Jump to content
Science Forums

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/12/2021 in all areas

  1. 1. With motion of any sort, there is friction. 2. If by 'reactionless', you mean that there is no NUCLEAR reaction, then I'll give you that. But a true reactionless drive would have no 2 parts which would 'react' to each other. Thus, no moving parts, no transference of energetic particles, no magnetism, no graviton technology, and a host of other examples. 3. There is no such thing as perpetual motion. That's like saying you can see past infinity. No, you Can't. 4. MY EYES ARE BLEEDING FROM READING YOUR WALLS OF TEXT WHICH HAVE ***ZERO*** ACADEMIC CITATIONS. NO PROOF!!! JUST STO
    2 points
  2. That's nice dear. But let's forget about feeding animals and talk about other human beings, shall we? Now tell me what your wonderful loving prophet thinks about flying commercial jetliners, full of innocent people, into office buildings, also full of innocent people? What does your Koran say about that? While you are at it, please explain why infidels deserve to be beheaded and their deaths recorded on video? As far as I am concerned, most organized religions are a form of insanity, but yours is absolutely the worst and the world would be better off without it.
    2 points
  3. MitkoGorgiev

    Read Me!

    Yes, the members of the academic clergy are very scared of it, not because it will destroy their cherished beliefs, but because they will lose their reputation and authority and then they will have to tear up their diplomas. My explanation of how the light produces the colors is so true that even a 12-years old kid can understand it. Remember this and remember it very well: "The truth is understandable, the untruth is not understandable. Consequence: if something is not understandable, suspect its truthfulness." All the theories of the contemporary physics, including the Einstein's c
    2 points
  4. marcospolo

    Read Me!

    What are you people so scared of exactly? That someone may propose a theory that destroys your cherished beliefs? What if someone posts a theory that is hopelessly wrong? It can be shown as being wrong easily I presume. Sometimes, proposing a really stupid idea may lead to something great, prompt some new line of thought. If you only include theories that already conform to tour made up preconceived beliefs, then there is no way forward. Anything you don't personally like the sound of, you relegate to the "utter BS" category? This makes Science a club of bigots.
    2 points
  5. Okay, whatever I have disrupted your lectures now continue it, I wonder sometimes what happens in the alternate universes I am not here in. I have significantly altered the timeline of the scienceforums.com, did I have the right?
    1 point
  6. Ya, i know , link = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert_operator
    1 point
  7. One way to calculate the precession of the planets is by averaging the interplanetary gravitational interactions over the orbits of the other planets. It is reasonable to do this, since the precession period in question is very much longer than the orbital period of any planet in the Solar System. Thus, by treating the other planets as rings, we can calculate the mean gravitational perturbation due to these planets, and, thereby, determine the desired precession rate. However, since Venus rotates much more slowly than any other planet, its precession period cannot be accurately cal
    1 point
  8. You are talking about my favorite operator!, *Gets Excited*
    1 point
  9. I don't think time exists in reality either. I think time is same idea with lenth and weight, it is created by human, it is kind of concept exists in our mind. But it is NOT a fact that can be dilated.
    1 point
  10. He's not talking to either of us, he is talking to the OP.
    1 point
  11. Success, I got one of the cranks to leave the forums, Victory is MINE! I guess you couldn't handle having to learn "Real Physics".
    1 point
  12. "String field theory was to be the theory of interacting strings. To describe interacting objects, you need a quantity called the Lagrangian (that's L in Kaku's equation). ... Now Michio Kaku's equation is clear. It is the Lagrangian describing the interaction of strings." I hope this has humbled you, maybe you don't know as much as you think you know, now watch the lectures.
    1 point
  13. And organised religion is really the organisation of hate rather than a belief structure of love. Religion is destructive on the whole because fanaticism breeds it like wildfire.
    1 point
  14. Huh? The precession of planets are well understood, Mercury was the first planet to have its precession accurately explained by Gravity, what precession are you talking about, and why are you talking about it? The posts I've read in my time today are so unclear, I am wondering what it is half the time the OP's are trying to articulate? If I cannot understand, that is not a good start. I only wonder, if a system of questions are not articulated properly, what are others thinking outside of my own reading of trying to understand.
    1 point
  15. Dubbel is always right because he studies real science listen to Dubbel, Polymath.
    1 point
  16. How on earth do these "physicists" justify TWO versions of the one property of an Object? Really? my car has a Mass or 1 tonne when in the garage (resting) but once ii push it down the road, it GAINS MASS? No, there is only ONE definition for the Mass property, and "velocity" has ZERO effect on it, and momentum is an entirely different measured property. The only thing in a kinetic sense that changes is the Momentum measurement, which is 100% due to the velocity. p=mv, and that's where the story ends. "Rest vs inertial" is irrational unscientific nonsense. There i
    1 point
  17. Its a bit hard to get your mind clear of the barrage of pro einstein propaganda, and see the inconsistencies. I suggest you watch the videos made by Yaseen Al Azzam. Here is the intro.
    1 point
  18. Sic em, Dubbel.
    1 point
  19. write4u

    They stole my work!

    Looks like I am behind the times. But I am sure the old way will still give you protection. The point of authorship lies in recorded dates , whether by e-mail or by snail-mail.
    1 point
  20. But really you need to do a block seize(https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36936-block-seize-2020/) just patent or copywrite all your work, though it will cost you some money.
    1 point
  21. Ya there is a 1 year rule, if you have a work that is younger than 1 year old you can still press legal charges on them or sue them for 1 year after that you must have a copywrite or patent to press legal charges.
    1 point
  22. Do you know what the greatest hoax in the history of science is? In my view, it is this picture: It is taken from the Pink Floyd’s album “The dark side of the moon”. The members of one of the greatest bands of all times have also fallen for this hoax, taking this drawing as an idol of worship on their legendary album. The same drawing can be found in billions of textbooks throughout the world. Why is this drawing a hoax? Because it has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with the truth. The phenomenon doesn’t look like that at all. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe has already giv
    1 point
  23. X = ct, this is 100% correct, BUT ONLY FOR LIGHT. or only when x and ct are both zero. So you cant just plug x = ct into equations replacing x if that x is not referring to light. X distance is where light got to in 1 second (for instance, so in this case x =ct. but x' is NOT also equal to ct', because the x' origin is now no longer at zero x,t. In other words, is t' taken from the start of the experiment when obs2 is at x,t =zero? or is the t' taken from where obs2 end up (at x=vt) ? If t is from the beginning, and obs2 also starts his clock from then, well then t can only still
    1 point
  24. Yes, indeed. I suspect that the brain, instead of increasing in size, evolved more efficient folding thereby increasing the volume of its neural surface area. An interesting example of increasing surface area may be found in simple clay, which has the largest surface area than any other substance. 1 cm^3 of clay can coat the surface of an entire tennis court. This is what makes it an ideal candidate for mineralogical chemistry. A wonderful lecture by Robert Hazen (mineralogist) on the evolution of life itself. Start viewing @ 12:00 to avoid a lengthy introduction.
    1 point
  25. Probably from whatever substance was in his bong, at the time he wrote that.
    1 point
  26. From what do you "understand" that??
    1 point
  27. Ive been spending some time in the forests lately, enjoying nature, photographing fungi and also practicing archery with my Asiatic Horse Bow. (thumb draw) One has to get away from all the craziness, and get back to the simplicity of nature. Its soul food.
    1 point
  28. Hi Marc. I am very glad that you are back again.👋 The experiments that you mention are not very simple, whereas the experiment with the convex lens is the simplest possible. An experiment should be kept as simple as possible if man wants to come to the truth. Complicated experiments are not of much use because in such an experiment there are lots of factors in play, so that one cannot know how each factor contributes to the phenomenon. Descartes has already pointed out four hundred years ago that the problems (or experiments) should be divided in their simplest parts. But the
    1 point
  29. I like what you are doing, great. Now I need to digest it. The illustrations that look like a target, are similar to the Newton's Rings. Which seem exactly like the famous "interference Patterns" of the Michelson and Morley Interferometer. I'm not convinced we are seeing two beams of light "interfering" with itself in the Interferometer. I'm not convinced that Light is actually a wave at all, but its certainly not a Photon Particle. Sure you can SIMULATE light acting like a wave, by sending out pulses at a high frequency, but maybe you can also send out a single continuous
    1 point
  30. As we can see the most advanced and the most frequently used propulsion system for spacecrafts is nuclear. But can you name propulsion system that is rather good for space journeys as nuclear and in some time of development can substitute the most frequently used propulsion system?
    1 point
  31. Scientific knowledge, while not absolute, is ever more accurate. Science is a self correcting process, no other method has yielded the results the scientific method has been able to provide.
    1 point
  32. All gods are incarnations of innate universal mathematical potentials. The question that needs answering is if gods are sentient. If not they are not motivated and worship is not necessary, only caution.
    1 point
  33. Yes, and also this: https://www.hhmi.org/news/meet-three-new-genes-may-have-influenced-human-brain-size and also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6092419/ but keep in mind that it isn't just brain size, it the amount of neuronal development in the neocortex. That's what underlies the production of more progenitors both in the womb and in the years after Human birth. All Human neuronal cell growth doesn't happen during fetal development because, if it did, a newborn's head wouldn't pass through the birth canal. So a lot of neuronal development within the neocortex, and subsequ
    1 point
  34. An interesting projection. Time may tell......😄
    1 point
  35. I live in No. Idaho and have worked with the Kootenai Indian tribe. Several members of the tribe believe Sasquatch exists. While I am very skeptical, I respect the forest knowledge of local natives and am not in a hurry to dismiss the claim, unless it is shown that such a creature or tribe cannot exist.
    1 point
  36. I believe there is one indisputable overriding factoid and that is "all skills are learned", from experience and observation. There is no such things as inherent knowledge. The brain enters the world as a blank computer which is programmed by it's unique experiential environment. There is no innate knowledge except some hardwired instinctual survival mechanisms such as the "fight or flight" mechanism, which already exhibits in single celled organisms. It takes human years to learn certain physical skills which are exceeded by much simpler animals. We may learn to ride a bicycle
    1 point
  37. Many animals do this. Elephants tenderly handle the bones of departed elephants. It's because intelligence isn't ours and ours alone. And yes, Primates can be taught to do all kinds of amazing things that they learn and that helps them communicate- but it's because they are taught. Give them a bicycle and they'll stare at it, throw it around and do whatever, but they will not know how to ride it. I saw a Chimp light a campfire with a match. But it was taught how to, not because it thought of it on their own. Brain-wise I see Great Apes as toddlers that can be taught things, because toddlers wo
    1 point
  38. But a Bonobo can learn to use a Lexus or a computer. There are several apes who can express abstract ideas via sign language or computer imagery. Koko the Gorilla was devastated when her manx kitten, which she had named "ALLBALL" (no tail), was run over by a car on the street. She sat for days in the window looking out, grieving and signing "allbball gone, no come back, Koko sad". That clearly showed her understanding of the situation and her emotional status.
    1 point
  39. Evolute

    Torus Cell

    Nice post with some good analytics. But with all due respect, Human chromosome fusion of the Ape's 2a and 2b centromeres notwithstanding, I have to stay with the Notch2NL genetic mutations found in Homo being the reason for Human brain size and cognitive functions. Rather than derail this thread I would refer you back to the Humans from Apes thread that you posted on a short time back. And since chromosome one is where the Notch2NL genes are located, the fusion of chromosome 2 wouldn't appear to be the culprit. There's more to this, of course but not for here would be better. More on topi
    1 point
  40. It depends on the scientific discipline you are addressing. Is there a country named Russia? The answer to that is "we know and can demonstrate that Russia exists" . What it is like is completely subjective. It is like all large societies. It has the best of humanity, it has the worst of humanity. Those questions do not belong to the physical sciences, those are of the social sciences, which use entirely different criteria than the physical sciences.
    1 point
  41. That would be Sigmund Freud, according to this link. I agree that normally posters should provide the source for their references and quotes, but we don’t apply the rules strictly for an 11-year-old.
    1 point
  42. "The theory states that dreams don't actually mean anything. Instead they're merely electrical brain impulses that pull random thoughts and imagery from our memories. The theory suggests that humans construct dream stories after they wake up. ... He believed that dreams revealed unconsciously repressed conflicts or wishes." When you say "he" please state who you mean!
    1 point
  43. This lecture by Anil Seth may be of interest. He explains how and why our brain experiences "controlled hallucinations" .
    1 point
  44. The difference is you were given a nation with agreed upon borders which were then disregarded when you invaded and continue to invade and conquer a neighbouring land. What you call anti-Semitism is really a hatred of this occupation and of the refusal of the international community to do anything about just because it's Jews doing it, and a hatred of evil and disgusting attempts at laughably trying to justify these actions.
    1 point
  45. I wonder if all this mass could be equivalent to the postulated mass of the hypothetical planet "Vulcan," which scientists assumed was there for years in order to fully explain the perihelion precession of Mercury, eh? Maybe Newton was right all along.
    1 point
  46. Theory: I have three chickens, Using nothing but a strobe light, they will change into a woman, because of my math equations which I am still sorting out a bit. Now please don't be critical of my theory till you master it.
    1 point
  47. Well, I'm probably not the right guy to follow your math, as I am just interested in Physics. There, that will get a bunch of guys shouting out that Physics IS MATH. But I don' buy that claim. You don't need any math to know that if you go around a corner too fast in your car, it will spin out, or to follow the reasons why that will occur. You only need to employ mathematics if you want to calculate the difference between the point of spinout if you use 30 psi in the tires instead of the current 25psi. And I doubt that you will be banned from this forum for explaining the details of your "
    1 point
  48. Turtle

    Mars Rovers

    ___These little buggers amaze me! They have run so long, we now take them for granted. NASA main page for the Rovers: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/ Two precent Rover photos I found interesting: Feldspar crystasl? I so forget the geological chemistry I knew so poorly; this looks familiar though. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/557/2M175811568EFFAD80P2977M2M1.JPG Unusual holes in rock. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/m/557/2M175814826EFFAD80P2977M2M1.JPG
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...