Bufofrog

58 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

They were described in several places, but not completely.

I do not know of any description of angels in the old testament.  I only recall writings along the lines of, "an angel of the lord appeared to him...", with no description at all.

9 hours ago, Arikel88 said:

What is your stance on how the angels G-d created exist what did you know or read about them ?

Angels were invented in the old testament and were never described physically.  

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

1 food calorie is ~4.1 kilojoules. If you need 2000 food calories, then you need 8.2 Megajoules. A fair bit of that for a human is sustaining our warm-bloodedness

If your solar insolation is 250 kw/m^2 for 10 hours, that’s 9 Mj/m^2. 

The energy isn’t the limit. 

The maximum theoretical efficiency of photosynthesis is 26% and the actual utilization is less than that.  The average human has a surface area of a bit under 2 m^2 so that means the you would get less than 2 megajoules per day.  You would also need thin translucent thin skin and spend most your time in the sunshine.  You would also have to find some method to obtain the nutrients that are necessary.  I still do not think a photosynthesizing large mobile animal makes sense.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Are you suggesting an advanced alien species can't be sustained by absobing light?

It seems to me that there is not enough energy from sunlight to sustain a large mobile creature.  I base that on the fact that there has been life that is sustained by sunlight only for billions of years and yet there have never been (AFAIK) any photosynthesizing life larger than microscopic that was mobile. 

10 minutes ago, Unisyst said:

Warp drive is possible by folding space all around the ship using extremely strong magnetic fields.

Magnetic fields don't warp space.

9 minutes ago, Unisyst said:

When travelling through warp you cannot smack into anything (it protects the speed of light because the smack would be faster than that).

You can't move faster than light.

11 minutes ago, Unisyst said:

check out my subreddit for more info on this Aliens etc!

No thanks, seems like not that great sci fi.

Anti-5G bracelets?  Oh, for the love of...🙄

59 minutes ago, TheVat said:

If the hydrogen isotope in a water molecule makes a difference as to the properties of the molecule, then it would seem that the neutron number makes some difference in that atom's physical properties.  So I was questioning your original statement that "physical properties...are not due to the number of neutrons."   How an atom interacts with another atom would be an aspect of its physical properties, no?  Deuterium and hydrogen interact differently, a bit, in a water molecule.  

Yes you are correct heavy water has some slightly different properties than normal water due to the higher mass of the heavy water molecule.  These are subtilties that I don't think the OP is asking about, he does not seem to understand that the chemical properties of the elements are to the most part due to the electrons configurations in the elemental atoms.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Heavy water has a different refractive index, viscosity, BP, heat of fusion, etc.

The OP was asking about elements.

4 hours ago, Commander said:

If Human Species finish their Tenure on Earth Life will not end !
Just like when Dinosaurs were wiped out Life on Earth continued !

That's probably true. 

In about a billion years from now the oceans will have boiled away and then life will end.

4 hours ago, IndianScientist said:

the neutrons are the subatomic particles which influence the physical properties of an element ) And we generally refer the physical properties as melting and boiling point, electrical conductivity , physical state ,etc.

That is not correct.  The physical properties an element are due to the number and configuration of the electrons, properties are not due to the number of neutrons.

2 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

How exactly does that work? If I measure my tv, and it is a meter across, there is almost no chance when measured to the nearest billionth of a nanometer that the accuracy of that measurement holds up. Abstract math can deal in absolutes, but that's because it is abstract. I can say "1 meter times 16 is 16 meters" but in reality that doesn't actually mean anything.

So what is your point?

It can't be this, "The Singularity is at the heart of every unit. That is why I say there is only one Truth", since that makes no sense,

14 minutes ago, 34student said:

Shape is not relative.  It is inherent to the structure of the universe.

Incorrect.

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

Jesus said God is "He who was, is, and always will be"

Still doesn't seem like physics to me.

1 hour ago, Ragingmoron said:

Dark Energy, is the tension between the state of infinite positive energy at the "beginning" of time

If there was infinite "positive energy" at the beginning of time then no matter how big the universe gets there will still be infinite "positive energy".

29 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

Dark energy, is the natural tension between the "point" of infinite energy, and the "expanse" void of energy.

What's that supposed to mean?

30 minutes ago, Ragingmoron said:

The Universe never began, and it will never end. It has always existed, does always exist, and will always exist, just like Jesus said 2000 years ago.

I don't recall where in the bible Jesus discussed physics.  

51 minutes ago, 34student said:

So does measuring two different lengths (as you put it) mean that there are two different lengths?

If there are 2 observers in different reference frames they will measure the lengths as being different, so yes the same ruler (for instance) will have 2 different lengths, one for one reference frame and another for the other reference frame.  I think that has been said multiple time in this thread.  Are you going to just keep asking the same question?

50 minutes ago, Aquatek said:

Ok, well a question for all those here that are well versed in physics, and believe they are absolutes. In July this year, we had the Pentagon it self admit to the existence of UAP's (UFO's).

Bringing up UFOs to bolster your ideas doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

2 hours ago, Pbob said:

Thank you for the link but it doesn't answer why light speeds back up again once exiting a medium .

It does answer that question, but I guess you didn't understand.  

15 hours ago, Pbob said:

I don't see your link sorry but light slows down passing through glass because of the permitivity and permeability  of the glass . It travels through the glass because it is been pulled through the glass by beyond the glass which has less energy in the space than the glass .

The simple reason you did not see the link is because I'm an idiot.

Here is the link.

14 minutes ago, Pbob said:

''an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.''

Proof : Light passing through a medium slows down but once left the medium ,speeds back up to c . 

This a 10 minute video that will explain why light moves more slowly through a transparent material and upon exiting the material returns to c.  If 10 minutes is too long, just watch the last 4 minutes.  

14 minutes ago, Pbob said:

The transition force is the force I am looking to explain .

There is no force needed.  If I put a hot object in cold water, the heat will be transferred to the cold water without a force.  The rapidly vibrating molecules of the object 'bump' into the slowly vibrating molecules of the water.  This causes the slowly vibrating atoms to vibrate more rapidly and of course the hot molecules vibration will slow.  This is how the energy is transferred and it will continue until there is no delta T between the hot object and the water.

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

I can't tell what you are saying.

I think what he is doing is because in the Torah the writing is in consonants only, so when he uses the English word God he only uses the consonants.  Why he is doing that is beyond me.

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

More precisely how would they be recharged if there was no mains power available ?

I suppose you could use a gas generator.  That would be a good Christmas present for someone with an electric car.

Reference 1 of the OP can't be found.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I was sort of thinking along those lines, thanks anyway. So really not something essentially opposed/alternative to the mainstream picture re BH's? (except perhaps estimate numbers)

I haven't taken time to read much of what he wrote.  He didn't take the time to discuss what he was doing, instead he just sited sources without explanation for his equations.  If he can't take the time to explain what he is doing I am not going to take the time to go through his sources to see why he is doing. [shrug]

As a poor old soul, who is not into the complicated mathematics of BH's, could someone tell me, what Orion1 is concluding, and if or how that conclusion differs from the mainstream conclusion.

His calculations look within the rather large error bars for the estimates of the number of blackholes in a galaxy.  Essentially you estimate the number of large stars (that collapse into blackholes) over the life of the galaxy and estimate the life of such stars and then you have the number of black holes in the galaxy.  There are a lot of errors in the estimates as you can well imagine hence the large variation in the number of black holes estimated.