Leaderboard

Two things are clear to me. 1) All other participents understood the gist of what you said the first time round so there was no need to repeat it. 2) You didn't listen to anything others said, since for instance you repeated your valence electron error (underlined), which is probably why you didn't respond to anyone.

So … impossible to prove or detect. That means it has no affect on anything else, or it could be detected indirectly. And if it doesn't affect anything, what is the point of having it in the model ? Maybe you should post your ideas in the Religion section. God is also impossible to prove or detect, and why so many people have no need of Him. Just like the aether.

For those interested in the equations used to work out the radial component for an elliptical orbit: Orbital velocity: = V_o = sqrt(u(2/r-1/a) Where: u is the gravitational parameter (GM) for the Sun r is the present radial distance of the orbiting body a is the semi-major axis of the orbit "r" for a chosen point of an orbit is found by r = (a(1-e^2))/(1+e cos(q)) where e is the eccentricity of the orbit q is the angle from perihelion at the chosen point of the orbit. The orbital velocity component perpendicular to the radial line is found by V_p = 2 sqrt(ua(1+e)/(1-e))/r V_r, the radial component can derived from V_o and V_p by applying a bit of trig.

I'm not overly impressed by those answers (and others I checked for a different question) These look to be answers to non-science students, where they avoid using any actual physics. That would be true if the orbit were a perfect circle, but it's not. So there is a radial velocity component. In a circular orbit the velocity toward the sun is zero; that will give you the azimuthal component from a = v^2/r For the overall speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed You can get the radial value from the fact that the orbital energy is constant. Maybe that's because of people publishing in vanity press who say they are published (Journal of Cosmology, for instance) as if their work has been scrutinized like people who do it for a living.

! Moderator Note You misunderstand the nature of this exchange. I'm telling you to follow the rules. This is not a negotiation. You don't get to say "no" if you wish to remain.

I'm sure your posts makes sense to you, to me it looks more like pareidolia. Or the result of using image editing software. This discussion seems to move into areas that I'm not interested in so I'll leave until there is some science to discuss.

I would agree. There is an angular speed, the orbital speed of 30 km/s. But there cannot be a radial velocity, otherwise the orbital radius would change at that rate. Then explain yourself better. We are confused as to exactly what you are asking. I'm sure the writings of a published Cosmologist should be much clearer.

All orbits are stable unless A) the velocity is small enough that closest approach is less than the radius of the object orbited (collision), or B) the velocity is at least as large as escape veliocity. All velocity is due to forward momentum, by definition. In other words, the velocity vector of an object cannot have a different direction than its momentum. The sun's gravity accelerates Earth downward (towards the sun) always, whether the orbit is eccentric or not. If the Earth is always moving tangentially to the sun, then its orbit is circular (it's not, but close), and there is no 'downward' velocity. The radius remains fixed. There is no other velocity that is the total free fall velocity. There's just the tangential component. For an eccentric orbit, the force on the orbiting thing is typically not perpendicular to its velocity, which results in a change in radius (distance between objects) and orbital speed. One can compute the speed by integrating F=ma over time, or by computing total mechanical energy at any given point in the orbit, which remains fixed for the entire orbit per energy conservation.

No. That balloon is a two dimensional representation of our universe, for ease of visualization. Our universe is, in effect, the SURFACE of that balloon ( reduced to just 2 dimensions ). And since the curvature of the universe is intrinsic, there is NO inside, and NO outside.

Most mutations are neutral. The lottery analogy fails due to the fact that evolution is a population level process. A diploid human genome experiences 175 mutations per generation on average. There were 3,745,540 human births in 2019 alone. That's 655,469,500 mutations across the human population in one year. Diploid human genome size is 6.4 Gb - so that population level mutational likelihood space is approximately 10% of the whole human genome in a single year. Next, "fitness" in evolutionary terms is discretely defined as genetic contribution to the subsequent generation. By definition, if a mutation is beneficial, it increases in frequency in subsequent generations (complications of neutral genetic drift aside). Therefore, "random" (they aren't actually random - only naïve with respect to fitness) explores significant portions of the human (or other species) total adaptive landscape every generation, and by definition, beneficial mutations, proliferate through the population throughout subsequent generations.

oh, and valence band electrons don't move, as they form the bonds. Conduction band ( and sometimes semi-conduction band ) electrons ( and sometimes holes ) do.

They aren’t. The premise of your question is false.

Well to continue the themed answer. The OP asked about surfaces, and I was trying to put things into context. I have chosen the plane and hyperplane because their geometries are linear. The plane and hyperplane are perhaps the simplest surfaces. We can build shapes in n dimensions considering intersections of lines, and planes. So we have polygons in 2 dimensions, polyhedrons in three dimensions and n-polytopes in n dimensions. Polygons are constructed from lines of (n-1) ie 1 dimension, but exist in 2 dimensions. Polyhedrons are solid shapes with surfaces constructed from planes. Again (n-1) ie 2 dimensions, but existing is 3 dimensions. Polytopes are shapes whose surfaces are (n-1) flats, existing in n dimensions so a polyhedron is also a 3-tope with 2-flat surfaces. Having got this far we can generate geometry on these surfaces and hypersurfaces. This will be the familiar Euclidian Geometry, or Cartesian Geometry if we involve coordinates. So for instance triangles will have interior angles adding to 180 and areas equal to 1/2 base times height, that will not vary with position on the surface. When we come to curved surfaces equivalent triangles will not be so simple to handle. Also we can generalise polytopes to curved closed surfaces such as spheres and ellipsoids and more and even to more complicated object we call manifolds.

I suspect that is difficult to predict and depends on what type of company it is (e.g. startup vs larger company). I will say that it is a bit unusual to a hire a new technician to establish a lab, usually that would be the job of the lab lead. I would probably take a close look at the contract and what stipulations might be in there. If you work out methods together with the lab lead (or equivalent) I'd be much less worried. As a technician your job is typically to continue running methods, and if you are trained to do things, it would be a waste to have to train someone else. The only scenario I can think of where it might make fiscal sense is to hire a PhD level expert to establish methods and then hire a cheaper technician (MSc, for example) to do the work. This is what sometimes happens in industrial Postdocs.

This whole thread seems pointless; we've all fallen into your trap. Only thing I learned from this thread is that INow is a bad tennis player .

Here is an easier experiment: 1. Go outside. 2. Glance at the sun, don't stare at it. If there is sunshine then your conjecture is incorrect. Please run this experiment and report back with your results.

Yes. That is what I want to discuss. Unfortunately my thread has been hijacked by Jogius with a torrent of meaningless nonsense, irrelevant jargon and personal abuse. My equation is dimensionally inconsistent but agrees with experiment. It was introduced merely as a mathematical challenge which nobody has yet accepted. Jogius has racked all 3 corners of his brain in a desperate attempt to prove me wrong, and has just come up with utter nonsense, yet you immediately found the one valid criticism. I was tempted to compliment you by saying that you are clearly many orders of magnitude cleverer than Jogius, but then I realised that is not much of a compliment. I am just trying to get you to express a clear opinion about E=MC², so I can give you an argument. It seems that we are both trying to play a game of cat and mouse, but making no progress because we both insist on being the cat. I don't think Jogius has any real interest in learning or teaching physics, he just needs to convince people that he is amazingly clever. But using Feynman's analogy, he is doing this by reciting the names of various birds in different languages, when in reality he cannot tell a snow-goose from a mongoose. In the words of the greatest philosopher, he is sick of self-love. I am hoping that if I ignore him, he will go away, but it seems he is so convinced I am a heretic that he will not rest till he sees me burnt at the stake. Actually I am the biggest fan of the principle of relativity and the Lorentz transformations, but E=MC² is not one of the Lorentz transformations. What I object to is those narrow-minded bigots who insist that if people do not use the politically correct special relativity jargon, then that means they are scientifically wrong.

The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs. https://eos.org/features/the-unsolved-mystery-of-the-earth-blobs I have no experimental evidence, but there are strong theoretical grounds to assume that the lifetime of one light wave (photon) is very short, and cannot exceed approximately one minute (depending on the power of the wave source). I suppose even light waves from the Sun cannot live more than one minute (approximately).

Arete, Your reply seems more meaningful than others. Thanks for the link at "they aren't actually random". (Some others have simply stated that thinking of the original question is wrong, without saying a word why? I was seeking discussion, not a verdict.) Most random mutations may be neutral, but number of harmful such mutations would surely exceed beneficial ones. Let me point out a scenario when beneficial mutation would have to occur in multiple places for evolution to move forward, increasing odds against it. For example, when oceanic creatures first started moving to land. To survive on land, they had to not be able to just drag/crawl their bodies in mud or dry land, but they also had to breath oxygen directly from air -- and face direct sunlight, etc. Therefore, multiple random beneficial mutations had to occur in concert to be of any help in survival. Could a phenomenon like epigenetics have not played a role, where a mutation is not random but "effortful" or "interactive"? Thanks.

Aether existance is hard to prove with usual (regular) scientific methods, and almost impossible to detect experimentally. Aether has effect on everything by the means of its fluctuations - ubiquitous (omnipresent) light- and micro(EM)waves. God is the the sum of the consciousnesses of all living beings, each of which has its own: habitat, opportunities and responsibility; each of which is somehow interconnected with other cousciousnesses.

This is why it has to manifest as just a velocity. Otherwise we'd spiral in. Velocities are accelerated in a gravity well. You are not looking deeply enough at the contributing factors. I understand what you are saying, but I am not asking that. I am a published cosmologist. Thanks, though.

Do you read? The term used was "replica." The implication is that there are axes of people who would counterfeit/sabotage the bill of rights. Answer me this then, if you understand science. What is equilibrium in an ecology?

The question is not general; equilibrium (9th grade?) It's specific: what is equilibrium in an ecology.

Michelson-Morley experiment has completely wrong concept, prerequisites, and wrong understanding of aether nature, and light - as aetheric fluctuations. Photon is one aetheric wave. Just as water waves do not create flow, so ether waves do not create flows. "Aether wind" - is completely wrong concept, because aetheric fluctuations - light - do not move the aether itself, do not create aetheric streams or flows. Light is a visible manifestation of aetheric vibrations/fluctuations. Speed of light - is the speed of propagation of aetheric vibrations, but not the speed of the flow of the aether itself.

I don't need you. In fact, this is a diversion from my work. I've respected the rules. You disrespect truth.

So you've made desperate attempts to disprove my derivation without knowing what it involved. Is your philosophy “all new truths start as heresies”, so any heresy against special relativity needs to be suppressed to stop it being acknowledged as a truth? So you are unable write a equation for dropping a ball from stationary because at T=0, V=0? You are confusing me with Max Planck. What I said was that Einstein's derivation was “the only valid method of deriving E=MC²”, and that it is E=MC² itself that is inexact. I cannot work out if you think Einstein's 1905 derivation is 'both right and wrong' or 'neither right nor wrong'. Is it possible for you to open the box and reveal all?

Can you realize that, it is completely possible that existing of aether is impossible to prove (or detect) by the usual scientific methods and instruments. Do you realize the specifical features of the micro- and nanoscale research that leads to paradox of merging objent and instrument of research - waves - into one whole?

1) There are no contradictions in that two my statements. 2) Your question is a little bit incorrect. My answer is - aether is the basic ubiquitous (omnipresent) medium of the Universe - it is everywhere. Like water waves hardly (almost not) relocate/transport water, and sound waves hardly (almost not) relocate/transport gas medium, so light- and microwaves are only aetherial fluctuations which hardly (almost not) relocate/transport aether. So on your question my answer is that everything moves in aetherial medium, and the ether itself only vibrates (fluctuates) by means of light- and microwaves.