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"

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

It seems scientists have created "Wooly mice" in a step to attempt to bring back the wooly mammoth, which is an extinct species, read more at Scientists create ‘woolly mice’ in a step to bring back the mammoth | CNN Do you think that next we should attempt to bring back the wooly mammoth from extinction?

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.

Moderator's Note: This forum is not the place to post legal disputes including naming names of the parties involved. This forum in no way accepts any responsibility in this issue. I have edited the post and allowed it to stand as a generic reminder that anyone dealing with a service provider should be careful and aware of their rights when a dispute arises. I am not offering any advice when I say that in my opinion only, something like this can be settled by the European Consumer Protection Agency. That is all that can be said so this thread is closed.

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.

While this is interesting, I don’t see where it is strongly related to my statement that “nothing real can ever be shown to be infinite.” Specifically I was referring to a mathematical solution of “infinite energy” arrived at by two mathematicians of questionable degree. As far as using infinity as a limit in improper integrals this is perfectly acceptable as long as the integration converges to a finite result. (although there are some who debate even this) There are several ways to make sure that convergence happens. For example, consider two particles that are 3 m apart that gravitation-ally attract each other with a Force of 2.5 Newton, and calculate the work needed to move them to be an infinite distance apart. We know that the force of gravity varies inversely with the square of distance, F = K / s^2 where K is a constant of proportionality. Since F = 2.5 N when s = 3 m, K = F s^2 = (2.5 N) (9 m^2) = 22.5 N∙m^2 Work =s1s2 ∫ F ds, where s1 is 3 m and s2 is ∞ Work = s1s2 ∫ 22.5 / s^2 ds Integrating this, for the limit infinity, 1/s = 0 Work = 22.5 N∙m^2 [0 + 1/3m] = 7.5 N∙m This may remind you of escape velocity where it takes a finite amount of work to move an object an infinite distance. This result is correct because an infinite distance is being used as a limit only. The result of 7.5 N∙m is a finite number even though one of the limits was infinity and is an example of convergence. This is not the same exact problem I was discussing with Halc, where the wrong result obtained by the two mathematicians was infinite energy; it is not entirely unrelated to that problem, which was much more advanced than this simple example. Bottom Line: Using infinity as a limit in integration is perfectly acceptable, but steps must be carefully followed to avoid getting an infinite result, such as infinite energy, which is absurd!

If I can find it, or recreate it again, I will post it. If I remember correctly, it was a silly divide-by-zero error, as many infinite results are. What made it interesting was all the calculus involved; both their original calculation and my rebuttal. I am a bit rusty now so it might be a good refresher to review it. Thanks for the info on that other site; sounds like a visit is in order. I'm always glad to see you spending time here and helping to keep us on the straight and narrow.

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.

Doesn't the way spin pairs in nuclei imply all nucleons are superimposed on each other? Otherwise spin cannot pair without a modifying constant due to the nucleons occupying different positions. This is since angular momentum does not cancel if particles are not at the same position (L = mvr). Their "r" value would not be the same so their "L" can't cancel.

Dandav, here is your problem: you started out talking about the failure to detect “ordinary pulsars” ( those with surface dipolar magnetic field strengths in the range ∼1011–1013 G), and then you support your argument by using an ultra luminous x-ray source in NGC 5907 as your example. This object, NGC 5907 ULX, has a luminosity ≥ 1041 erg per second; an isotropic peak luminosity of ~1000 times the upper limit of luminosity for an ordinary pulsar! It is most certainly not an “ordinary pulsar”! It may in fact be a Black Hole. Why are you using this object to make your comparison with the detection of S0-2 Type stars? It would make far more sense, and be more scientific, to use an ordinary pulsar, to make your comparison, with the luminosity of those “young, massive and luminous stars” with masses of up to 20 times the mass of the Sun, (20 M⊙). Here is a chart of known radio pulsars: As you can see, a typical pulsar has magnetic field strength of ~1013 G with a corresponding luminosity of no more than 10E37 erg/s. Luminosity of the Sun, L⊙ = 3.8E33 erg per sec. A main sequence star with 20 times the mass of the sun has a luminosity of (20^3.5) L⊙, about 35,000 times the luminosity of the Sun! Therefore, a 20 M⊙ star has a luminosity of ~ 10E38 erg per sec, one order of magnitude greater than an average pulsar. Your assumption that “The emitted Energy of a Pulsar should be much more powerful than a star” is shown to be incorrect when the main sequence star has 20 Solar masses. In addition, the star is easier to detect than the ordinary pulsar for two reasons: 1). The star radiates energy continuously, while the pulsar radiates energy only in short pulses. 2). The star radiates energy in all directions making it detectable by an observer viewing it from any direction in space. The pulsar radiates energy in a narrow beam, typically with a 10 degree half-power beam-width. The pulsar is only visible to an observer that is within that narrow 10 degree beam-width. I hope that answers your question as to why we can detect stars of 20 Solar masses but not yet any ordinary pulsars located at approximately the same distance from Earth. Hopefully, when the Square Kilometer Array comes on line (sees first light) in 2027, with signal sensitivity of ≲1 μJy, that situation will change.

The power grid adjusts very quickly (within a few minutes) to changes in demand by the use of electronic governors which control the power output of the generators. The first engine governors date back to the 17th century and were centrifugal “fly-ball” governors. While some variation of these are still in use today, (I once owned a snowmobile with a centrifugal governor) most engine governors today are electronic. But the basic operating principle is the same: If the load increases, the generator tends to slow down, the governor senses this decrease in frequency and opens a valve to feed more fuel, speeding the generator back up. The reverse operation happens if the load decreases. To answer your specific question about power wastage during a drop in load; if the governors work properly, there will be very little power wasted. What would happen is the generators would tend to speed up with less load, but the increase in frequency will be very slight because of the inertia of many generators operating in sync on the power grid. This slight increase in frequency will act to store the excess power production until the governors bring the frequency back down to normal.The stored excess power is slowly added back to the grid as the generators slow back down. You may find the pdf of interest.

Only the Square Kilometer Array, which I mentioned in my previous post, will have the necessary signal sensitivity of ≲1 μJy to detect about 10% (≳100) of the orbiting pulsars near Sgr A. This array is still being built in Australia and South Africa and will not come on line (see first light) until 2027.

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.

The short answer is No, a superposition of fermions is prevented by the Pauli exclusion principle. A bit longer answer: The Pauli exclusion principle prevents the nucleons from simultaneously occupying the lowest energy, zero momentum state, and instead the overall ground state is formed by the nucleons occupying distinct states such that the total energy is minimized: they are bunched around the origin of momentum space in a sphere; the Fermi surface is the surface of that sphere. As for angular momentum, keep in mind we are discussing quantum particles where interactions, in particular, the way particles couple, is determined by isobaric spin. The concept contains the term “spin” because its quantum mechanical description is mathematically similar to that of angular momentum. But unlike angular momentum, it is a dimensionless quantity and is not actually any type of spin. That’s about as deep as I care/can get in this thread. For a better understanding I recommend you review the Semi-empirical mass formula.

That’s the most logical, and certainly correct explanation. Such rock formations are called glacial erratics. They are very common in Colorodo, especially near the town of Red Cliff. There is no magical piezo-electric, negative ion magic involved, although the piezo-electric effect is very interesting and deserves a thread of its own. Returning to the subject of glacial erratics: Curious Nature Rocks Tell Tales As Old As Time "One of the most prominent features near the town of Red Cliff are the red cliffs. This vibrant hue is due to the quartzite rocks in the cliff faces containing hematite. Specifically, it’s the oxidation reaction of the iron found in the grains of hematite that becomes rust when exposed to oxygen which turns the rocks red. Quartzite itself is a hard metamorphic rock that does not weather easily. Quartzite ridges are often exposed with barely any vegetation because it is difficult for the roots to dig into the hard and nutrient-poor substrate. Another neat geological phenomenon to keep an eye out for near Red Cliff are glacial erratics. These are rocks that were moved from one place to another by a glacier. They can range from the size of pebbles to giant boulders and the lithology, the type of rock, of glacial erratics are different from the bedrock of its landing site. This means that based on the lithology of some of the erratics, it is possible to determine from where, when, and the direction the glacier flowed. Glacial erratics often bare signs of their journey with striations or scratches, rounded edges and polished faces."

I agree, knowledge is power and a wonderful thing. I don't agree with the biblical God on a lot of things especially sending people to eternal torture for sin, but that's what the religious people believe. As I have said before, I think that God is a monster of the bible where someone like Hitler was portrayed as a good person via propaganda in the Bible.

I suppose, you know about the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester and the counterfactual definiteness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb_tester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness I have a question: can this experiment be performed at the level of countries for avoiding a nuclear war? Let’s consider, that in 2300 A.D. there is a country with a dictator Kim 8, who oppresses his people, exports some resources and controls the overbomb which can totally destroy the planet. He is loosing power because of the sanctions, and decides to use the weird strategy – threatens that he will annihilate Earth if the sanctions will not be lifted. He does not want such a scenario, but he has a chance to win if the states will fulfill his demands because of fear. What can the humanity do in this situation? They can annihilate the country of Kim firstly, but this is the violation of all international laws (the overbomb can me used only in response). However, I think that theoretically, one more scenario is possible: the states can create a superposition of two Earths (two universes), in the first the apocalypses does not occur, and in the second Kim pushes the button. Like in the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb experiment, the information that Kim had done this in the second universe, will be accessible in the first universe, and this will give the states the right to annihilate the country of Kim. What do you think?

This is an informational piece about a newly discovered species of horned dinosaur, read more at Meet Lokiceratops, a newly discovered species of horned dinosaur (sciencenews.org) Do you think about this newly discovered species of horned dinosaur?

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?

Interesting idea, but applying quantum experiments to global politics seems far-fetched. Dealing with threats like nuclear annihilation involves diplomacy and international pressure, not theoretical physics. Practical strategies and international laws would guide responses to such crises, rather than experimental quantum concepts.

From the article.

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.

I posted my reply to this forum's version that exists in the second universe. Please go there to read it.

Striking out against evil is always a good thing but we have to make sure collateral damage isn't worse than the actual evil. Deep fakes are just a tool, a tool that can be abused and is being abused but the abuse is not caused by deep fakes. I am a bit of a take responsibility for your own actions type of person, I don't hold to sweeping authoritarian type actions. I would prefer more targeted actions. I hate to say it but I don't see a way to control this other than age restrictions and we all know that our youthful compatriots will always be able to bypass our "adult" restrictions as we did when we were young.

Great! Thanks for the update.

I agree with this assessment. It is probably how it formed.

https://phys.org/news/2024-05-webb-distant-black-hole-merger.html "An international team of astronomers have used the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope to find evidence for an ongoing merger of two galaxies and their massive black holes when the universe was only 740 million years old. This marks the most distant detection of a black hole merger ever obtained and the first time that this phenomenon has been detected so early in the universe. Astronomers have found supermassive black holes with masses of millions to billions times that of the sun in most massive galaxies in the local universe, including in our Milky Way galaxy. These black holes have likely had a major impact on the evolution of the galaxies they reside in. However, scientists still don't fully understand how these objects grew to become so massive. The finding of gargantuan black holes already in place in the first billion years after the Big Bang indicates that such growth must have happened very rapidly, and very early. Now, the James Webb Space Telescope is shedding new light on the growth of black holes in the early universe." full article at link The paper: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/531/1/355/7671512?login=false GA-NIFS: JWST discovers an offset AGN 740 million years after the big bang ABSTRACT: " A surprising finding of recent studies is the large number of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) associated with moderately massive black holes (⁠log⁡(M∙/M⊙)∼6−8⁠), in the first billion years after the big bang (z > 5). In this context, a relevant finding has been the large fraction of candidate dual AGN, both at large separations (several kpc) and in close pairs (less than a kpc), likely in the process of merging. Frequent black hole merging may be a route for black hole growth in the early universe; however, previous findings are still tentative and indirect. We present JWST/NIRSpec-IFU observations of a galaxy at z = 7.15 in which we find evidence for a log⁡(M∙/M⊙)∼7.7 accreting black hole, as traced by a broad component of H β emission, associated with the Broad Line Region (BLR) around the black hole. This BLR is offset by 620 pc in projection from the centroid of strong rest-frame optical emission, with a velocity offset of ∼40 km s–1. The latter region is also characterized by (narrow) nebular emission features typical of AGN, hence also likely hosting another accreting black hole, although obscured (Type 2, narrow-line AGN). We exclude that the offset BLR is associated with Supernovae or massive stars, and we interpret these results as two black holes in the process of merging. This finding may be relevant for estimates of the rate and properties of gravitational-wave signals from the early universe that will be detected by future observatories like LISA." 10 CONCLUSIONS "' The results presented in this work highlight the power of NIRSpec-IFU observations in the study of high-z galaxies, mergers, and the detection of moderately massive black holes through imaging-spectroscopy. Our observations provide clear and robust evidence for a massive black hole involved in a merger with another galaxy, likely hosting another accreting black hole, at z = 7.15, only 740 Myr after the big bang. Overall, our results seem to support a scenario of an imminent massive black hole merger in the early universe, highlighting this as an additional important channel for the early growth of black holes. Together with other recent findings in the literature, this suggests that massive black hole merging in the distant universe is common. Our observations may be used as guidance for the modelling of gravitational-wave events originating from massive black hole mergers that will be detectable with future observatories like LISA (e.g. Haehnelt 1994; Jaffe & Backer 2003; Sesana et al. 2005; Valiante et al. 2021; Amaro-Seoane et al. 2023)."

The JWST doing its job again. Evidence for a Neutron star at the core of Supernova 1987A. Supernova 1987A was, as the name suggests, seen in 1987, and the first supernova ever seen at least in modern times. The following article describes that event and discovery... https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmology/finally-we-have-the-evidence-james-webb-telescope-spots-neutron-star-hiding-in-wreckage-of-famous-1987-supernova "'Finally, we have the evidence': James Webb telescope spots neutron star hiding in wreckage of famous 1987 supernova A neutron star spotted by the James Webb Space Telescope stayed hidden for 37 years while lurking in the wreckage of a stellar explosion, Supernova 1987A. The NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope has observed the best evidence yet for emission from a neutron star at the site of a well-known and recently-observed supernova. The supernova, known as SN 1987A, occurred 160,000 light-years from Earth in the Large Magellanic Cloud. (Image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, and C. Fransson (Stockholm University), M. Matsuura (Cardiff University), M. J. Barlow (University College London), P. J. Kavanagh (Maynooth University), J. Larsson (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)) "Using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), astronomers have ended a nearly decade-long game of celestial hide-and-seek after they discovered a neutron star in the wreckage of a stellar explosion. Supernova 1987A represents the remains of an exploded star that once had a mass around 8 to 10 times that of the sun. It is located around 170,000 light-years away in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy neighbor of the Milky Way. Supernova 1987A was first spotted by astronomers 37 years ago in 1987, hence the numerical aspect of its name. As it exploded, Supernova 1987A first showered Earth with ghostly particles called neutrinos and then became visible in bright light. This made it the nearest and brightest supernova seen in the night sky over Earth for around 400 years." extract: "Neutron stars are supported against complete collapse, however, by quantum effects occurring between neutrons in their interiors. These effects prevent the neutrons from cramming together. This so-called "neutron degeneracy pressure" can be overcome if a stellar core has enough mass — or if a neutron star, after its creation, piles on more mass. This would result in the birth of a black hole (if the mass minimum isn't reached, though, it won't happen.)" Showing its worth again, the JWST continues to refine time lines of the universe, along with incredible revelations such as described in the above article. Full article at link.

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?

Yes, an amazing creature! The mind boggles as to what they are thinking. I have seen similar incidents and demonstrations with Elephants.

This is an interesting insight, I would have never thought about this question in that way, OceanBreeze. So, what would happen if you increased ε0 while increasing μ0 or decreased them both using some method? Would that change the C constant under the equation c=1/√(ε0μ0)? Maybe there is some logic to what the OP says... It would not be instant however it could be faster than light if you could control the ε0 and μ0 in space changing the C constant from a mathematical standpoint. For instance, if I put a value of 4 for ε0 and μ0 then i get a value of .25C and if I put a value of .25 for ε0 and μ0 then I get a value of 4C for the C constant. This is an interesting thought experiment from a math standpoint. It would seem decreasing ε0 and μ0 from a math standpoint does actually increase the C constant in the medium according to that equation, while increasing ε0 and μ0 decreases the C constant...

What method? You have not described a method. Moving this to silly claims.

SCIENCE FORUM RULES 2024 VERSION First of all, Introduce yourself! We require that all new members make their first post in the Introduction forum. Please tell us a little bit about yourself and your interest in science and anything else you want to talk about. Just be yourself, and have fun, but please respect these ground rules: 1) If you make strange claims, please provide evidence or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum. What we generally do not approve of is wild, unsubstantiated claims. But, even these are sometimes allowed and placed in the Silly Claims section if they are at least interesting. The very worst claims, which have no intellectual or amusement value at all, are usually deleted. 2) If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on. 3) Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion. 4) Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned. 5) The explicit discussion of drugs in order to promote non-scientific experimentation of drugs, show people how to obtain or create drugs, or providing histories of drug use to show off, will lead to deletion of posts, and we will issue warnings. 6) If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get. 7) Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid if they point out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It may get you banned! 😎 Rude and offensive behavior is not tolerated and might lead to instant banning (at the discretion of the forum staff). This includes forum posts, e-mails to users, and private messages. 9) We will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts. Such posts may be deleted or edited without further notice. Also, rants, flames, arrogant posts, and hit-and-run posts might lead to temporary or permanent banning so please try to behave in here as you would in real life, and everyone will be happy. 10) Avoid cross-posting--that is, posting highly similar posts in multiple threads. The majority of our members actually read most threads, and this is impolitely forcing them to read something they've probably already read. It's OK to reply in existing threads with a post containing, "I discuss a related, but different, idea in *this thread*", and provide a link, but it should be in the context of the thread in which you are posting. 11) Important: Never post PMs or e-mails from other users without asking their permissions first. PMs and e-mails are considered private communication and posting them is a violation of the other user's right to privacy. If you have received an offending PM or e-mail, send it to one of the admins. Posts containing PMs and e-mails can be deleted by the admins and might get you banned. Similarly, do not use PMs or a user's e-mail address to send rude or aggressive comments or rants. Any user who receives such communications is asked to forward this to an administrator for evaluation. Typical reasons for banning If you find yourself being banned, you most likely broke our rules above, or: Posted SPAM or something we assumed to be SPAM Annoyed our members so much that the moderators decided to ban you Posted hoax theories without doing proper research (this is a science forum, not a forum for fanatic nuts) Kept posting with an obvious agenda (like wanting to debunk science) without having proper proof Trolling - generally being rude and annoying, and contributing very little. Posted something which is copyrighted. It will be deleted and you might get warned or banned. A ban is either temporary or permanent. A temporary ban will usually last for a week, after which it will automatically be lifted. A permanent ban is - well, permanent. Please follow our site rules - we really don't like to ban people. Finally, Respond to requests from Mods and Admins. The moderators and administrators put a lot of time and effort into maintaining this site. If we send you an "official" private message or an e-mail, in which we obviously want your reply, we require that you respond. Failure to respond in such cases may force us to close your account. These rules are not all inclusive. Just let common sense be you guide as to what is acceptable behavior and what is not. If there are any disputes, The Admins and Moderators have the Final Word.

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

By it's nature a FIAT system means that you have to have something to offer that others value highly in order to have a gain. "Highly" in this case means "more than the effort required to supply it." Getting rich quickly isn't likely for anyone barring some incredible luck. Stock market stuff is just an investment with a layer of abstraction: you could readily provide direct investment into a local business in exchange for partial ownership too. Plenty of young mechanics or painters or (insert profession) would gladly slave away if yuo merely provided them tools and a place to use them. One of the most high-gain low-cost business models I've seen is a coffee shop, and next to that advertising brokerage. It really comes down to: what can you do(or have others do for you), and how can you convince people to exchange for it at over-value in high volume.

The main issue is that we can't understand Quran because it's in Arabic. You will have to learn Quran and translate it in your language and understand it's meaning to know what exactly it's saying.

Good question, Steven! If, by rf/microwaves you mean electromagnetic waves at radio frequency (around 3 kHz to 300 GHz) then the answer is no; such waves are not energetic enough to cause ionization; that is, to cause the removal/addition of an electron from/to an electron shell of a neutral charge atom. This is a consequence of quantization as evidenced by the photo-electric effect. Increasing the amplitude of the radio wave will not cause ionization, as it does not change the energy of the individual photons. Only by changing the frequency can the necessary energy be reached. That is, only very high frequency electromagnetic waves, such as X-rays and gamma rays can cause ionization. Such high frequency em radiation is not called radio waves. As for creating negative ions, I don’t believe X and gamma rays can do that. These high-frequency em waves transfer energy to the atoms they interact with, thereby releasing electrons from the atoms, leaving behind positive ions. As for biological effects, x and gamma rays are generally destructive to living cells as they can break apart DNA resulting in mutations, cancer and even cell death. Edit: still trying to fix font size and some typos.