Jump to content

Przemyslaw.Gruchala

Senior Members
  • Posts

    241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

  1. According to the Star Trek episode writer's guide for The Original Series, warp factors are converted to multiples of c with the cubic function v = w3c, where wis the warp factor, v is the velocity, and c is the speed of light. Accordingly, "warp 1" is equivalent to the speed of light, "warp 2" is 8 times the speed of light, "warp 3" is 27 times the speed of light, etc.

     

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

     

    So.. they were very slowing moving even at warp 9.. :)

     

    I rendered hypothetical travel to stars (post #4) in direction of Sirius at 44% of parsec. 1 parsec = 3.26 light years. 0.44 * 3.26 = 1.4344 light years * 3600 * 24 * 365 =~45.24 millions of c..

     

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73584-rendering-stars/

     

    Travel to Betelgeuse (643 ly) from Earth at warp 9 (729 c) would take them 321 days..

  2. Under extreme density resulting from gravitation, the weak force can make neutrons out of protons and electrons; the necessary conditions differ a lot from a contracting gas cloud.

     

    Electron capture happens in different situations.

     

    Typical fusion in stars:

     

    p+ + p+ -> D+ + e+ + Ve

    D+ + p+ -> T+ + e+ + Ve

    T+ -> He + e- + Ve

    D+ + D+ -> He

    e+ + e- -> y+y

  3. The standard model says they are fundamental particles. In that sense, they are not "made of" anything, because of they were, they would not be fundamental. In another sense, what they are "made of" is metaphysics, and not science. We can test what properties they have.

     

    What happens when electron and positron, any particle and its antiparticle collide/intersect? There is made >= 2 gamma photons. Then gamma photon can be absorbed by some particle and emitted lower energetic photon, and at completely other time, particle that absorbed photon, can emit it. From gamma photon with frequency f0 now we have two photons with frequencies f1 and f2, where f0=f1+f2. It can go on and on. And instead of f.e. photon with 1 GHz we can have 1000 photons with 1 MHz (just an example)..

     

    Apparently "fundamental" has completely different meaning in our languages..

     

    If being made of something gives them some measurable attribute, then it can be tested, but if it can't be tested, it's not science.

     

    Their attributes are well known and tested.

    Frequency for example.

    Just model of transformation from one set of particles to another set of particles, like photons <-> e+ & e- was not addressed properly (or rather completely ignored).

  4.  

     

    If so, what is the explanation?

     

    One particle is giving it's kinetic energy to other particle and slowing down.

    If entire kinetic energy is given, source particle is stopped, and other particle is accelerated.

    If just part of energy is given then both particles after collision are moving.

     

    With relativistic speeds particle colliding with other particle will create other particles.

    What will be created depends on amount of kinetic energy.

    http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html

     

    v=0.36c will create additional pion 0 from proton and proton collision (or in other scenario pion+ and neutron and proton).

    v>0.9c will create additional proton and antiproton from proton and proton collision.

     

    It was nicely described in the article I gave link above.

  5. If you have one apple, and split it to half, or triple, newly made pieces will match with others, merged creating initial one apple.

     

    So the same with entanglement.

    If you have two gamma photons that collided, and you measure newly made particle, and find out it's electron, you know already the second one that you didn't measure yet, is matching to this one, and is positron. Otherwise electric charge conservation would be broken. But it must sum up to 0 - initial charge of gamma photons. So the same with the rest.

  6. It has never before been observed and there is no theory that suggests you can do it.

     

    Susskind. "The cosmic ladscape" i.e. Multiverse
    (author of string theory)
    It is clear reading his book that he is searching for explanation why some const is such not other, by creating "infinite" number of universes, with different const value.
    And any plausible. Or even one universe consuming other universe, by creation of bubble growing in older one.
    It's (totally) not mine idea.
  7. For testing radioactive decay by neutrinos you must leave the sun system until there are no more neutrinos.

     

    In cosmic space there are neutrinos from the all stars.

     

    But of course less than close to Sun.

     

    If there is 65 billion neutrinos per cm^2 on Earth from Sun,

    we should detect 260 billion neutrinos per cm^2 75 mln km from Sun (twice closer than Earth),

    and 16.25 billion per cm^2 300 mln km from Sun (double Earth orbit radius).

    and so on the further from the Sun.

     

    Experiment confirming or rejecting idea should be launching rocket with radioactive isotopes and decay rate counter in the cosmos, in direction reverse to Sun. And send back decay rate result to us.

     

    Radioactive Polonium was already used as power generator in cosmic devices.

    But wiki is just mentioning about devices with distances from Earth just max. ~400,000 km.

    Far less to notice significant difference (not to mention that Moon half time is closer to Sun than Earth).

     

     

    Polonium-based sources of alpha particles were produced in the former Soviet Union.[51] Such sources were applied for measuring the thickness of industrial coatings via attenuation of alpha radiation.[52] Because of intense alpha radiation, a one-gram sample of 210Po will spontaneously heat up to above 500 °C (932 °F) generating about 140 watts of energy. Therefore, 210Po is used as an atomic heat source to power radioisotope thermoelectric generators via thermoelectric materials.[3][14][53][54] For instance, 210Po heat sources were used in the Lunokhod 1 (1970) and Lunokhod 2 (1973) Moon rovers to keep their internal components warm during the lunar nights, as well as the Kosmos 84 and 90 satellites (1965).[51][55]

    The alpha particles emitted by polonium can be converted to neutrons

    using beryllium oxide, at a rate of 93 neutrons per million alpha

    particles.[53] Thus Po-BeO mixtures or alloys are used as a neutron source, for example in a neutron trigger or initiator for nuclear weapons[14][56]

    and for inspections of oil wells. About 1500 of such sources with an

    individual activity of 1850 Ci have been used annually in the Soviet

    Union.[57]

     

    Does anybody know whether polonium was used by NASA in devices that are farther than Moon?

  8. The Higgs has been discovered. Does that count? Anything comprised of electrons can't be massless.

     

    They didn't say that photons are made of electrons..

     

    Photons are not deflected by electric or magnetic fields.

     

    Neutrons can be deflected by electric or magnetic fields?

  9. spends at least 50% of my waking time thinking about science.

     

    How can you "think about science" when you don't know anything about science?

     

    Even the simplest stuff..

     

    If you don't want to learn science from books, make your own experiments, real not thought experiments. Thought experiments are for experts.

    You can repeat at really low cost almost every experiment made before XX century.

    Cost of lasers, prisms, mirrors, video camera etc etc is minimal..

  10. there are three types of Matter they are

     

    1 solid

    2 liquid

    3 gas

     

    Not exactly 3.

     

    There are also:

    4 plasma (nucleus without electrons which are freely moving)

    5 hypothetical quark-gluon plasma (nucleus can't form and sub-particles (whatever they are) are freely moving).

    But this state of matter is breaking Baryon Number conservation.

    Surprisingly correctly modern scientists are expecting it with ultra high pressure.

     

    My question is solids and liquids are getting attracted towards gravitational force but why gases are not getting attracted towards gravitational force...

     

    They are influenced by gravitation.

    How otherwise clouds of hydrogen would form and create new star?

     

  11. So what you are saying is that if you block all the energy from the sun with a massive sphere that literally encapsulates the entire sun, there will be no effect on the planets surrounding it?

     

    There would be effect such that Earth doesn't receive visible light and uv rays thus it's cooling with time without outside source of energy..

    But to gravity it has no effect.

     

    Curved timespace doesnt do it for me. I think that if you block all the suns energy, the surrounding environment will probably move toward the sun.

     

    Nonsense.

    Moon is orbiting Earth without Earth sending any energy to Moon,

    Some asteroids are orbiting each other in pairs. And they are extremely cold.

  12. The program of model is:

    t = -36.77623021*pi : 0.005:36.77623021;

    a = 0.0061

    c = asin(a.*c);

    X1 = sin(t).*cos(2*c);

    Y1 = cos(t).*cos(2*c);

    Z1 = sin(2*c);

    axis square; grid on;

    plot3(X1,Y1,Z1)

     

    In what language is this program?

     

    Semicolon ; at end of line suggest it's C/C++.

     

    But what does mean dot . after a. ? And after sin(). or cos(). dot before * ??

     

    Dot is used to access member of structure or object...

     

    a is const, c is const, so arcus sin() with 2 const arguments will be returning always the same result..

     

    t is also const in whole code.. so any sin(t) or cos(t) is const too..

  13.  

    I have practiced Homeopathy for a long time to know the truth. I have realized that it is not any trick or fraud or faith cure. It has an excellent ability of recovery.

     

    If it's not faith cure, then it should cure also somebody who doesn't believe in homeopathy..

    How many people are going to you, paying you money for drugs and saying "I don't believe you and it cannot work".. ?

    Quite weird.

    If somebody is not believing, he won't pay, because he would have to be insane to waste money for something useless from his/her point of view, don't you agree?

     

     

    Questions:

    - are you making drugs by yourself or buying them, or receiving from somebody else.. ?

     

    - are you earning money from Homeopathy, from curing people, or it's free for everybody.. ?

  14. On the other hand, there are ways to prove the efficacy of real medicine.

    That's why homoeopathy is written off as nonsense.

    If it worked, it would be easy to show that it worked.

     

    Since it doesn't work, it doesn't need explaining.

     

     

    Homeopathy is like placebo - if you believe that something will cure you, you are cured by yourself, not by what you took. It can be vitamin, sugar or whatever eatable.

     

    For you John, and me, homeopathy would be useless, because we don't believe in success of this method.

     

     

    Smart modern doctors in hopeless situations don't want to tell it to patients. To not take hope. Faith in success of curing is significant factor to result.

    In smart programs testing success fullness of some drugs scientists are giving patients placebo and real drug. Patients don't know what they received.

    How to explain self curing somebody who received just placebo and he/she is feeling better or even there are physical indications of it in medical examination.

     

    I have not seen doctor for 20 years.

  15.  

    derek made it clear ~10 posts back he was talking about 4 spatial dimensions.

     

     

    Shouldn't we see this 4th spatial (non-time) dimension by our own eyes, if it exists?

     

    But now, if you add in some new

     

    I don't want to add anything, making things even more complex. I want simplify things.

  16. This discussion is at deadlock.

    Isn't 4th dimension time?

    Shouldn't you speak about >=5 dimension in the first place?

    One electron can occupy x,y,z,t0

    other (completely unrelated to 1st) electron can occupy x,y,z,t1

    The only difference between them is time dimension. Completely different particles at two different times.

    Pauli exclusion is about fermions with equal coords in the all known dimensions in Pauli's time. In 1925 there was known just 4 dimensions.

     

    Notice that Sun is moving with time, and galaxy is moving with time, so any single particle in Earth is never at equal x,y,z coords in the "next time".

    And t coord might be completely unneeded because x,y,z after Earth rotating around Sun, and Sun rotating around galaxy, and galaxy moving in universe, xyz of any particle (or us) is different. If particle is at rest, its distance to core of Earth pretty much same, but not to center of galaxy, or other objects in universe.

     

  17. Then your hypothesis is proved wrong. Electrons obey Pauli exclusion in 3D. A fourth dimension would make them distinguishable, so they wouldn't have to obey it. i.e. a proposed fourth dimension carries with it the prediction that electrons wouldn't obey Pauli. They do. Back to the drawing board.

     

    Electrons have the same electric charge = same charged particles are repelling. Without any other reasons such as Pauli exclusion needed.

×
×
  • 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.