Leaderboard

So if I publish a paper on Invisible Pink Unicorns in my back garden, and no one responds to it, then that means my unicorns must be real? What a ridiculous argument.

A radiometer such as the one that was depicted does not work by radiation pressure. It rotates in the opposite direction. I don’t see that there is a connection here with a light clock, which is an idealized device and shows time dilation’s relationship with length contraction (owing to the invariance of c), rather than any real processes.

The difference is relative. It is not symmetrical as in the case of relative velocity. And it is definitely not absolute. When Einstein realised that the tools in his toolbox were inadequate he went and studied differential geometry and tensors. You need better tools.You can't cut fretwork with a mallet. Apparently people have been explaining this to you for years, with mathematical justification, but you just won't accept it.

Why would anyone waste time reading this nonsense? I hope you find a more receptive audience on a non-science forum.

The outcome of some viral diseases might be affected by the exposure viral load, and indeed, lower exposure viral load could lead to milder symptoms. But even if you deal with such a disease, you cannot use limited viral exposure as a form of vaccination. The important quality of vaccine is that it creates immunity, but does not create spreadable disease.... In your case, however, such 'vaccinated' persons would spread the disease and your method might make things worse.

Missed this. This really says it all. A viewing angel is telling me from nth layer that you're mistaken. Cheers

Better in one than nailed to one...

Yet here we are in a resurrected post.

Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74. Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74. Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74. Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74. Larry Tesler, inventor of the cut, copy, and paste commands, dies at 74. The man who controlled x, controlled c, and controlled v. My humble homage from here.

Scientists do not have the time, inclination or duty to refute random nonsense published by crackpots. They are too busy doing real science. Anyone with the smallest amount of knowledge and basic critical thinking skills can do that for themselves. The gullible can lap it up. But no one really cared either way.

Yes. J/kg = ( kg * m^2 / s^2 ) / kg = m^2/s^2

Some dynamics cannot be seperated into chicken and egg debates. The Cosmological constant is one example. Evidence is that it started at the moment of the BB. However it is only a contributor to expansion it isn't the sole cause to expansion. Both matter and radiation also contribute. A little piece of advise reading several of your recent threads. Focus on one question at a time. You cannot truly learn a topic by numerous random questions all at the same time. Study each question in detail instead of relying on short replies.

It is rather unlikely that it is a significant path. First of all, respiratory droplets are (hopefully) deposited much more frequently and broader than semen fluids. Second, I do not think that the receptor is found in significant abundance in female tissue. Now, as mentioned, vaginal tissue does not seem a likely target of the virus. However there are than the lung. One of them, the kidney is also a target and in some patients renal failure has been reported. That is obviously not good either. However, ACE2 receptors are found in the gastrointestinal tract. There is at least one guy who has speculated that potentially infecting folks through the GI tract might be a way to induce immunity with potentially less harmful symptoms. However, ultimately we know to little about the pathophysiology to make any calls at this point. But there is more research looking at GI infections now. As a minor point: note how fast research has been moving (relatively speaking). Beginning of the year we weren't sure what we were dealing with at all, now folks are exploring things on a rather broad front.

Couldn't you just find the distance from the first focus to Mercury at perihelion, and the distance from the first focus to Mercury at aphelion, then take a vector from the first focus toward the point of aphelion, with a length that's the difference of the two distances? Even if those values are determined by an accurate-enough simulation, that should be easy. According to wikipedia, the difference is 23.8 million km, so that's approximately how far apart the foci should be (neglecting the sun's wobble). That's more than half the distance between Mercury and the sun at perihelion. Mercury's orbit eccentricity is huge (0.2056) compared to Earth's (0.0167).

... not if it's clearly pseudo science or just non scientific, then it's description.

! Moderator Note That is about the triple phasor paradox which would be TPP not QCDP ! Moderator Note That is not how it works. You should be able to provide a theoretical justification for your claims. Your random word salad does not meet the standards of rigour required by the forum.

Agreed. 2:20 onwards is just outright abuse. A tough teacher can be great, but there's a fine line between a tough teacher and a bully. This guys definitely the latter. Great film though, definitely recommend it. This is a type of teacher we need more of.

It is difficult to find a Maths theorem that is not of interest to Physicists these days. Napoleon's is the first that came to mind and is interesting because it is independent of any coordinate system. David Wells' Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Geometry contains some fascinating entries, many of which are actually useful.

Last summer I tried to detect advanced waves at longer distances, but I found that I can’t detect anything but noise in the advanced time window even at short distances, at usual elevation angles. The advanced signal was only detectable at high elevation angles closer to the zenith. The graph below shows measurements in the advanced time window at a distance of 4 m (λ/4 TX ant. and λ/20 RX ant.) at an angle of 25 ᵒ. Each data point is the average of 1000 pulses (6 ns FWHM, 250 MHz, 10 dBm CW) and the error bar is the standard deviation of the mean. Measurements were conducted from August 21, 2017 to November 21, 2017, every day at 12:00 UTC. The gap in the graph represent period where no measurements were conducted. Possible reason for this (under the hypothesis of advanced waves) may be a significant difference in the amount of water in the troposphere in summer and winter. For example, in January 2017, mixing ratio measured in the local radiosonde station at 925 hPa was around 2g/kg, and in August 2017 around 10g/kg. Moreover, the occurrence of super-refraction is common in summer on the coast of the Adriatic Sea, so the EM wave bends toward the ground instead of continuing upward to free space. During the measurements near the zenith I noticed that the advanced signal is stronger than the retarded one, when the receiving antenna is further shortened below the length of λ/30. This is actually in line with Hogarth's calculations in the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory for an open, ever-expanding universe. The transmitting antenna radiates predominantly advanced electromagnetic waves into free space when there is no interaction with the instrument of observation or some other absorber in the environment. In other words, the electromagnetic arrow of time points in the direction of the past when there is no interaction (except the interaction with an absorber in the distant past), and the observation/interaction reverses the direction of the electromagnetic arrow: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13505

Been advised to move to another forum. My challenge to the conventional wisdom seems to be disturbing the participants. I always thought simple basic logic was necessary to valid scientific inquiry. How silly of me. That must be philosophy - or metaphysics.

I don't think an over-the-top analogical exaggeration Is a reasonable response to the physicist writings.

Hello, here my proof that Cantors diagonalisation ore different infinities are no more valid with layer logic. As All, the set of all sets, is a set in layer theory, it is no surprise, that the diagonalisation of cantor is a problem no more (I just give the main idea, more details in the link below) (t marks the layers, W(x,t) ist the truth value of x in layer t). Be M a set and P(M) its power set and F: M -> P(M) a bijection between them (in layer d) Then the set A with W(x e A, t+1) = w := if ( W(x e M,t)=w and W(x e F(x),t)=-w ) A is a subset of M and therefore in P(M). So it exists x0 e M with A=F(x0). First case: W(x0 e F(x0),t)=w , then W(x0 e A=F(x0), t+1) = -w (no contradiction, as in another layer) Second case: W(x0 e F(x0),t)= -w then W(x0 e A=F(x0), t+1) = w (no contradiction, as in another layer) If we have All as M and identity as Bijektion F we get for the set A: W(x e A, t+1) = w := if ( W(x e All,t)=w and W(x e x),t)=-w ) = if ( W(x e x),t)=-w ) This is the layer Russell set R (I omitted the ´u´-value for simplification)- and no problem. (R is a regular set in layer set theory). So in layer theory we have just one kind of infinity – and no more Cantor´s paradise … More details at this link: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/59914-layer-logic-a-new-dimension/?tab=comments#comment-627045 Yours Ttrestone