counterproductive. The Four Horsemen of New Atheism have at times come across as evangelical preachers!

9 hours ago, Moontanman said:

 

I honestly have no clue, I know that at depth red light is gone and my blood was bright green with a yellowish florescence to it. I try to take care not to cut my self underwater but that one time I gashed myself pretty good and bled like a stuck pig. The liberty ship I was diving on was full of sharp metal and swimming around through the ship was likely to get you cut at least slightly. On a positive side I did manage to get some interesting glass glass jugs that had been sunk as garbage when the ship was intentionally sunk. 

I remember quite clearly swimming across the deck with sunlight glinting all-around me and being surrounded by a cloud of fluorescent green blood.  

I wonder if that could be an effect caused by a mix of reddish and greenish light, appearing to the eye as a yellow tint. I don't think anything in blood will actually fluoresce, not least because the UV will be attenuated under water more than visible light.

But the way light is attenuated by seawater seems to be quite complicated. The red end of the visible spectrum seems to be absorbed more than the green and blue, but UV is also absorbed. And then there is the competing phenomenon of scattering which will scatter the blue more than the red.   

55 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No I was talking about my blood, if you ever get cut below 30 feet or so the blood will be fluorescent green!

Oh I see, because of the light at such a depth. Why fluorescent, though?

23 hours ago, Moontanman said:

This idea of life conforming to the wavelength of light can be seen in plants that grow deep under water. Various colors of plants grow at various depths taking  advantage of the filtering of light by water. By the time you get down to around 30 feet red light all but vanishes, blood is florescent green not red and plants that grow deep underwater are various colors from red to brown to yellow. Various pigments are used to supplement chlorophyll and even shift light from UV to visible light all to harvest the sun as efficiently as possible. 

I see no reason this wouldn't happen on other planets under the light of strange stars. 

Blood? In plants? Or are you thinking of haemolymph in crustaceans? That is blue/green, but not because of anything to do with light absorption.

10 hours ago, Gian said:

Yes I am suggesting that Dawky's encouragement to disrespect other's opinions at the 2002 Ted talk has contributed to intolerance. I mean what other effect could it have?

"Stop Being damned Respectful" means stop being damned respectful

GIAN🙂XXX

 

 

That's an interesting take on "cancel culture", that I've never come across before.  I'm not aware of instances of speakers being denied a platform because they wanted to speak against religion. Normally it is because the speaker want to air views considered abnormally reactionary by the students. Has Dawkins, or anyone else to your knowledge, been refused an invitation to speak against religion?  

Ciao love and kisses 😆

1 hour ago, Gian said:

 

Well because in 2002 he was encouraging people to be disrespectful, and 21y later he's weeping about cancel culture.

And the "logic" of his ridiculous book The God Delusion is about as logical as me saying that Dawky and all other scientists are stupid because they believe the Earth is flat.

....[snip].......

But surely, if he was complaining about the supposed need to be unduly respectful towards religion over 20 years ago, then today's "cancel culture" (if it exists) shows him to have been rather prescient, doesn't it?

Or are you suggesting it is his iconoclasm that has brought "cancel culture" about? 

5 minutes ago, Gian said:

Discuss Dawky's comments.

And I put this in Physics & Astronomy because not being a scientist I respect astrophysicists. I suppose an "Evolutionary Biologist" only describes what's already there. 

 

I guess an astrophysicist needs to be able to think laterally, outside the box. That's why Dawky can't get religion and makes such a fool of himself.

Cheerz

GIAN🙂XXX

He doesn’t strike me as making a fool of himself in the remarks you quote. He seems to be arguing, rather intemperately, for people to feel free to attack religion, instead of, as he seems to think, showing it undue respect. Well, it’s a point of view, and not self-evidently silly, it seems to me. Why do you think it makes him look a fool?

2 hours ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

To prepare bread dough, I mix flour and water. They say that water hydrates starch and protein molecules in the dough...

What this 'hydrating' mean at the molecular level? I am imagining that water molecules make short-lived bounds with large dough molecules (carbohydrates and proteins). If so, does it mean that those bounds (between water and large molecules) are stronger and longer-lived than bounds between water molecules themselves? What is the thickness of this bound water layer - is it one molecule thick?

There is also free (unbound / bulk) water in the dough. I imagine there is some sort of equilibrium between bound and unbound water - that is, you cannot have a dough that only has bound (and zero unbound) water? Still, I imagine that in drier doughs, larger proportion of water is bound and smaller proportion is free?

Yeast needs water - I guess it lives inside water - is this the free (unbound) water where the yeast lives in? 

Btw, I am interested in all things dough, so if you have anything else interesting/important to mention, go ahead.

I found this paper on-line about hydration of starch which goes into some detail: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144861722004477

From this it looks as if the hydration process is the opening up of the starch structure, replacing some of the internal hydrogen bonds between the sugar units of the chains (starch is a polysaccharide) with hydrogen bonds to water. Water that is chemically bound in this way will not make the, starch or dough, "wet", as it is chemically bound in. (In inorganic chemistry you may be familiar with the fact that copper sulphate can take an "anhydrous" (white) or a hydrated (blue) form. Both are dry crystals but there is more water bound chemically into the structure in the blue form. If you heat the blue form strongly it steams, losing water and turns white.) 

Presumably something similar can happen with proteins.

So yes I expect your dough has bound water, which will alter the structure of the starch and proteins by inserting water molecules between chains, and also unbound water which makes the dry material wet to the touch, sticks the grains together in a lump and makes it feel doughy. I don't know how much water the starch will absorb, but I don't think it will be just a monomolecular layer on the outside of each grain. From the paper, I take it that it disrupts the internal cross-linking structure of the starch as well. 

1 hour ago, kenny1999 said:

Without professional devices, what are all possible ways of testing if gold jewellery is pure and real gold, i.e. 999.9 or 24k? It doesn't matter if it's not 100% accurate but is there any way to make a good estimation?

You could try Archimedes' method, viz. establish the volume of the object via displacement and then weigh it, thus determining its specific gravity. This would only work for objects with a fairly large proportion of metals other than gold in them, but then that is the case for a number of the alloys used in jewellery: https://www.thoughtco.com/composition-of-gold-alloys-608016   

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

Well, let's see.
A Einstein's GR predicted light would be bent in the curved space-time of a gravitational field.
Sir A Eddington proved him right by observing the Solar eclipse in May 1919.

If you live in North America, you can prove it yourself, next Monday; and you'll no longer be able to say, about light bending in a gravitational field, that

Obviously, some things can be 🙂 .

That proved one prediction was right. It does not prove the theory.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

So did exchemist who included the link again in his quote

Oh ballocks!

16 hours ago, Gian said:

JC MACSWELL

So after 10¹⁴ years, that's it. No more life?

GIAN🙂

According to current models, perhaps.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Stems from the  new attitude permeating the Western world; that whatever you 'feel' cannot be wrong, and to even mention it can be offensive and you need 'protection' from other's opinions.
Meanwhile science teaches us that what is right does not need protection, as it can be proven.

But I don't know why this is in Astronomy and Cosmology ...

Surely that is not what science teaches, though? Science gives us predictive models of the physical world, none of which can be proven and consequently none of which can be said to be definitively right.

14 minutes ago, Latestepha said:

However, some common compounds found in creams and ointments for pigmentation issues include hydroquinone, kojic acid, retinoids, and vitamin C. These ingredients can help lighten dark spots and even out skin tone over time.

I've personally had a great experience with Skin whitening laser treatments, which helped improve my skin tone. However, it's essential to discuss your options with a professional to find the best solution for you.

But surely these all lighten the skin , by breaking down melanins or  inhibiting their synthesis. That’s the opposite of what the OP is asking about.

13 hours ago, houseguy said:

shirts with armpit smell that does not want to leave even after several wash.

 

I experience a weird thing . some of my shirts even after they are washed quickly smell bad even after 1 hour as soon as there is heat i guess. I read a lot about it and figured out this text below that seems to identify the cause .

 

So yes good hygiene, yes keep hair shorts ok but what to do with those shirts.

I read on reddit a lot of produc suggested but it is hard to pick the right one since they contain different product i m not familiar with.

 

i want a non toxic product that is not putting my skin in geopardy and that does not contain nanotechnologies.

 

i tried vinegar , worked a bit but i feel something else might work best.

 

please if you can tell what you tried and did not have succes with and what you did have succes with it would help. i m open and i am not related to any brand.

 

i read stuff like baking soda, borax , ,oxy clean , Lysol Laundry Sanitizer combined with Downy , Enzymes (yes but wich) . stuff containning its own bactérias like ez clean. Laundry Sanitizer Sport, Tide Sport detergent , Zero Odor – Laundry Odor Eliminator.

 

Very hard for me to know what product to look for that adresses the problem adequatly .

 

what should i be looking for?

 

Give them a wash at 60C. 

1 hour ago, NormaVega said:

 

I am going to ignore those derogatory comments since they do not help me at all, just as I will ignore you. You don't pose any problem for me to continue with my project, which from now on (let's see if that makes you happier...) will be carried out properly. Thanks for the non-existent understanding of my error. And one last thing, I thought this place was a peaceful place, not some gentlemen ready to insult young people. Bye bye.

Bye bye - and don't let the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation door hit you on the way out.......😆

54 minutes ago, NormaVega said:

As you may have already noticed, I'm new here, and I don't have the slightest idea how to do that, if you could give me some indication of how to do it I would appreciate it.

Would you give me the opportunity to start from scratch to correct my mistakes made in such a stupid way? (creating a topic that really has logic outside of AI?)

This response proves conclusively you have no intelligence. I have pointed 2 clear errors out to you and explained why they are errors. Any human being who was not actually mentally deficient would recognise what these errors were. You are a dumb robot.

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I think I'd have to have some hands on investigation into this phenomenon to be sure! 

That’s what I did. She got on the scales and I put my hand under one breast, lifted it to the point at which the tension appeared to be gone from the upper slope, and noted the decrease in scale reading. Then ditto with the other. Not very accurate perhaps but gave us an idea. She had quite a generous,  though not excessive, bust. Most of my other girlfriends had smaller breasts and a less earthy sense of humour, so the subject never came up with them. 😀

5 hours ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

An abstract:

Can there really be people who eat more than others and have a lower daily caloric expenditure and still weigh less? Perhaps many have wondered that, since conventional observations point towards that. There are people who eat more, spend fewer calories, and weigh less on the scale.

This seems to contradict the calorie paradigm, which maintains that it is in turn based on physics that maintains that the universe cannot create or destroy matter or energy. However, something that some seem to have been ignoring when addressing this topic is that even building a building requires energy. If you build a building you probably use more energy than if you tear it down and throw away the rubble.

The same thing happens in humans, and we call this anabolism (construction) and catabolism (net burning to produce energy). While anabolism builds more matter, despite its energy expenditure, catabolism destroys matter to produce energy. This proposed balance would explain the apparent phenomenon of thin people eating as much as fat people and still being thin.

Since the study on metabolic acceleration came out, led by Herman Pontzer and more (Herman Pontzer et al. ,Daily energy expenditure through the human life course.Science373,808-812(2021).DOI:10.1126/science.abe5017), we are left without an explanation for this matter. This study rules out that accelerated metabolism is the cause of some being thinner than others. In fact, the study changes many things, since it suggests that in stages of growth or greater weight gain is when the metabolism would be most accelerated, and that in stages of aging (+-60 years and older) when the most weight is usually lost. (fat and muscle) is when the metabolism would be less and less accelerated than throughout biological life. Metabolism would have to do with it, but through anabolism and catabolism.

But now I present to you this proposal for an explanation of this phenomenon.

P.S I am a new user, my name is Wigberto Marciaga, I am from Panama, an independent researcher (if you want, you can say amateur). Believer in Yeshu the Anointed.

 Indeed very hard to control for all the variables involved here. Purely anecdotally, my observation is that fatter people often eat more, and often they eat worse, i.e. more ready meals and junk food. Having said that, it is definitely not always the case, so there are other issues to do with varying propensity to convert calories to fat. Some of these effects appear to be hereditary.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

It's remarkable how many men have, as dedicated practitioners of the scientific method, gathered such impressions through careful and diligent observation.  A notable example of "citizen science."

I have wondered, as the demographic shift happens in developed countries and family sizes grow considerably smaller, if average breast volume will decrease.  Or would the selective effect of a smaller functional role for breasts be counteracted by sexual selection?  Part of broader questions about selective pressures for sexual dimorphism decreasing as male/female social roles are less differentiated, I guess.  

I've never cared much about breast size, personally, and never really understood the obsession some have.  Seems kind of puerile.  

No pun intended, right?

I have only had the opportunity to research a small sample ( 12) in the course of a longish life, but in spite of the considerable variety of shapes and sizes I have never observed any musculature in breasts, even though I belonged to a rowing club for over 30 years and married a rower.

(I did once try to weigh them though. This arose from a discussion of the old-fashioned appreciative remark “Blimey, you don’t get many of them to the pound!”  - a reference to how one used to buy fruit at the greengrocer. She was a nurse, so was happy, in fact highly amused,  to enter into the spirit of the exercise. In her case about a lb each so it was true, for her.)

2 hours ago, NormaVega said:

to: @swansont@Moontanman@Phi for All

Dear science forum community and esteemed moderators,

I am writing to you with humility and sincerity to express my profound regret for my recent behavior in this space of scientific exchange. I recognize that I have made mistakes by posting data and speculations that lacked the clarity and solidity that this forum deserves. Furthermore, I sincerely regret my inactivity in not responding to posts, which has contributed to an atmosphere of disconnection and lack of engagement on my part.

I fully understand that the mission of this forum is to promote rigorous scientific knowledge and foster informed debate. My past actions have not lived up to these standards, and for that, I sincerely apologize to all of you, both the community members and the dedicated moderators who work tirelessly to maintain the quality of this space.

At the same time, I wish to express my heartfelt gratitude to the moderators for their constructive criticism and guidance. Your feedback has been instrumental in helping me understand the importance of accuracy and evidence in our scientific discussions. I deeply appreciate your commitment to excellence and your dedication to making this forum a place where truthfulness and genuine learning prevail.

I pledge to strive harder to contribute meaningfully to this community. From now on, I commit to carefully verifying my sources, supporting my claims with solid evidence, and actively participating in discussions in a constructive and respectful manner.

Once again, I apologize for my past actions and sincerely appreciate the opportunity to learn and grow alongside all of you in this valuable space of scientific exchange.

Yours sincerely,
Dario GM

OK, cut the flowery BS, name 2 errors in your posts and show you have understood why they were errors.

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

The alleged title,

Doesn't even make syntactical sense.

It's perhaps significant that this OP seems to be in answer to one of the main objections to previous bogus thread on "fluorine-based biology".

In particular the part that says,

 

Quite. There seems little doubt now that this a stupid bot. If this is what AI is going to be like, I am very unimpressed.