exchemist

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

No matter how hard I try nothing you've shown makes sense. I can't find anything that even correlates to physics in this last post.

You are having the “Theorist experience”. The modus operandi  is to keep throwing in new bits of semiscientific nonsense, to keep you coming back to correct his “misconceptions”. But it’s all just a game, designed to waste your time. He can keep this going interminably. If he’s who I think he is, he has  been doing this for years, under a variety of identities. I rather think Coxy123 was one of the more recent ones here, also Splodge, Pbob and others. Elsewhere he was for a while Theorist Constant 12345, under which name some of us first came across him.

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think the vulnerability of airships to bad weather is their greatest weakness and that isn't different by using hydrogen  - there are uses for them but they are limited.

I am still a bit surprised there haven't been serious efforts to use hydrogen by improving ways to do so safely; I am sure it could be done a lot safer than a century ago. And most zeppelins back then never caught fire. Dramatic examples of things going wrong don't necessarily mean they are very likely or cannot be avoided

 

I wonder what happened to the Flying Bum: https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-see-the-flying-bum-airlander-10-2021-9?op=1

It looked quite an interesting idea and had an emissions profile similar to trains.

33 minutes ago, jv1 said:

Hi

thanks for the coment

it looks a bit unusual 
but it is hard to explain a lot in a short period of time
here is the thing
the v^2 /c^2
padtbif gama of Lorentz factor
v- is distance 
c - is speed 

and speed (ratio ) changing distance is time 

now 

speed(ratio) of changing dilation of object 
is called K

What theroy big relativity calls time dilation 

is actually 
Koeficient K for dialtion of electromagnetic waves 


this is the final thing.
To repeat this is posible becouse in time of one second 

velocity c -m/s
distance c -m
acceleration c-m/s^2
it is constant and it has value 3x10e8

i hope this all make sense now
cheers
 

ZZZzzzzzz…………

19 minutes ago, Janus said:

This is nothing but a bunch of half-baked ideas based on misconceptions, and all it shows is that you don't have the faintest understanding of Relativity.

 Yup. A very familiar timewasting technique, I think. 

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

Hello, blessing exchemist

I agree with you, however, the literature has systematically focused on energy balance and metabolic acceleration, ignoring this that you and I are recognizing as obvious (but, as I say, it seems that it has gone unnoticed on the issue of weight bodily)

Something that could also be seen in everyday observations, people like marathon runners are very thin and powerlifters are very heavy, even obese.

I think bodybuilding, fitness and the marketing around this industry has had to do with this. That something that seems obvious has been ignored to give publicity or notoriety to anabolism (and anabolic supplements). (This is obviously an opinion that attempts to explain the possible cause of this issue)

This would not be just another example of what happens when marketing (in this case of gyms and supplements) interposes its interests in the progress of research?. It is possible that this is what happens, as has been achieved with another source of protein, such as whey, which is also presented as ultra-processed in some places and is called protein. (As it seems they try to make people think that there are no other proteins or protein sources, only commercial ones).

That would be another topic, but excess protein can also help you gain weight if carbohydrates are consumed in normal amounts in a diet. High protein diets don't surprise me for the majority, but they always try to make as many people as possible think that they need more protein and that they should resort to supplements.

In any case, we recognize that there is some obviousness in the matter. But although it may seem obvious, even recognized experts and universities have not been able to determine how much metabolism influences body weight, although they recognize that it influences, nor have I ever read that they have proposed something like what you are reading in this forum now.

If I'm not mistaken, this would be the first time this has been proposed anywhere on the internet (in English). Which is the balance between anabolism and catabolism and not metabolic acceleration, or slow metabolism, that influences body weight and obesity. Anabolic processes being the metabolic promoters of obesity.

No, I don't agree that anyone is ignoring the obvious. It is you, rather, that seems to be ignoring the obvious, namely that the rate of metabolism must have an input on where the balance lies between weight gain processes and weight loss processes.

But it seems to me the term "metabolism" is potentially a source of confusion if we are not careful to specify what we mean by it. To my understanding (I am not a biologist and stand to be corrected by better informed people here) metabolism is all the processes that extract energy by oxidising the "food* " an organism takes in, whether this be for heat, for mechanical work done by the organism, or for biochemical synthesis, i.e. conversion to fat, bone, muscle etc.  I gather metabolic rate is in fact often measured by oxygen uptake (This applies only to aerobic organisms obviously). So a faster metabolic rate could serve to enable a higher rate of doing mechanical work, or to generate more heat, or to build up body tissues. But the food also provides the building block for building body tissues, so any food used for that is not metabolised.  

It is an observed fact that doing a lot of mechanical work requires a larger oxygen uptake, indicating a higher metabolic rate, and that as expected athletes eat a lot more than sedentary people, without becoming fat.  So you can't argue that metabolic rate is not relevant. Regarding your comments about weightlifters vs marathon runners, it is the runners who have the higher oxygen uptake, by far, indicating a higher metabolic rate.

* I take "food" to comprise all the sources of chemical energy taken in by the organism, so it would not include radiation taken in through photosynthesis, for instance.

1 hour ago, harlock said:

Where there is no space to land while a 'balloon' can be on top tied to the ground with a rope

Air weighs ~ 1.225 kg/m3 while h2 ~ 0.09 kg/m3, so 1 m3 H2 
gives an upward thrust of approximately 1.225-0.09(~1 with 2 bar H2) kg/m3 without considering the

airship weight.. therefore the upward thrust'd be 1 ton per 1000 m3 of H2.

Maybe it isn't a wrong volume. 

 

Yes so 12.6m diameter ballon, if it is approx.spherical, per tonne of lift. (The lifting gear and gondola itself may weigh half that, before you start.) So it’s going to be very big.

4 minutes ago, Eise said:

And I would suggest not to quote a complete posting...

What I would do:

Actually that's a good point. Post amended.

40 minutes ago, Mahapo said:

Hi
I’m a Targeted Individual of Remote Neural Monitoring and V2K.

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

This looks like a classic complaint from someone suffering mental disturbance. See this Wiki article for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_harassment

We get these on science forums from time to time.

I suggest contacting a medical professional. 

14 minutes ago, harlock said:

 

For example an airship-hoist can be more useful than a helicopter. 

it's a kind of balloon in the drawing.

What do you think about a useful h2-aircraft in the future?

 

Doubtful as a hoist, since the volume required to lift any significant weight is so large. 

1 hour ago, Wigberto Marciaga said:

It seems to me that this topic could enter into human health, but as you will understand, it can also be applied in veterinary medicine.

If you like, you can move it to the corresponding section, which I think would be health. When I opened this topic I was new to the forum.

In summary, what I propose is that the influence of metabolism on body weight does not have to do with whether it is slow or accelerated, but with the balance between anabolic and catabolic processes.

One of the reasons I would like to present this proposal in this forum is so that users can review it and give their opinion, as some have done before, on this. As we see, it has been recognized that this does not contradict the balance of matter and energy proposed by physics where the universe cannot create matter or energy by itself, nor can it destroy it.

This proposal not only seeks to provide an explanation, but also to open new areas of research on obesity and problems related to body weight in general. Remember the analogy, if exercise can induce muscle hypertrophy, there may be environmental factors that also influence adipose tissue hypertrophy.

It seems like a statement of the obvious to say that body weight is determined by the balance between anabolic (i.e. building up) and catabolic (i.e. breaking down) processes. How could it be otherwise?  

It is also totally unnecessary to say that there is no violation of the laws of physics involved. Of course there isn't.  

This is not much of a theory, so far.  

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.