Jump to content

Charles 3781

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-23

About Charles 3781

  • Rank
    Meson

Recent Profile Visitors

199 profile views
  1. Isn't the Periodic Table founded on this proposition: that the nuclei of atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles - ie, protons and neutrons. And by counting the number of protons and neutrons in each atom, we arrive at an arrangement for the Table. That was very reasonable idea, when we thought of protons and neutrons as "indivisible". But nowadays we know that they're not indivisible, but made of smaller components - the "quarks", which come in different varieties. Therefore I wonder whether a revision of the Table based on the quark components of the nucleus, might offer advantages and provide deeper insights.
  2. I offer this thought, in all humility - if Special Relativity theory can generate the above 6 long, complicated pages of debate among highly intelligent people, without their being able to reach any agreement about what it actually means, as appears to be the case - could this be because the theory isn't right? (mod: reference is https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/105185-time-dilation-dependence-on-direction/ )
  3. I don't remember that when I was a child, I got taught any lessons at all from my parents about caring and getting along with siblings, and other people. I was horrid to my younger sister. I had to figure out the correct operating principles for myself, in later life. This was accomplished by reading loads of books. Mostly science fiction books. Especially Asimov's "Foundation" series, which reveal invaluable lessons about human behaviour. I could go on to explain further. But who cares? This forum is about hard Science, not fiction! I never go into bars, as they tend to be full of drunks who start fights.
  4. Everyone feels that way really. It's just that most people don't like to display it. That's understandable. And not at all a bad thing. What would happen to families, and society, and civilisation, if we all displayed the truth to each other all the time. We'd be mere inconsiderate animals. The uniqueness of humans is precisely our capacity to lie about our true feelings, in order not to hurt others.
  5. When you have a bath, you just turn the taps on and the water comes out under mains-pressure to fill up the bath. Couldn't this same principle be applied to flushing a toilet?
  6. Would it matter how well a father treated his kids? Surely the kids' thoughts, on hearing of the paternal demise, will spring immediately to the question: "How much has he left us in his Will?" Of course, the kids will exhibit the expected, culturally appropriate signals of grieving and mourning, at the Funeral. But once this ceremony has been accomplished to satisfaction, the most important business will be attended to: "The Reading of the Will". Hasn't it always been that way, it's just human nature. Or am I being appallingly cynical?
  7. Newton didn't set a limit to velocity, as you know. It was Einstein who claimed there is a limit to velocity, which is - the velocity of "light" in empty space. Einstein's claim doesn't seem to have been verified by any practical experiments. Such as firing a 10, 000 stage rocket into space, then seeing whether the final stage eventually goes faster than light. These experiments have not been attempted because the theory claims they can't work. Doesn't it remind you of similar claims made in the past, about the impossibility of heavier-than-air flying machines? Theory said they couldn't work. But they do.
  8. Your kids won't give a stuff about your dying thoughts. They'll want to know: "How much money do we get from his croaking".
  9. I wouldn't get too excited about marginal instrument readings from a distant planet such as Venus. This has happened before, in the case of the similarly distant planet Mars. You know what I mean - the "canals".
  10. Can anyone come on here, a serious scientific forum, and ask: "How can I translate this - it's written in foreign". I mean, seriously, if this is the standard of modern contributors to the forum, what hope is there. It reminds me of the objection some History students made about an A-level exam paper. The paper included the word "despot". The students complained that the paper was unfair, as they didn't know what "despot" meant.
  11. Hi nae, if you're interested in computers you should follow your instinct and go for it.
  12. That's right. In theory, you can express your opinion . But if your opinion is "politically incorrect", you will be at the least, ignored, or at the worst, banned from this scientific forum.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.