OceanBreeze

Vic, unless I misunderstood Diamonds’ OP, he was asking about the number of photons compared to the number of “particles”, which is already problematic because photons are particles. In that regard, his question really doesn’t make any sense. This is a perfect example of not using clear unambiguous language when posting on this forum. In an attempt to salvage something out of this thread, I will assume he is comparing the number of photons with the number of particles of matter. In that case, the photons win by a huge margin, just as his AI answer pointed out. Why is this the case, you may ask? The answer is that in the past, the early Universe was like a very hot bowl of soup. Like a hot bowl of soup, it will cool down to the ambient surrounding temperature. As it cools it must lose energy, to the ambient surroundings and it does this by releasing photons. This is called thermal emission, or in some cases Black Body Radiation. Here is where it gets interesting: the ultimate goal that all radiating bodies are trying to reach is Absolute Zero. The thing is, reaching that goal is an impossibility, even given an infinite amount of time. Think about this for a moment and let it sink into your curious brain cells: If all bodies are constantly emitting thermal radiation in the form of photons, and will do this forever because it is impossible for the body temperature to ever reach absolute zero, Question1) Does this mean all bodies of matter, down to the smallest molecule, possess a store of infinite energy? How else can they radiate photons forever? The answer was provided by Zeno, thousands of years ago. The amount of thermal radiation is constantly decreasing, as the hot object cools down. So, even though the radiation continues forever, Zeno comes to the rescue: Suppose the rate of energy emission halves every interval. Then the total amount of energy emitted over infinite time, taking what’s emitted in the first interval as “one unit”, is 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + …, and that doesn’t go to infinity — it converges at 2. It is an example of an infinite series that converges on a finite number. Question 2) Is this evidence there are far more photons in the Universe that particles of matter? Yes! If even a simple molecule radiates thermal energy in the form of photons, continuously and forever, It does stand to reason that photons will always outnumber particles of matter. To find a possible exception to this you would need to look back in time to just about one second after the Universe came into existence. At that time, the Universe consisted of an extremely hot, dense plasma where photons were absorbed as soon as they were emitted. Thus, there was a form of thermal equilibrium where neither matter nor electronic energy dominated. There is a lot more I could add to this chronological log of events, but it does get very complicated. One key take away I hope you get out of all of this is that it is all driven by temperature; The rate of cooling down of the Universe If there is enough interest perhaps we can delve deeper into this thread, or start another

Life is about different things to different people. That being the case, I feel sure there are many people who can come up with better answers than mine. Expressed as simply as possible, I think life is all about doing whatever we can to ensure, when our time comes to leave this world, we leave it a better world that the one we found when we came into it.

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

It is not only a fake, but it is intentional misinformation being disseminated to keep people from knowing space aliens are actually robotic centipedes. I would tell you more but this is highly classified. (Now this can be moved to Silly Claims)

Victor, you expressed the problem much more succinctly than I. While I am not a religious person, I generally do respect the good that Christians do in many parts of the world, particularly through establishing orphanages and charities for the poor and underprivileged. I wish to clarify my comment about Jesus never existing, based upon the lack of clear historical, forensic or archaeological evidence, falls under the category of "lack of evidence of existence is not the same as evidence of lack of existence" I am no different than anyone else alive today in that I do not know whether an historical Jesus existed or not. However, I do respect (but do not share) the Belief that Christians hold in a spiritual Jesus and I hope that nothing I wrote ruins anyone's upcoming Easter celebrations. Having said that, I feel what you wrote is worth repeating: "human hands must save a human world, and prayer is not simply enough to combat such problems in this world..(as the trade in human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of children and girls, forced labor, including prostitution, drug and arms trafficking and unjust wars . . .)

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.

Assuming your question is meant to read: "Do you think US military force should be used against the Cartels in Mexico?" Let me start out by saying there is no simple answer to this. Because of my engineering background, I approach all issues the same way: first, try to get all the facts, then consider the facts carefully and impartially, then consider and respect opinions of others, finally form an opinion of my own. That is the approach I have taken here. I asked myself is Mexico, as it exists today, a close and valuable ally of the US or is it a failed state ruled by drug cartels? The generally accepted definition of a failed state is one where the ultimate authority to provide security and enforce the rule of law comes from a power other than the state itself. Based on that definition, I conclude that Mexico is more like a failed state than a valuable, close ally of the USA. Mexico is a haven for drug cartels, all of these cartels possess armed branches, consisting of highly trained military personnel recruited from within the ranks of the Mexican armed forces. Recruitment is achieved easily; whatever the Mexican army pays as a monthly salary for soldiers; the cartels pay more than double that amount to its own men. The cartels have recently been officially recognized as International terrorist organizations because, in recent years, they have expanded their illegal activities to include not only the drug trade and homicide, but also kidnapping, human trafficking, extortion and theft of valuable resources, such as oil, among other illegal activities. The Mexican government is either unwilling or unable to suppress these drug cartels. One reason is: drug trafficking in Mexico helps to “stabilize the peso, and directly or indirectly provide[s] thousands of jobs, many in under-served regions desperate for a way out of poverty” The fact is, many Mexican civilians trust the cartels more than they trust the local or federal government. Drug-related violence currently is at an historical peak and inter-cartel wars have surpassed the annual battle death threshold, which is commonly used to define a civil war. There is no question that as violent instability engulfs Mexico, American vital interests are also threatened. Taking the above facts into consideration explains why, in January 2025, Representative Dan Crenshaw, chair of the Republican-led Task Force to Combat Mexican Drug Cartels, alongside Rep. Mike Waltz, introduced a bill, known as House Joint Resolution 18, seeking authorization for the use of military force to “put us at war with the cartels .” Note that the bill specifically states “war with the cartels”, not war with Mexico! Article 51 of the UN Charter reads: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” The Joint Resolution contains testimony about Mexican Cartel members shooting at US border patrol officers, a Cartel attack on the U.S. Consulate in Nuevo Laredo, and the Cartel’s fentanyl trafficking operation, as events that justify U.S. military intervention. Among these, perhaps the best justification for targeted US military actions against cartels in Mexico is in response to the fentanyl trafficking. The Resolution states, “fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances kill approximately 80,000 Americans every year and is the leading cause of death for American men between the ages of 18 and 45.” The vast majority of these deaths are due to non-intentional over doses, not intentional suicides, because it only takes a two-milligram dose, similar to 5-7 grains of salt, to cause death for an average size adult. Whether the fentanyl deaths qualifies under Article 51 of the UN Charter as an “armed attack”on the United States is up for debate. The fact that each cartel has an armed branch to protect the fentanyl operations may fulfill the “armed” part of that qualification. Having considered all the facts at my disposal, in my opinion, if the Mexican government cannot, or will not crush these drug cartels then the United States military, under President Trump, may be justified to step in and use military force to do the job, as debatable as such justification may be. Of course, it would be preferable to have the consent and assistance of the Mexican government to conduct any military operation against the cartels as a joint operation with the Mexican and US military. Note: Since I am expressing my opinion, I am under no obligation to engage in debate or to provide support for the opinion itself. Readers may agree or disagree but I will most likely not engage in any debate about this. However, since I included material that I relied upon as facts, I offer this paper as one of my several sources. I encourage any readers who question the facts, as I stated them, to do their own research and form their own independent opinions.

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.

The orbital speed of a planet with a circular orbit around a star, is given by v = (G M / r )1/2, where G = 6.674E- 11 Nm 2 / kg 2 , M is the mass of the star in kg, and r is the radius of the orbit in meters. Example: Our Sun’s mass = 1.988E30 kg G = 6.674E-11 Nm2 /kg2 GM = 1.326 E20 Nm2 Radius of Earth’s orbit around the sun = 148E9 m Earth’s orbital speed = (1.326 E20 Nm2/ 148E9 m)1/2 = 29,932 m/s or 29.9 km/s Using the same method for Jupiter (Jupiter’s r is 762E9 m) yields 13.2 km/s orbital speed. As far as linking a planet’s orbital speed to its rotational speed, no such exact mathematical relationship exists. A planet’s rotational speed is determined from observation. Some people have taken the observed rotational speed and tried fitting it to planets mathematically with only limited success. Such contrived equations will not hold in the general case. A planet’s rotational speed is thought to be linked to their formation history, particularly the size of the donut-shaped disk of gas and dust that circles young stars from which the planets emerge. The earliest stage of giant gas planet formation is thought to be the formation of a solid core made of heavy elements (rocks and ices). If the core is massive enough (a few times the mass of Earth), it can accrete hydrogen and helium gas from the disk. As gas is accreted onto the planet, it increases the total angular momentum of the world, which, in turn, leads to rapid rotation. The exact details of these processes and how the rotation of the planet evolves with time are yet to be determined, however. There is no such thing as a planet advancing through space by rotating! A wheel advances by rotating on a surface. Planets have no surface to rotate against so the idea of a planet advancing through space due to rotation is absurd.

You did more than express an opinion; you made a claim that Percepton Theory "does define a grid system, that solves the paradoxes in physics." When you make a claim like that you can expect to be asked to support it. That is all I asked you to do. Since you cannot support it, it is my right to assume it is nonsense, which I did. It is not your right to respond with a personal attack: "you know nothing, go back to bed" All that does is confirm you are a crackpot and an arrogant one at that. You just wore out your welcome on this forum. Thread closed and suspension given.

Many people, myself included, may be confused about the difference between graphene and graphite. I also wondered why it has taken scientists so long to discover that a 2D slice of the stuff that fills their pencils, has such exceptional properties? Both graphite and graphene have carbon atoms as their structural components. The difference is how the free valence electron in graphene participates in forming a π bond. That seemingly small difference makes graphene the strongest material known to exist, with a Tensile strength of 130 GPa! Graphene: Graphene stands out as having exceptional properties such has ultrahigh surface area and excellent thermal and electrical conductivity. These properties arise from it's 2D nature and π bonding network. Graphene's ultrahigh surface area (~2600 m2/g ) means it would take only 2.7 g to cover a football field. It is therefore useful in surface active applications, including energy storage, sensors and water purification. Graphene's electrical conductivity as a result of the delocalised π electrons is many orders of magnitude larger than silicon (1.56×102 S/m) which is commonly used in electronic devices. It's thermal conductivity is also outstanding making it suitable for applications in thermal management, such as heat sinks and electronic cooling systems. Graphite: Graphite is most commonly used in pencils but it can be used for much more. Due to the weak van der Waals interactions between the layers within graphite, it has excellent lubricating properties. It has been used as a dry lubricant and in lubricating greases. Graphite maintains a significant amount of the thermal and electronic conductive properties that graphene has. It is far more accessible than 2D graphene which requires more intensive processing to access. It's layered honeycomb structure allows for efficient intercalation and deintercalation of lithium ions, contributing to high energy density and long lithium-ion battery life. Graphite is also good in heat management applications. Graphite's inert nature means it is corrosion resistant which is highly desired in electronic applications to maintain performance.

I don't see where any paradoxes are solved; just wild speculation without any scientific support. Show me an actual scientific experiment using this "theory" with a solution to a paradox in physics. Back up your claims or this is just more nonsense.

This is about as silly as a silly claim can get.

No, to your question but there is something even better! Max Planck introduced what became later known as the Planck constant. At the end of the paper, he proposed the base units that were later named in his honor. The Planck units are based on the quantum of action, now usually known as the Planck constant, which appeared in the Wien approximation for black-body radiation. Planck underlined the universality of the new unit system, writing: ...” it is possible to set up units for length, mass, time and temperature, which are independent of special bodies or substances, necessarily retaining their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, including extraterrestrial and non-human ones, which can be called "natural units of measure". While the values of Planck units are not 1, they are based only on the universal constants G , h, c and kB His definitions differ from the modern ones by a factor of 2 π because the modern definitions use ℏ [hbar ] rather than h . I believe this is as close as you will come to finding a Universal Mass, as well as a Universal length, and many other Universal Units. Although their values are not One, they possess even more remarkable traits! Since the Planck units are defined exclusively in terms of four universal physical constants: c, G, ħ, and kB; Expressing one of these four physical constants in terms of Planck units yields a numerical value of 1. They are a system of natural units, defined using fundamental properties of nature (specifically, properties of free space) rather than properties of a chosen prototype object. Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, they are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units