Leaderboard

Thinking to be smarter than 1 person or also 10 or 100 is one thing. Thinking to be smarter than 40 or 50 years of scientific comunity, thousands of experiments etc. calling them dumb etc. just shows either your lack of understanding. You know I worked on foreground removal in the cmb. And guess what I found foregrounds to be removed which were also found by telescopes as quasars etc. at other frequencies. And we could remove them. What should blow your mind is that if you can model galactic radiation (as you did somewhere on page 25), then guess what? The scientific comunity can too and guess what? they can remove it from the signal...Now if you are so much smarter than 50 years of scientific comunity like you think (this is not an insult, you called everyone dumb), you would have to admit that that argument of yours does not hold. But I somehow doubt this is gonna happen. Or showing the CMB anisotropies and using it to say this is not a black body, just shows you actually do not know what the CMB -anisotroies are...

OceanBreeze, there is one way it can creep into the mathematical mix physics wise. The following is a rehash of another post of mine here. Nina Byers goes into Emmy Noether and her contribution to the conceptual structures of the mathematics in modern physics in detail in her paper "E. Noether s Discovery of the Deep Connection Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws" in 1998. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044v2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether At a conceptual structural level improper integrals in physics can be piecewise continuous integrals, with limits from +infinity to -infinity, that converge. Refer H.J. Keisler, p367, Definition to p369, examples 7, 8, and 9. If they are continuous and don't converge then they are indefinite integrals which are entirely different. Refer H.J. Keisler, p370, example 10, diagram 6.7.10 "It is tempting to argue that the positive area to the right of the origin and the negative area to the left exactly cancel each other out so that the improper integral is zero. But this leads to a paradox... So we do not give the integral ... the value 0, instead leave it undefined." That doesn't mean that indefinite integrals don't play a part in our physics as an indefinite integral that cycles between +infinity and -infinity at its limits, as a sub function of a higher level function, is a valid proper use of indefinite integrals as definite integrals by change of variables. Refer H.J. Keisler, p224-5, Definition and example 8, diagram 4.4.6 second equation with u and substitute infinite limits. "We do not know how to find the indefinite integrals in this example. Nevertheless the answer is 0 because on changing variables both limits of integration become the same." Reference H.J.Keisler "Elementary Calculus an Infinitessimal Approach"

That's really cool. I am hardly qualified to comment, but when has that stopped me? Whacked hard enough to drive the ore down a km, but soft enough to not splatter the stuff all over. Hard sell, that one. The fission takes place on Mars but not the asteroid pre-impact. Seems unlikely since the concentration should be higher before impact. But the ore sits there for a super long time until water does something to what, pull it together? Water does do stuff like that, so maybe. Now it needs to be a bomb, which apparently is triggered by critical mass, and the subsequent boiling off of water. That's not going to happen in a short time since the water has nowhere to go quickly. Geyser maybe, with the overall pressure holding in the rest. Without the water, it goes all bomb on us, much slower than our weapons, but far more pressure keeping it there while it goes on. Eventually the pressure breaks the surface and you get this crater, a lot like Mt St Helens depressurizing in 1980. Where is that? How much does Martian weather erase craters like that? All they have is wind driven dust. So what, it fills in? Look for a deep sand hole? Just vocalizing my naive thoughts. I admit none of it seems to kill the idea. My strongest skepticism is at the top, before all the alchemy takes place. Since we're going off topic (sort of), it turns out they recently found the world's oldest fossilized forest, right by me (bicycle ride away), one old enough to push back the date of the earliest real trees. What they mostly have is a cluster of root systems, really big ones, like with a 15 meter footprint.

The Fermi paradox articles call this the 'great filter', some test that a technological species must pass in order to not get filtered out. It does not look well for humans. Problem is, our current civilization depends on technological continuity to maintain itself. War is one way that ends, but so is the simple exhaustion of non-renewable resources. Once gone, that's it. We cannot advance again and the species reverts to just an animal with an expensive brain that might be more of a hindrance than a help. One has to eat an awful lot of food that other animals don't need, in order to feed the expensive toy. Despite the frequent depiction in fiction ('Aliens' come to mind), nuclear reactors cannot explode. At worst they melt down, arguably a worse fate than a bomb, but not one that is quite as fun to depict on the big screen. The species needs to act for the benefit of the species instead of the individual. I know of almost nobody capable of that. Our core moral code even forbids it. We're quite doomed to fail the Fermi test. I notice that several people might point out the problem (as I am doing here), but nobody posits a solution (including me).

Hello Arcangelo and welcome to this forum. The relationship between gravity and electromagnetism is one that interests me. I have downloaded your paper and will be looking it over as time permits. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if you would start a discussion on this subject; not by posting a link to your paper (although that is permitted) by posting here in this thread at the very least an abstract of your ideas. The more theory you post here, the better, so interested people do not have to refer back and forth between this thread and you paper. Let us have the discussion here, thanks.

Ok, I believe I have finally found a detailed explanation about why astronomers are fairly certain about the T CrB nova happening this year. From this link: /Quote Recurrent nova T CrB has just started its Pre‑eruption Dip in March/April 2023, so the eruption should occur around 2024.4±0.3 Authors: B. E. Schaefer (Louisiana State Univ.), B. Kloppenborg (AAVSO), E. O. Waagen (AAVSO), and the AAVSO observers T Coronae Borealis (T CrB) is a famous recurrent nova with known eruptions in the years 1217, 1787, 1866, and 1946. Many workers have realized that the rise in brightness from its low state (1954.5 to 2015.0) to its high state (2015.0 to the present) is a precursor and harbinger for an upcoming eruption around 2025.5±1.3 or so (Munari et al. 2016; Schaefer 2023). A distinct and under-appreciated close-up harbinger is the unique and mysterious Pre-eruption Dip (Schaefer 2023). The Dip in 1945-1946 started around 1945.0 (1.1±0.3 years before the 1946 eruption), with the B-band magnitude fading from near 10.5 to 12.0 mag, while the V-band magnitude faded from around 9.8 to 12.3 mag. This fading ended abruptly with the nova eruption. In anticipation of the start of this Pre-eruption Dip, we have been frequently monitoring the up-to-date light curve as collected into the AAVSO International Database. The AAVSO B and V band light curves from 2021.0 to present, with 2-day binning, for 4330 B-band mags and 12734 V-band mags, all with CCD photometry, are linked below. The normal light curve since 2016 shows the usual ellipsoidal modulation, with a full amplitude of ~0.4 mag for a sinewave at half the orbital period. The light curve shows variations about this average curve on all time scales, with larger variations in the B-band than in the V-band, all arising from ordinary flickering always present since 1867. Starting around 2023.25, T CrB shows a systematic fade from its long-time ellipsoidal variations. This fading is far outside of any historic variations since 2016. The fading in the blue was 0.4 mag in 2023.3 to 0.8 mag in 2023.5. The fading in the V-band was 0.25 mag in 2023.3, and 0.35 mag in 2023.5. The fading in the R and I bands are substantially smaller. This color dependency in the fading is consistent with increasing dust absorption, for a scenario featuring a recently discrete mass ejection in which dust formation occurs (much like for R CrB stars). So the T CrB Pre-eruption Dip has already started in March/April of this year. If the Dip in 2023 is similar in timing to that in 1945, then the primary eruption should occur roughly 1.1±0.3 years later, or in 2024.4±0.3. This prediction is substantially improved over the prior predictions based only on the 2015 rise to the high-state. Still, possible deviations from the behavior in 1946 could create an early or a late eruption. This announcement of the start of the Dip and the prediction of the eruption date (2024.4±0.3) will hopefully be of use for researchers for making proposals with a wide variety of telescopes. Further, this serves as advance notice to take all needed pre-eruption baselines, for example obtaining infrared fluxes and background nebulosity images over a wide field for later light echo detections. And it is not too late to try to understand the pre-eruption high-state, with it still being unclear whether the increased luminosity comes from increased accretion or from nuclear burning on the white dwarf. For observations before the upcoming eruption, we particularly point to U-band photometry, UV spectrophotometry, and spectral line profiles, all for measuring the energetic physical mechanism of the Pre-eruption Dip, while long-running infrared photometry might detect dust formation. /Unquote My understanding from reading this, is there is a pre-eruption dip in the binary star system’s brightness, just about a year before the nova event. The actual mechanism behind the dip doesn’t seem to be well understood. It could be from formation of a dust cloud due to a large mass ejection from the red giant that gets absorbed by the white dwarf. The increased mass of the white dwarf causes a thermonuclear reaction, which is the nova. The pre-eruption dip, before the nova, brings to mind how the tide goes out before a tsunami hits the shore. Of course, this is just an analogy; the mechanisms are totally different.

You can see Corona Borealis from Sydney right now if you have a clear view of the northern horizon. There is an excellent article in the March 2024 Sky & Telescope on T Corona Borealis.

Dandav, I agree with oldpaddoboy that this post, in particular, is not only arrogant but also annoying and in violation of several of our Rules: First of all, you are cross-posting--that is, posting highly similar posts in more than one thread. oldpaddoboy started this thread about the James Webb Space Telescope detecting evidence of a neutron star which stayed hidden for 37 years in the wreckage of Supernova 1987A. You turned it into a continuation of your baseless challenging of mainstream science, which is another rules violation: Keep posting with an obvious agenda (like wanting to debunk science) without having proper contradictory evidence. I am sure I can find even more violations, such as generally being rude and annoying, but I think I have identified enough to give you a warning. From this point on Please follow our site rules - we really don't like to ban people.

Especially those that don't admit to possessing them, whether they are your allies or your enemies.

If we put aside the nonsense about Aliens manipulating the permittivity or permeability of free space, the OP does contain an interesting question which can be simply stated this way: Is the speed of light dependent on the values of ε0 and μ0, or is the value of c independent of ε0 or μ0? Let’s start with this equation: c=1/√(ε0μ0) Where : C = 299 792 458 m / s ε0 = 8.8541878128×10−12 F/m (farads per meter) permittivity of free space μ0 = 4π×10−7 H/m = 1.25663706143...×10−6 (henries per meter) permeability of free space Mathematically, it seems reasonable to assume if the values of ε0 or μ0 were to change (somehow and we are not interested in how) then the value for the speed of light would need to change also. For example: What if the value of ε0 changed to be 9x10-12 farads per meter, while μ0 remained unchanged? How would that affect the value for the speed of light? If you go through the math, the speed of light would be 297 354 019 m / s ; significantly different from the currently accepted value of 299 792 458 m / s. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, c is the speed at which all massless fields propagate; not just the speed of light. Gravity also travels at c, and since gravity apparently has nothing to do with electromagnetism, it’s speed should not be affected by any change in the values of ε0 or μ0. Also, we are all taught that the speed of light, c, is constant. Therefore, is c really dependent on the values of ε0 and μ0, as the above mathematical calculation seems to have shown? *Now we are getting into what I consider to be the interesting bit that makes this discussion worthwhile* Taking the equation we started with: c=1/√(ε0μ0) We can write: ε0 = 1 / μ0 c^2 and μ0 = 1 / ε0 c^2 We can see that ε0 and μ0 are just the inverse of each other mediated by the term 1/c^2. This inverse relationship isn’t immediately apparent by looking at their values of 8.8541878128×10−12 for ε0 and 1.25663706143×10−6 for μ0, but if you “do the math” and remember to multiply by 1/c^2, you will find they are exact inverses of one another. What does this have to do with the above calculation which showed the speed of light changing with a change in the value of ε0? Everything! Since they are inversely related, if ε0 changes, then μ0 would also change, and it would change in such a way as to keep the speed of light, c, constant at 299 792 458 m / s. To demonstrate this, in the above example ε0 changed to 9x10-12 farads per meter and the value of c consequently changed to 297 354 019 m / s. In reality, this is not possible because when ε0 changed, that would have caused a corresponding change in μ0, from 4π×10−7 H/m to 1.23627783938x10-6 H/m, because of their inverse relationship. Plugging these values for ε0 and μ0 into our equation: c=1/√(ε0μ0) We will once again get 299 792 458 m / s for c. While this long post may seem somewhat tedious, what I hoped to show is that sometimes even a carefully and correctly executed mathematical calculation can be very wrong if all of the facts are not properly considered. Also, I hoped to show that c is a fundamental dimensionless constant, which does not depend on the values of any other less fundamental, derived units such as permittivity and permeability of free space. In fact, many physicists today consider the values assigned to ε0 and μ0 to just be artifacts of certain unit systems and can be done away with. For example, both Gaussian and Lorentz Heaviside units have ϵ0=μ0=1, but that is going a bit beyond where I intended to go with this. One last final note for those who may ask how c can be a dimensionless constant when it is a velocity expressed in m/s. It seems clear that meters have a dimension in length and seconds have a dimension in time, so c should have the dimensions of LT-1, how is it then dimensionless? The answer is, it is entirely possible to define a system of measuring time by using light. The time between events is then the distance that light would travel in the duration between those events. Then by definition, the speed of light is 1 and dimensionless, as we measure time in meters and distance in meters, and light will naturally traverse the same distance in meters as the time we measure between its endpoints in meters. m / m = 1 dimensionless. This may also clear up the difficulty some may have with understanding spacetime diagrams where time is made comparable to a length or space unit, expressed as ct, and take some of the mystery out of the spacetime interval. Here also, the time dimension is made comparable to a unit of length but retains its unique character by having a different sign: (Δs)2 = -(cΔt)2 + (Δx)2 + (Δy)2 + (Δz)2

You can calculate based on mass and radius if it is a black hole or not, the core of a neutron star using the Schwarzschild radius equation. Why don't you plug in the numbers for a neutron star's core and see if it is a black hole or not? I think you will find that the mass is too light for a neutron star to be a black hole even at its small radius. This can all be calculated using simple equations that are based on General Relativity. If the R number in the equation is greater than radius of the neutron star where R schwarzchild radius > R neutron star core then it is actually a black hole otherwise if R neutron star core > R schwarzschild Radius then it is not a black hole, but you will need to know the mass of the neutron star's core which will be the M number in the equation. "Schwarzschild radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. This phenomenon is thought to be the final fate of the more massive stars"

Silly Claims is more than this sort of thread is worthy of. I am debating with myself whether or not to just delete it. Until I make a final decision, I am locking this thread. Victor, I personally value your inputs to this forum, but this is nonsense. Please remember this is a science forum, although we are quite lenient in what we allow to be posted here. Leniency can only be stretched so far! If actual photos of aliens from outer space existed, don't you know it would make headline news around the world? You must be aware that the Internet has thousands of "photos" such as the one you posted and nobody in their right mind takes any of them seriously. Thread Closed

I agree with you, human hands must save a human world, and prayer is not simply enough to combat such problems in this world...

Unfortunately, all I see from the Pope is a question, namely “Where do we get new impetus to combat the trade in human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of children and girls, forced labor, including prostitution, drug and arms trafficking?” His Holiness answers His own question thusly “Christ provides the only true source of hope and strength for those who are victims of human trafficking and for those who seek to combat the scourge.” Does the Pope truly believe that an “International Day of Prayer and Awareness” is enough to tackle the enormous amount of violations against human dignity that continue occurring all over the world? Calling attention to these violations of human rights and human dignity is long overdue and welcome; but praying to Jesus Christ for a remedy is not just inadequate, it is futile! There must be International cooperation on measures to hold accountable those responsible for serious human rights abuses, including foreign governments where these abuses occur beyond any doubt. To name just a few of the worst offenders: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia and a few that may surprise some people: India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Brunei, and even the Maldives. Some of these places have a thriving tourist industry with the tourists seemingly unaware of the thriving sex trafficking trade that is going on in full sight. Sanctions, plus restricting or discouraging tourists from traveling to these places, would be far more effective than praying for help from Jesus, who never existed and does not exist! (if anyone thinks otherwise, please provide some evidence of Christ's physical existence on this Earth) As for Russia, perhaps stationing a few thousand highly equipped US troops in the Ukraine may cause mad dog Putin to back down. At least, give the Ukrainians the weapons they have been asking for, including F-16 fighter jets armed with conventional missiles. As always, whenever I stray away from the Physics and Mathematics threads , I am expressing my opinion only and I am well aware that everyone will not agree.

Then it is time to close this thread.

1kg mass = 1kg weight? Not in Physics or Engineering! Only in the home, or in most commerce, loads are usually expressed in kilograms by custom. As a marine engineer, when a ship is taking on a load expressed in kilograms, it must be converted into force units( 1 kilogram = 9.8 Newtons ). All ship design work is done in Newtons. Only by using Newtons can the marine engineer know if the load is within the ship’s design parameters. Where's the proof? What exactly would you like to see proved? Remember, in science there are no absolute proofs; we work with tested and verified theory. If in the gravitational field of the Earth a mass weighs 1 kg (weight), then in the gravitational field of that mass the Earth weighs the same 1 kg (weight)! What is the mass of the Earth, and what is the mass that weighs 1 kg of weight? You are mixing up mass and weight. As I already mentioned, this is customary outside of science and engineering. This is a Science Forum so you should use the proper scientific definitions: Mass is the quantity of matter possessed by a body and is proportional to the volume and density of that body. The basic unit of mass is the kilogram. The kilogram can be defined in terms of a fixed value of the Planck constant, h, plus the existing definitions of the meter and the second. Weight of a body is the gravitational force on the mass of that body; usually the force of gravitational attraction exerted on the body by the Earth. The basic unit of weight is the Newton, which is a unit of Force. Calculation of the weight of a one kilogram mass on the surface of the Earth: Weight is a Force. Near the Earth’s surface: Weight [N] = Mass [Kg] X g [9.8 m/s^2] Where g is the Earth’s acceleration = GMe/r^2 G is the gravitational constant = 6.67E-11, Me = Earth's mass 5.98E24 kg, r = Earth’s radius 6.37E6 m A one kilogram mass near the surface of the Earth weighs 9.81 Newtons. Now reverse the calculation and calculate the weight of the Earth on a one kilogram mass: Weight [N] = Mass [Kg] X g [9.8 m/s^2] Me X Gm/r^2 = 9.81 Newtons Me is Earth’s mass, m is the mass of the one kilogram object. Confirming Newton’s Third Law: Forces always exist in pairs in such a way that if body A exerts a force on body B, then body B exerts an equal force on body A, with these forces being in opposite directions. One caveat to keep in mind; the distance between the 1 kg mass and the Earth is always the radius of the Earth, so r is the same in both calculations. The below in brackets is gibberish and I will not respond to such: [The gravitational force is the sum of the forces in those two gravitational fields: The total gravitational force FG between two gravitational fields is 2 kg (weight). FG = 1 kg + 1 kg = 2 kg (weight) = 2 * 9.81 N While our convention for the relationship between weight and mass says: FG = 1 kg mass * 9.81 kg(m^-1)(s^-2) = 9.81 N = 1 kg weight (free fall – g – relative acceleration!)] Physicists today claim: “1 kg of mass = 1 kg of weight,” as if it were some natural law ?! Physicists claim no such thing. More gibberish follows: [The above convention was adopted without prior definition of what is mass and what is weight! The concept of relative and absolute acceleration in the gravitational field is also not defined! When a mass is at rest (on scale), it is acted upon by an absolute acceleration a! Absolute acceleration a is equal to half of the relative acceleration g! FG/2 = 1kg weight * relative acceleration (on scale)] How does the scale weigh 1 kg of weight? Finally, a reasonable question! The scale indicates 1 Kg of “weight” because that is how the dial and spring are calibrated because most people are accustomed to having their “weight” expressed in kilograms. This is technically incorrect but it is far enough outside the field of Physics and Engineering that it has become an acceptable custom. You will never catch a marine engineer designing the hull of a ship based on kilograms of force! (At least I hope not!) Designers use Newtons for force and Kilograms for mass. Warning, more gibberish follows: [The gravitational force of 2 kg weight is divided into the force of 1 kg weight in the center of gravity of the scale and 1 kg weight of the mass we are weighing! Therefore, only the relative acceleration g/2 acts on the mass at rest! Therefore it will be: m * a = 1 kg (weight) a = g/2 m * g/2 = 1 kg (weight) m * g = 2 kg (weight) that is, our convention for the ratio of mass to weight should be: m * g/2 = 1 kg (weight) m/2 * g = 1 kg (weight) = 9.81 N From here Newton’s second law would be (w = weight, m = mass): w/2 * g = m * g , w/2 = m , whence the ratio of the actual mass m to the weight w is equal to: w/m = 2/1 (1 kg of weight = ½ kg of mass),(weight and mass are not equal and are not the same!) therefore Newton’s Law of Force should be corrected to F = w/2 * a , if the mass is entered using the weight w. In calculations where mass is calculated, all weights should be divided by two to get the correct masses!] Where is the mistake? In my opinion, your biggest mistake is questioning Newton’s Laws without first trying to understand them. I do admit that the unfortunate popular custom of expressing weight in kilograms is confusing. However, most people are not scientifically or mathematically literate enough to know that this is wrong and their weight should be expressed in Newtons.

I am not comfortable with the idea of evolution being something that can have goals, evolution is not an entity working toward goals, AFAIK, there is no goal. You have been making lots of assertions, my position about evolution having a goal is that I see no goals, my position is the default position... I do not believe you, please support your assertions that evolution has a goal or goals... citation please!

On 12/28/2024 at 5:45 PM OceanBreeze, said: I agree with Moontanman that the mechanism of natural selection selects certain traits based on the ecological and environmental niche that an organism lives in, and this process happens without goals or direction. Those organisms that are fortunate to possess those traits that happen to be beneficial, are better adapted to survive and reproduce. It keeps getting mentioned because we cannot have a meaningful discussion on evolution without acknowledging this fact: evolution by natural selection does not “lead” to any particular outcome. Near the end of my post I did give your suggestion sufficient coverage: Bottom line, in my opinion, human evolution can no longer be simply described according to the ideas of Charles Darwin; our evolution is not driven only by natural selection. Humans are engaged in activities that may eventually give us sufficient control over the evolutionary process that it will have a direction and lead to some goal; unfortunately, it may lead to an “own goal” although I don’t feel that such an outcome is inevitable. I stress that I am only speculating on a future possibility based on current trends in technological advancement.

I agree with this as well, evolution is under the control of genetic mutation in where the better mutation allows the organism to reproduce better and survive. Natural selection is not a self aware being it has no goals or purpose but we do find it generally leads to extinction more often than survival for most species from the influence of natural selection.

I agree OceanBreeze, even Microsoft changed their calculators divide by zero error from 'Error: negative infinity' in Windows 98a to 'Error: cannot divide by zero' in Windows 98b. I also suspect that using change of variables as a valid proper use of indefinite integrals as definite integrals is not actually valid if there is not at least one complete cycle in the higher level function, regardless of there being infinite limits or not.

No, the galaxaies are not "expanding." Galaxies are "moving away" from us. That Doppler effect is Slipher's observation. And yes they move away faster if they are farther away. The basis for the math of distances is the inverse square law to the brightness of light. So, we get non linear, progressively larger distances, or accelerated motion away from earth. The motion is uniform and universal. Hubbell concluded based on those findings that spacetime is expanding. Since this observed motion is based on inverse square law of distances, math can include a cosmological constant Lambda to explain it, and that is consistent with Einstein's tensor equation. An alternative view is that there exists dark energy which is responsible for the motion of galaxies which Slipher observed, away from the Earth. This would delete the Lambda cosmological constant, and would introduce some other "dark energy" matrices in the formula. Spacetime then would not be stretching (expanding). However, no one observed any matter or energy in the universe that is responsible for uniform and universal motion away from anything. So this hypothesis about dark energy is inconsistent with observation. Even though acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable in Relativity under Einstein's tensor equations. In there lies the problem, there is something within spacetime that distinguishes some accelerations from curvature (gravity). Hence, Lambda factor for spacetime itself, separate from G factor which is the curvature (gravity).

Whenever I mention the "universe" I am referring to the only universe we know about, the observable universe. Everything I say about flatness, expansion or whatever, it is only about locally, as talking about a "global" universe is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. The universe that we observe is flat, meaning it has Euclidean geometry. We also observe this universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating. Flatness has only to do with local geometry and it says nothing about the topology. I am not flat, and my house is not flat! The topology is 3D and as far as we know the observable universe is a sphere roughly 50 billion light years in radius. Also, a flat geometry doesn't imply the universe is infinite in extent. A piece of A4 paper has flat geometry but it has dimensions of 210 x 297 mm. All of the above is just for clarification. There is too much confusion about what a flat geometry means and what the difference is between local geometry and topology. I know everyone will not agree with what I wrote, but I believe it is correct, while inviting discussion.

Therefore the visible universe, which we cannot see beyond in any empirical way, is a spherical boundary for our physical universal models that may actually be more accurately a cubic model, but we can never test it. This might explain why the ratio of All matter (dark and Visible) over Visible matter equals 2*pi +/- 1.1% using both the WMAP and PLANCK ΛCDM percentage density figures. And also why twice the ratio of Everything (Dark energy and Matter) divided by Visible matter equals 2*pi squared +/-3%. Please note that the overdensity constant Δ c as used in Virial mass, is 100 for ΛCDM but 200 (double) for your stock standard galaxy and a sphere in a cube occupies around 54% of the total volume. Dark energy and Dark matter are mere phantoms of our restricted universal viewpoint and the limitations of our scientific process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_mass#Virial_radius

Oh, I highly doubt that, I'm just a newbie 🙂. I was looking though some old posts for something and I wondered if my account is still active, turned out it was, so a quick password reset later I was looking if there were any on-going discussions of atomic clocks, recent(ish) Special Relativity affirming experiments, where we see that special relativity holds to mm scale, or gravimetry, or LIGO or something (basically any place where a highly precise clock and/or clock sync is needed, because, as always, squirrel). Going back to the original post and questions being posed, I am not even an amateur in astronomy, so I leave it to Ocean who is well more competent at answering specifics, this, however is more my style of question: There are, well, three possibilities to consider, as far as I can see: Our current theoretical understanding of galactic and star system formation is wrong Our current theoretical understanding is correct but we lack practical way of detecting these pulsars for one reason or another Our current theoretical understanding is correct but there is some other reason why we are not observing pulsars close to the galactic center Ocean covered 2 option pretty well, I think: Option 3 is an unknown unknowns problem. Given we understand the physics and given the amount of actual pulsars matches our predicted amount, and that we have the capability of detecting them, it's an unknown unknown as to why the amount detected doesn't match the amount predicted, and this frequently means new science. We take the evidence and measurements, input that into theoretical physicists, and eventually something interesting may come out of it, and I am waaaay not smart enough to understand those papers, I stare at them like Newton would stare at a modern Mathematics journal, I am not comparing myself to Sir Isaac, just stating a fact about modern math, lol, but yes, hence unknown unknowns, no idea where this leads, maybe instruments have fundamental mistakes, maybe model makes some assumption that at some extreme results in some wonky physics that doesn't match observations, maybe we have a fundamental issue with mass, however with LIGO, gravity tests with neutrons and recent SR-affirming studies, where we first measure red shift due to SR within at 450m scale and confirm it to 10^-5 sort of precision, and then that we see gravitational red shift down to mm scale (see https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid=45d9ca18-b55c-44aa-a64b-b6903d2b64b6 and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41566-020-0619-8). So, with those in mind, it will likely have to be something other than our understanding of mass, but it could be mass-related. And we slowly get to option 1, where we consider that our understanding of star, star system, and galactic formation is wrong. Here, while the models are not perfect, but then again, it's a model, it's not going to be perfect by definition, we have to remember, galactic formation is tied to early universe, as we need to understand where and how gas clouds formed during the early expansion of the universe, and here we match our understanding to CMB, and find that, while CMB was first measured in 1964, it was predicted in 1948, and not only do all of the observations match the prediction exactly, both of the almost perfect black body spectrum and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background, our simulations show that the overall pattern of the CMB roughly matches what we have measured, which tell us 2 things, really, we have a pretty good understanding about early universe formation, and that the universe is pretty flat overall. We understand gravity, we understand early universe formation and rough distribution of masses across the universe. Then we take our protogalactic clouds and we apply a monolithic collapse model to get giant masses of gas collapsing into galaxies, we can then look at a bit of a smaller scale to take care of stars, knowing the mass distribution within the collapsing galactic disk, and assuming GR model of gravity, of course. That gets us the kinds of masses we are likely to observe at various distances from the GC, we can use maybe slightly simpler Kepler laws to track galactic movement, so that we can predict galactic collision, and apply multiple merger models to get overall distribution of not only galaxies, but also objects within galaxies to look kind of like the real world. And, once we get to the first sets of stars dying or being destroyed by yet another merger, creating gravitational instability, we can probably track the formation of the black hole as well as the formation and reformation of luminous and later pulsating stars in various sections of the Galaxy. Large and difficult models, lots of compute time, but we usually find that we can get this pretty close to what we observe, obviously questions remain, we have to correct for dark energy at least for the time being, but the model works pretty well and creates usable predictions. Given that the model mostly works, gives useful predictions, actually there is one more step. In this model, given out understanding of the evolution of the stars, which comes from how they form, QM, GR and probably a few fields I am missing, although i don't think something crazy like QCD is on the table here, anyways, given our current understanding of gravity, current understanding of how stars work, we can predict how stars evolve over time, given the prediction, we then confirm, which we have, that our understanding of star evolution matches our prediction, for example, if we say that we predict that some amount of early stars of a certain size are going to become neutron stars and some will be white dwarfs, and we know the probability of those outcomes, we can confirm that with observations, and I believe we find that we are generally pretty close. So, with all that in mind, given that with sufficient amount of processing, we can inflate a nearly singularity to the modern universe, we can see distribution of galaxies similar to what we see today, we can see the interaction of those galaxies and evolution of them over time, and come up with galaxies not dissimilar to the ones observed today, given that we understand the evolution of stars, from gas clouds to star systems to what happens in those systems over time and how stars generally evolve, and confirm that theory with observations. I think it is highly unlikely that our theoretical understanding is so far off, that we predict 3 orders of magnitude more of a certain type of an object within some distance of GC, and then basically fail to find any of those objects there. Note: I believe that everything I have stated is relatively well known and accepted and probably pretty basic for you guys, that said, because I just don't have the time at the moment to go back this up with research, I concede points that may not be factually correct ahead of time, appreciate if you have something for me to read on my misunderstanding, and apologize for misstating whatever I may have. If I have to address my overall point, I will do so as needed.

I don't think this is the case in reality according to the standard model electrons are themselves a type of quark which is called a lepton just as muons and tauons when you split an electron it releases an electron neutrino which would be a more likely candidate for a particle that makes up electrons than the meson you have provided. However, according to the standard model there is no sub quarks that makes up an electron, muon, or tauon which themselves are actually a type of quark which is what I tend to believe is correct. "Leptons are said to be elementary particles; that is, they do not appear to be made up of smaller units of matter. Leptons can either carry one unit of electric charge or be neutral. The charged leptons are the electrons, muons, and taus. Each of these types has a negative charge and a distinct mass." Link = Lepton | Elementary Particles, Subatomic Particles & Quarks | Britannica

If you follow those pesky [1,2,3] in the section of the paper that you are quoting, those things that tend to indicate that there is a citation being provided for the things that were stated before it, you will come across this paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/423975/fulltext/ Section 2 goes over the prediction.

This could be an interesting topic for discussion if we focus on the facts, and steer clear of all the woo (and wow). The fact is, only the amplitude of the “wow” signal was ever of any interest and was the reason for the “wow” note in the margin of the computer printout. The numbers and Letters (6EQUJ5) are not a message of any type; they are simply artifacts of the labeling on the amplitude scale in use at the Big Ear radio telescope. The so-called wow signal was a continuous wave CW signal, incapable of carrying any message at all. If the amplitude scale had been labeled differently, a different set of numbers and letters would have been produced. Another way to look at it; any CW signal, at the right frequency and amplitude, fed into the front end of the Big Ear receiver, would have produced the exact same string of 6EQUJ5 proving that this string carries no intelligible information other than information about the frequency and amplitude of the CW signal. It is the signal’s amplitude that provoked the “wow” response.; NOT the alpha-numeric string of 6EQUJ5, which has no scientific significance. The receive signal to noise ratio was 15 dB, or in linear terms about 30 times stronger than the baseline noise floor of the Big Ear receiver. From what I could gather, this baseline noise floor, within a 10 Khz Band width, is about -220 dBm. Therefore, since the S/n ratio was 15 dB, the power of the received signal was about -205 dBm. This is actually a very low received signal level; so low that most commercial satellite systems would not even be able to detect it; It would be down below the noise floor in those receiving systems. However, considering it as a possible signal of extra – terrestrial origins, in that context it is an extraordinarily high level s/n ratio. What interests me is to work the signal back to its source and determine how high the transmit power would need to be in order to send such a signal to Earth. I searched for such a reverse-engineering calculation, with no success. Any electromagnetic radiation moving through free space spreads out according to the inverse square law. This means the signal has an effective Path Loss, in dB, calculated as follows: LP(dB) = 32.4 + 20 Log F (Mhz) + 20 Log Distance (km) We know F to be 1420 Mhz (the line freq of hydrogen) Now we need to know the distance the signal traveled. Some astrophysicists have determined that the signal originated in the Sagittarius Cluster (Messier 22) which is at a distance of approximately 10,600 light-years from Earth. The above formula for Path Loss uses kilometers as the unit of distance; 10,600 lyr = 1E17 km. LP(dB) = 32.4 + 20 Log 1420 Mhz + 20 Log 1E17 km = 32.4 + 63 + 340 = 435.4 dB Needless to say, but I will say it anyway, that is a Lot of path loss! Now we need to see just how powerful a signal would need to be at the source, in order to produce a receive signal level of -205 dBm on Earth (using the Big Ear antenna). That is easy, we take the received signal level of -205 dBm and add 435.4 dB to get +230.4 dBm which is the transmitted power. How much is that in Watts? I get 0.1 Sextillion Watts! That is, 0.1E21 Watts. That is roughly100,000 times greater than the total energy output of the Earth and more than one-millionth the total energy output of the Sun! But it is even more impressive when you consider the Sun radiates energy in the entire electromagnetic spectrum and in all directions at once. This signal had approximately one-millionth the total energy of the Sun contained in a narrow 10 Khz bandwidth, in a single direction in space! Could any advanced civilization accomplish that feat? Consider that the total energy produced by us Earthlings is a mere 18 terawatts, (18E12 Watts) The most powerful signal that we Earthlings have ever transmitted into space was a paltry 1 Megawatt! Does it seem reasonable that an alien civilization could build a transmitter that can handle Power on the order of 10E21 Watts while we can only manage 10E6 Watts? To many physicists, and this humble Marine Engineer, it does Not seem possible and so we have looked for some natural phenomena such a passing comet and an explosion in a cloud of hydrogen gas. But there is a fatal flaw with these theories in the way the signal seemed to be moving with the background stars, indicating it was coming from the Sagittarius Cluster. Well, maybe. Color me skeptical. Although I am a Marine Engineer, I do have extensive experience with Satellite ground stations, both shipboard and on land. I do know that sometimes the Local oscillator chain can become unstable and generate spurious signals that look exactly like signals coming from an external source. These spurious signals can pop into existence once, and never repeat again, exactly the same as the “wow” signal, which has never been duplicated. Since a spurious signal will stay with the antenna wherever it moves, it will appear to be moving with the background stars. Now, consider the fact that Congress had recently voted to cut the funding to the Big Ear Project, and this signal suddenly pops into existence, with someone uncharacteristically labeling it “WOW” and maybe you will start to see the picture emerge of an attempt to justify continued funding of the project, based on this breakthrough detection. Of course, I don’t know that is what happened, but that is the way it looks to me and I don’t expect anyone to come forward now and admit to attempting to defraud the US Govt! What I do know is this; if it was I who was examining those computer printouts and I came across the same signal signature, I would have written “probably a spurious” in the margin, and nobody would have ever heard of any “WOW” signal. Just my opinion, of course. Note: I wrote this up rather quickly so I expect there are many typos , I ask the reader to please excuse them. I will come back to this and try to correct the errors later, time permitting.

Did you consider they might be part of a glacial deposit?

It just seems to me there must be a better way to warm the Martian atmosphere than pumping millions of tons of pollutants into the air. There is a supplementary file that can be downloaded from: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn4650 That briefly addresses the issues you have raised. Quote 4. Possible hazards. Natural Mars air is unsafe for humans to breathe because it has almost no oxygen (insufficient for deflagration) and also has a high natural concentration of PM 2.5 (Mars mineral aerosol dust). The nanorod density is ~10 μg/m3, which would not substantially alter this situation. A more immediate concern is asbestosis, as humans would bring both natural dust and nanoparticles into settlements via airlocks. One way to mitigate this hazard would be to make nanorods that dissolve or fragment in liquid water. Unquote

It seems a spacesuit can turn astronaut pee into drinking water which may help advance space exploration, read more at A Dune-inspired spacesuit turns astronaut pee into drinking water (sciencenews.org) Do you think other SciFi technologies could be used in real life after reading this article and if so what technologies from SciFi?

This is an informational piece on how tomato plants use their roots to ration water during drought, read more at How Tomato Plants Use Their Roots to Ration Water During Drought | College of Biological Sciences (ucdavis.edu) Do you think that genetic modification of other plants with this trait could increase drought resistance in other plants?

Hello AnonymousLearner and welcome to our forum. I appreciate that you love engineering and you also have a curious mind. Unfortunately, the experiment you propose to try is doomed to fail for at least two reasons that I can think of: 1) Liquid water cannot exist in a vacuum. It would immediately boil and change state into water vapor. 2) Lack of oxygen would lower the reactivity of the magnesium to the point where it becomes inert; it would not react with the water even if liquid water could exist in the vacuum. 3) A third, but possibly redundant, reason this experiment cannot work is the water vapor left in the vacuum chamber would be very cold and magnesium only reacts with hot water. Don’t let this setback discourage you from thinking up other ideas. My only suggestion is that you do some research to see if your ideas have any chance of working.

Ignored so hard it's on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_heating#:~:text=Munk %26 Wunsch (1998) estimated,TW being due to tidal

It does heat the ocean, but internally, tidal stress currently accounts for under half a percent of the internal heat budget of Earth, most of that being near the surface, not contributing even that half percent to the deep internal heat of the planet. The article you chose didn't bother to include sources below some threshold of significance Because radioactive decay accounts for about 100 times the heat compared to tidal heating? It's not a wishful thing. It is the finding of empirical measurements. Half of it is primordial heat leftover from formation, so you omitting that is far more negligent than the one particular article not bothering to include tidal stress energy.

The following interesting article promotes awe and wonder at the power of science and the mathematics involved. A shame that such news and education isn't published in our every day newspapers and broadcasted on TV and radio. https://phys.org/news/2024-04-qa-glimpse-star-night-sky.html Q&A: How to catch a glimpse of a new star about to appear in the night sky: by Daniel Strain, University of Colorado at Boulder "If you peer up at the constellation Corona Borealis—the Northern Crown—over the next several months, you may catch a glimpse: Astronomers predict that sometime this year, a new star will appear in the night sky, growing as bright as the North Star, then vanishing in a matter of days. The source of that pinprick of light is a stellar system roughly 3,000 light-years from Earth called T Coronae Borealis, or T CrB. There, two stars circle each other, interacting in ways that—like clockwork—produce a powerful eruption of energy about once every 80 years—an event called a recurrent nova. T CrB became visible briefly in 1946, and scientists suspect that it's on the verge again. David Wilson is an astrophysicist and research associate at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at CU Boulder who studies the ultraviolet light that stars emit. While astronomers wait for T CrB to burst, Wilson gives his take on what causes this impressive event—and how curious stargazers can catch a glimpse." More at link.............................. Supplementary article.... https://phys.org/news/2024-04-huge-star-explosion-sky-lifetime.html

Great! Thanks for the update.

A new solution to the warp drive problem has been found that does not require negative energy or negative mass has been suggested in this paper by Erik W. Lentz https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.00652

Kenya seems to be well suited to get the job done! Quote Kenya 2023: Security forces continued to enjoy impunity for extrajudicial killings, unlawful killings and enforced disappearances. The right to peaceful assembly was violated, with at least 57 protesters killed by the authorities in an attempt to suppress dissent. The authorities failed to take measures to protect the right to life. Trials of police officers accused of unlawful killings were repeatedly delayed. Extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances: There were 136 extrajudicial executions during the year. Most of the victims died while in police custody or had last been seen in police custody. Only 28 cases, including from previous years, were subject to judicial proceedings. There was insignificant progress towards holding police officers accountable for extrajudicial killings, including in the case of at least 37 bodies found in Yala River, and other bodies found elsewhere, in 2022. The government failed to implement the National Coroners Service Act, which includes a provision that provides for the creation of an office of the coroner general to coordinate investigations into unexplained killings. In February, Lilian Waithera was killed by an unidentified assailant while assisting in an anti-corruption case against senior government officials. A suspect was arrested but there was no further information from the authorities regarding the investigation into her killing. Ten men were forcibly disappeared. The government failed to facilitate prompt, thorough, impartial, independent, transparent and effective investigations into enforced disappearances or extrajudicial executions or to ratify the International Convention against Enforced Disappearance. Unquote I predict there will soon be a wave of “Enforced Disappearance” in Haiti. It might be an improvement over the current situation of gang violence and lawlessness.

In this video an octopus appears to lead a woman to a small cashe' of human artifacts including a photo of a human. Is it a reasonable conclusion that the octopus realized the possible value of a picture of a human or somehow thought a human would be interested in a picture of a human or even that the octopus connected the artifacts with the human due to the picture? If this is accurate it raises some real questions about just how intelligent an octopus really is. The video is 01:34 long, in my experience I've seen octopus do some unbelievable things but I never was able to decide if it was my own perspective that decided the octopus was acting as an intelligent agent or if the octopuses actions were actually intelligent independent of my own perception of its actions?

If Aliens could manipulate the permittivity and permeability of space for communication purposes, would such communication be instantaneous over any distance?

I think MAD still works for most countries, or at least those countries with a sane government, its the countries who have Nukes but lack sanity you have to worry about.

The thing that has been drummed into my head, is that science, mostly doesn't answer the why questions. Why do we feel gravity near a massive body? And of course is validated by the relationship between time and space and time dilation and length contraction. All are "as is" due to the nature and parameters of the big bang and the why and how of that. If we can speculate that the big bang was a fluctuation in the quantum foam, then other fluctuations may have risen and collapsed, or risen and expanded differently from our own fluctuation. This is basically the picture painted by Professor Lawrence Krauss and his book, "A Universe from Nothing" Or simply, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

c=1/√(ε0μ0) , -------> G = Lp(1/√(ε0μ0)^2 / Mp Wolfram Alpha Link = G = L(1/√(εμ)^2 / M - Wolfram|Alpha (wolframalpha.com) Lp = √(Għ/(1/√(ε0μ0)^3) Wolfram Alpha Link = √(Gh/(1/√(εμ)^3) - Wolfram|Alpha (wolframalpha.com) tp = √Għ/(1/√(ε0μ0))^5 Wolfram Alpha Link = √(Gh/(1/√(εμ))^5 - Wolfram|Alpha (wolframalpha.com) Mp = √(ħ(1/√(ε0μ0))/G) Wolfram Alpha Link = √(h(1/√(εμ))/G) - Wolfram|Alpha (wolframalpha.com)

It is a perpetual motion machine. Thread closed.

Can't help too much as I am mathematically ignorant, but length contraction and time dilation are what is relevant.

Absolutely, individual efforts like green roofs can make a big impact over time. Are there other sustainability initiatives you're considering for your community?

So let's talk about binding energy of nuclei. When you take some neutrons and protons and bind them together into a nucleus, the resulting nucleus is ALWAYS less massive than the sum of the masses of the constituent protons and neutrons. ALWAYS. So in general, when you take two things and bind them together, the mass of the result is always less than the mass of the parts! Some binding energy escapes! So the mass of both the proton and electron can be measured with a mass spectrometer. The masses are as follows: Mass of proton: 1.67262 yoctograms Mass of electron: 0.00091 yoctograms But the mass of the neutron is tricky because one cannot use a mass spectrometer. The way modern physicists calculate the neutron mass is by using a deuteron. The equation used is: But they use 0.003921 yoctograms for the mass-energy of the "photon". To mass-balance the equation, this leaves the neutron mass as 1.67492 yoctograms! But that means that the neutron would be more massive than a proton + electron! proton + electron : 1.67358 yoctograms neutron: 1.67492 This seems impossible since putting two things together ALWAYS results in less mass. What is wrong? Well. we have seen that there ARE NO PHOTONS! Bluntly, like this: The emitted gamma radiation is NOT an EM particle! We have shown that EM radiation is analog and can be emitted in ANY AMOUNT OF ENERGY, so their neutron mass is in error! Since the neutron mass is in error, we can go back to Chadwick's original idea that a neutron is a proton/electron composite. This makes so much more sense! (QUARKS ARE NONSENSE!) So the maximum mass that a neutron can be is 1.67358 yoctograms. The neutron's mass would be (1.67358 ygrams) - (Its Binding Energy)! This makes so much more sense! You "soon-not-to-be-so-dumb" physicists had better start using this new knowledge to make some progress in modern physics! Get with it! Andrew Ancel Gray

And I have claimed that General Relativity "confirmation experiments" are heavy with confirmation bias! General Relativity's "spacetime curvature" is nonsense. What about "Mercury's Perihelion Procession" I hear you say. Well, let's look at it. The first thing that comes to mind about the orbit of Mercury around the Sun is that MERCURY DOES NOT ORBIT THE SUN! Mercury orbits the barycenter of the solar system. The Sun also orbits the barycenter of the solar system! As a matter of fact, when Jupiter and Saturn are lined up, the Sun is completely outside the solar system's barycenter! Like this: As you can see, Mercury's perihelion in the inertial barycentric coordinates IS NOT the same as Mercury's perihelion in the accelerated, non-inertial heliocentric coordinates. Newton's Laws and General Relativity are invalid in heliocentric non-inertial coordinates. But astronomers have been measuring this false perihelion in heliocentric coordinates for centuries. So what is this error angle, I wondered. This error angle θ shown here : Just how far off the real inertial perihelion have astronomers been measuring the non-inertial perihelion???? Well, the Sun is approximately 3/4 of a solar diameter (~1,000,000 km) away from the barycenter, and Mercury is at about 46,000,000 km away from the barycenter. So this angle is aproximately arcsin( 1.0/46) ≈ 1.25° !!! So there is a maximum of 1.25° of slop in the perihelion measurement of Mercury away from inertial coordinates! 1.25° !!! So it is nonsense to claim a 0.16° perihelion-precession PER CENTURY when astronomers can be 1.25° in error away from the true inertial coordinate perihelion! (technically a barycenter periapsis). So Mercury-precession claims matching GR are probably confirmation bias guided scientific misconduct !!! They can wait and measure anything that they want so it agrees with GR !!! Andrew Ancel Gray

Jeffreys, First of all, all of General Relativity's "confirmation experiments" are HEAVILY confirmation biased. The WORST being the Pound and Rebka experiment where they did not even measure their supposed Doppler velocity on a speaker which they went ahead and USED anyway. What I am saying is that we have Special Gravitivity and NOT General Relativity. We have a Weak Equivalence Principle, and therefore there is NO spacetime curvature, which means that black holes are NONSENSE. Sagittarius A* is actually a gigantic neutron star with gravity so great that there are no atoms present. Everything is compressed to neutrons. Therefore, without atoms, there is no visible light emanating from Sagittarius A*, only x-rays and gamma rays. That's right. Look at Sagittarius A* with an x-ray telescope and there it is! : Look at it! The object you supposedly cannot see... and there it is you dummies! Duh! I can see it, can you? The Chandrasekhar Limit (which uses General Relativity and even more nonsensical "electron degeneracy" to limit a neutron star's mass) is NONSENSE, just like General Relativity. You mainstream physicists have wonderment about many stars rapidly orbiting something that is black in the visible, but if you use x-rays, There it is! Duh. Jeffreys, you might as well face it! There are many myths in modern physics these days. Myths that have been around for a century! Jeffreys, "quantum gravity" is a myth upon a myth, or a "double myth" if you will. First of all, QA (Quantum Anything) is all nonsense, so to make "gravitons" out of gravitational waves is "going off the deep end" crazy. Just like EM waves are waves and only waves, gravity waves are waves and only waves! No! We can calculate a lower limit to how long ago "The Big Explosion" happened. That's all. The Universe having an "age" is a paradox. Jeffreys, what happened before the Universe was born? Huh? Duh. Jeffreys, anything but "infinite duration" of the Universe is a paradox. And yes, we may have a bunch of "iron stars" around our part of the Universe until another big crunch happens and it explodes again (which may make a LOT of hydrogen again)! Andrew Ancel Gray