Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Strange

  1. Nuclear Fusion

    Solar panels. Because we know how to make them already! But in both cases, there is no practical way of getting the energy to Earth.
  2. Thoughts please? Egertonian cosmos

    Side note: I am always bemused/amused when people make claims of "ownership" to ideas like this. I mean, obviously, you have copyright in the document but there is no protection for ideas. And, generally, no one is going to want to steal (or even be associated with) ideas posted on a science forum. To the content! Line 19 (thanks for numbering the lines it makes it easier to reference; but doesn't get round the fact you are breaking the rules) (Hmmm... the line numbers get changed when copied. Weird.) 1. Surely you mean the "minimum" distance. If that is the maximum distance and is based on time being quantum, then there are no measurable distances between 0 and this maximum. 2. There is no evidence that time is quantised and your reference for this (the only reference) is to an unpublished work by someone called Egerton. I would comment further, but I'm afraid the rest of it doesn't make much sense to me. You start off talking about a cloud of free particles (good start, a similar approach is taken with some very god explanations of GR, for example). But then you try and apply this to the Earth, where we have a set of particles closely bound together by interatomic forces. I think you need to study the difference between a "gas" and a "solid". Finally, there is not very much maths in this short article. What testable predictions does this model make that would allow it to be compared with GR and/or the real world?
  3. Vortices from earth rotation (split from Tides)

    Nonsense. Unless you are claiming that gravity doesn’t work as we think. But there is no evidence for that. Most currents aren't the same as shipping routes. (Many of them concentrate material in some central point in the ocean, like those masses of plastic and rubbish we have heard so much about recently.) But they don't have a very great effect on things floating on the surface. So it would be too slow and unpredictable. As far as I know, they only have a minor effect on fuel efficiency and so are usually ignored when planning shipping routes.
  4. Zero Element Equivalency

    Can you explain what the point of this is? What is the advantage of having multiple 0 values?
  5. Nuclear Fusion

    You mean, build a star !? Apart from the fact it would be impractical, we don't need to: we have one. The challenge is getting the energy from there to Earth effectively. The same problem would face any space-based generation system. Centrifugal force throw things apart, so I'm not sure what you are thinking here...
  6. Mysterious - Combustion in water

    So is this some sort of alternative/spiritual therapy? I would use the term "con man", personally. I think it is despicable that people like this play on the fears and desperation of the vulnerable using magi tricks. I'm glad to hear you didn't fall for his "gold statue" scam. I hope you have found a better source of help with your problems! Best wishes.
  7. Producing one electron-positron pair doesn't get you very far. The early universe was full of a plasma of quarks and gluons. How do you explain that?
  8. GW170608, Hanford's Chirp

    Yes, it is a representation. It is not the data. Don't be ridiculous. I didn't say it wasn't relevant. And I am not rejecting the data behind it. I said you should use the data for your "analysis". Most of the data is lost in the image. JPG is a a lossy format that introduces errors and noise, apart from anything else. As you haven't answered my questions I will take this as confirmation of my conclusions that: 1. You are looking at the noise in the image and thinking it is significant ( 2. You don't have a clue what you are talking about - confirmed by looking at your previous posts (–Kruger_effect) Feel free to prove me wrong by going back to the original data, using statistical analysis to support your case or showing what is wrong with the procedures used by LIGO.
  9. GW170608, Hanford's Chirp

    They only make passing reference in this paper to some of the techniques used to eliminate false results. But there have been large numbers of papers released before which go into great details on how signals are identified, the multiple methods used to eliminate noise, extraneous signals and false positives, and so on. The idea that someone could spot an error by looking at a noisy JPG is laughable. It is up there with the "face on Mars" and "Jesus in my toast" stories.
  10. GW170608, Hanford's Chirp

    I did that after replying. Should have done it first, then I could have avoided wasting my time on this.
  11. GW170608, Hanford's Chirp

    You appear to have based your "analysis" on looking at some pictures rather than the data. I have no idea what you are talking about. Before the -2 minutes mark, there is no data (because they were not injecting the test signal into the actuators). There is no data outside of the narrow range centred on 20 Hz. (This is confirmed by the other diagram in the original paper.) I can only assume you are looking at the noise and JPEG artefacts (exacerbated by you manipulating the image) and thinking that it is data. What data do you base this claim on? According to the paper, both signals were matched against templates (separately) and the results were consistent. And what did the LIGO people say when you told them this? Finally ... Vixra? Really?
  12. Need confirmation on the weight of this sphere.

    I would normally start off by converting your 8 feet into metres and calculate it from there. But as I was getting Wolfram to do all the calculation, I didn't bother. It doesn't matter what units you use, as long as you convert them all to the same thing at some point. The equation is the same for feet or metres.
  13. God and the Big Bang

    You said "science" was the language, not mathematics. You really don't know anything, do you. Multiplying by zero always gives you zero. That is part of the definition of zero. Dividing by zero is undefined. It certainly doesn't give 1.
  14. Sudden combustion in water

    Searching online for this only shows results for this forum. Very bizarre. If it this is a real magic trick, then it seems that only people who visit this forum have experienced it!
  15. God and the Big Bang

    No one said you did. What are these claimed correlations? So what? That doesn't make it science. Perhaps you are deluded. Nature can be your religion, I suppose. It makes as much sense as any other basis for religion. A kind of pantheism, perhaps. But how can a process or body of knowledge be a "language". That makes no sense. That is probably because you don't know anything about it. (I am puzzled how something can be both unclear and dogmatic, though.) That is not a scientific question. (Unless you define the word "nature" in some way that makes it testable.) That is easier. If it follows the scientific method; if it is basically developing testable ideas, then it counts as science. It is always true. That is the definition of zero. If it doesn't correspond to reality, then it isn't science. Or not good science, anyway.
  16. Sudden combustion in water

    1. Who was this man? 2. Did they ask for money? 3. Where did this take place? 4. Where did the cardamom seeds come from? (Who supplied them; you or the man?) 5. Chew the seeds, presumably? 6. Why did you have these things with you?
  17. Mysterious - Combustion in water

    It is very obviously a magic trick. Perhaps you can supply some details. 1. Who performed this trick? 2. Did they ask for money? 3. Where did it take place? 4. Who provided the jar, water, seeds, paper? 5. If you provided these, why did you have them? 6. Was the jar made of glass or plastic? 1. Who was this "priest"? (How did you come to meet them? What do they claim to be a "priest" of?) 2. Did they ask for money? 3. Where did it take place? 4. Why did you have a jar with you? 5. Who provided the water, seeds, paper? 6. If you provided these, why did you have them?
  18. Which is no doubt easier if you don't fully understand the thing that you are distorting to make it fit ...
  19. There may be chance involved, but it isn't random. (Maybe part of the problem with some creationist arguments is that they don't understand the difference?)
  20. Filter Theory

    This is not a theory, in the scientific sense. That would require a mathematical model whose predictions have been shown to be consistent with multiple experiments. There is no such thing as "ether" (unless you are redefining this word, in which case you need to explain what you mean by it). What is "clean creative energy"? Energy is a property that things have. I don't understand how it can be either "clean" or "creative". What is "formulized information"? What does a "pure form" mean when applied to energy or information? What does a "evolved new form" mean when applied to energy or information? What does "trajectory of creation" mean? You have added a poll. Science is not a democratic system or popularity contest. (And we have the up/down vote system for people to let you know what they think of your posts! )
  21. Parallax of the stars

    Do you know what "micro" means? 20 microarcseconds = 0.000020 arcseconds No, you need to use radians not degrees. 1 AU / 0.1 arcsec = 1 AU / 4.85x10-7 radians = 32.6 ly I have no idea where you get 0.1 ly from.
  22. Parallax of the stars

    Your value for A is out by a factor of 10. And I don't know where the (3600) comes from. You are using 0.02 radians instead of 20 microarcseconds. So: A = 1.496 x 1011 metres (note: it is the radius not the diameter) θ = 20 microarcseconds = 20 x 10-6 * pi / 648,000 = 9.7 x 10-11 radians A/θ = 1.496 x 1011 metres / 9.7 x 10-11 radians = 163,018 light-years
  23. Parallax of the stars

    There is a page on how parallax is calculated here: The relevant detail her: If you still get 1 light-year, show us what you are doing and maybe we can see where you go wrong. But, if you don't actually want to do the math, you can get a computer to do it for you. Using the 20 microarcsecond resolution of Hubble: 1 au / tangent(20 microarcseconds) in light-years = 163,078
  24. Parallax of the stars

    Show us how you work it out and maybe we can see where you went wrong.
  25. Parallax of the stars