Jump to content
Science Forums

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/14/2021 in Posts

  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. As tensions rise between the East and the West the chance of nuclear war becomes ever more possible as China, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States along with North Korea all have nuclear weapons, is it this planet's destiny to go through a nuclear war? It seems a all out war between China, North Korea, and Russia Versus NATO would ultimately lead to the usage of nuclear weapons by one side or another on military and civilian targets which if more than around 1000 nuclear weapons are detonated then that would spell the end of civilization as we know it, those powers having over 15,000 nucl
    1 point
  6. Basically unless you have 80 billion dollars or are famous everything you do is meaningless and this is why, nothing you do will go down in history and someday will just be buried in others trash or be deleted such as typing on this forums right now someday this scienceforums.com will run out of money and all the things you have written down will just vanish. Now for famous and rich people they can just pay to have everything they have written down by others or saved which is treated like gold somewhere as long as the internet exists their writings and concepts will be saved as others actually
    1 point
  7. This is very similar to a heat pump. You are inputting 38232 J of energy in order to extract a total of 51646 J of energy, which includes 14200 J of energy provided by the burning of hydrogen, an external input! This is exactly the way a classical heat pump works! In fact, a COP greater than one is the rule, rather than the exception and your COP of 1.35 is very low! A classical heat pump routinely achieves a COP of around 4.5 This is more nonsense and I will move it to where it belongs, in Silly Claims. This is your last warning for posting nonsense and annoying other members.
    1 point
  8. 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
  9. Ya, i know , link = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert_operator
    1 point
  10. 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
  11. You are talking about my favorite operator!, *Gets Excited*
    1 point
  12. 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
  13. He's not talking to either of us, he is talking to the OP.
    1 point
  14. 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
  15. "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
  16. Dubbel, This dude PeterAX, is a flaming crank just ignore his stupid bullshit and move along.
    1 point
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. I gave you the like........😁
    1 point
  21. 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
  22. Sic em, Dubbel.
    1 point
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. You know I have whored out all my ideas and inventions for anyone to steal and I have got nothing for it, There aren't enough viewers on these forums. I feel like I have wasted 3 years of my life by posting these things here and caused a potential security risk to my inventions still being possessed by me and not some evil company or government, but on a upside It is free hosting for them.☹️ I will always be grateful that the science forums has been a good home and allowed me this opportunity to express myself and Inventions on the Internet. Meh, They can look!
    1 point
  30. 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
  31. This article on how the light produces the colors I will begin with phenomena that everyone can see in daily life. If we look at the flame of a candle or a cigarette lighter in a dimly lit room, the flame is blue-violet in the lower part and yellow-orange in the upper part. If the part of the wick running over the wax is very short, then the flame is very small and it appears only blue. The flame of a gas stove is also blue, but as soon as we increase the gas supply, yellow tongues appear in the upper part of the flame. The smoke of a cigarette, whose smoke columns are not very
    1 point
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. An interesting projection. Time may tell......😄
    1 point
  37. You've been giving scientific data. Either you accept it or you don't. ALL of it is a matter of public record. If some here can find and post the data then you can also.
    1 point
  38. 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
  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. So your not using any of Einstein's assumptions or terminology, or postulates, but are going to develop practically the same results as SR and or GR? Any chance that you can explain your theory in plain English before you delve into some maths? I don't agree that Mathematics is the language of the universe, or that it can prove anything. It may be able to support an hypothesis, but it can also be made to support a competing and contradictory hypothesis at the same time. So please explain your hypothesis in simple English, as even Einstein said, "If you cant explain your theory to a barmai
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...