# Strange

Moderators

25528

133

Which is?

3. ## 0.999 recurring does not equal one?

Of course it does: How does "infinitesimal" differ from 0? If you think that 0.999... is not equal to 1, perhaps you could write down the exact value of the difference. 0.000... = 0/9 0.111... = 1/9 0.222... = 2/9 0.333... = 3/9 (1/3) etc. 0.888... = 8/9 0.999... = 9/9 = 1
4. ## The False Impression of Matter in Space

As far as is known, matter and anti-matter behave identically as far as gravity is concerned. There is no particular reason to think otherwise, but the Alpha experiment at CERN is aiming to test this. http://alpha.web.cern.ch/ Don't know what that means. Given that matter and antimatter (are expected to) behave identically with respect to gravity, then they curve spacetime identically. No reason to assume that. Other than the fact that they have opposite charge - when they have charge. Neutrinos and antineutrinos are both uncharged. It is hard. See the Alpha experiment, for example.
5. ## Secret second code found hiding within human DNA

A bit more browsing around came up with this commentary on the paper: http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/12/13/dont-be-duped-by-duon-dna-hype/
6. ## Secret second code found hiding within human DNA

Do you have a link to the paper (or an article) being discussed in that quote? I would be interested to read more about this. OK. I found this: http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/ as a start... I'm confused. Hasn't it always been known that some genes control gene expression, rather than coding for proteins?
7. ## Plagiarism by The European Physical Journal D

Which journal was your theory published in? Why not write to the journals which have published the papers that you say are plagiarised and provide a reference to your published theory. They normally take plagiarism very seriously.
8. ## The Universe shouldn't expand infinitely?

They do (well, maybe not simultaneous - but if they were simultaneous then it would be a single big bang rather than a series): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation "Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
9. ## Time is relative to size

One obvious exception is dogs: larger breeds tend to have shorter lives than small ones.
10. ## The evolution of spoken language.

It is worth noting (as this is a science forum) that this concept is not accepted by all linguists, and that very few linguists think that the attempts to reconstruct or understand anything it have any merit.
11. ## The evolution of spoken language.

I don't see how a made-up story contradicted by historical linguistics (among many other lines of evidence) can possibly answer questions better than factual information - even if that is incomplete. That was in reference to Dekan's comments.
12. ## Standardized Atomic Structure Uncovered Through Pattern Recognition

Which peer-reviewed journals has this work been published in? If not, why not?
13. ## The evolution of spoken language.

So, after 3 posts we have descended to unsupported personal "theory" and casual racism. Great.
14. ## Wave-particle duality

I wouldn't say it is an extreme case. Most of the time they are not diffracted. p.s. my post should say "photons and electrons", not "are" but I can't edit it now...
15. ## Is there a force of interaction between energy?

Or gravitational lensing.
16. ## Wave-particle duality

Particles like photons are electrons move in straight lines. Their wavelike properties are nothing to do with the way they move. The experiment can be done with any frequency or with electrons and even with large molecules (e.g. C60 "buckyballs"). The same effect is observed in every case. I assume that if electrons or molecules are used, the experiment is done in a vacuum so the idea of refractive index is obviously irrelevant. There is no paradox.

18. ## Dreams and Heaven

You have a brain that creates dreams. There is no (rational) reason to think that the universe has a brain. Therefore there is no reason to think the universe can dream.
19. ## Time.

No. It is simply interpreting evidence and making unsupported claims in order to support your beliefs. It doesn't matter where you start: the argument is circular. Swap (1) and (2) if you wish. So you claim, in order to support your belief. Obviously things which existed in the past, exist now and will continue to exist in the future are temporally extended. I know you have to deny that in order to maintain your beliefs. Stating that they are not, in order to support your argument, is known as "begging the question". Again, you are trying to use human perception to define whether things exist or not. By the same logic, we can say that I can only observe "here" therefore things are not spatially extended; ergo, the rest of the universe doe not exist. You have been given many different arguments and lines of evidence. But you are only able to repeat the same empty claims over and over again. I'm not going to waste any more time on what is, essentially, a religious argument. No, I read it in the past.
20. ## Are photon light particles, the same as a digital camera flash??

I would guess it is just the paint soaking through the card. However, it could be the effect of the light causing the cardboard to be slightly bleached. Here is your opportunity to do some science! Create three pictures as similar as possible. Dry them in different ways: 1. As normal (facing the sun) 2. Reversed (back to the sun) 3. In the dark (either indoors somewhere warm, or outside in the shade) Compare the results. Draw conclusions. Report here for peer review.
21. ## Time.

You are still making the same circular arguments: 1. Time does not exit; therefore we cannot observe the past 2. We cannot observe the past; therefore time does not exist 3. Go to 1. 1. Time does not exist; therefore things do not have temporal extent. 2. Things do not have temporal extent; therefore time does not exist. 3. Go to 1. You define "observe the past" (in as much as you define it at all) in such a way as to make your argument trivially true. This is the fallacy of begging the question. As has been noted, the evidence contradicts your belief so there isn't really much point just endlessly repeating the same thing. Except as a proof that time exists and you are wasting it. If the future exists, then I predict that in it you will repeat the same fallacious argument. Prove me wrong!
22. ## Are photon light particles, the same as a digital camera flash??

Note that a flash produces relatively light. It might look bright but that is because your eyes have got used to the low light level indoors. Also, because our eyes adjust to a wide range of light levels, we don't realise how great the difference is between daylight and artificial light, in terms of light levels. I can't remember the figures now, but a sunny day is many thousands of times brighter than even bright electric lights. (p.s. it was very unclear what you are asking ...)
23. ## Do scientist believe in "Love?"

Of course scientists believe in love (apart, perhaps, from those who are autistic or psychopaths). Some even study it. What does that have to with believe in God or the soul? Even scientists who believe in God or the soul (and there are plenty) should not let that affect their science. After all, science is all about objective measurements and neither God nor the should can be measured.
24. ## Are photon light particles, the same as a digital camera flash??

All light is photons, in other words all light sources (including lasers) are sources of photons.
25. ## Drunk on Black Holes

Sorry. I thought one of your objections to the standard black model was the existence of singularities. I was just pointing out that there are a number of other approaches that avoid a singularity (which isn't surprising, because I doubt anyone thinks the singularity is a physical reality). Again, just pointing out that there are alternative explanations. There is a lot of interesting research in this are. The extreme conditions of black holes are a good place to develop the relationships between GR and QM. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.0533v2.pdf http://www.nature.com/news/astrophysics-fire-in-the-hole-1.12726 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=black-hole-firewalls-confound-theoretical-physicists But if you are only interested in discussing the one paper on incipient black holes, I will wander off and leave you to it....
×

• #### Activity

×
• Create New...