Leaderboard

“Yes, everything in physics is completely made up – that’s the whole point” https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/everything-physics-made-up/ Is it ever true, then, to say that an electron is ‘real’ when it’s in motion? If we believe that electrons are real things, have we just made up the wavefunction to make the math work out? Absolutely – that was, in fact, the whole point. We couldn’t get the equations to work if the electron was a solid, isolated particle, so we made up something that wasn’t, and then the numbers started making sense. … physics isn’t built around ultimate truth, but rather the constant production and refinement of mathematical approximations. It’s not just because we’ll never have perfect precision in our observations. It’s that, fundamentally, the entire point of physics is to create a model universe in math - a set of equations that remain true when we plug in numbers from observations of physical phenomena. Another physicist’s take on physics describing behavior vs reality

It has an anti-particle, И.

Found this pretty cool. Thought some here might react similarly. “Boeing engineers’ handmade airplane shatters a record by flying nearly the length of an American football field. <…> Their design was inspired by hypersonic aerospace vehicles and they practiced for four months before making their attempt. <…> “We tried to mimic the design of various hypersonic vehicles, which travel at speeds over Mach 5 (five times the speed of sound). So, we decided to call our plane Mach 5,” Ruble said. <…> Ruble and Jensen studied origami and aerodynamics for months, putting in 400 to 500 hours of creating different prototypes to try to design a plane that could fly higher and longer. <…> We found the optimal angle is about 40 degrees off the ground. Once you’re aiming that high, you throw as hard as possible. That gives us our best distance,” Jensen said. “It took simulations to figure that out.“ Video at the link: https://onfirstup.com/boeing/BNN/articles/duo-s-paper-airplane-seizes-guinness-world-records-status-1?bypass_deeplink=true

I’m not the one who, in context of THIS thread, couldn’t figure out what accidental leaks were being described

Thank you, @Genady. I must confess I didn't see your argument back then. If anything, the fact that we both concur on the same argument makes our case only more poweful.

I bloody well hope so! 😁

A little bit more for you to ponder about, Mr. @Abouzar Bahari. You might want to take a look at, https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Application-Physical-Problems-Physics/dp/0486661814 The fact that the transformations are symmetric --in the sense you mean them not to be-- is not an exclusive property of Lorentz transformations. AAMOF, Galilean transformations must comply with the same property you are in denial of. So, for slow velocities v, your argument is in trouble too: \[ x'=x-vt \] \[ ct'=ct \] \[ y'=y \] \[ z'=z \] So, even Galilean transformations are inconsistent with what you say. There is a powerful theorem that guarantees that the only relativity principles that can be consistent with a F=ma (second-order evolution equations) formulation of dynamics are the Galilean principle of relativity or the Einstein principle of relativity. I rest my case. Or do I?

Agreed. Interesting, at the very least. P(N)=И P2(N)=N => P2=I Is there an anti-nothing? I mean, an anti-nothing worth distinguishing from the usual nothing? Always do. Irrespective of how much respect they deserve. They're there for a reason. Plus... people can be touchy. Arguments are not.

You do not understand what parity is. Parity is an involution, by definition. That is P2 = I. That's because, if you change the sign of the coordinates, and then you change it again, you must get back to where you started. Lorentz transformations, OTOH, are not. There is no reason why Λ2 should be the identity. Every symmetry transformation should be a representation of a group, for consistency. So Λ(v)Λ-1(v)=I. As it happens, Λ(v)Λ(-v)=I, so Λ-1(v)=Λ(-v). End of story as to the mathematics. If you are willing to present an experiment that contradicts this mathematics, that would be great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involution_(mathematics) Are we done here? Another thing, Mr. Bahari. You can keep giving neg-reps every single time I take pains to explain to you why your idea cannot be right, if you are so inclined. I would like to see a reason why you're doing so, other than you thinking I'm 'illiterate.'

It's best not to think of solubility in black and white terms. There are degrees of it. I don't know for a fact, but my guess would be that glycine has appreciable solubility in glycerol, but less than in water. I would expect the same to be true of many other polar compounds. When it comes to ionic compounds (inorganic salts) it may be a more complex picture, depending on the success that a big molecule like glycerol has in binding to a small, charged ion. Others here may have more knowledge of this than I do. But directionally yes, glycerol, being polar, should be able to dissolve polar species significantly.

Glycerin has 3 OH group which support the solubility, because of Hydrogen bridge bonding.

Real numbers are the backbone of mathematics, and they always exist along the real number line. This line is made up of infinitely many segments that stretch from negative infinity to positive infinity. Each segment contains an infinite amount of numbers, making it impossible for us to ever run out! So no matter how much we explore math and its applications, real numbers will always be there waiting for us on the real number line. Taking the real numbers off the line doesn't mean they all disappear. They're still right there on the line. And the real numbers are, in actual fact, not the line. Yeah, they're all numbers, not geometric shape. You can imagine yourself deleting any real number on the line( or deleting anything in the universe ). But...don't let imaginations play tricks on you! No one in the universe can actually delete or remove any real number. Real numbers always exist in the mathematical realm of nature!

Interesting. I would have thought you'd get the best range from a glider design, with very high aspect ratio wings ( ratio of span to chord ), which would allow for low loss of altitude with distance. I would have never thought a hypersonic design to be capable of sustaining the needed lift. PS I'm sure Airbus can do better 😀 .

His post is precisely on topic and the earlier posts are useful background in understanding glycine's low miscibility in organic solvents. All about the zwitterions.

In water its soluble 225 g/l, so it will be also soluble in Glycerin. This thread is 9 years old , please open a new thread next time.

We’re never going to know for sure which origin hypothesis is exactly correct. I’m uncertain, though, why this is the issue getting everyone agitated? Wet market. Lab leak. Both should be made safer as a good general practice, but in terms of the origin of SARS-Cov2, who cares? None of these agencies are saying it was deliberate or for militaristic reasons. Of all the lessons humanity needs to learn after this pandemic, I don’t feel that even makes the Top 10 list.

Everything I've seen so far suggests that the low confidence lab leak theory is being promoted in intelligence reports from intelligence officers, and not papers from epidemiologists or virologists. When you look at all the reports directly from scientists in relevant fields, they all state a much higher probability to the spillover theory. If the media is going to jump to a lab leak theory due to scientists at the DOE weighing in, an agency that runs labs like Livermore and AFAIK no bio labs, that seems like a stretch. And the FBI, while it does in fact have access to a bio lab at Fort Detrick, MD, that's just a unit with specialists in forensic research, and not epidemiology/virology. There is a virology unit at Ft. Detrick, but I don't think it is run by the FBI. It is strange that most of the "breaking news" on this seems to be coming from Right-Wing or RW-leaning media, news outlets that have previously fed a variety of Yellow Peril theories to their subscribers/watchers. For example, when I look at a more neutral news source, like NPR, their stories mention that the vast majority of the scientific community do not see the lab leak theory as supported by evidence and as far lower probability than the spillover theory. This bias in some media seems to have led to a cadre of bloggers and trolls who attack anyone who is dubious about the lab leak theory as "close-minded" and "opposed to science because you won't wait for more evidence." The problem is, the initial outbreak happened in an authoritarian dictatorship, so it seems really unlikely that there will be "more evidence" forthcoming that could either support or negate the lab leak theory. And the fact that spillover from zoonotic reservoirs is common and well-documented means that the Ockham's Razor candidate for strongest theory will likely remain the spillover theory. Nothing will ever be proved beyond a doubt, and that will feed the conspiracy nuts for years.

! Moderator Note You need to STOP making this personal! Others have focused on the physics and have told you where they have objections, and it's plain to see you haven't overcome these objections. Try engaging with the science instead of telling us how many papers you've had published (since that's a fallacious Appeal to Authority argument). The members replying to you have been very specific about your math, and your response has been to wave the objections away and claim they don't know what they're talking about. That's not going to work here. You must deal with objections to your explanations when proposing non-mainstream science in the Speculations section. This is a science discussion forum, not your blog, and the difference is how you engage with those asking you for clarification.

Did they look at the right time, i.e. before they knew there was an outbreak? Did they look in the right place, i.e. at every (susceptible) animal there? One odd case in some animal that passed the bug to a store-holder before becoming someone's cooked dinner would be all it took. Obviously, you can't rule out a lab mistake as the "source" but you have to ask how the virus got into the lab. It must have been in the environment somewhere. How easy is it to rule out the idea that, rather than coming from the lab, it came from the tyre of the car that carried the sample to the lab? Lab escapes happen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak And they knew they were dealing with a dangerous (Cat 3, I think) organism. The only way in which you can "blame China" is if you can be sure that they deliberately made a lethal human pathogen in what is- as you say- pretty much a school laboratory.

c can have any value you want just by choosing the length and time units accordingly, as @Eise told you. Stop blaming your misunderstanding on others. I also told you.

β=v in any system of units such as light-years per year, light-seconds per second, etc. That is, any system of units in which c=1 . I thought you understood that, @Abouzar Bahari.

This math is not a matter of Lorentz equation or inverse equation, just geometry. The same in Galilean transformation, x' = x - vt If S' moves to the right relative to S, v is positive. If S' moves to the left, v is negative.

@Markus Hanke is absolutely right. When one talks about something being symmetric or not, one must specify what is symmetric --the object-- with respect to what --change of POV, transformation, etc. What Markus has shown to you is that, assuming two observers assign respectively coordinates \( \left(t,x,y,z\right) \) and \( \left(t',x',y',z'\right) \), the metric --given by \( t^{2}-x^{2}-y^{2}-z^{2} \) doesn't change --it's the same in the primed coordinates and the unprimed ones. It might be that what you mean is that the law that user with primed coordinates uses to correlate his observations with those of user with unprimed coordinates is not the same with \( \boldsymbol{v} \) replaced by \( -\boldsymbol{v} \). But it is. Both relative velocities are obviously collinear, so, \[ x'=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}} \] \[ ct'=\frac{ct-vx/c}{\sqrt{1-v^{2}/c^{2}}} \] \[ y'=y \] \[ z'=z \] (simple Lorentz transformations in one direction, AKA 'boosts') Introducing the definitions, \[ \gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^{2}}} \] \[ \beta=v \] The reciprocal ones obviously are, \[ \gamma'=\gamma \] \[ \beta'=-\beta \] and you get, \[ \left(\begin{array}{cccc} \gamma & -\beta\gamma & 0 & 0\\ -\beta\gamma & \gamma & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc} \gamma & \beta\gamma & 0 & 0\\ \beta\gamma & \gamma & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc} \gamma^{2}\left(1-\beta^{2}\right) & \beta\gamma-\beta\gamma & 0 & 0\\ \beta\gamma-\beta\gamma & \gamma^{2}\left(1-\beta^{2}\right) & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)= \] \[ =\left(\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array}\right) \] which more compactly reads, \[ \Lambda\left(-\boldsymbol{v}\right)=\Lambda^{-1}\left(\boldsymbol{v}\right) \] In what other sense you might want it to be more symmetrical, I don't know.

Glycine is the smallest, most polar amino acid due to -COOH and -NH2 groups on a molecule weighing 75g/mol. It's solubility in a given solvent is governed by the magnitude of the solvent-solute interaction. I'm sure you've heard of the term like dissolves like, meaning polar compounds are more soluble in polar solvents and vice versa. So the solubility of glycine will increase from ethanol to methanol to water as polarity increases. Similarly you can think of solubility as the competition between lattice and hydration enthalpies. In lamens terms, how thermo dynamically favorable it is for glycine to be surrounded by solvent molecules as opposed to other glycine molecules. In the case of ethanol and methanol, it is less favorable for glycine ions to be surrounded by solvent so dissolution is not spontaneous.

ohhh cool. i get it

Look at the formula for acetic acid. CH3-COOH. The CH3-C means that there is a two carbon chain in the structure which is what an ethyl group is; a two carbon chain. Methanoic acid is HCOOH. It's called methanoic because it has the one carbon (methyl) backbone to it. Propanoic acid is CH3-CH2-COOH, butanoic acid is CH3-CH2-CH2-COOH. The methyl, ethyl, propyl designations have to do with the size of the carbon backbone in the molecule. If it has a two carbon backbone, it's ethyl. Three carbon and it's propyl. Etc. etc.

but acetic acid doesnt contain a full ethyl group in its formula? why is it said that it contains one?

Ethanoic means that it contains an ethyl group. Acetic acid is another name for ethanoic acid.

Yes, but ethanol, for example, could create strong intermolecular forces with glycine. even Hydrogen bonds. SO, i still don't understand

In mathematics, this term you mentioned : Λ(v)Λ(−v)=ΛΛ−1=I does not mean that Λ is symmetrical. For instance, [1/8] is the reverse of [8] in 1D matrix and [1/8].[8]= I. But 1/8 is not symmetrical with 8. Λ is symmetrical when Λ(v)= Λ(−v), which is not in Lorentz equations. See the term "Parity" in physics. In 1 dimension: 𝑥′ = 𝛾(𝑥 - 𝑣𝑡) but the reverse equation is 𝑥 = 𝛾(𝑥' +𝑣𝑡′). They are not equal to each other. Therefore, they are not symmetrical. we can not change the sign of v, when we reverse the equation. Why? Because it is not a vector. It is a scalar parameter. Even if you consider it as a vector, its sign in both of above-mentioned equation remains +v because we defined it as the velocity of S’ direction to the S direction which is to the right (+). it must be mention that we are talking about physical parameters like velocity and it must be a scalar or vector. they are not just mathematics. Your proof is completely wrong, as the others made this mistake. I have provided an easy and understandable of asymmetry of these equations. Please read my paper completely and learn about many contradictions in today's Special Relativity interpretation. I have worked on this subject more than 10 years and know all matters you have mentioned before. Please read my paper. Kind regards, and thanks for your discussion. No, in both of those cases you mentioned, you will use 𝑥′ = 𝛾(𝑥 - 𝑣𝑡), when you want to use Lorentz boost, without applying + or - for v sign, or else, instead of length contraction and time dilation, you will achieve length elongation and faster timing.

reported as well. Are you reporting yourself? No wonder you can't handle a sign inversion.

I can only suggest you get the doctor to review your pills.

You and others already have gotten your answers, scientifically. Try not to convince me by definitely WRONG statements. Λ-1(v)=Λ(-v) does not mean that two equations are symmetrical. For instance, 1/x is x-1, but it is not the symmetry of x or -x. Symmetry of signs means: x=x or x=-x. So, stop your false words. I am a nuclear physicist and work a lot with "parity" and such kind of terms in particle physics. So, please do not explain for me. I can not continue this discussion with you more, since you did not regard politeness in a scientific discussion. Please stop answering me. This is my post and I can hear from you anymore. Thanks.

Mr, moderator, is not "As to you, you are nowhere near the world of science" an insult or humiliation from your point of view????? if it is not, I have no other word with you nor this forum again. Crazy persons, think other are crazy. So, shut up. Or this one: "No wonder you can't handle a sign inversion. "