Leaderboard

To answer the question of whether viruses are living things or not, requires a precise scientific definition of life. Anyone who is so inclined can argue over such a definition until the proverbial cows come home, and some arguments are more convincing than others. Then again, answering this question may amount to nothing more than a philosophical exercise; or the basis of a lively and heated rhetorical debate but with little real consequence. Since this forum’s purpose is to foster lively discussion, I will oblige by continuing. According to modern day cell theory all known living things are made up of one or more cells and the cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in all living organisms. Since a virus does not have a cellular structure, it fails at being a living organism, according to cell theory. Now for the “However”, cells are themselves composed of many sub-celluar components, such as ribosomes, mitochondria, membranes, DNA and proteins which together carry out the processes of life. One might ask whether those individual sub-cellular constituents are alive on their own or does life arise as an emergent property of a certain level of complexity, as the cell theory seems to be claiming. While a virus fails to reach the same level of critical complexity as a living cell, it is made from the same fundamental, physical building blocks; the same complex biochemicals that cells are made of. In fact, modern molecular biology rests on a foundation of information gained through viruses. Just one example: biologists have studied viral activity in host cells to determine how nucleic acids code for proteins. Modern evolutionary biology now accepts viruses, because of their rapid rates of replication and mutation, are the world’s leading source of genetic innovation. Viruses directly exchange genetic information with living organisms. Despite that recognition, most evolutionary biologists, and indeed biologists in general, still consider viruses to be inanimate, or “not fully alive” or “they verge on life”. Of course, these viewpoints will never satisfy anyone who will only settle for a black or white answer but maybe such a definitive answer is just not possible at this point in our understanding. [I should add that as a participant in NOAA’s marine research expeditions, I have had the opportunity to query a number of highly qualified marine biologists and other researchers about the classification of viruses as either living entities or inanimate bits of chemistry and the consensus view is they are the latter.]

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...

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.

The Fermi paradox articles call this the 'great filter', some test that a technological species must pass in order to not get filtered out. It does not look well for humans. Problem is, our current civilization depends on technological continuity to maintain itself. War is one way that ends, but so is the simple exhaustion of non-renewable resources. Once gone, that's it. We cannot advance again and the species reverts to just an animal with an expensive brain that might be more of a hindrance than a help. One has to eat an awful lot of food that other animals don't need, in order to feed the expensive toy. Despite the frequent depiction in fiction ('Aliens' come to mind), nuclear reactors cannot explode. At worst they melt down, arguably a worse fate than a bomb, but not one that is quite as fun to depict on the big screen. The species needs to act for the benefit of the species instead of the individual. I know of almost nobody capable of that. Our core moral code even forbids it. We're quite doomed to fail the Fermi test. I notice that several people might point out the problem (as I am doing here), but nobody posits a solution (including me).

Hello Arcangelo and welcome to this forum. The relationship between gravity and electromagnetism is one that interests me. I have downloaded your paper and will be looking it over as time permits. In the meantime, it would be appreciated if you would start a discussion on this subject; not by posting a link to your paper (although that is permitted) by posting here in this thread at the very least an abstract of your ideas. The more theory you post here, the better, so interested people do not have to refer back and forth between this thread and you paper. Let us have the discussion here, thanks.

Ok, I believe I have finally found a detailed explanation about why astronomers are fairly certain about the T CrB nova happening this year. From this link: /Quote Recurrent nova T CrB has just started its Pre‑eruption Dip in March/April 2023, so the eruption should occur around 2024.4±0.3 Authors: B. E. Schaefer (Louisiana State Univ.), B. Kloppenborg (AAVSO), E. O. Waagen (AAVSO), and the AAVSO observers T Coronae Borealis (T CrB) is a famous recurrent nova with known eruptions in the years 1217, 1787, 1866, and 1946. Many workers have realized that the rise in brightness from its low state (1954.5 to 2015.0) to its high state (2015.0 to the present) is a precursor and harbinger for an upcoming eruption around 2025.5±1.3 or so (Munari et al. 2016; Schaefer 2023). A distinct and under-appreciated close-up harbinger is the unique and mysterious Pre-eruption Dip (Schaefer 2023). The Dip in 1945-1946 started around 1945.0 (1.1±0.3 years before the 1946 eruption), with the B-band magnitude fading from near 10.5 to 12.0 mag, while the V-band magnitude faded from around 9.8 to 12.3 mag. This fading ended abruptly with the nova eruption. In anticipation of the start of this Pre-eruption Dip, we have been frequently monitoring the up-to-date light curve as collected into the AAVSO International Database. The AAVSO B and V band light curves from 2021.0 to present, with 2-day binning, for 4330 B-band mags and 12734 V-band mags, all with CCD photometry, are linked below. The normal light curve since 2016 shows the usual ellipsoidal modulation, with a full amplitude of ~0.4 mag for a sinewave at half the orbital period. The light curve shows variations about this average curve on all time scales, with larger variations in the B-band than in the V-band, all arising from ordinary flickering always present since 1867. Starting around 2023.25, T CrB shows a systematic fade from its long-time ellipsoidal variations. This fading is far outside of any historic variations since 2016. The fading in the blue was 0.4 mag in 2023.3 to 0.8 mag in 2023.5. The fading in the V-band was 0.25 mag in 2023.3, and 0.35 mag in 2023.5. The fading in the R and I bands are substantially smaller. This color dependency in the fading is consistent with increasing dust absorption, for a scenario featuring a recently discrete mass ejection in which dust formation occurs (much like for R CrB stars). So the T CrB Pre-eruption Dip has already started in March/April of this year. If the Dip in 2023 is similar in timing to that in 1945, then the primary eruption should occur roughly 1.1±0.3 years later, or in 2024.4±0.3. This prediction is substantially improved over the prior predictions based only on the 2015 rise to the high-state. Still, possible deviations from the behavior in 1946 could create an early or a late eruption. This announcement of the start of the Dip and the prediction of the eruption date (2024.4±0.3) will hopefully be of use for researchers for making proposals with a wide variety of telescopes. Further, this serves as advance notice to take all needed pre-eruption baselines, for example obtaining infrared fluxes and background nebulosity images over a wide field for later light echo detections. And it is not too late to try to understand the pre-eruption high-state, with it still being unclear whether the increased luminosity comes from increased accretion or from nuclear burning on the white dwarf. For observations before the upcoming eruption, we particularly point to U-band photometry, UV spectrophotometry, and spectral line profiles, all for measuring the energetic physical mechanism of the Pre-eruption Dip, while long-running infrared photometry might detect dust formation. /Unquote My understanding from reading this, is there is a pre-eruption dip in the binary star system’s brightness, just about a year before the nova event. The actual mechanism behind the dip doesn’t seem to be well understood. It could be from formation of a dust cloud due to a large mass ejection from the red giant that gets absorbed by the white dwarf. The increased mass of the white dwarf causes a thermonuclear reaction, which is the nova. The pre-eruption dip, before the nova, brings to mind how the tide goes out before a tsunami hits the shore. Of course, this is just an analogy; the mechanisms are totally different.

You can see Corona Borealis from Sydney right now if you have a clear view of the northern horizon. There is an excellent article in the March 2024 Sky & Telescope on T Corona Borealis.

Dandav, I agree with oldpaddoboy that this post, in particular, is not only arrogant but also annoying and in violation of several of our Rules: First of all, you are cross-posting--that is, posting highly similar posts in more than one thread. oldpaddoboy started this thread about the James Webb Space Telescope detecting evidence of a neutron star which stayed hidden for 37 years in the wreckage of Supernova 1987A. You turned it into a continuation of your baseless challenging of mainstream science, which is another rules violation: Keep posting with an obvious agenda (like wanting to debunk science) without having proper contradictory evidence. I am sure I can find even more violations, such as generally being rude and annoying, but I think I have identified enough to give you a warning. From this point on Please follow our site rules - we really don't like to ban people.

Especially those that don't admit to possessing them, whether they are your allies or your enemies.

If we put aside the nonsense about Aliens manipulating the permittivity or permeability of free space, the OP does contain an interesting question which can be simply stated this way: Is the speed of light dependent on the values of ε0 and μ0, or is the value of c independent of ε0 or μ0? Let’s start with this equation: c=1/√(ε0μ0) Where : C = 299 792 458 m / s ε0 = 8.8541878128×10−12 F/m (farads per meter) permittivity of free space μ0 = 4π×10−7 H/m = 1.25663706143...×10−6 (henries per meter) permeability of free space Mathematically, it seems reasonable to assume if the values of ε0 or μ0 were to change (somehow and we are not interested in how) then the value for the speed of light would need to change also. For example: What if the value of ε0 changed to be 9x10-12 farads per meter, while μ0 remained unchanged? How would that affect the value for the speed of light? If you go through the math, the speed of light would be 297 354 019 m / s ; significantly different from the currently accepted value of 299 792 458 m / s. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, c is the speed at which all massless fields propagate; not just the speed of light. Gravity also travels at c, and since gravity apparently has nothing to do with electromagnetism, it’s speed should not be affected by any change in the values of ε0 or μ0. Also, we are all taught that the speed of light, c, is constant. Therefore, is c really dependent on the values of ε0 and μ0, as the above mathematical calculation seems to have shown? *Now we are getting into what I consider to be the interesting bit that makes this discussion worthwhile* Taking the equation we started with: c=1/√(ε0μ0) We can write: ε0 = 1 / μ0 c^2 and μ0 = 1 / ε0 c^2 We can see that ε0 and μ0 are just the inverse of each other mediated by the term 1/c^2. This inverse relationship isn’t immediately apparent by looking at their values of 8.8541878128×10−12 for ε0 and 1.25663706143×10−6 for μ0, but if you “do the math” and remember to multiply by 1/c^2, you will find they are exact inverses of one another. What does this have to do with the above calculation which showed the speed of light changing with a change in the value of ε0? Everything! Since they are inversely related, if ε0 changes, then μ0 would also change, and it would change in such a way as to keep the speed of light, c, constant at 299 792 458 m / s. To demonstrate this, in the above example ε0 changed to 9x10-12 farads per meter and the value of c consequently changed to 297 354 019 m / s. In reality, this is not possible because when ε0 changed, that would have caused a corresponding change in μ0, from 4π×10−7 H/m to 1.23627783938x10-6 H/m, because of their inverse relationship. Plugging these values for ε0 and μ0 into our equation: c=1/√(ε0μ0) We will once again get 299 792 458 m / s for c. While this long post may seem somewhat tedious, what I hoped to show is that sometimes even a carefully and correctly executed mathematical calculation can be very wrong if all of the facts are not properly considered. Also, I hoped to show that c is a fundamental dimensionless constant, which does not depend on the values of any other less fundamental, derived units such as permittivity and permeability of free space. In fact, many physicists today consider the values assigned to ε0 and μ0 to just be artifacts of certain unit systems and can be done away with. For example, both Gaussian and Lorentz Heaviside units have ϵ0=μ0=1, but that is going a bit beyond where I intended to go with this. One last final note for those who may ask how c can be a dimensionless constant when it is a velocity expressed in m/s. It seems clear that meters have a dimension in length and seconds have a dimension in time, so c should have the dimensions of LT-1, how is it then dimensionless? The answer is, it is entirely possible to define a system of measuring time by using light. The time between events is then the distance that light would travel in the duration between those events. Then by definition, the speed of light is 1 and dimensionless, as we measure time in meters and distance in meters, and light will naturally traverse the same distance in meters as the time we measure between its endpoints in meters. m / m = 1 dimensionless. This may also clear up the difficulty some may have with understanding spacetime diagrams where time is made comparable to a length or space unit, expressed as ct, and take some of the mystery out of the spacetime interval. Here also, the time dimension is made comparable to a unit of length but retains its unique character by having a different sign: (Δs)2 = -(cΔt)2 + (Δx)2 + (Δy)2 + (Δz)2

You can calculate based on mass and radius if it is a black hole or not, the core of a neutron star using the Schwarzschild radius equation. Why don't you plug in the numbers for a neutron star's core and see if it is a black hole or not? I think you will find that the mass is too light for a neutron star to be a black hole even at its small radius. This can all be calculated using simple equations that are based on General Relativity. If the R number in the equation is greater than radius of the neutron star where R schwarzchild radius > R neutron star core then it is actually a black hole otherwise if R neutron star core > R schwarzschild Radius then it is not a black hole, but you will need to know the mass of the neutron star's core which will be the M number in the equation. "Schwarzschild radius, the radius below which the gravitational attraction between the particles of a body must cause it to undergo irreversible gravitational collapse. This phenomenon is thought to be the final fate of the more massive stars"

Precisely why viral infections are difficult to cure is the fact that viruses are not alive and therefore cannot be killed. If the virus exists external to the human body it can be destroyed, not killed, by any number of ways. Simply washing your hands with soap and water destroys most viruses because the soap molecules wedge themselves into the lipid membrane and pry it apart. Antivirals do not attack the virus itself; they work by suppressing the virus's ability to infect and multiply in your cells. The usual mechanism involves inhibiting molecular interactions and functions in the cells, needed by the virus to produce new copies of itself, halting the attack. The virus is not destroyed and sometimes the infection can reoccur.

1kg mass = 1kg weight? Not in Physics or Engineering! Only in the home, or in most commerce, loads are usually expressed in kilograms by custom. As a marine engineer, when a ship is taking on a load expressed in kilograms, it must be converted into force units( 1 kilogram = 9.8 Newtons ). All ship design work is done in Newtons. Only by using Newtons can the marine engineer know if the load is within the ship’s design parameters. Where's the proof? What exactly would you like to see proved? Remember, in science there are no absolute proofs; we work with tested and verified theory. If in the gravitational field of the Earth a mass weighs 1 kg (weight), then in the gravitational field of that mass the Earth weighs the same 1 kg (weight)! What is the mass of the Earth, and what is the mass that weighs 1 kg of weight? You are mixing up mass and weight. As I already mentioned, this is customary outside of science and engineering. This is a Science Forum so you should use the proper scientific definitions: Mass is the quantity of matter possessed by a body and is proportional to the volume and density of that body. The basic unit of mass is the kilogram. The kilogram can be defined in terms of a fixed value of the Planck constant, h, plus the existing definitions of the meter and the second. Weight of a body is the gravitational force on the mass of that body; usually the force of gravitational attraction exerted on the body by the Earth. The basic unit of weight is the Newton, which is a unit of Force. Calculation of the weight of a one kilogram mass on the surface of the Earth: Weight is a Force. Near the Earth’s surface: Weight [N] = Mass [Kg] X g [9.8 m/s^2] Where g is the Earth’s acceleration = GMe/r^2 G is the gravitational constant = 6.67E-11, Me = Earth's mass 5.98E24 kg, r = Earth’s radius 6.37E6 m A one kilogram mass near the surface of the Earth weighs 9.81 Newtons. Now reverse the calculation and calculate the weight of the Earth on a one kilogram mass: Weight [N] = Mass [Kg] X g [9.8 m/s^2] Me X Gm/r^2 = 9.81 Newtons Me is Earth’s mass, m is the mass of the one kilogram object. Confirming Newton’s Third Law: Forces always exist in pairs in such a way that if body A exerts a force on body B, then body B exerts an equal force on body A, with these forces being in opposite directions. One caveat to keep in mind; the distance between the 1 kg mass and the Earth is always the radius of the Earth, so r is the same in both calculations. The below in brackets is gibberish and I will not respond to such: [The gravitational force is the sum of the forces in those two gravitational fields: The total gravitational force FG between two gravitational fields is 2 kg (weight). FG = 1 kg + 1 kg = 2 kg (weight) = 2 * 9.81 N While our convention for the relationship between weight and mass says: FG = 1 kg mass * 9.81 kg(m^-1)(s^-2) = 9.81 N = 1 kg weight (free fall – g – relative acceleration!)] Physicists today claim: “1 kg of mass = 1 kg of weight,” as if it were some natural law ?! Physicists claim no such thing. More gibberish follows: [The above convention was adopted without prior definition of what is mass and what is weight! The concept of relative and absolute acceleration in the gravitational field is also not defined! When a mass is at rest (on scale), it is acted upon by an absolute acceleration a! Absolute acceleration a is equal to half of the relative acceleration g! FG/2 = 1kg weight * relative acceleration (on scale)] How does the scale weigh 1 kg of weight? Finally, a reasonable question! The scale indicates 1 Kg of “weight” because that is how the dial and spring are calibrated because most people are accustomed to having their “weight” expressed in kilograms. This is technically incorrect but it is far enough outside the field of Physics and Engineering that it has become an acceptable custom. You will never catch a marine engineer designing the hull of a ship based on kilograms of force! (At least I hope not!) Designers use Newtons for force and Kilograms for mass. Warning, more gibberish follows: [The gravitational force of 2 kg weight is divided into the force of 1 kg weight in the center of gravity of the scale and 1 kg weight of the mass we are weighing! Therefore, only the relative acceleration g/2 acts on the mass at rest! Therefore it will be: m * a = 1 kg (weight) a = g/2 m * g/2 = 1 kg (weight) m * g = 2 kg (weight) that is, our convention for the ratio of mass to weight should be: m * g/2 = 1 kg (weight) m/2 * g = 1 kg (weight) = 9.81 N From here Newton’s second law would be (w = weight, m = mass): w/2 * g = m * g , w/2 = m , whence the ratio of the actual mass m to the weight w is equal to: w/m = 2/1 (1 kg of weight = ½ kg of mass),(weight and mass are not equal and are not the same!) therefore Newton’s Law of Force should be corrected to F = w/2 * a , if the mass is entered using the weight w. In calculations where mass is calculated, all weights should be divided by two to get the correct masses!] Where is the mistake? In my opinion, your biggest mistake is questioning Newton’s Laws without first trying to understand them. I do admit that the unfortunate popular custom of expressing weight in kilograms is confusing. However, most people are not scientifically or mathematically literate enough to know that this is wrong and their weight should be expressed in Newtons.

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 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.

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!

Only because it is impossible to know anything at all, like say that the apple is indeed there before you. Such knowledge is a product of induction, not deduction. Similarly, if the universe is finite, there is NO possible way for us to know that either, so your conclusion that mathematics showing the former to be more probable is an indication of a mathematical error, is an unfounded conclusion. There can very much be evidence of infinity, but it isn't a proof, and your comment seems to only deny such a proof, something with which I agree. Is space discreet, where there are two adjacent locations halfway between which there isn't another location? If so, all sorts of funny conclusions can be drawn, perhaps like a preferred reference frame (invalidating all of relativity). If not, there's an infinity for you. Is that infinity observed? I don't think that counts, so no. Is it real? Not if being real is defined as being directly observed by a human. The universe might have an edge a mere 6 GLR away. No light that reaches any human has ever been more than that proper distance away. Clearly the concept of 'visible universe' uses a different notion of what is visible than that 6 GLY limit. For instance, a perfect simulation of everything we see need only process that 6 GLY radius. Anything that happens outside it cannot affect what any human can measure. This line of thinking goes down the rabbit hole of direct vs indirect observation. One concludes the apple is there via induction, not by directly observing the apple, which hasn't a clear way to do. I would have liked to have seen that infinite energy error. I love finding errors in papers making outlandish claims like the one you mention seems to. For entertainment, go to conspiracyoflight.com and find all the proofs that relativity is wrong. Find the flaw in each one. Doesn't take long, but nobody on the site every corrects any of them. Not the purpose of the site, similar to truth being the purpose of any site with the characters 'truth' being part of the website name. George Orwell saw it coming with his ministry of truth. We can say it, but it is trivially falsified. A torrid universe is flat everywhere, and yet has finite volume. One of the oldest examples is the universe of the Asteroids video game (only two dimensions of space, not three). We seem to be digressing. I mostly came into this to point out all the pop-science notions being asserted in this topic, and none of those seem to come from you.

Only the Square Kilometer Array, which I mentioned in my previous post, will have the necessary signal sensitivity of ≲1 μJy to detect about 10% (≳100) of the orbiting pulsars near Sgr A. This array is still being built in Australia and South Africa and will not come on line (see first light) until 2027.

If you follow those pesky [1,2,3] in the section of the paper that you are quoting, those things that tend to indicate that there is a citation being provided for the things that were stated before it, you will come across this paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/423975/fulltext/ Section 2 goes over the prediction.

This could be an interesting topic for discussion if we focus on the facts, and steer clear of all the woo (and wow). The fact is, only the amplitude of the “wow” signal was ever of any interest and was the reason for the “wow” note in the margin of the computer printout. The numbers and Letters (6EQUJ5) are not a message of any type; they are simply artifacts of the labeling on the amplitude scale in use at the Big Ear radio telescope. The so-called wow signal was a continuous wave CW signal, incapable of carrying any message at all. If the amplitude scale had been labeled differently, a different set of numbers and letters would have been produced. Another way to look at it; any CW signal, at the right frequency and amplitude, fed into the front end of the Big Ear receiver, would have produced the exact same string of 6EQUJ5 proving that this string carries no intelligible information other than information about the frequency and amplitude of the CW signal. It is the signal’s amplitude that provoked the “wow” response.; NOT the alpha-numeric string of 6EQUJ5, which has no scientific significance. The receive signal to noise ratio was 15 dB, or in linear terms about 30 times stronger than the baseline noise floor of the Big Ear receiver. From what I could gather, this baseline noise floor, within a 10 Khz Band width, is about -220 dBm. Therefore, since the S/n ratio was 15 dB, the power of the received signal was about -205 dBm. This is actually a very low received signal level; so low that most commercial satellite systems would not even be able to detect it; It would be down below the noise floor in those receiving systems. However, considering it as a possible signal of extra – terrestrial origins, in that context it is an extraordinarily high level s/n ratio. What interests me is to work the signal back to its source and determine how high the transmit power would need to be in order to send such a signal to Earth. I searched for such a reverse-engineering calculation, with no success. Any electromagnetic radiation moving through free space spreads out according to the inverse square law. This means the signal has an effective Path Loss, in dB, calculated as follows: LP(dB) = 32.4 + 20 Log F (Mhz) + 20 Log Distance (km) We know F to be 1420 Mhz (the line freq of hydrogen) Now we need to know the distance the signal traveled. Some astrophysicists have determined that the signal originated in the Sagittarius Cluster (Messier 22) which is at a distance of approximately 10,600 light-years from Earth. The above formula for Path Loss uses kilometers as the unit of distance; 10,600 lyr = 1E17 km. LP(dB) = 32.4 + 20 Log 1420 Mhz + 20 Log 1E17 km = 32.4 + 63 + 340 = 435.4 dB Needless to say, but I will say it anyway, that is a Lot of path loss! Now we need to see just how powerful a signal would need to be at the source, in order to produce a receive signal level of -205 dBm on Earth (using the Big Ear antenna). That is easy, we take the received signal level of -205 dBm and add 435.4 dB to get +230.4 dBm which is the transmitted power. How much is that in Watts? I get 0.1 Sextillion Watts! That is, 0.1E21 Watts. That is roughly100,000 times greater than the total energy output of the Earth and more than one-millionth the total energy output of the Sun! But it is even more impressive when you consider the Sun radiates energy in the entire electromagnetic spectrum and in all directions at once. This signal had approximately one-millionth the total energy of the Sun contained in a narrow 10 Khz bandwidth, in a single direction in space! Could any advanced civilization accomplish that feat? Consider that the total energy produced by us Earthlings is a mere 18 terawatts, (18E12 Watts) The most powerful signal that we Earthlings have ever transmitted into space was a paltry 1 Megawatt! Does it seem reasonable that an alien civilization could build a transmitter that can handle Power on the order of 10E21 Watts while we can only manage 10E6 Watts? To many physicists, and this humble Marine Engineer, it does Not seem possible and so we have looked for some natural phenomena such a passing comet and an explosion in a cloud of hydrogen gas. But there is a fatal flaw with these theories in the way the signal seemed to be moving with the background stars, indicating it was coming from the Sagittarius Cluster. Well, maybe. Color me skeptical. Although I am a Marine Engineer, I do have extensive experience with Satellite ground stations, both shipboard and on land. I do know that sometimes the Local oscillator chain can become unstable and generate spurious signals that look exactly like signals coming from an external source. These spurious signals can pop into existence once, and never repeat again, exactly the same as the “wow” signal, which has never been duplicated. Since a spurious signal will stay with the antenna wherever it moves, it will appear to be moving with the background stars. Now, consider the fact that Congress had recently voted to cut the funding to the Big Ear Project, and this signal suddenly pops into existence, with someone uncharacteristically labeling it “WOW” and maybe you will start to see the picture emerge of an attempt to justify continued funding of the project, based on this breakthrough detection. Of course, I don’t know that is what happened, but that is the way it looks to me and I don’t expect anyone to come forward now and admit to attempting to defraud the US Govt! What I do know is this; if it was I who was examining those computer printouts and I came across the same signal signature, I would have written “probably a spurious” in the margin, and nobody would have ever heard of any “WOW” signal. Just my opinion, of course. Note: I wrote this up rather quickly so I expect there are many typos , I ask the reader to please excuse them. I will come back to this and try to correct the errors later, time permitting.

That’s the most logical, and certainly correct explanation. Such rock formations are called glacial erratics. They are very common in Colorodo, especially near the town of Red Cliff. There is no magical piezo-electric, negative ion magic involved, although the piezo-electric effect is very interesting and deserves a thread of its own. Returning to the subject of glacial erratics: Curious Nature Rocks Tell Tales As Old As Time "One of the most prominent features near the town of Red Cliff are the red cliffs. This vibrant hue is due to the quartzite rocks in the cliff faces containing hematite. Specifically, it’s the oxidation reaction of the iron found in the grains of hematite that becomes rust when exposed to oxygen which turns the rocks red. Quartzite itself is a hard metamorphic rock that does not weather easily. Quartzite ridges are often exposed with barely any vegetation because it is difficult for the roots to dig into the hard and nutrient-poor substrate. Another neat geological phenomenon to keep an eye out for near Red Cliff are glacial erratics. These are rocks that were moved from one place to another by a glacier. They can range from the size of pebbles to giant boulders and the lithology, the type of rock, of glacial erratics are different from the bedrock of its landing site. This means that based on the lithology of some of the erratics, it is possible to determine from where, when, and the direction the glacier flowed. Glacial erratics often bare signs of their journey with striations or scratches, rounded edges and polished faces."

Did you consider they might be part of a glacial deposit?

In the bible it says "God commanded them not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" therefore it was a sin according to Christians. Link = Genesis 2:4-3:24 NIV - Adam and Eve - This is the account of - Bible Gateway It turns out any disobeyment of God is a sin in the Christian religion which makes God like an ultra-controlling megalomanic figure.

I suppose, you know about the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester and the counterfactual definiteness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb_tester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness I have a question: can this experiment be performed at the level of countries for avoiding a nuclear war? Let’s consider, that in 2300 A.D. there is a country with a dictator Kim 8, who oppresses his people, exports some resources and controls the overbomb which can totally destroy the planet. He is loosing power because of the sanctions, and decides to use the weird strategy – threatens that he will annihilate Earth if the sanctions will not be lifted. He does not want such a scenario, but he has a chance to win if the states will fulfill his demands because of fear. What can the humanity do in this situation? They can annihilate the country of Kim firstly, but this is the violation of all international laws (the overbomb can me used only in response). However, I think that theoretically, one more scenario is possible: the states can create a superposition of two Earths (two universes), in the first the apocalypses does not occur, and in the second Kim pushes the button. Like in the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb experiment, the information that Kim had done this in the second universe, will be accessible in the first universe, and this will give the states the right to annihilate the country of Kim. What do you think?

It seems a spacesuit can turn astronaut pee into drinking water which may help advance space exploration, read more at A Dune-inspired spacesuit turns astronaut pee into drinking water (sciencenews.org) Do you think other SciFi technologies could be used in real life after reading this article and if so what technologies from SciFi?

This is an informational piece on how tomato plants use their roots to ration water during drought, read more at How Tomato Plants Use Their Roots to Ration Water During Drought | College of Biological Sciences (ucdavis.edu) Do you think that genetic modification of other plants with this trait could increase drought resistance in other plants?

Hello AnonymousLearner and welcome to our forum. I appreciate that you love engineering and you also have a curious mind. Unfortunately, the experiment you propose to try is doomed to fail for at least two reasons that I can think of: 1) Liquid water cannot exist in a vacuum. It would immediately boil and change state into water vapor. 2) Lack of oxygen would lower the reactivity of the magnesium to the point where it becomes inert; it would not react with the water even if liquid water could exist in the vacuum. 3) A third, but possibly redundant, reason this experiment cannot work is the water vapor left in the vacuum chamber would be very cold and magnesium only reacts with hot water. Don’t let this setback discourage you from thinking up other ideas. My only suggestion is that you do some research to see if your ideas have any chance of working.

It seems Alien Dyson sphere megastructures could surround at least 7 stars in our galaxy according to a new study, read more at Alien 'Dyson sphere' megastructures could surround at least 7 stars in our galaxy, new studies suggest (msn.com) and Dozens of stars show signs of Dyson spheres built by advanced alien civilisations | New Scientist Do you think this study is accurate and there is really a super advanced civilization with Dyson spheres around 7 stars in our galaxy? P.S. If it is true that there are Dyson spheres around these Stars, meet our new alien Gods as humans can't do anything against a species that advanced ever: End Report. "In 1962, in his book “Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible”, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated his famous Three Laws, of which the third law is the best-known and most widely cited: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”."

It does heat the ocean, but internally, tidal stress currently accounts for under half a percent of the internal heat budget of Earth, most of that being near the surface, not contributing even that half percent to the deep internal heat of the planet. The article you chose didn't bother to include sources below some threshold of significance Because radioactive decay accounts for about 100 times the heat compared to tidal heating? It's not a wishful thing. It is the finding of empirical measurements. Half of it is primordial heat leftover from formation, so you omitting that is far more negligent than the one particular article not bothering to include tidal stress energy.

Striking out against evil is always a good thing but we have to make sure collateral damage isn't worse than the actual evil. Deep fakes are just a tool, a tool that can be abused and is being abused but the abuse is not caused by deep fakes. I am a bit of a take responsibility for your own actions type of person, I don't hold to sweeping authoritarian type actions. I would prefer more targeted actions. I hate to say it but I don't see a way to control this other than age restrictions and we all know that our youthful compatriots will always be able to bypass our "adult" restrictions as we did when we were young.

Great! Thanks for the update.

I think MAD still works for most countries, or at least those countries with a sane government, its the countries who have Nukes but lack sanity you have to worry about.

The thing that has been drummed into my head, is that science, mostly doesn't answer the why questions. Why do we feel gravity near a massive body? And of course is validated by the relationship between time and space and time dilation and length contraction. All are "as is" due to the nature and parameters of the big bang and the why and how of that. If we can speculate that the big bang was a fluctuation in the quantum foam, then other fluctuations may have risen and collapsed, or risen and expanded differently from our own fluctuation. This is basically the picture painted by Professor Lawrence Krauss and his book, "A Universe from Nothing" Or simply, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

This is an informational piece on how a sugar acid crucial for life could have formed in interstellar clouds, read more at How a sugar acid crucial for life could have formed in interstellar clouds (sciencenews.org) Do you think that it is possible that this sugar acid for life formed in an interstellar cloud, or do you disagree with the article?

Asteroids are often thought of as solid objects but the truth be told many are just piles of rubble. Vast piles of gravel and this is what you would expect if tiny rocks clumped together, or maybe what I would expect given the small size of asteroids. How would a pile of gravel coming together generate enough heat to solidify the object? This begs the question of where did the solid asteroids come from, I think the source has to be larger asteroids, dwarf planet sized at least that had small chunks broken off in collisions. Is this valid or does science say different?

Hello, I have translated the firt chapter of a book from a russian author about the gravity. Maybe this chapter will be interestin for someone, who is also interested in the ather theory. The book exposes such willful falsifiers of physics as Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Minkowski, and other proponents of supposedly empty space and the absence of aether in it. The emphasis is on the Cartesian approach - not on the mere forces that do not exist in the real world, but on the motions of the aether that do exist in reality. It is shown why modern official physics after Newton completely contradicts all 3 necessary requirements of logic. It is shown how and for what purpose the conceptual apparatus of physics has been perverted, and correct definitions of the most important terms are given. General information is given on the concept of the aether and on various theories of gravitation. The author's theory of gravitation is presented. Important fragments of the history and background of physics are given. The book is written in the simplest possible language that is understandable to anyone with common sense. For anyone with an interest in science. The author Istarhov V.A. is a graduate of the Applied Mathematics Department of MIEM, candidate of technical sciences, author of numerous scientific papers and books. He worked in NIIAA as a leading developer of the command path of the control system of strategic forces, deputy director for science of NIISA, deputy director for science of the All-Russian Center of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He taught control theory at MIREA Download link: Spam Link removed

Stopped reading when I got to "The book exposes such willful falsifiers of physics as Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Minkowski, "

The link I provided suggested it is not currently known how viruses originated, viruses before LUCA is one of the possibilities and the one I ascribe to but my view on this is irrelevant. The realm before LUCA, thought to be a world of chemical processes that reproduced but were not always contained in the same place (inside a cell) like they do today. From what were nothing more than catalysts that left behind more than one copy of themselves after the catalyst has done it's job (The Deep Hot Biosphere) to actual bacteria, the time before LUCA was a complex system of replicating chemicals that interacted with each other and resulted in copies of the chemicals going on to create more of the chemicals but not until these chemicals were self contained in one micelle structure did we get bacteria and the relationship between eubacteria and archaea is not well known. Which one came first or if they developed independently from the same chemical mess that defined the first life (sometimes called the metabolism first world) or the RNA world or a combination of both is not currently known. Unless of course panspermia works then maybe we just got a meteorite with an alien microbe on it and that would be LUCA and there were no processes on Earth that led up to LUCA. This would be improbable for many reasons and wouldn't answer anything having to do with the origin of life or viruses.

The Bee Gee's On Australian Bandstand in the very early days....

The Kardashev scale of technological advancement, is nothing more then a futuristic thought experiment prediction, based on the energy needs of a civilisation. from Wiki.... "Dyson did not detail how such a system could be constructed, simply referring to it in the paper as a 'shell' or 'biosphere'. He later clarified that he did not have in mind a solid structure, saying "A solid shell or ring surrounding a star is mechanically impossible. The form of 'biosphere' which I envisaged consists of a loose collection or swarm of objects traveling on independent orbits around the star".[6] Such a concept has often been referred to as a Dyson swarm;[7] however, in 2013, Dyson said that he had come to regret that the concept had been named after him." on't get me wrong. I'm not putting a damper on ]

That is one of the most fascinating aspects of this to me.

What exactly what does this have to do with a ring inside a spinning black hole? It very well could be, I have my doubts that life of some sort cannot exist under circumstances we would find outrageous, in fact we already have found such life and everytime we do our definition of what conditions life can survive and even thrive in change. He doesn't anymore than you can say leprechauns do not exist or that life will survive until the universe gets to a certain age. He might very well be correct, you might very well be correct, the key is determining if anyone can know these things.

Neutrons do decay, it is observed, proton decay has not been observed. A free neutron decays with a half life of around 15 minutes if I remember correctly.

I've been hearing oil is going to run out soon since I was a child, I am now 68. Yes we need to curb the use of oil but things like wind, solar and nuclear will allow us to phase out reliance On oil for energy.

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