Leaderboard

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Space is volume, its not a physical thing just like a centimeter or a yard is not a physical thing. To state that space is causeless or eternal or radiant or unknowable is just complete nonsense.

WC isn't magnetic. I'm fairly sure HSS is.

I am not prepared to call human society a multi species society due to the fact that all the species we tolerate do not live independent lives separate from us and cooperating with us. If wild wolf packs lived among humans as separate and independent entities who would cooperate without losing their independence I would have to rethink this...

Nothing would change ethically, people are brought back to life every day. That's a different question, would we give human rights to a computer? Who pays the energy bill? Would it be murder to switch the computer off? Etc...

Is it? Evidence needed. Really? Citation needed. Dependent on what? Clarity needed. Non-sequitur. Rational argument needed. As for the rest: tl;dr.

I think we're all assuming that (possible) industrial civilisation would follow the same destructive path that we are. A slightly different mindset could result in a civilisation that had a minimal impact on the environment.

42/7 are the standard angles for dimetric projections, not sure about what is on there though. Also, it is a "Schablone" (with "e", though technically I should not complain about typos, if it was one). Edit, just checked some drawings and it seems that there are variations in dimetric projections, including 41.25/7.11.

Presumably for doing dimetric projection drawings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonometric_projection Not sure why that specific angle though...

This is still highly controversial in the science world, so if the mods and/or admins see it as more appropriate for "speculation" then I welcome it removal to that section. My thoughts on this have always been that no known laws of physics were ever broken, rather that some apparent as yet unknown aspect could be at work. The following article and hypothetical seems to support those thoughts........ https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust This Overlooked Theory Could Be The Missing Piece That Explains How The EM Drive Works What if it doesn't break the laws of physics? FIONA MACDONALD 7 OCT 2017 Ever since the EM drive first made headlines, science lovers have puzzled over how the propulsion system seems to produce thrust, despite the fact it's 'impossible' according to one of the most fundamental laws of physics - Newton's third law of motion. Now a team of physicists have put forward an alternative explanation - it turns out the EM drive could actually work without breaking any scientific laws, if we factor in a weird and often overlooked idea in quantum physics - pilot wave theory. more at link.....https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust The new research has been published in The Journal of Applied Physical Science International. http://www.ikpress.org/abstract/6485 Abstracts Scientific literature refers to a strange observed phenomenon, “impossible” according to traditional physics, looking at the experimental feasibility of the so called “EM Drive”. The authors have called it an Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum. Here we present a possible explanation for the observed thrust based on the conceptual framework of Eurhythmic Physics, a kind of pilot-wave theory aiming at bridging the gap between quantum and macroscopic systems. Applied to the present system, a generalized guidance condition could explain the claimed absence of reaction of the material of the drive on the enclosed fields. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Some later news dated Feb this year..... https://www.nowscience.co.uk/single-post/2018/02/24/China-Claims-They-Have-Successfully-Created-an-EM-Drive China Claims They Have Successfully Created an EM Drive ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; So, how viable is this "Pilot wave theory"? Or is this whole exercise a fraudulent joke played out for the scientific community? The last news I heard on this was that there was enough physics and observational data in this claim, to have it tested in LEO and space. What do others here believe is the case?

The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right. I believe in eternal and infinite universe, where for sake of two main forces of properties of matter: electric and gravity of sub-particles of mater, hold them selves together, and structure particles and bodies. The space - time I think is not material, and cannot execute any force. The “space – time” for me is “space - anti “gravity”, created by sub particles with property of anti mass, dispersed in all Euclidian space, around the bodies of “mass,, giving space some different property of ideal Euclidian space. The computer “meshes?” (simulations) have to do with different concentrations of sub particles of anti mass on the space around bodies. It is repulsive force of interaction of gravity of body’s mater with anti gravity of space that holds bodies in suspended status in space. Thanks for link. But I was full with “ Universal equalities “ of Gary Lyon Otto” I did not intend to influence in your knowledge and believes in them. In this conversation I won for sure the banned status. Mordred Resident Expert Resident Experts 1046 6024 posts Report post Posted 9 hours ago (edited) Mordred. I sincerely feel awful bad, reading your answer about mistakes in my post. I feel bad, because I am not a physicist. And you treated me like this. I am a curious person with some confuse ideas, with zero theoretical preparation. So i have nothing to tell about your teaching. My idea is that Constant of physic are “really physic” as counter part of equation, to hold concepts in balance. So if we have a mass, or charge in one side of physics equation, in the constants (that present in some manner their existence in the space) must be mass with anti mass, or electric charge with anti-electric charge. They do not annihilate each other. They create fields. In my post, the constant of gravity divided by h multiplied by frequency, with this huge amount of energy in denominator, confused me and gave hope for some thing new and stranger, that my have any link with my idea. After I treated all other constants of space with Planck constants, and I find some interesting results, in this direction. Sorry for time lost for me. Your verdict about my post is clear. Moderators 6456 39535 posts Location: Washington DC region Report post Posted 2 hours ago Thanks. warning given.

Quote Stranger 20 hours ago, dhimokritis said: The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right. This is not a matter of belief, but of evidence. ------------------------ dhimokritis said: The evidence, yes, may be personal and collective beliefs, based in some facts collected with material instruments - by material beings with some higher intelligence. From some facts, those beings may create hypothesis and theories. When the hypotheses are materialized, and became an objective evidence, which don’t live any tail behind, people believe in interpretations of hypothesis as truth, even though interpretation my be idealistic. Have not many hypothesis crashed, when material factors came in light? What about this: We can’t collect evidence for anti mass objects, because our instruments and we self, are massive and repellent for anti-mass objects. ---------------------- stranger 20 hours ago, dhimokritis said: I believe in eternal and infinite universe That is not, necessarily, incompatible with the Big Bang model. Unless you insist on an eternal, unchanging universe in which case, your belief is just plain wrong. dhimokritis said: I didn’t say eternal in your meaning. For me eternal means that is material, and the sub-particles that structure universe are eternal: not created and not annihilated. And they are particular even though of Planck sise. ------------- strange 20 hours ago, dhimokritis said: I won for sure the banned status. Nope. You might like to make yourself a martyr to your anti-science beliefs, but it takes more than just being wilfully ignorant. ----------------- dhimokritis said: Don’t be hypocrite and acetic. I have not any debit to you, to deserve that. “Facts don’t come naturally. Drama and opinions do. Factual knowledge has to be learned.” Gapminder: https://www.gapminder.org beecee Organism Senior Members 205 1244 posts Location: Maroubra Sydney Report post Posted 17 hours ago 20 hours ago, dhimokritis said: The beliefs are personal. You believe in B.B, it is your personal right. Not in the least, perhaps you didn't read my post in its entirety; I said, "The overwhelming evidence so far tells us that spacetime/universe [as we know it] did have a beginning at what we call the BB". Sometimes this evidence is called the pillars supporting the BB. They are, [1] The observed expansion, [2] The CMBR or relic heat from the BB, [3] The abundance of the lighter elements. Other evidence supporting a BB model are galactic distribution and Olber's paradox. ------------------- dhimokritis said I don’t deny evidences, I deny interpretation of those. And the conclusion: Created from nothing. Let take 1- Observed expansion. When was made this pillar susceptible? When authors has an evidence of “v” expansion > “c” . And this happened when instruments were perfection-ed for farther vision. And look: The cause of this was promptly found “ something is in space that cause it. Let find it now. Wasn’t it before? I believe in eternal and infinite universe, where for sake of two main forces of properties of matter: electric and gravity of sub-particles of mater, hold them selves together, and structure particles and bodies. ---------------- This does not invalidate the BB. See....http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html but essentially we do not really know if the universe is infinite or not. ----------------------- dhimokritis You say so? Why,--- when you are not sure? ---- Quote ___________ The space - time I think is not material, and cannot execute any force. The “space – time” for me is “space - anti “gravity”, I don't believe anyone has said that spacetime is a material thing, but something does not need to be a physical material thing to be real. Is a magnetic field real? Spacetime can be bent, warped, curved twisted in the presence of mass, which is then reflected in what we call gravity...In other words gravity is spacetime....is gravity real? _____________ dhimocritis You asked: Is a magnetic field real. O yes. And I think is something material in space about it: μ0 / 4*pi = M*R. / e^2 = 10^-7 N /A^2 ___________________ Quote I sincerely feel awful bad, reading your answer about mistakes in my post. I feel bad, because I am not a physicist. And you treated me like this. I am a curious person with some confuse ideas, with zero theoretical preparation. So then, why not listen to those that are physicists or cosmologists? Why not review the evidence supporting certain incumbent views like the BB? Then ask questions on anything you believe to be a problem...Leave the Hansel and Gretel type fairy tales to the likes of the Grimm Brothers and Walt. All I see till now about BB is fairy tales make sugared with some science for to be less dubious. .----------------------------- Quote Sorry for time lost for me. Your verdict about my post is clear. Your thread was moved to speculation because that's all it is...Again, as I said earlier, It would be very beneficial for yourself to familairise yourself fully with the BB model and why it is held in such high regard. ------------------ Why?

I get the idea the body can't deal well with (some) molecules like fructose or starch & so stores them as fat. (Versus e.g. glucose.) Instead muscle is broken down easier (or let's say faster, than those difficult fat deposits). During childhood & teens those specific fat deposits might not become noticeable. But later (in life, accumulating) things like "beer bellys" & "bread baskets" become noticeable on some human bodies. Those rounding curves don't get smaller on their own (either). The (natural) tendancy seems to be: getting "fatter" (no matter how hard trying to reduce (fat) weight). Considering: (many processed) foods have fructose (_glucose sirup) added as a sales gimick to get people to eat them (more). Youtube video "Sugar the bitter truth". & that some livestock are eating those foods too, to recycle the waste(d food)s, thus getting more fat. ..& reused. Then the getting fatter tendancy in life, might be explained. E.g. recognized (partially). & a thorough natural fat reduction of the final last fat pounds seems like mission impossible. The bad bugs (=bacteria) are being fed ("faster") by refined (=pure) carbohydrates, meaning they have no stumbling blocks (like vitamins, minerals, ..& other complex things) & we feed on their (bacterial) waste products. What I've observed is various mild acids help reduce body fat: Lemon juice (citric acid) in water, black or green tea (tannic acid), apple cider vinegar (acetic acid), green coffee extract (chlorophylic acid). Some also (reduce) hunger. Ascorbic acid (=Vitamin C (+Zn, time release) + sausage seems to produce muscle! Excess protein? Anti_bacterial? Or is the saltpeter affecting that? Fat is made of fatty acid(s) & glycerin. Maybe the (acidic) pH tips the scale & the body tries to rid or eliminate fat (osmotically: higher concentration to lower? seems doubtful). Competative acidity, as solvent? Or just too much acid sensed, & reserves must be reduced? Maybe (also) bitter (toxifies) body fats, so the body wants to get rid of it, throwing out the fat (bound to bitter) too? I'd be interested in what we could naturally add to e.g. beer; bread; butter which would NOT ruin their flavour, but would also reduce body fat. (Sweet) Beer's strategy with bitter hops does NOT seem to be enough when also eating too. Martin Luther's wife probably boiled the (toasted (=roasted)?) bread crumbs (pieces left over from the mass's loaves) & let it sit (weeks?) to ferment, for beer. ? Otherwise she did NOT rebake the bread pieces & the (fresh=grape juice) wine had the yeast, & she (had) only put the crumbs into water. Cheers

The fact that the universe is utterly inextricable from 'shape' (which cannot exist at all without 'constraint') directly indicates that it is absolutely dependent. In other words, the universe cannot occur without a 'Cause'. In this sense, the universe can be regarded as the 'Eternal Radiance' of Causeless Shapelessness itself. In truth, ALL 'things' and 'events' (including 'ourselves') are actually conceptually delineated, 'apparently discernable impermanent features' of this Radiance. Evidently, any given 'particular thing' (for example, a 'tree') exists in a state of constant change, which is to say that 'the tree' is in fact a 'process' rather than a 'thing'. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not the tree', and are naturally comprised of 'other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other processes', and are naturally comprised of 'other other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum. Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence, and so there is no REAL difference between 'the tree' and 'not the tree'. As such, neither 'the tree' nor 'not the tree' exist in Reality. Exactly the same is true of ALL 'particular processes', including 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and 'You' and 'Not You'). In truth, the necessary distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not ACTUALLY exist in any way at all. If this Radiance COULD have had another shape, It WOULD have had another shape. Because there is no way to know why It COULDN'T have had another shape, there is no way to know why It has the shape that It has. Likewise, the true nature of the Causeless Shapelessness (that is to say, the actual reason WHY It is radiant at all, and why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within It's Radiance) is absolutely unknowable. If the 'ceaseless change' that is this Radiance had an absolute beginning, that beginning would also be the ending of a prior 'beginningless absence of change'. If it had an absolute ending, that ending would also be the beginning of a subsequent 'endless absence of change'. Such a situation is an absolute impossibility. Therefore, this 'ceaseless change' MUST be eternally cyclic. Apparently, some of the 'conscious features' of the Radiance are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings. This hypnosis makes it SEEM to these extremely complex conscious features (a.k.a. intelligent body/mind life-forms) that all the apparently discernable features of the Radiance (including themselves) are in fact 'solely self-inclusive forms' (which is to say, that they are all fundamentally existing separate things that have their own independent nature), and that they themselves have their own personal consciousness and are the separate, autonomous originators of their own particular movements. As such, the absolute harmony that naturally exists between all the features of the Radiance seems to be 'hidden' from these hypnotized conscious features. Instead, they perceive a situation that seems confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening. This is the illusion of multiplicity, seperateness and duality. Perceiving this, the hypnotized conscious features are bound to suffer. Where this hypnosis is not present, there can be no suffering. Because after all, there is ONLY Radiant Shapelessness. Thanks for reading. ☺