Jump to content
Science Forums

Anchovyforestbane

Members
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to A-wal in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Not very in some cases. Dark matter and dark energy for example are artifacts of a model that didn't match reality so they invented them rather than discarding the model, that's really the only 'evidence' that they are actually a real thing.
     
    Also the big bang is bollocks in my opinion. When it was found that redshift is proportional to distance that should have been taken as evidence that the redshift must be occurring during the light's journey rather than being caused by motion of the source away from us. When redshift was shown to be higher than what you'd get if distant galaxies were moving away at the speed of light that should definitely have been the end of this silly expansion model, they claim that an expansion of space between two objects is somehow different from those objects moving away from each and therefore doesn't violate the faster than light relative Velocity limit. Which brings me nicely to the next point...
     
    This one's legit. No object can reach the speed of light relative to any observer, that's known because the speed of light is the same for all non-accelerating observer's.
    Two other objects can be moving at anything below twice the speed of light from the perspective of an observer because one could be moving away from you at almost the speed of light in one direction while the other is moving away from you at almost the speed of light in the opposite direction for example, but from the frame of either of those objects the other is moving away at less than the speed of light.
    It might seem inconsistent but the upshot is that each observer measures moving clocks to be slower than their own (time dilation) and the length of moving objects in their direction of relative motion to be contracted (length contraction). This causes an objects mass to increase as its relative velocity increases so that no amount of energy can accelerate it up to light speed.
  2. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in How certain is our scientific knowledge? Honestly?   
    Good, and I must say I appreciate that attitude.
     
    That isn’t my experience, and I work directly with many scientists, often for months at a time, usually at sea. In my experience, all good scientists are skeptics and only feel confident about their understanding when there is a preponderance of evidence supporting their position. There may very well be still unresolved issues and loose ends; in fact, there are usually many, but as long as there is a preponderance of carefully examined and empirically tested evidence, scientists can feel confident they are at least on the right track to understanding.
    You mention gravity as an example. There are many loose ends about that subject, in fact we do not know the exact cause of gravity but we do know it is related to mass. Even without knowing the exact cause, we have workable equations such as for acceleration ( ag = GM/r^2) and force (Fg=GMm/r^2) and we know both of these equations obey the inverse square law. These relationships have been tested and mathematically derived so there is a preponderance of evidence to support them. Only someone who does not understand basics Physics would argue against them and if someone does, they would need to present their own preponderance of evidence, and not their own personal crackpot “theory”.
     
    And that video is wrong. According to this link, The Hubble parameter is decreasing with time, so there can be cases where a galaxy that is receding from the Earth just a bit faster than light, but does emit a light signal that, once it enters the Hubble sphere, reaches the Earth eventually. This future visibility limit is calculated at a comoving distance of 19 billion parsecs (62 billion light-years), assuming the universe will keep expanding forever, which implies the number of galaxies that we can ever theoretically observe in the infinite future (leaving aside the issue that some may be impossible to observe in practice due to redshift, is  larger than the number currently observable by a factor of 2.36.
    So, contrary to the dark universe predicted in that video, the future universe may actually be brighter than today, with more galaxies visible.
     
    The premise presented in that video may be correct but I must say it is very poorly presented and it was a waste of my time to watch it. In general, these sorts of videos are a poor substitute for a good Physics text book.
    As for Newton, his laws of motion and many other theories he has formulated are still good to this day except at relativistic speeds. Then, we need to rely on Einstein’s theory of special and general relativity.
     Nobody knows if the Universe will end or continue to exist forever. Personally, I find this to be of no concern to me, one way or the other, so I would never waste my time arguing over it.
    As I said above and at the risk of repeating myself over and over, all good scientists are skeptical up to a point, but there are some things that we do feel confident about because they are supported by a preponderance of evidence.
     
    I would stay away from the documentary makers, especially the type of videos you linked to in this post, and read some good Physics books. Science isn’t an easy subject; you need to work at it and learn the advanced math that is needed for a deeper understanding.
    As for us being in a new “dark age” that is hardly the case! We are closer than ever to understanding the nature of reality and our own place in it. But this knowledge is not easily grasped by the average person who does not have an advanced degree in physics and mathematics. Plus, there are many crackpots with their own crackpot theories and it may be difficult for the average person to know what to believe. In fact, human nature often compels people to believe in the most outrageous claims. Only a good education can separate the wheat from the chaff.
  3. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to A-wal in What happened to Mars?   
    Wtf are you talking about? Tried to get what past you? You were claiming it was ridiculous for Mars to have a magnetotail despite the fact the Earth has one! It doesn't mean Mars does, I'm not sure it has a strong enough magnetic field but that wasn't your objection, you were convinced that it couldn't have any type of tail. 7 on the thicko metre.
     
    You repeatedly tried to claim that reports of alien sighting being similar to the aliens depicted in Close Encounters is evidence that the reports are bollocks so of course I'm going to point out that the creators of that film could easily have decided to base those depictions on what people were reporting to have seen since you seemed unable to figure out that for yourself. 8 on the thicko metre.
     
    You continually try to make points that make absolutely zero sense in the context of your arguments even after they've been pointed out to you. So what would you call it?
     
    Coming from someone who's one of the worst offenders of batshittary on this site but who sees himself as some kind of voice of rationality (lol) it's very hard to take your opinion of anyone else seriously.
     
    You're the one who fcuking brought it up! 10 on the thicko metre.
     
    He's every bit as bad as you are in my opinion and I've made that very clear. 9 on the thicko metre.
     
    We could be alone in the universe or life could be common enough for many other planets relatively close to us to have sent out explorers so how can anyone possibly take a position other than basing it on nothing but a feeling? 10+ on the thicko meter!
     
    Well I was just giving an example of how if Mars did have a tail it could have happened but I'm not sure if Mars has a magnetic field or if it's magnetotail could ever be visible if it did and even if it could be I think other people would have noticed it so it's more likely that what you saw was an artifact of your own eyes, bright objects on a dark background can often look blurred.
    The magnetotail of a planet always points away from the sun because it's caused by the solar wind. That would put a potential magnetotail of Mars on the opposite side from our perspective if Mars is at its closest point to us because that would put Earth inbetween Mars and the sun.
     
    What style? I've mainly trained in karate but have done kickboxing and a bit of tae kwon do. This is me:
    It's not great quality, I was going to get a better setup and see if I could grow the channel, it would be a lot better with a good mic that could pick up the wooosh and snap sounds. I did videos of my favourite two martial artists as well by editing together some of their own videos, I even did the mix of the music myself for this one:
    I lost the other video I'd almost finished when I lost everything on my hard drive. I was recreating it but I never got round to finishing, I'll have to do that soon. It was a compilation of GNT's best stuff:
    If you want a good martial arts series to watch Warrior is excellent. Most producers don't seem to realise that for it to be any good it needs to hold up if you took all the martial arts out but these ones seem to get. The main character in it is also very likable which is unusual.
  4. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Mercedes Benzene in Chemistry 101   
    I am prepared to teach!
    :)
  5. Haha
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to montgomery in UFO's and Extraterrestrials- A Serious Discussion.   
    The existing thread title is in appropriate for a serious discussion and so a new thread for those who would prefer to be serious about the topic.
    If we can't rely on these two for valuable positions on aliens and UFO's, then who can we rely upon. Their opinions on aliens being quite different from the human form is stronger than their beliefs on there being similarities. But neither of them are willing to put down the possibility of the aliens showing a likeness to humans.
    Dawkins leans at least somewhat to the possibility of likeness to the human form but not as strongly as the opposite. DeGrasse Tyson seems to be further from the theory on aliens  being similar to the human form and provides reasoning for his theory.
    I present this as evidence for my theory on the popular space alien being something that has been generated out of the movie 'Close Encounters'. 
    Is it possible to have an intelligent discussion on this forum, without the usual spamming? 
    I hope the admins and the moderators can take it upon themselves to use their responsibility to keep this thread on track. If not now for this Science forum, then when?
    Opinions please! 
  6. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Thoth101 in Smooth Earth   
    That is funny coming from someone who don't even know the definition of science.
    Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, scientific hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to explanations of natural phenomena, processes, or objects, that are open to further testing, revision, and falsification, and while not 'believed in' through faith are accepted or rejected on the basis of scientific evidence."
     
  7. Haha
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to VictorMedvil in Smooth Earth   
    Don't make me have to sacrifice you to Satan!

  8. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in Smooth Earth   
    Three strikes you're out Monty and that is the only reason why I am not suspending you for a third time. You can be a reasonably intelligent poster if you want, Monty. Why not give that a try for a change?
  9. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in Smooth Earth   
    "If you've got some issue with me, take it to PMs. Leave the science threads for science"
    Exactly right.
     
  10. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to montgomery in The Global Takeover Is Underway   
    After posting that absolutely batshit crazy drivel by Campione, you have a lot of nerve even showing up again on this forum. You are one sick little man Thoth. 
    Are you even aware of the kind of loony tunes you dare to put your name to?
  11. Like
    Anchovyforestbane got a reaction from OceanBreeze in Smooth Earth   
    With the vastly different volume densities of different materials, from air, to water, to diamond; there should be no difference should these discrepancies be alleviated? Elaborate. 

     
     
    Disregarding my lack of understanding of whatever lingo you're using here:
    How amusing, your talent of obstinacy is as nauseating as ever; enough so to pollute completely unrelated topics with your pigheaded calumny.
    If you've got some issue with me, take it to PMs. Leave the science threads for science.
  12. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to exchemist in Does Math Fit With Philosophy?   
    You can often write a simple algebraic equation in words. For example Newton's F=ma is "Force equals mass times acceleration. But is that really any clearer to you than F=ma?
     
    It seems to me that, as we are all taught nowadays in school enough maths to be able to understand F=ma, it is not unreasonable to expect that readers can deal with it. But more complicated things will lose readers, inevitably.  
  13. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to exchemist in About Table Salt   
    Hazel, you have got this a bit garbled. The formula for table salt is NaCl. The atomic mass of Na is 23. For Cl it is 35.5 (it is not a whole number due to the mixture of isotopes that Cl consists of in nature.) So the molecular weight of NaCl is 23+35.5=58.5, which means it consists of about 40% Na and about 60% Cl.  
    The other chemicals you mention are probably additives, present in small amounts, to stop it clogging in humid conditions and for your health (iodide is added to prevent iodine deficiency for instance see goitre). The fineness of the crystals is a matter of choice in the supermarket.
  14. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Mike C in Stability of the Hydrogen Atom   
    Janus
     
    The electron does not radiate a photon unless it absorbs a photon first.
     
    In the ground state of the HA, it is radiating a continuous sign wave of one angstrom.
    The ground state of the HA is the normal balanced state of the HA where all forces and orbital momentum of the electron is balanced.
    In this state, all the HA's would also be in the GS. So there is no absorption of energy by any of the surrounding atoms. This complies with the Laws of Conservation of Energy.
     
    Even though space is saturated with these one angstrom continuous sign waves, there is nothing in space to absorb these energies.
    Photons, on the other hands are absorbed by all plants in the universe and also by the space particles that are scattered throughout space that reradiate in their own wavelengths.
    So this energy is replaced by the new star creations that generate new photons.
     
    If you say the electron radiates and loses energy, what is absorbing this energy?
     
    Mike C
  15. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Janus in Stability of the Hydrogen Atom   
    The reason that electrons would lose energy under classical physics is that it is a charge traveling in a circular motion, and a circular motion is an accelerated motion. Accelerating charges emit electromagnetic radiation. The energy for this electromagnetic radiation has to come from the electron, thus the electron spirals in.
     
    Now let's see how this applies to your "explanation":
     
    As the electron reaches its "ground state", it is still moving in a circular motion. Thus it must still be emitting EMR, and still be losing energy. The only place this energy can come from is the proton-electron pair, so they must slow down. Since, according to you, the magnetic forces keeping them apart arise from their motion, forces will weaken and the electron will move closer in. This process will continue until, again, the electron falls into the proton.
     
    There are two ways around this.
     
    One is to assume that the energy for the EMR comes form some other source than the motion of the pair. But unless you are willing to throw out the conservation of energy, this source would still be finite and would be exhausted eventually.
    Besides that. At the rate that an electron orbits the proton, the EMR it would emt would be in the form of hard radiation, meaning for this to be true every atom would be giving off hard radiation, and they don't.
     
    The other way is to assume that the orbiting electron does not emit EMR. Not only does this go against classical physics, but if you assume that this is the case, then your explanation becomes moot. If you do away with the electron emitting EMR, you do away with its loss of energy, and you do away with its tendancy to spiral into the proton. The hydrogen atom is stable on its own.
     
    Besides that, it seems a little silly to suggest that modern physics has somehow forgotten about magneitc forces when it comes to expalining the stability of the atom.
     
     
    Quantum Mechanics answers the problem through a variation of the the idea that the Electron does not emit EMR in its ground state.
     
    The wavlength of the EMR emitted by the Electron is determined by the period of its orbit around the proton. The faster the orbit, the shorter the wavelength. Under QM, there is a fixed energy a single photon can have and this depends on the wavelength of the photon. The shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy of the photon has.
     
    Therefore, QM explains the stability of the electron thusly.
     
    Acclerating charges do tend to emit EMR. In the case of the electron orbit the proton in its ground state, the wavelength of the EMR emitted will be "W".
    The energy of a single photon with wavelength W, is E.
     
    The total energy the electron has to give up by falling into the proton is "e".
     
    For the ground state, E >e. Thus the electron doesn't have the energy needed to generate the photon of the wavelength it would have to emit based on its orbital period.
     
    The electron can only emit a photon of wavelength W, but doesn't have the energy available to do so, so it emits no photon at all. And since the electron can only fall in to the proton if its loses energy, and it can't emit a photn to do so, it remains stable in the ground state.
  16. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Mike C in Stability of the Hydrogen Atom   
    Stability of the Hydrogen Atom (HA):
     
    According to classical physics, the hydrogen atom is composed of an
    electron orbiting a proton and the assumption here is that the electron
    would eventually plunge into the proton because it would lose its energy.
     
    This is another example of faulty math that is used to refute Newtonian mathematics.
     
    The reason why this math is erroneous is because the Magnetic forces are not considered.
     
    So, I would like to explain why that does not happen.
     
    The electrons revolution around the proton causes the proton to spin
    in the same direction as the motion of the electron because of the ‘coulomb’ force’s attraction between the two particles. The protons spin is synchronous in relation to the electrons motion.
    The closer the electron approaches to the proton, the proton spin increases as a result of the electrons increased velocity.
     
    These motions of the two particles create magnetic fields that create an intrinsic force that pushes against the two fields to give the electron a boost to its orbital momentum.
    So the presence of this force and the electrons momentum keep the electron in this state that is the ‘ground’ state of the HA indefinitely. So the only state where the HA will collapse is in the central regions of the stars where these atoms are fused to form ‘deuterons’ that are the precursors to forming the helium nuclei.
     
    If the magnetic field interactions were taken into account, this formula would be complete and it would not fail. As long as there is no excitation, the hydrogen atom will remain in its ground state indefinitely.
     
    This magnetic interaction can be easily proven with the 'right hand rule' representing the electrons MF orientation relative to the direction of motion around the proton and the 'left hand rule' that is applicable to the proton spin MF relative to the direction of its spin that is in the same direction as the electrons motion..
     
    Just clench your fists in both hands and place them close to your body with the thumbs pointing outward that represent the particles direction of movements . The protons 'spin' side adjacent to the electron is moving in the same direction synchronously with the electrons movement.
    Notice that your fingers are pointing upward and outward. Your fingers represent the orientation of the magnetic field lines. Both fields are moving 'upward' and 'outward'. This 'upward' movement in the same direction 'creates' a REPULSION within these fields that gives the electrons momentum an additional boost to resist the coulomb attraction.
     
    While in the ground state, the hydrogen atom will radiate a one
    angstrom (approximately) sign wave continuum. All other hydrogen atoms
    in the same ground state will do likewise. Therefore, there will be no
    loss or absorption of energy between them.
     
    Photons that are spent by being absorbed by plants or are spent by their expansion to infinite widths are not spent energy to cause the HA to collapse because the electrons have to absorb a photon to reradiate a photon. So here, we also have no loss of energy;
     
    Mike C
  17. Thanks
    Anchovyforestbane got a reaction from Thoth101 in What happened to Mars?   
    I haven't implied a supernatural explanation of any kind, not once. I agree that everything within the realm of our universe has a natural explanation. 
     
    What is so supernatural about magnetic field interactions? Do you not believe in magnetic fields? If that's the case, you might be more like Thoth than you'd like to admit.
     
    The definition of conspiracy, and this is loosely speaking, is the intent or scheme by an either secret or public group to enact something unlawful or reprehensible. By extent, a "conspiracy theory" is one proposing or theorizing that a conspiracy is at play. In no possible way can this be applied to magnetic field interactions.
  18. Haha
    Anchovyforestbane got a reaction from Thoth101 in What happened to Mars?   
    Very possibly.
    I thank you for actually contributing to the topic, instead of picking fights like Montgomery over here.
  19. Haha
    Anchovyforestbane got a reaction from Thoth101 in What happened to Mars?   
    Listen, man, I don't like drama. But on the occasion that you also don't like drama and aren't actively looking for it, I must inform you:
    At first it seemed you simply didn't know a thing you were talking about. But you appear to have gone off the deep end just now.
  20. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to A-wal in What happened to Mars?   
    Do you really think Earth doesn't? If Mars has a magnetic field then it has to have a magnetotail and it also has to have it's own version of our nothern and southern lights.
    I know you're desperite to have something to use in the UFO debate because as soon as you take a definite position on one side or the other you don't have a leg to stand on but really this is a little pathetic.
    You still seem to incapable of understanding that a supernatural explanation is impossible by definition.
  21. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to A-wal in What happened to Mars?   
    What the fcuk is wrong with you? The Earth has a magnetotail and the magnetosphere lights up when charged particles from the sun interact with it, such as during a CME. I don't know if the magnetotail would ever be visible from a distance or if the same thing could happen to Mars as I already said, or if Mars even has a magnetotail for that matter but it certainly isn't a supernatural or conspiratorial explanation.
    Of course there's a natural explanation, it's impossible for there not to be. If something is real then it exists in nature and can't be supernatural by definition.
    How could someone who's as thick as you obviously are possibly consider yourself some kind of authority on discerning fact from fiction? It's hilarious.
  22. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to A-wal in What happened to Mars?   
    I think Mars hasa weak magnetic field so maybe it got hit with a CME while you were looking at it and it reacted to produce a tail. No idea if that's possible, just a wild guess.
  23. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to Mutex in Starlight Where Are You   
    INVERSE SQUARE LAW:
     
    Over a greater distance the less photons you will receive from stars, at some distance due to the inverse square law you will receive a NON-DETECTABLE number of photons.
     
    Olber's paradox does not apply because of the inverse square law as well, at some distance over the entire life of a star NO photons will reach the earth over the area of the detector over any possible exposure time.
     
    So it is possible that the universe is infinitely old and infinitely large and NOT have a 'as bright as the sun' sky. 
     
    The resolution is that even if the universe is infinitely old and infinitely large, the sources of the light are NOT shining for an infinite time and the inverse square law means that over the life of a star at a certain distance from that star no photons or next to no photons will reach the earth.
     
    The other resolution of the paradox is that the night sky IS NOT as bright as the sun, brightness is also a function of distance and not just area.
     
    Hubble deep field was detecting (at any one point) something like one photon every 8 seconds, when looking at very distant objects. So 1 photon every 80 years, or 8000 years is impossible to detect. That is why the night sky is not like a sun all the time.. 
  24. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in Starlight Where Are You   
    See Olber's Paradox
     
    The assumption is for a universe that is infinitely old, with an infinitely large number of stars distributed homogenously in an infinite space.
     
    In that case, the entire sky would be as bright as the surface of a star.
     
    The resolution is the observed fact that the universe is finitely old and is expanding. This, coupled with the finite speed of light means that only a finite number of stars can be observed from Earth. Also, redshift of light, caused by the expansion, shifts observable light into the microwave range, as we see in the cosmic microwave background which does indeed fill the entire sky just not in the visible light range.
     
  25. Like
    Anchovyforestbane reacted to OceanBreeze in What if Trump Loses?   
    Right. In fact, it has been the democrats who have not been able to accept defeat in the 2016 presidential election and have displayed near-psychotic Trump derangement syndrome ever since. If Trump wins this year we can expect to see Nancy Pelosi and more than a few other democrats totally lose their minds.
×
×
  • Create New...