Leaderboard

Not sure if this is in the right section or not, so perhaps a mod can move it if required? Some people that frequent science forums, [obviously the best type] will inevitably say they have a new theory about some aspect of the universe/life etc.They put there ideas in various forcefull ways full of confidence and much bravado, seemingly ignorant of the fact that professional scientists are forever testing and retesting incumbent theories: Afterall that's there job....sometimes they are in error, sometimes they may make mistakes [BICEP2] but surely that is part of the human makeup and should be expected from time to time. Anyway I believe that all those that believe they have something better then the incumbent theory/model should first be required to tick off all the following points. Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures: [1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite compli" It most certainly isn't: [2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims... [3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model: [4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet: [5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases: [6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support: [7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it. [8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it: [9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that: [10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go: [11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be. [12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories, and of course make sure you know the incumbent model you are thinking of over throwing perfectly.

Well said. I would like to add that having good reference material to support one's assertions also helps. New ideas are always more palatable when others have had similar ideas that can be referenced. At the very least the reference material may demonstrate where this new theory originates or whether it has merit or is fundamentally flawed. One's references can either strengthen or weaken a theory.

I would not say that the limits established by Chandrasekhar and Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff were "wrong." Just not complete. I have absolutely no doubt that the maximum mass of a non-rotating, non-magnetic white dwarf is precisely as Chandrasekhar calculated it to be. Chandrasekhar did not take into consideration a rapidly rotating or a highly magnetic white dwarf when calculating the maximum mass of a white dwarf. Therefore, his answer is not "wrong," it just does not include all the possibilities. Compared to its red giant companion, any neutron star or white dwarf in an ~83-day orbit will be virtually invisible to us. We can obviously detect the mass of the object from its gravitational effects on its companion, which is what they did, but there is no way we would be able to "see" it.

No probs, just give me a headstart and someone to outrun...

You need to listen to this Moon:

I'm glad you think you know me so well, Ten oz. I think I've come to know quite a bit about your character as well. As For D Ford I only mentioned him in passing while describing the current state of affairs in Ontario and our ballooning deficit. But that would have to mean you actually read other's posts, and don't already have preconceived notions. I mentioned several months back how I was going to vote in this election, as I only have respect for one of the leaders, Andrea Horwath. She happens to lead the NDP, a SOCIALIST party. So I have no idea why you keep referring to D Ford. But that would have to mean you actually read other's posts, and don't already have preconceived notions. That speaks volumes about your character ! I'm sure others are bored by our bickering ( at least Phi is ), so I'll give it a rest. You go ahead and keep on going, if you like. There's plenty of other stuff to make up about me.

But the example Sensei gave shows that SR agrees with Newtonian physics at low speeds, but applies over a wider range or speeds, because Newtonian physics fails at high speeds. So it explains and predicts better, just as beecee stated in item 3. This is one reason why every speculation has thus far failed. It's just not reasonable to expect that an amateur effort will improve on well-tested mainstream physics. But that's where the bar is that one must hurdle.

Bathtub filled with water (maybe colourful water if you don't care about your tub) and you pull the cork, zoom on the "vortex" kinda to show how all the "stuff" if pulled in. Or better yet, read this: https://www.scienceinschool.org/2013/issue27/blackholes

I limited the case to "annihilation of proton-antiproton at rest" not without a reason. Because it considerably limits number of possible answers e.g. higher energy particles can be omitted in answer.. But you completely didn't understand it.. I am expecting precise answers. After all, you came here with "ToE" and wanted questions from quantum physicists, which will prove or disprove your theory.. So far, no answers.

Feeling the need to eat and feeling hungry are two very different things, for those dealing with frequent low blood glucose levels. It is not low blood sugar that makes you feel hungry. For example, a type-1 diabetic may feel absolutely bloated and stuffed after finishing a large meal, but still have a dangerously low (and still plummeting) blood glucose level, as the result of a fast-acting insulin injection, which may enter the system, before almost any of the previously consumed food has. Pure glucose gels and tablets, when eaten, enter the blood stream much faster than other carbohydrates, like pasta, and more than an order of magnitude faster than fat and protein. So the answer to your question is all about the timing. When your body really needs glucose, it needs it now - not an hour from now, much less a day from now. It is rather like needing air; it does not matter if you can be supplied with all the air in the world, a few minutes after your heart and/or brain have been permanently damaged due to an earlier short-term lack. A type-1 diabetic can lose consciousness in a matter of minutes, once their blood sugar starts to plummet, even when their stomach is full. The problem is, it is full of food, including most types of carbohydrates, that are absorbed more slowly than a fast-acting insulin. Consequently, it is not just the quantities of carbohydrates and insulin that matter, in this type of situation, but their respective absorption rates. That is why a very rapidly absorbed carbohydrate, like pure glucose, may need to be consumed, in spite of a full stomach. Once a diabetic has become unconscious, and thus unable to consume anything, the situation may be quickly reversed by either injecting glucose directly into their bloodstream, or as is usually preferred, by giving them an injection of the hormone glucagon, which causes the liver to rapidly (in a matter of minutes) release glucose into the bloodstream. An over-weight person is likely to have type-2 diabetes. They too will have problematic swings in their blood-glucose levels, just not as extreme as those likely to be encountered by the rarer type-1. But in either case, hunger and low blood glucose levels are not the same thing; one may feel the need to "eat something", in response to symptoms other than hunger, that tend to become familiar to diabetics, that have to deal with these other symptoms, on a fairly regular basis.

While your concerns might be true if Ten oz spoke only of Republicans, or even American Conservatives, the fact that he labels ALL Conservatives, CharonY, wherever they may be from, is prejudicial and hateful. We did not vote in D Trump, nor support him in any way. Need I remind that the typical Canadian Conservative is far to the left of Republicans, Democrats and probably even B Sanders ? I suggest you use a much finer brush, Ten oz. And while I may have brought up some subjects you did not like and consider unsavory, what I don't like, is the hypocrisy of preaching tolerance and respect for all people, while actively vilifying and disrespecting those that disagree with you.

I’ll consider myself having learnt something new today, thanks StringJunky.

The byproducts of the body' are excreted in urine. Stuff goes through the alimentary walls into the bloodstream and any waste products gets processed by the liver and kidneys. Nothing is added to the faeces in the form of waste products that I'm aware of. All fasting does is give the gut bacteria a hard time, which is not a good thing, and it eventually makes your breathe stink because the bacteria are dying from lack of nutrients. The idea of "cleansing" your body is hogwash and fasting is actually a silly thing to do unless medically advised.

The alimentary canal is a two way system; nutrients go in; waste comes out. Is it possible that what we perceive as hunger is actually just the case the food had been digested, and with with that task out of the way, it can start cleaning toxins out of the body into the fecal matter. Could it be this increase in toxins generates a feeling that we mistake as hunger? I wondered this because when I feel hungry I get a sick feeling in my stomach after a while. In reality we can last days without food (probably weeks with the right preparation), so o wonder why we get the ‘sick’ feeling? This might tie in with the knowledge that fasting is good to help clean the body.

One problem that I can see... Guide vanes and stators are used to 'straighten' the gas flow, otherwise it spirals around the engine and has an unfavorable attitude to the fan blades ( plus unwanted gyroscopic effects ). In your design, the two shafts need to spin at exactly the same speed, so that each succeeding stage can straighten the flow of the preceeding stage. Even a small difference in rtational speed will cause the gas flow to spira axially. The shaft driven by the first turbine will necessarily spin faster than the second turbine, as gas speed has been reduced by interaction with the first. In normal engines this isn't a problem, as the first turbine drives the outer shaft/hi-pressure compressor, while the second turbine drives the inner shaft/lo-pressure compressor at a lower speed. That brings us to the second problem... Most advanced engines nowdays are turbofans which have a slower turning lo-pressure compressor, and 'bypass ' air is ducted around the hi-pressure compressor. Military engines have a bypass ratio of 0.3:1 up to 1:1 depending on application, and then dump this bypass air into an afterburner/re-heat section; meanwhile commercial aviation engines can have bypass ratios of 8:1 or more, and the most advanced ones have 'geared' fans to reduce/optimize rotational speed even more. Your design does not lend itself to these types of application. And while a small turbojet might have applications in non-reusable missiles, most APUs and turboshaft engines use centrifugal compressors to reduce size and part count. Have you tried contacting any of the companies I mentioned in my last post ?

I think you need to concentrate on bulding a prototype and after a series of tests it will turn out if it will be more efficient. I assure you, you will come across issues which you have not accounted for when working with a prototype.

"It's Life Jim, but not as you know it". Spock: Star Trek:

The time dilation in relativity is relative. Every observer sees that the clock of another moving observer slows down. However, the twin paradox shows that time can indeed slow down. The twin paradox is not mutual... But I think I have discovered the trick. Everything depends on who determines the distance of the trip. Does the twin who remained on Earth do that, then this twin ages faster. And vice versa: Does the travelling twin do that in his frame during the outward journey, then this twin ages faster. The difference is the length contraction. The twin who sees the route from another reference system sees this route shortened. Therefore, he needs less time to travel this route. Best regards Walter Orlov

Finally someone that actually at least took a time to think about it, thank you, you are the first person, i will love to clarify your questions. Yeah historically the purpose of physics has been to create theories you can make future predictions with my theory but what the theory says is that you will never be sure if your prediction is right if you don't observe it . i am not promoting a product im giving this away for free and i tell you guys to watch my youtube channel because it will help you to understand what im trying to say because it is difficult to understand so that is why the most important thing is to keep your mind open. So lets continue answering your questions, Yes the observer changes the state of the universe because it is a part of it but this theory says that when you watch something you are watching its behavior so it does not matter what caused the behavior it can be itself or the observer actually what my theory says is that the whole universe organization causes that behavior and of course the observer is part of the whole energy organization. I know that my idea may not make sense to you but to understand it you have to open your mind forget any assumptions that classical physics or quantum physics make. There is no dimensions gravity is the behavior of energy my theory calls gravity to every interaction so in my theory there is not electromagnetism, weak nuclear, string nucleal, my theory can be summarized as follows: Energy is all that exists, and energy has only one behavior which is change its density. The only objective of energy is to become denser as much as it cans and when it cannot keep increasing its density, it decreases its density again and makes the infinite loop density cycle which means that there is not a beginning of the universe and wont be an end because the universe is an infinite loop in which the whole existing energy changes its density in an infinite loop fashion. A observer is a kind of energy organization that focuses energy organization that is why i use the word focuser to refer to an observer, for something to exist it has to be seen, you don't know if your dog is alive if you don't look at it, but this is different from saying your dog is alive and dead at the same time, this theory says that you don't know this means the dog does not exist until you look at it, because if you think about what does to exist means is to be focused if you don't believe try to say that something exists without looking it, you know your mom was alive the last time you saw or talk to her, but now you simply don't now. There is no time there is just energy and how its organized and follows only one behavior which is the infinite loop density cycle, who needs time is an observer as a tool to describe what it sees again im uploading another video that explains just this i hope im not banned for saying that. If i did ont answered your questions just tell me i will answer every kind of question you guys ask. Yes it does include a mathematical model to predict results please check it

Well this kind of thing is because of the arrangement of their component pieces. 1)Well first an arch can fall down, a well done arch does not fall down because the interaction between the floor and the arch energy distribution, but mainly because the material if you make it with a good material it will just stay up, i mean is a simple structure is like organizing energy in the correct way to make it stable for a given environment 2)Pulling from the right side with a point of support or something These questions are kind of sarcastic i think. Energy can be organized so programmed, like you can do multiplications with additions

Thank you for you opinion i really appreciate it, ok what my TOE would say about the arch is as follows: Take a camera and take a photo of the system and wait until you notice a change in the data and take another photo so you have two photos of the system how my theory approaches to this problem is that the arch and the floor are the same object if the arch is not moving in relation to the floor, what this says is that you cannot know for sure how stable is the arch just by looking at it in rest on the other hand lets say we have a system in which you told me more info about the arch energy organization like saying The thing is that i need to learn how to apply my theory into the real world, so if you tell me how is traditionally described an arch i can maybe translate it into my TOE.