Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by Klaynos

  1. Right, I was using M' as aX = bX where X is not the same quantity on both sides of the equations is frankly stupid. 

    So TiM where M is he molar mass and Ti contains mass information? That must mean that Ti is body dependent and therefore not a constant. 

    Your explanation is not clear to me. 

    Where you calculated the geostationary height you just substituted Ti for G and a different value of M, let's call them M-1 and M-2. Let me ask my question again. 

    Is GM-1 = TiM-2?

    Where G is the gravitational constant, M-1 is mass, Ti is your constant and M-2 is your modified mass? 

  2. 4 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

    It would do nothing. I would wake up completely by the time I did that. And it would wake up whoever was still sleeping.


    My understanding is that you could do it whenever you hear barking even during the day to try and train them. The advantage of a dog whistle is that it's annoying as hell to dogs but humans can't hear it. 

    On a related note after my PhD I can't sleep without listening to a podcast or radio. I started doing it as a distraction from thinking constantly about research and just not sleeping. Got to pick the right show, something with short sections that you don't get invested in. 

  3. 9 hours ago, studiot said:

    Are you sure the problems are all 'in house' ?

    Watching the activity of my PC it seemed to be redirected offsite to other http & www addresses several times to move from one site page to another or to call up some of the popup subroutines.

    I timed the wait time for some of these and listed them earlier, some run into appreciable fractions of a minute.

    I know that SF needs to attract advertising and interface successfully with the web advertising industry.
    I do not find the level of adverts intrusive and indeed one or two have been quite useful.
    But the web ad industry standards and protocols are changing and I wondered if the new forum software was properly compatible with them?

    I block the ads on my DNS server so no loading of them ever (downside is I can't allow from sites I'd like to support ads from) and I've experienced the same slow downs. 

  4. !

    Moderator Note

    Last time you were asked to show how your idea could predict the orbit of geostationary orbits. 

    That thread was closed due to your lack of engagement. Can you please start with the above challenge and then address the other points in that thread. Failure to do so will result in the closure of this thread and you not being allowed to reintroduce the topic. 

  5. 14 hours ago, scherado said:

    On second thought, that-this kind of thing is usually not permitted on a forum and I've been on many. Do you want me to list them? How is it that this is permitted here? I looked through the guidelines before I wrote this post.

    Glad you've read the rules you agreed to on registering. If you feel a post is breaking the rules please report it. 

  6. 7 hours ago, Moreno said:

    Yes, but this is a radio transmitters. I don't think the same regulations apply to transformers or inductive Owens. Different class of devices.

    I found mention about broadband noise generators based on electric arc generators and zenner diodes. Could they be suited to have a small range?



    In the UK electronic devices must not generate too much noise (there are very long technical documents on this). This is measured and tested for. Failure to comply will result in fines. 

    50hz is less restricted as mains noise is difficult to avoid so people tend to take measures to work on this. 

    Some frequencies in your band it is entirely illegal to transmit on by international agreement. No matter your intent or power. I know for a fact people are found doing this without their knowledge and fined. If your intent was to broadcast (even just the near field) the punishment would be substantially more. 

    In the UK. Operating an RF jammer is illegal. Operating a device that transmits intentionally or above a very low level unintentionally across your band is illegal. Operating a spark gap is explicitly illegal. Most jurisdictions are likely to be similar. Given this I suggest reading rule 2.3 as this is moving close to the mark. 

  7. I think a good first step for thinking about photons is to stop thinking of waves and particles. Photons (and electrons etc...) are not classical particles nor waves. They are something difference. Our normal experiences do not observe things like that so we don't really have words or annologies that work. Therefore we have to say things like; photons have wavelike and particlelike properties. 

    As an aside, energy is a property of stuff not something itself. 

  8. 3 hours ago, Mordred said:


    Lose the image of solid 


    I'd go farther. Lose the images of a particle and wave. They're just nice description words to make people feel happier about relating back to something they can see and understand. What we are dealing with is something different that has both wave-like and particle-like properties but is not one nor t'other. 

  9. 32 minutes ago, Daecon said:

    Why would that second thing not already become a black hole by itself?

    Black holes happen when an object is so massive, its own gravity makes it collapse.

    On second thought, I may be mis-understanding your question.

    If so, perhaps you may find this Wikipedia link on Spaghettification informative: Spaghettification

    You can have objects that are bigger than the collapse mass but don't. Some stars fall into this category, the radiation pressure keeps them from collapse. 

    On the question in the op, it'll turn into an accretion disk and slowly merge with the the black hole. The exact details will depend on what it is and how they are moving relative to each other. 

  10. 2 hours ago, mad_scientist said:

    This is a serious question, so please only serious replies...

    I think he was being serious. A large part of what they do could be automated. But the putting the patient at ease is harder. But then you don't need to be as qualified to do that so I think his answer stands. 

  11. Mike, you're probably getting negative reputation for the same reasons I suggested earlier in this thread. Repeating the same stuff, no evidence and mostly (although I see you've made a bit more of an effort on this one in one or two posts) ignoring the responses of others. 

  12. 15 hours ago, Area54 said:

    A reason that has been investigated by science from the standpoint of biochemistry,psychology and ethology, to name but three, The phenomenon has been measured, quantified, described, documented, analysed, disected and modelled. . . . by science.

    Science has also investigated isolationism and solo behaviour, in the same meticulous detail, and those investigations continue because science does not jump to conclusions; science does not take a "what if" and turn it into a "must be"; science works from a "why" list, not a wish list.

    Pie in the sky when you die. /dripping sarcasm and intellectual disgust

    I'm just going to quote the reply from the last time Mike posted the same stuff. 

    Mike, have you noticed the frustration in people's replies? Are you reading the replies or just carrying on posting what you want? 

  13. 51 minutes ago, Mike Smith Cosmos said:

    6000 years ago , having terra formed the Earth previously from grit, to vegetation to  animals , the time came for the introduction of a special creature , one that was like the 100,000,000 other Godlike angelic creatures , but made of earth :- 

    A MAN  was created . A little west of the Caspian Sea . He became the father to everyone who has ever lived on Earth . Some billions of people who currently are alive on earth:-







    ps . The slightly thinner hand is Eve. With the bit of her hair showing ! 

    Assertions assertions assertions. 


    There's no evidence here. 


    If this is all you have then how could you consider this evidence. 


    You have an interpretation of a story book. 


    Next you'll be citing Harry potter as evidence for wizards. 


    This is lunacy. Why are you on a science site Mike, if all you want is belief, hope and wishful thinking I'd suggest a religious forum. 

  • 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.