Leaderboard

Thinking to be smarter than 1 person or also 10 or 100 is one thing. Thinking to be smarter than 40 or 50 years of scientific comunity, thousands of experiments etc. calling them dumb etc. just shows either your lack of understanding. You know I worked on foreground removal in the cmb. And guess what I found foregrounds to be removed which were also found by telescopes as quasars etc. at other frequencies. And we could remove them. What should blow your mind is that if you can model galactic radiation (as you did somewhere on page 25), then guess what? The scientific comunity can too and guess what? they can remove it from the signal...Now if you are so much smarter than 50 years of scientific comunity like you think (this is not an insult, you called everyone dumb), you would have to admit that that argument of yours does not hold. But I somehow doubt this is gonna happen. Or showing the CMB anisotropies and using it to say this is not a black body, just shows you actually do not know what the CMB -anisotroies are...

Moderator's Note: This forum is not the place to post legal disputes including naming names of the parties involved. This forum in no way accepts any responsibility in this issue. I have edited the post and allowed it to stand as a generic reminder that anyone dealing with a service provider should be careful and aware of their rights when a dispute arises. I am not offering any advice when I say that in my opinion only, something like this can be settled by the European Consumer Protection Agency. That is all that can be said so this thread is closed.

I moved this thread to Philosopher's Weightroom because this subject is much more closely related to philosophy than Physics and Mathematics. I disagree with the claim that this is a new revolutionary idea, as the notion that consciousness shapes reality has been kicked around since Aristotle and probably even earlier. I don't agree with any of this, and since it is a philosophical argument there is no way to resolve it definitively. Some people may find it interesting to discuss. Myself, I am not interested. As you can tell from my AV (if you can read the fine print) my philosophy is realism; as Popeye says "I am what I am" and things are what they appear to be, putting aside delusions and Honky Tonk illusions.

I am not comfortable with the idea of evolution being something that can have goals, evolution is not an entity working toward goals, AFAIK, there is no goal. You have been making lots of assertions, my position about evolution having a goal is that I see no goals, my position is the default position... I do not believe you, please support your assertions that evolution has a goal or goals... citation please!

On 12/28/2024 at 5:45 PM OceanBreeze, said: I agree with Moontanman that the mechanism of natural selection selects certain traits based on the ecological and environmental niche that an organism lives in, and this process happens without goals or direction. Those organisms that are fortunate to possess those traits that happen to be beneficial, are better adapted to survive and reproduce. It keeps getting mentioned because we cannot have a meaningful discussion on evolution without acknowledging this fact: evolution by natural selection does not “lead” to any particular outcome. Near the end of my post I did give your suggestion sufficient coverage: Bottom line, in my opinion, human evolution can no longer be simply described according to the ideas of Charles Darwin; our evolution is not driven only by natural selection. Humans are engaged in activities that may eventually give us sufficient control over the evolutionary process that it will have a direction and lead to some goal; unfortunately, it may lead to an “own goal” although I don’t feel that such an outcome is inevitable. I stress that I am only speculating on a future possibility based on current trends in technological advancement.

I agree with this as well, evolution is under the control of genetic mutation in where the better mutation allows the organism to reproduce better and survive. Natural selection is not a self aware being it has no goals or purpose but we do find it generally leads to extinction more often than survival for most species from the influence of natural selection.

I agree OceanBreeze, even Microsoft changed their calculators divide by zero error from 'Error: negative infinity' in Windows 98a to 'Error: cannot divide by zero' in Windows 98b. I also suspect that using change of variables as a valid proper use of indefinite integrals as definite integrals is not actually valid if there is not at least one complete cycle in the higher level function, regardless of there being infinite limits or not.

While this is interesting, I don’t see where it is strongly related to my statement that “nothing real can ever be shown to be infinite.” Specifically I was referring to a mathematical solution of “infinite energy” arrived at by two mathematicians of questionable degree. As far as using infinity as a limit in improper integrals this is perfectly acceptable as long as the integration converges to a finite result. (although there are some who debate even this) There are several ways to make sure that convergence happens. For example, consider two particles that are 3 m apart that gravitation-ally attract each other with a Force of 2.5 Newton, and calculate the work needed to move them to be an infinite distance apart. We know that the force of gravity varies inversely with the square of distance, F = K / s^2 where K is a constant of proportionality. Since F = 2.5 N when s = 3 m, K = F s^2 = (2.5 N) (9 m^2) = 22.5 N∙m^2 Work =s1s2 ∫ F ds, where s1 is 3 m and s2 is ∞ Work = s1s2 ∫ 22.5 / s^2 ds Integrating this, for the limit infinity, 1/s = 0 Work = 22.5 N∙m^2 [0 + 1/3m] = 7.5 N∙m This may remind you of escape velocity where it takes a finite amount of work to move an object an infinite distance. This result is correct because an infinite distance is being used as a limit only. The result of 7.5 N∙m is a finite number even though one of the limits was infinity and is an example of convergence. This is not the same exact problem I was discussing with Halc, where the wrong result obtained by the two mathematicians was infinite energy; it is not entirely unrelated to that problem, which was much more advanced than this simple example. Bottom Line: Using infinity as a limit in integration is perfectly acceptable, but steps must be carefully followed to avoid getting an infinite result, such as infinite energy, which is absurd!

OceanBreeze, there is one way it can creep into the mathematical mix physics wise. The following is a rehash of another post of mine here. Nina Byers goes into Emmy Noether and her contribution to the conceptual structures of the mathematics in modern physics in detail in her paper "E. Noether s Discovery of the Deep Connection Between Symmetries and Conservation Laws" in 1998. https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044v2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether At a conceptual structural level improper integrals in physics can be piecewise continuous integrals, with limits from +infinity to -infinity, that converge. Refer H.J. Keisler, p367, Definition to p369, examples 7, 8, and 9. If they are continuous and don't converge then they are indefinite integrals which are entirely different. Refer H.J. Keisler, p370, example 10, diagram 6.7.10 "It is tempting to argue that the positive area to the right of the origin and the negative area to the left exactly cancel each other out so that the improper integral is zero. But this leads to a paradox... So we do not give the integral ... the value 0, instead leave it undefined." That doesn't mean that indefinite integrals don't play a part in our physics as an indefinite integral that cycles between +infinity and -infinity at its limits, as a sub function of a higher level function, is a valid proper use of indefinite integrals as definite integrals by change of variables. Refer H.J. Keisler, p224-5, Definition and example 8, diagram 4.4.6 second equation with u and substitute infinite limits. "We do not know how to find the indefinite integrals in this example. Nevertheless the answer is 0 because on changing variables both limits of integration become the same." Reference H.J.Keisler "Elementary Calculus an Infinitessimal Approach"

That's really cool. I am hardly qualified to comment, but when has that stopped me? Whacked hard enough to drive the ore down a km, but soft enough to not splatter the stuff all over. Hard sell, that one. The fission takes place on Mars but not the asteroid pre-impact. Seems unlikely since the concentration should be higher before impact. But the ore sits there for a super long time until water does something to what, pull it together? Water does do stuff like that, so maybe. Now it needs to be a bomb, which apparently is triggered by critical mass, and the subsequent boiling off of water. That's not going to happen in a short time since the water has nowhere to go quickly. Geyser maybe, with the overall pressure holding in the rest. Without the water, it goes all bomb on us, much slower than our weapons, but far more pressure keeping it there while it goes on. Eventually the pressure breaks the surface and you get this crater, a lot like Mt St Helens depressurizing in 1980. Where is that? How much does Martian weather erase craters like that? All they have is wind driven dust. So what, it fills in? Look for a deep sand hole? Just vocalizing my naive thoughts. I admit none of it seems to kill the idea. My strongest skepticism is at the top, before all the alchemy takes place. Since we're going off topic (sort of), it turns out they recently found the world's oldest fossilized forest, right by me (bicycle ride away), one old enough to push back the date of the earliest real trees. What they mostly have is a cluster of root systems, really big ones, like with a 15 meter footprint.

SCIENCE FORUM RULES 2024 VERSION First of all, Introduce yourself! We require that all new members make their first post in the Introduction forum. Please tell us a little bit about yourself and your interest in science and anything else you want to talk about. Just be yourself, and have fun, but please respect these ground rules: 1) If you make strange claims, please provide evidence or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum. What we generally do not approve of is wild, unsubstantiated claims. But, even these are sometimes allowed and placed in the Silly Claims section if they are at least interesting. The very worst claims, which have no intellectual or amusement value at all, are usually deleted. 2) If you want to refute someone's claims, please stay calm and point out where you think they went wrong, and what kind of proof you base your own opinion on. 3) Do not post links to other sites as proof of your claims without commenting what the relevant sites say and why they are important to the current discussion. 4) Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned. 5) The explicit discussion of drugs in order to promote non-scientific experimentation of drugs, show people how to obtain or create drugs, or providing histories of drug use to show off, will lead to deletion of posts, and we will issue warnings. 6) If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get. 7) Do not endlessly show us that *your* theory is the *only* truth. And don't follow this up by making people look stupid if they point out that there are other answers, especially if they provide links and resources. It may get you banned! 😎 Rude and offensive behavior is not tolerated and might lead to instant banning (at the discretion of the forum staff). This includes forum posts, e-mails to users, and private messages. 9) We will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts. Such posts may be deleted or edited without further notice. Also, rants, flames, arrogant posts, and hit-and-run posts might lead to temporary or permanent banning so please try to behave in here as you would in real life, and everyone will be happy. 10) Avoid cross-posting--that is, posting highly similar posts in multiple threads. The majority of our members actually read most threads, and this is impolitely forcing them to read something they've probably already read. It's OK to reply in existing threads with a post containing, "I discuss a related, but different, idea in *this thread*", and provide a link, but it should be in the context of the thread in which you are posting. 11) Important: Never post PMs or e-mails from other users without asking their permissions first. PMs and e-mails are considered private communication and posting them is a violation of the other user's right to privacy. If you have received an offending PM or e-mail, send it to one of the admins. Posts containing PMs and e-mails can be deleted by the admins and might get you banned. Similarly, do not use PMs or a user's e-mail address to send rude or aggressive comments or rants. Any user who receives such communications is asked to forward this to an administrator for evaluation. Typical reasons for banning If you find yourself being banned, you most likely broke our rules above, or: Posted SPAM or something we assumed to be SPAM Annoyed our members so much that the moderators decided to ban you Posted hoax theories without doing proper research (this is a science forum, not a forum for fanatic nuts) Kept posting with an obvious agenda (like wanting to debunk science) without having proper proof Trolling - generally being rude and annoying, and contributing very little. Posted something which is copyrighted. It will be deleted and you might get warned or banned. A ban is either temporary or permanent. A temporary ban will usually last for a week, after which it will automatically be lifted. A permanent ban is - well, permanent. Please follow our site rules - we really don't like to ban people. Finally, Respond to requests from Mods and Admins. The moderators and administrators put a lot of time and effort into maintaining this site. If we send you an "official" private message or an e-mail, in which we obviously want your reply, we require that you respond. Failure to respond in such cases may force us to close your account. These rules are not all inclusive. Just let common sense be you guide as to what is acceptable behavior and what is not. If there are any disputes, The Admins and Moderators have the Final Word.

So let's talk about binding energy of nuclei. When you take some neutrons and protons and bind them together into a nucleus, the resulting nucleus is ALWAYS less massive than the sum of the masses of the constituent protons and neutrons. ALWAYS. So in general, when you take two things and bind them together, the mass of the result is always less than the mass of the parts! Some binding energy escapes! So the mass of both the proton and electron can be measured with a mass spectrometer. The masses are as follows: Mass of proton: 1.67262 yoctograms Mass of electron: 0.00091 yoctograms But the mass of the neutron is tricky because one cannot use a mass spectrometer. The way modern physicists calculate the neutron mass is by using a deuteron. The equation used is: But they use 0.003921 yoctograms for the mass-energy of the "photon". To mass-balance the equation, this leaves the neutron mass as 1.67492 yoctograms! But that means that the neutron would be more massive than a proton + electron! proton + electron : 1.67358 yoctograms neutron: 1.67492 This seems impossible since putting two things together ALWAYS results in less mass. What is wrong? Well. we have seen that there ARE NO PHOTONS! Bluntly, like this: The emitted gamma radiation is NOT an EM particle! We have shown that EM radiation is analog and can be emitted in ANY AMOUNT OF ENERGY, so their neutron mass is in error! Since the neutron mass is in error, we can go back to Chadwick's original idea that a neutron is a proton/electron composite. This makes so much more sense! (QUARKS ARE NONSENSE!) So the maximum mass that a neutron can be is 1.67358 yoctograms. The neutron's mass would be (1.67358 ygrams) - (Its Binding Energy)! This makes so much more sense! You "soon-not-to-be-so-dumb" physicists had better start using this new knowledge to make some progress in modern physics! Get with it! Andrew Ancel Gray

And I have claimed that General Relativity "confirmation experiments" are heavy with confirmation bias! General Relativity's "spacetime curvature" is nonsense. What about "Mercury's Perihelion Procession" I hear you say. Well, let's look at it. The first thing that comes to mind about the orbit of Mercury around the Sun is that MERCURY DOES NOT ORBIT THE SUN! Mercury orbits the barycenter of the solar system. The Sun also orbits the barycenter of the solar system! As a matter of fact, when Jupiter and Saturn are lined up, the Sun is completely outside the solar system's barycenter! Like this: As you can see, Mercury's perihelion in the inertial barycentric coordinates IS NOT the same as Mercury's perihelion in the accelerated, non-inertial heliocentric coordinates. Newton's Laws and General Relativity are invalid in heliocentric non-inertial coordinates. But astronomers have been measuring this false perihelion in heliocentric coordinates for centuries. So what is this error angle, I wondered. This error angle θ shown here : Just how far off the real inertial perihelion have astronomers been measuring the non-inertial perihelion???? Well, the Sun is approximately 3/4 of a solar diameter (~1,000,000 km) away from the barycenter, and Mercury is at about 46,000,000 km away from the barycenter. So this angle is aproximately arcsin( 1.0/46) ≈ 1.25° !!! So there is a maximum of 1.25° of slop in the perihelion measurement of Mercury away from inertial coordinates! 1.25° !!! So it is nonsense to claim a 0.16° perihelion-precession PER CENTURY when astronomers can be 1.25° in error away from the true inertial coordinate perihelion! (technically a barycenter periapsis). So Mercury-precession claims matching GR are probably confirmation bias guided scientific misconduct !!! They can wait and measure anything that they want so it agrees with GR !!! Andrew Ancel Gray

Jeffreys, this is NonSense. It is scary to me how nonsensical this is. There is no wave-particle "duality". Making a "gravity particle" out of gravity waves is scary nonsensical. Yes, according to Obler's paradox, if galaxies were evenly distributed throughout the universe, the night sky would be bright. So that just means that galaxies are NOT evenly distributed throughout the universe.

Jeffreys, First of all, all of General Relativity's "confirmation experiments" are HEAVILY confirmation biased. The WORST being the Pound and Rebka experiment where they did not even measure their supposed Doppler velocity on a speaker which they went ahead and USED anyway. What I am saying is that we have Special Gravitivity and NOT General Relativity. We have a Weak Equivalence Principle, and therefore there is NO spacetime curvature, which means that black holes are NONSENSE. Sagittarius A* is actually a gigantic neutron star with gravity so great that there are no atoms present. Everything is compressed to neutrons. Therefore, without atoms, there is no visible light emanating from Sagittarius A*, only x-rays and gamma rays. That's right. Look at Sagittarius A* with an x-ray telescope and there it is! : Look at it! The object you supposedly cannot see... and there it is you dummies! Duh! I can see it, can you? The Chandrasekhar Limit (which uses General Relativity and even more nonsensical "electron degeneracy" to limit a neutron star's mass) is NONSENSE, just like General Relativity. You mainstream physicists have wonderment about many stars rapidly orbiting something that is black in the visible, but if you use x-rays, There it is! Duh. Jeffreys, you might as well face it! There are many myths in modern physics these days. Myths that have been around for a century! Jeffreys, "quantum gravity" is a myth upon a myth, or a "double myth" if you will. First of all, QA (Quantum Anything) is all nonsense, so to make "gravitons" out of gravitational waves is "going off the deep end" crazy. Just like EM waves are waves and only waves, gravity waves are waves and only waves! No! We can calculate a lower limit to how long ago "The Big Explosion" happened. That's all. The Universe having an "age" is a paradox. Jeffreys, what happened before the Universe was born? Huh? Duh. Jeffreys, anything but "infinite duration" of the Universe is a paradox. And yes, we may have a bunch of "iron stars" around our part of the Universe until another big crunch happens and it explodes again (which may make a LOT of hydrogen again)! Andrew Ancel Gray

The main issue is that we can't understand Quran because it's in Arabic. You will have to learn Quran and translate it in your language and understand it's meaning to know what exactly it's saying.

I never made that assertion. I listed some facts then posed a scenario. But we digress- if evolution exists only to procreate then by definition it ends after that action, so that can't be it. I can see this is a difficult idea to consider but it's likely that every evolutionary path will see extinction at some point, with only the cause being in question. Knowing what we know about the nature of our own species it seems quite possible that we'll wipe ourselves out over foolish technological idiocy combined with pride and greed. It's possible that once intelligence gets high enough then a species becomes selfish to the point that it can be dangerous to others. This may be unavoidable, I dunno. Essentially though I guess that's what I suggesting- that this phenomenon might be omnipresent, part of the fabric of intelligent beings, and unavoidable.

The next topic we want to talk about is the Hubble Diagram. The Hubble Diagram shows that the further away a galaxy cluster is from us, the faster it is moving away from us! Something like this: This diagram is used by astronomers to claim that spacetime itself is expanding. "The universe is expanding", is what is colloquially said! So let's do a little thought experiment. Let's take a grenade out to a safe distance from the space-station and explode it! We want to plot the velocity diagram of the grenade fragments vs. distance after 100 seconds. A fragment plot may look something like this: Notice that the furthest grenade fragments have the fastest velocity BECAUSE THEY WERE EJECTED THE FASTEST AND HENCE HAVE TRAVELED THE FURTHEST. As you would expect. Duh. The Hubble Constant for this grenade fragment explosion is H=10.3 m/s/km. So what? That DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SPACETIME AROUND THIS GRENADE EXPLOSION IS EXPANDING. It just means there was a big explosion and the fastest fragments traveled the furthest. AGAIN I SAY, "Duh!" What does this mean? It simply means that the top diagram DOES IMPLY THAT THERE WAS A BIG EXPLOSION, but that it only means we are fairly near the center of the explosion and that the fastest ejected galaxies traveled the furthest. That's all it means. We are going to have to rename The Big Bang to The Big Explosion! Spacetime "does not expand". That is just nonsense. Andrew Ancel Gray