beecee

OK, your wish is my command.

Hi, I'm also from Sydney near Maroubra Beach...I do though think it should be said, considering the amount of talk etc among over seas visitors to our country that everything is out to kill them, is greatly exaggerated. Firstly I have yet in my many years living in Sydney, ever come across the deadly Funnel Web spider in the wild...as you rightly say though, anyone that is unlucky enough to be bitten, has a far greater chance of survival with the anti venom in all hospitals and many Doctor's surgeries. The danger with the Funnel Web of course is their built in aggression that they will show. Common sense and care obviously needed when one is in the bush particularly with regards to snakes......Aggressive? yeah possibly if threatened. I often go for a body surf at Maroubra beach and have never seen a shark, although on numerous occasions over the years, the Life Savers have found it necessary to sound the shark alarm. Again, care and common sense...avoid swimming or surfing at night or dusk, swim between the flags. While crocoiles are certainly plentiful up north, one in reality would be a ratbag to go swimming or camping near a river or billabong, particularly with signage every hundred mtrs or so warning of such dangers. Stingers and jelly fish etc are mainly found up north near the Great Barrier Reef area, and again common sense and care need to be considered. One really only needs to check out the rarity of how many people are unfortunate enough to be a victim of our wildlife, ending in death to understand how sometimes this aspect of our great country is exaggerated. ps: Personally I'm like a big girl and sook with any type of creepy crawlies, and always spray my home and surrounding areas with spider, cockroach, ant killers every year.

Yes of course etpet I should have given you credit, but at least we are in the right section now.

Space stops everything from being together: Time stops everything from happening together. Time is a series of events. And if we want to specify any particular event we need the exact coordinates of space, and of course the coordinate of time. Let me answer that with a quote: "Science is simply common sense at its best that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic". Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist.

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?

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

Less dense then air? Are you serious or is that a typo? Both are of course far more dense then air, just as is CO2 and LPGs

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-sagittarius-swarm-black-hole-bounty.html Sagittarius A* swarm: Black hole bounty captured in the Milky Way center: Astronomers have discovered evidence for thousands of black holes located near the center of our Milky Way galaxy using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. This black hole bounty consists of stellar-mass black holes, which typically weigh between five to 30 times the mass of the Sun. These newly identified black holes were found within three light years—a relatively short distance on cosmic scales—of the supermassive black hole at our Galaxy's center known as Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*). Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-sagittarius-swarm-black-hole-bounty.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25029 A density cusp of quiescent X-ray binaries in the central parsec of the Galaxy: Abstract: The existence of a ‘density cusp’1,2—a localized increase in number—of stellar-mass black holes near a supermassive black hole is a fundamental prediction of galactic stellar dynamics3. The best place to detect such a cusp is in the Galactic Centre, where the nearest supermassive black hole, Sagittarius A*, resides. As many as 20,000 black holes are predicted to settle into the central parsec of the Galaxy as a result of dynamical friction3,4,5; however, so far no density cusp of black holes has been detected. Low-mass X-ray binary systems that contain a stellar-mass black hole are natural tracers of isolated black holes. Here we report observations of a dozen quiescent X-ray binaries in a density cusp within one parsec of Sagittarius A*. The lower-energy emission spectra that we observed in these binaries is distinct from the higher-energy spectra associated with the population of accreting white dwarfs that dominates the central eight parsecs of the Galaxy6. The properties of these X-ray binaries, in particular their spatial distribution and luminosity function, suggest the existence of hundreds of binary systems in the central parsec of the Galaxy and many more isolated black holes. We cannot rule out a contribution to the observed emission from a population (of up to about one-half the number of X-ray binaries) of rotationally powered, millisecond pulsars. The spatial distribution of the binary systems is a relic of their formation history, either in the stellar disk around Sagittarius A* (ref. 7) or through in-fall from globular clusters, and constrains the number density of sources in the modelling of gravitational waves from massive stellar remnants8,9, such as neutron stars and black holes.

Oh crap! Scientists "imagine" solutions and answers every day: They then research observational and experimental evidence to support their hypothetical. They then publish or share their knowledge with their peers, always ready to accept valid criticism and/or advice. All scientific theories have needed to "run the gauntlet" so to speak. eg: DM. The scientific method has shown itself to be the supreme vehicle for mankind to obtaining knowledge and understanding how the universe works. Two flaws in your posts that tell me you need to go back to square one are your insistence of proof with regards to science...No scientific theory is ever proven and is always open for modification, addition or scrapping. Scientific theories do though become more certain over time, as they continue to align with continuing observations, supported by experiments and continue making successful predictions. eg: GR and gravitational waves. Your second flaw is to keep repeating that you will be banned. Your hypotheticals will always be challenged, and you will be asked for evidence to support those hypotheticals. If you cannot come up with legitimate support for your hypotheticals, and if you continue to ignore evidence supporting the accepted incumbent models, you most certainly will be made aware of that just as you should be. One could say if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

DM and DE remain legitimate explanations to our theory of gravity, with evidence [that you continue to ignore] for DM now overwhelming. Your apparent continued rant does not change that: Only evidence that shows otherwise will. And that as yet, you have none. Unsupported claims and pseudoscientific claims from your "Blaze Labs" link do nothing to change that.

Umm, I didn't ask that question. But anyway, here a a few references... https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21685 https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.0544.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.2021.pdf http://iopscience.iop.org/journal/0954-3899/page/Focus on Dark Matter That should bring you up to par re current knowledge of galactic formation and DM. Other numerous papers available on the evidence for the existence of DM if you like....all reputable by the way. https://www.nature.com/collections/yrkvcfkcdc/ https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0108/0108319.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2483 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11467-016-0583-4 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/40/12243

This was a joke told by the then Aussie PM, Bob Hawke in 1983 after we won "the never before lost", America's Cup for 12 mtr Yacht racing........ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5awwRWLbGY

Not at all...and of course all Edison and his team were actually doing was applying the scientific methodology, and making use of existing theory. No, no evidence at all, but plenty of hypotheticals, ideas, and other unsupported claims...mixed in with some scientific knowledge and accepted theory.

When people ask for a reference and/or citation, they mean a reputable reference and/or citation. The Internet is filled with more nonsensical pseudoscientific, religious, supernatural and paranormal rubbish, then with reputable scientific content. Impressionable and gullible people will fall for such nonsense.

"c" by definition is the speed of light in a vacuum, and is always constant: It is the co-ordinate speed of light that apparently can be other then "c" or when it is traversing through anything other then a vacuum.

Oh for f%$#@ sake!

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-scientists-climate-deep.html Earth's orbital changes have influenced climate, life forms for at least 215 million years May 7, 2018, Columbia University Scientists drilling deep into ancient rocks in the Arizona desert say they have documented a gradual shift in Earth's orbit that repeats regularly every 405,000 years, playing a role in natural climate swings. Astrophysicists have long hypothesized that the cycle exists based on calculations of celestial mechanics, but the authors of the new research have found the first verifiable physical evidence. They showed that the cycle has been stable for hundreds of millions of years, from before the rise of dinosaurs, and is still active today. The research may have implications not only for climate studies, but our understanding of the evolution of life on Earth, and the evolution of the Solar System. It appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-ancient-scientists-climate-deep.html#jCp the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/01/1800891115 Empirical evidence for stability of the 405-kiloyear Jupiter–Venus eccentricity cycle over hundreds of millions of years: Abstract The Newark–Hartford astrochronostratigraphic polarity timescale (APTS) was developed using a theoretically constant 405-kiloyear eccentricity cycle linked to gravitational interactions with Jupiter–Venus as a tuning target and provides a major timing calibration for about 30 million years of Late Triassic and earliest Jurassic time. While the 405-ky cycle is both unimodal and the most metronomic of the major orbital cycles thought to pace Earth’s climate in numerical solutions, there has been little empirical confirmation of that behavior, especially back before the limits of orbital solutions at about 50 million years before present. Moreover, the APTS is anchored only at its younger end by U–Pb zircon dates at 201.6 million years before present and could even be missing a number of 405-ky cycles. To test the validity of the dangling APTS and orbital periodicities, we recovered a diagnostic magnetic polarity sequence in the volcaniclastic-bearing Chinle Formation in a scientific drill core from Petrified Forest National Park (Arizona) that provides an unambiguous correlation to the APTS. New high precision U–Pb detrital zircon dates from the core are indistinguishable from ages predicted by the APTS back to 215 million years before present. The agreement shows that the APTS is continuous and supports a stable 405-kiloyear cycle well beyond theoretical solutions. The validated Newark–Hartford APTS can be used as a robust framework to help differentiate provinciality from global temporal patterns in the ecological rise of early dinosaurs in the Late Triassic, amongst other problems.

Early on in my foray into this forum, I obviously upset a couple of philosophers by quoting Bertrand Russell: "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know"...and with an even more telling quote from Feynman: "Philosophy is for the birds" I would also add that a better definition of mathematics, is that it is the language of physics...a language sadly that I never properly delved into. I have read with interest the point you have been putting in this thread, and that point aligns with what I also accepted, ie the reality of fields etc. But I also now am thinking very deeply on that opinion due to the argument being put by others as to that reality, or in their opinion, lack of reality. They make some good points. Like I said earlier, I have watched discussions on this subject over many years on at least three forums, and the point is still rather debatable with no firm outcome...philosophical if you will. If any theory is wrong, according to observational and experimental data, then it is modified and/or discarded and a new theory formulated that better describes the universe around us. We know gravity exists...we have two models that describe those effects to varying degrees of precision, and the knowledge has taken us to the Moon, sent probes to all the planets, and enabled us to understand the universe reasonably well. I don't accept that summation. Our theories of gravity as I have said above, has enabled us to understand the universe, despite not really knowing what gravity/spacetime is, why it exhibits itself when mass curves that spacetime, or even the question being discussed, as to whether it is real or not. Did you see my oft repeated Feynman video re magnets? Our theories and their successes are what makes science such a powerful discipline. A wise and profound statement. At this time and after listening to wiser heads, I won't either.

The old way? You mean the scientific methodology that is responsible for what we know of today and also responsible for showing up unsupported hypothetical nonsense that chooses to ignore evidence to the contrary for what it is.

As generally a bystander observer, I found it interesting. That means I have bloody buckley's chance!

Yep, thanks for that Strange.

An interesting answer here.....https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_electric_field_real_or_only_a_theory extract: I don't like your continued referencing as to the field weakening with expansion, rather, I prefer as I said before, spacetime is getting less dense.

Some varied and interesting answers here.....https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_electric_field_real_or_only_a_theory I don't like that. Mass bends spacetime [changes the geometry] and we see that reflected as gravity. Gravity/spacetime are one and the same. Not exactly...The BB simply applies to the observable universe. The BB can also accommodate an infinite universe. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html I tend to agree.

Correction......70 kms/sec/mega parsec.

We have much to learn certainly. But while the density of the mass/energy in the universe/spacetime, gets less with expansion, the apparent constant nature of the DE imbedded in spacetime, is reflected in the observed acceleration in that expansion. That's the way I see it anyway. Not sure about that. Overall and on large scales the acceleration in expansion rate is constant, and accelerating at the same rate. No matter where you are located in the cosmos, you would see the same phenomenon happening at the same speed of around 70kms/mega parsec. The dense/er regions that exist within the universe/spacetime, represented by galaxies, groups of galaxies and walls etc, see those regions overcoming the overall expansion. Perhaps people are rather concerned that this may bring to mind the old debunked ether hypothesis. at this time, I like a few answers here...... https://www.quora.com/Is-the-modern-day-space-time-fabric-the-same-as-luminiferous-aether