Jump to content

Strange

Moderators
  • Content Count

    25528
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    133

Everything posted by Strange

  1. I can't directly help you with answers to your questions, but I can give some advice. First, a meta-comment on your approach. You will find that the reaction to posts like yours on a science forum will be two-fold: 1. Explain that if you don't have any evidence to support you idea then it is not a theory in the scientific sense. (And related points like, it is up to you to support the idea not others). 2. Point out the flaws in your idea (if it is developed enough). Note that an idea proposed by someone with little background knowledge and with no theoretical/evidential support will almost certainly be wrong. As such, you might find it more productive to just start by asking where you can find the information, without raising hackles by raising the spectre of "personal theory". You have to realise that people on forums like this are sick to death of the following dialog: Newcomer: I have a theory .... Assembled Members: No you don't. You have an idea. And it is obviously wrong. N: .... closed minded ... imagination ... new ideas ... book learning ... scared ... AM: sigh, here we go again ... Second, on your idea. Data on the mass and composition of stars should be readily available. Thousands, perhaps millions, have been analysed in this way. I can't tell you much about that, except that: 1. The main element is hydrogen, typically 70 to 90%. 2. The second element is helium, making up almost the remaining mass. 3. There are two types of stars: Population I stars contain more of the elements above helium that Population II stars. Because Population I stars were formed from the material ejected by the supernovae of old Pop II stars. 4. The composition of a star changes over its lifetime as hydrogen is turned to helium and then, towards the end of its life, hevier elements are formed. I don't know how 4 affects your idea. Flash point refers to combustion of materials. I don't see how that relates to stars so you need to work out what you are really asking there. (Otherwise you will attract even more criticism.) I get the impression that you might be thinking of the big bang as some sort of explosion like a supernova. If so, then you can just drop the whole idea now, as it bears no relation to reality.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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/
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. One obvious exception is dogs: larger breeds tend to have shorter lives than small ones.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Which peer-reviewed journals has this work been published in? If not, why not?
  12. So, after 3 posts we have descended to unsupported personal "theory" and casual racism. Great.
  13. 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...
  14. 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.
  15. Strange

    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.
  16. Strange

    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.
  17. 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.
  18. Strange

    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!
  19. 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 ...)
  20. 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.
  21. All light is photons, in other words all light sources (including lasers) are sources of photons.
  22. 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....
×
×
  • 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.