Strange

Senior Members
  • Content count

    18592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Strange last won the day on September 14

Strange had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3139 Glorious Leader

About Strange

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    珈琲店
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Occupation
    Engineer/Writer

Recent Profile Visitors

41090 profile views
  1. Thought Experiments

    It is true that scientific theories are contingent and always subject to change with new evidence. However, there comes a point when there is so much evidence for a theory it is almost impossible to see how it could be wrong (see, for example, the theory of evolution by natural selection). The Big Bang model / general relativity fall into this category. There are very few theories in the history of science that have actually turned out to be completely wrong. Geocentrism was one. Phlogiston another and the steady state universe a third. I struggle to think of any others. Even Newtonian gravity, which has been superseded by GR does not fall into this category. It is still good enough for many (most) purposes. Then you would have to provide a mathematical model that is consistent with all the evidence and produces equally good or better predictions than GR. Unless you can do that, I don't think your (unspecified) conclusions are likely to be worth much. I don't believe that is true. One of the reasons that the scientific method has evolved to what it is today is to eliminate, as far as practical, the various biases introduced by the human mind. Hence double-blind trials, etc. Maybe you should start another thread in the Speculations forum where you present this new theory. I don't see how this can work (but it will be interesting to see what you suggest as the "bottom layer"). For example, there are various suggestions that space-time and quantum theory (lets call them A) are emergent from some lower level theory (lats call that B). So, in he world everything in A is explained as being a result of B. But now we can ask, "why B" and so we look for some underlying theory (C) which explains that. And then we ask "why is C the way it is" and so we look for D and the E and then ... I cannot imagine how that can ever bottom out (except by saying "God", but that is just a way of stopping any further enquiry). All our experience so far seems to be that each better theory is more complicated than the previous. I see no reason why a theory of everything should be simple. That seems like wishful thinking. Why should the universe be easy for a random ape on a small planet on the unfashionable side of the galaxy? That depends on what you mean by "real". If it is the best, and currently only, explanation we have, does that make it real? Is the Newtonian "force" of gravity real? Or did it used to be real but isn't any longer? Until you define what you mean by "real" and how it can be tested, the statement is fairly meaningless. We can only know what our senses and measurements tell us. That may or may not be the same as "reality". They tell us that the universe behaves exactly as if space-time were a real thing. Thats as close as we can ever get to saying something is real, as far as I am concerned. That is an argument from incredulity or ignorance. The fact that you don't understand how GR works, doesn't make it wrong. I have heard the same claim hundreds of times from different people with wildly different ideas (and in some cases, wild ideas). They may say the "truth" is vortices or string or aliens or god or their own brain or ... In all cases, they are absolutely convinced that they, uniquely, have had the vision and insight to find The Truth. None of them can offer any evidence why we should believe any one of them and not the others. I somehow doubt you can either. But I am always open minded to see what evidence people can provide. OK. So are you going to tell us what this amazing theory is, or just keep making empty boasts about it?
  2. Oh, FFS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray Mainly originating outside the Solar System Maybe you are confused by the fact that the solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field affect cosmic rays.
  3. I meant your cloud chamber is irrelevant. And is kinetic energy the most important factor when it comes to mutagenesis? (I have no idea.) Anyway. Enough of this sidetrack. The causes of mutations (where radioactivity plays a minor part) is really not very relevant to the OP's questions.
  4. Which is irrelevant. (I know you are obsessed with cloud chambers as the answer to everything, and you bring them up in nearly every thread.) From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_gateway/radiation/radioisotopesrev1.shtml So cosmic rays account for about 12% of background radiation (depending where you are, of course).
  5. Thought Experiments

    1. That doesn't really mean anything. And there is no real science behind it. It sounds like a journalistic extrapolation from what we know. 2. This is a hypothesis based on theoretical ideas for which there is zero evidence. So not worth worrying about at the moment. 3. This was thought to be likely (because of gravity) until it was found that the rate of expansion is accelerating. As for "not believing the big bang", that is a rather silly thing to say. Science is not about belief but about what the evidence shows or, more accurately, which models work best. Currently, the Big Bang model is the best model we have for the evolution of the universe. It is supported by overwhelming evidence so it seems unlikely to be completely wrong. However, there are still many unknowns and possible variations on the basic model so the details may change as we discover more. I think those are useful questions, but I'm not sure that they can ever be answered. Or at least, not fully. So choosing an answer might be down to personal preference.Or there might be different answers for different laws. It may be that, in some cases, other laws (or different values for fundamental constants) make the existence of a universe (or at least one populated by intelligent organisms) impossible. For example, is seems that only a universe with 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension is stable: But then, I suppose, that just raises the question why the other combinations are not stable. And that is the problem with these sort of non-science questions. Any answer you get just prompts another level of "Yes, but why ..."
  6. Cosmic rays are a small contribution to background radiation levels. And they don’t originate from the sun. I also don’t believe that radiation (apart from UV) is a significant cause of mutations. Especially not those that are relevant to evolution (ie in germ cells) But apart from that ...
  7. Truth About Corners

    You have a theory? I had no idea. Great. Can you tell me where I left my car keys? (And please don’t say, “in the corner”)
  8. Natural response of RC and RL Circuits?

    It might be easier to use a 555 timer IC to build a blinker circuit. And then move on to understanding how it works. (On my phone otherwise I would go into more detail!)
  9. Truth About Corners

    I find that twirling the frond spallator helps a lot in these cases.
  10. Truth About Corners

    Interesting (and plausible) hypothesis. I wonder if the OP will come back and confirm it.
  11. Truth About Corners

    That's a cute answer.
  12. Truth About Corners

    Don't be obtuse ...
  13. Debunking Physics

    everything is composed of matter What, even light? Also, there’s no such thing as anti-matter. And yet we observe it and even use it in industry and medicine. The rest of it becomes increasingly incoherent, making many assertions with no support. If this is "rational" then I am a teapot..
  14. Time dilation (split from The Collatz Conjecture)

    Are you going to defend this, even though you didn't write it? 1. What are the "loopholes" in the theory of relativity? 2. Do you [the author] understand the difference between (and the significance of) the speed of light in a vacuum being invariant, and the speed of light in a medium, which is not invariant (like anything else that moves with less than the speed of light)? 3. What are the "inaccuracies which have taken place in practically conducted experiments"? In summary, the paper has invented a non-existent problem to solve. A bit like asking if the speed of light is different if we paint the lab walls red instead of white.