-
Posts
25528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
133
Everything posted by Strange
-
It says they are indistinguishable. Well, it needs a restoring force. Which could be gravity or something else. What is two dimensional spacetime? Spacetime has four dimensions, not two. If there was any truth in your previous statements, you might be able to draw that conclusion but you seem to be seriously confused.
-
Where are the laws of the universe exactly?
Strange replied to PrimalMinister's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
We have known about the Higgs mechanism for over 50 years. -
Where are the laws of the universe exactly?
Strange replied to PrimalMinister's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
That doesn't answer the question about where you got the "2% antimatter" figure from. It depends what you compare it to. Compared to 100 years ago, we know a lot. Compared to 1,000 years ago, we know an unbeleivable amount. Don't equate not knowing everything with knowing nothing. Whether I do is not relevant. But certainly scientists do. So who is confused by it? You? -
Where are the laws of the universe exactly?
Strange replied to PrimalMinister's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Where do you get that figure from? So all human learning is pointless? Who is? -
That doesn't change the value of pi though. which is what you implied. It isn't 1 metre. There is an approximate relationship because of the way the metre is defined. But there is no direct connection. The acceleration due to gravity can't be proportional to pi, because pi is a constant: if you go to the Moon or Mars, you will not find the same relationship.
-
What do you mean in "metric units"? It has no units. And as you know it is approximately 3.14, why did you say it is infinite? What does that mean? In what sense is it its counterpart? Well it is certainly true that pi appears in a lot of equations, particularly those related to waves. But so do many other natural constants. So I don't think it makes any sense to say that all physics is "governed" by it.
-
Because they are massless so they always move at the speed of light. That is not how things work.
-
You made up this bit of dubious science fiction, you can have it work however you want. What is the point of asking anyone else?
-
What is this magic potion? Who is his "other self"? The newborn baby? And I have no idea what Peabody is in this context. This sounds like a (rather pointless) example of a stable time loop or bootstrap paradox. My favourite example is from Bill and Ted where they meet their future selves who introduce them to "Rufus". From then on, they call him Rufus until they travel back in time and tell themselves that is his name. At no point does he tell them his name is Rufus. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/StableTimeLoop/Films
-
Any residues or scratches on the glass might cause the solution to crystallise. But that's OK, you can just heat it again to reverse that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_acetate#Heating_pad Why are you calling this "ice"? Just because it is crystalline?
-
What? Are you suggesting that if someone travels back in time by 30 years, they will be 30 years younger? Who is the "other consciousness"? This doesn't make much sense. And it doesn't really belong in Speculations as it isn't a discussion of science. Maybe the basis of a SF short story?
-
In what way does gravity "travel"? What is "the rule of pi"? What does "the rule of pi" have to do with gravity? How does Galileo's experiment relate to this? It is not extremely large, and certainly not infinite. Unless you can only count to 2. In which case, pi is beyond anything you can know. But actually, it is slightly more than 3. What is the relationship between infinity and the Heisenberg (note the spelling) uncertainty principle? And what does "indivisibility of a unit" have to do with either? And your beliefs are unfounded. I can't find any such article at that link
-
Really bad reporting. But as you don't provide a source, I can't say any more than that. (I would guess they are mixing up phase and group velocity; that is the usual source of this sort of nonsense.) I have no idea what that means. Please explain how a constant such as the speed of light, or the permittivity of free space can contain "+ve infinity". And what does this have to do with π?
-
No it doesn't say they are "not connected". It says they are "completely different entities." Which is obviously true. One can always find ways to "connect" different quantities, but that doesn't stop them being different things. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS
-
Combining the Doppler effect with gravitational redshift is the basis of the Pound-Rebka test of GR. I think this also rules out any interaction with the medium (the air in the tower) changing the frequency significantly. Thus disproving Itoero's claims.
-
Boolosian logic?
-
How to make your own programming language?
Strange replied to FlatAssembler's topic in Computer Science
Although it is a useful learning exercise to design and implement a new language, there are so many existing languages out there that I would try and think of a novel twist. (OK, probably not novel, but a little less common.) For example, there is a bit of a shortage of languages that have rigorous, formally defined semantics so that it is easy to reason about the correctness of a program (if it implements a formal spec) or prove that two implementations are equivalent (e.g one that is easy to understand versus one that is optimised). Or maybe a language with a good concurrency model (CSP?) built in. -
Without rotation we are not here, nothing would exists
Strange replied to Phantom5's topic in Speculations
Do we? Example please. The rest of your post is so nonsensical, I am going to suggest this thread is closed. -
The Doppler effect is not caused by altering the position of particles around you. Citation needed. Well, I suppose we can't ignore the gravitational attraction between the molecules of air and the Earth otherwise we would have no atmosphere and no sound. However, you need to show, qualitatively, that this gravitational attraction is relevant to Doppler shift (which as every schoolboy knows is only due to relative motion). But, as we know the cause of the Doppler effect, you seem to be claiming a new "molecular gravitation redshift (MGR) effect". You need to show us the mathematical model for how large this effect is, and then evidence that it exists. If you claim that this MGR effect produces what we currently call the gravitational effect, then you also need to explain why moving through wavefronts does not make you experience them more frequently. (Which would appear to require that you challenge basic arithmetic.) Citation needed. Just repeating this doesn't magically make it true.
-
So, what have your leant about how gravity works, and what might make antigravity possible? From your studies, what makes you think that some kind of mercury vortex (whatever that means) will be useful? Current science says that it is not possible. Feel free to reject that, but you said you wanted to learn. If you just want to make stuff up, knock yourself out but don't expect a lot of support from a science forum. Well, you have been told that you are discussing magnetism, not gravity. So it has, by definition, nothing to do with antigravity. (Unless by "antigravity" you mean any technology that can counteract gravity such as a rope or a shelf.)