It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 122
74
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Here's a non physics example. Sinawali is the duel usage of two sticks in Filipino martial arts. ...

Sometimes Hard is simple and simple is hard.
This looks harder, even harder than the math or the Sinawali (probably impossible):



There is a little bit of physics going on there, like momentum and nearly elastic collisions, or at least it looks that way.

Imafungi can imagine that ball is like a photon bouncing off a mirror, because he apparently likes to imagine the photon as like a little ball, but since it's in black and white, I can't tell if it's painted yellow like Bedlam said.



originally posted by: stormbringer1701
wiki articles. somewhat dated. but en.wikipedia.org...
It sounds like a promising technology but everything I found seems somewhat dated; makes me wonder if they hit some kind of roadblock in the research.




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi


Thats like saying you cant detect water if you cant detect a single molecule of H20 only.


No it's like saying you can't detect a quanta of the water. If you couldn't detect a molecule of water you would not understand that water is discrete and can be broken into a single smallest quanta.



Philosophy is not separate from anything. Philosophy is the totality of all possible thoughts; with hopefully a focus on the most valuable ones.


Philosophy is the totality of all possible thoughts? What you describe there sounds like a set from set theory more than a definition of philosophy.
Because there are probably many definitions, for this discussion philosophy is knowledge gained from logic, rationality and concepts and science is knowledge from empirical evidence.


Space time is the collective of fields;

So if gravitons dont exist, you are saying gravity exists due to the geometry of other fields?



Gravity may have it's own field as well, which curves and other fields follow it's curvature. Space-time might literally be the collection of all fields AND time. No one is sure yet exactly what to say space-time is literally made of.
SR and GR give clues and quantum field theory does also.
Quantum loop gravity predicts at the Planck scale space-time is quantized and foamy. But loop gravity isn't proven true.



Say a planet is traveling;

Space - time is the electron field, the quark field, the em field all the fields;

You are saying all those fields are in a particular geometry,

because the planet is forcing all those fields to be in a particular geometry?


Yes it could be that. Mass could bend all the fields if that is all space-time is. There is no definitive answer yet but I say space-time is the combination of all the fields because it's looking like a good description. But it's also "time", which is something that is an even bigger mystery.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: darkorange
What do you think will be an outcome of the experiment?


You'll get photons, of course. Photons don't require old photons or whatever. There isn't a medium as such.


Things are much easier to understand when you dont think about them


Or if you understand them already.

eta: consider the LCD you're looking at. It has a lot to tell you about the nature of light, if you would listen.
edit on 21-5-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr

Time is something that has always fascinated me. What is it why can't we reverse it. I read an interesting theory that the key to the universe is quantum entanglement. It was believed entropy controlled time In this theory it's connections. As things become entangled they gain equalibrium. So time is simply an object making more and more connections with the universe. What's even stranger is time can only be observed from inside the universe it is a emergent property of entanglement.To an observer outside the universe it would appear static and unchanging.
edit on 5/21/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: joelr

Time is something that has always fascinated me. What is it why can't we reverse it. I read an interesting theory that the key to the universe is quantum entanglement. It was believed entropy controlled time In this theory it's connections. As things become entangled they gain equalibrium. So time is simply an object making more and more connections with the universe. What's even stranger is time can only be observed from inside the universe it is a emergent property of entanglement.To an observer outside the universe it would appear static and unchanging.


Time is the fact that something/matter; moves.

Imagine if all that is not nothing; Did not move at all, forever.

No time.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: darkorange
What do you think will be an outcome of the experiment?


You'll get photons, of course. Photons don't require old photons or whatever. There isn't a medium as such.


Things are much easier to understand when you dont think about them


Or if you understand them already.

eta: consider the LCD you're looking at. It has a lot to tell you about the nature of light, if you would listen.


You dont know and understand how light exists. You just dont know.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: joelr

Time is something that has always fascinated me. What is it why can't we reverse it. I read an interesting theory that the key to the universe is quantum entanglement. It was believed entropy controlled time In this theory it's connections. As things become entangled they gain equalibrium. So time is simply an object making more and more connections with the universe. What's even stranger is time can only be observed from inside the universe it is a emergent property of entanglement.To an observer outside the universe it would appear static and unchanging.


Time is the fact that something/matter; moves.

Imagine if all that is not nothing; Did not move at all, forever.

No time.



Something doesn't have to move to experience time something has to change When compared to something else.Time is the comparison of two things against each other.
edit on 5/22/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr


Something doesn't have to move to experience time something has to change When compared to something else.Time is the comparison of two things against each other.


I said.

Imagine if ALL! that is NOT NOTHING (This statement means; all that is something);

DID NOT!

And

COULD NOT!

MOVE!

AT ALL!

That would mean;

No time, would ever exist.

Therefore;

What time is;

and only what time is;

Is;

The fact;

That;

That which is something;

Moves;

And can move.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr


Something doesn't have to move to experience time;

something has to change When compared to something else


I need a good laugh;

Pray tell;

How can something change;

Without ANY MOVEMENT, occurring.

You = fail



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: darkorange
What do you think will be an outcome of the experiment?


You'll get photons, of course. Photons don't require old photons or whatever. There isn't a medium as such.


Things are much easier to understand when you dont think about them


Or if you understand them already.

eta: consider the LCD you're looking at. It has a lot to tell you about the nature of light, if you would listen.



Lets imagine that I can say;

Because light is not nothing;

Because light is something;

Because light exists;

It is 100% itself.

Let us say;

We know it is impossible, to fully comprehend the 100% of which what light exactly is and ultimately means, when compared to the fundamental eternal essence of substance;

There is potential truth about light, that is possibly unknowable;

Considering that distinction;

Let us say that we can define a 100%, in relation to what IS possible to know about light;

That means 100% = the potential for humans to most fully understand what and how light is;

We are all born, as ignorant babies, at 0% understanding of what and how light is;

I believe, that you do not possess the 100% of what is possible for a human mind to know and understand of how light exists;

Therefore;

I question, everything you say and think you know about it;

Because what you think you know, equals your 100%;

Your knowledge of what you know is perfect.

But it is not the perfect knowledge of what it is possible for a mind to know.

Say you are at 85% knowledge of what light is, though I would love to hear what percent you think you are at;

You should not be so confident to make claims, about how light exists;

If you dont fully know;

You should be questioning your self for all to see, with me



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr


Something doesn't have to move to experience time;

something has to change When compared to something else


I need a good laugh;

Pray tell;

How can something change;

Without ANY MOVEMENT, occurring.

You = fail


Simple I can put a glass cup in a box. Wait a Milion years and when I open it I'll find a puddle of glass. The glass never once moved relative to its position in the box yet it still ages. Time is not restricted by motion at all time can only be measured when compared to something else. In any system the passage of time isn't motion it is change.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr


Simple I can put a glass cup in a box. Wait a Milion years and when I open it I'll find a puddle of glass. The glass never once moved relative to its position in the box yet it still ages. Time is not restricted by motion at all time can only be measured when compared to something else. In any system the passage of time isn't motion it is change.


The particles that make up the glass are moving.

Try again.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr


Simple I can put a glass cup in a box. Wait a Milion years and when I open it I'll find a puddle of glass. The glass never once moved relative to its position in the box yet it still ages. Time is not restricted by motion at all time can only be measured when compared to something else. In any system the passage of time isn't motion it is change.


The particles that make up the glass are moving.

Try again.


Are they of course regardless of the movement or the glass. But ok let's say we take a steel ball place it out beyond our galaxy.we go back billions of years later our steel ball is sitting there atoms aren't really moving much being absolute zero. Time has not passedan for our steel ball. Why we have nothing to compare it to. Now we take two of them leave them sitting an inch apart. Eventually they will connect on fact bond to one another. Now we return we have two steel balls we can't pull apart we know time passed since we left or they would be bonded. Time can only be measured in relation to some otherror system. If you look at a larger system vs a smaller one say your lifetime compared to the universe no time has passed. Your lifetime wouldn't even among to a trillionth of the universes. In effect to the galaxy no time had passed while you were alive. This is relativity and it confuses you as we see.

The observer devices the passage of time from their perspective. To a photon leaving a distant galaxy and reaching earth it was instantaneous it didn't move we did. Time regardless is always and will always be determined by the observer in comparison with something else.

Your confusing motion with change because on earth time is based on the revolutions we make of the sun. This is our yardstick for change this determines for us time. To A Black Hole time becomes irrelevant this is why you cross an event horizon for you there is a change to an outside observer there isn't your stuck in time.
edit on 5/22/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I only stated that;

Time = The fact that stuff moves and can move

If you think I am wrong, you are thinking wrong



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
The way it really is



We're tiny little people living inside a battery we think is real.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: mbkennel


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Here's a non physics example. Sinawali is the duel usage of two sticks in Filipino martial arts. ...

Sometimes Hard is simple and simple is hard.
This looks harder, even harder than the math or the Sinawali (probably impossible):



There is a little bit of physics going on there, like momentum and nearly elastic collisions, or at least it looks that way.

Imafungi can imagine that ball is like a photon bouncing off a mirror, because he apparently likes to imagine the photon as like a little ball, but since it's in black and white, I can't tell if it's painted yellow like Bedlam said.



originally posted by: stormbringer1701
wiki articles. somewhat dated. but en.wikipedia.org...
It sounds like a promising technology but everything I found seems somewhat dated; makes me wonder if they hit some kind of roadblock in the research.
Yeah; The Roadblock was... They dunnit haz enough antimatter to get started.
But now I think they can get some



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Also, at least in the case of the one whose baseline mission was to go to Mars in 120 days; Less troublesome tech has been developed that does not require antimatter with all that entails, to get to Mars faster than that. So basically that one at least is obsolete already.

OTOH we need to do this anyway if only to mature the AM procurement, containment and utilization tech for when we can get more AM for full AM propulsion. doing this would also bootstrap further advances in AM production. We need that before we can take the U.S.S. Enterprise out for her inaugural cruise.

I'd do it for the technological evolution even if the baseline mission performance of the other proposal was also obsolete.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
order of magnitude: en.wikipedia.org...

1 X 10^-9th. thats a nanogram. and Several means "more than 2 but not many."

so three to maybe five orders of magnitude is what we are looking for...

they differ by a factor of 1000 or more.

does that mean 1000 nanograms?
Did you read about the AIMSTAR and ICAN II propulsion studies at Penn State?
All of the antiprotons created at Fermilab’s Tevatron particle accelerator add up to only 15 nanograms. Those made at CERN amount to about 1 nanogram. At DESY in Germany, approximately 2 nanograms of positrons have been produced to date.
If all the antimatter ever made by humans were annihilated at once, the energy produced wouldn’t even be enough to boil a cup of tea. Now the longest we have been able to hold it as far as I know is 30 min before it comes in contact with something and that was at Cern.


The article that caused this discussion says they have upped the production rate possible by several orders of magnitude. (apparently that is from the nanogram base line)

That means to me that they can make the quantities necessary to do some minimal forms of antimatter involved propulsion such as antimatter catalyzed fission and antimatter catalyzed microfusion. These forms of propulsion use tiny amounts of antimatter to keep a fission or fusion reaction going. they only need a few nanograms to do either mission. and thats to the outer solar system and to the 10K AU point.

it may not be enough to boil a cup of coffee but it is enough to kickstart fission and fusion that can plasmify that coffee etc.


No can't even power a light bulb remember were talking the energy used to create them far outweighs the energy they produce. Now the reason we can't do fusion is pressure we can't maintain the pressures needed.

So let's say we used antimatter to kick off a fusion reaction. What we would get is a neutron bomb as the pressure would be to low to hold them. If we can get and maintain the pressure we don't need anti matter we can just start a fusion reaction. So what I'm telling you is simply if we could create the conditions necessary to use anti matter to start a fusion reaction we wouldn't need the antimatter.
Did you read about the AIMSTAR and ICAN II propulsion studies at Penn State?


Yes I have and it uses antimatter to create a fission reaction using deuterium and helium-3 along with a small amount of uranium. Again same problem 1 blast uses a billion or so of anti protons. These anti protons create a nuclear explosion. Do this over and over and you have trust. But at a billion protons per blast we haven't even made enoought to do it once much less the thousands it would take to get up to speed.

The reason for this was simple carrying enough fuel to get to another star would be huge with this it would fit in 1 truck. It was not a break thru in propulsion it was chosen because it basically has the lowest fuel consumption for creating multiple nuclear blasts I'm quick succession. And to be honest its survivability is questionable. Most likely work a couple of times and be to damaged and blow up.
edit on 5/22/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The scientific consensus is that the QM model makes accurate predictions so it's an effective model.
However there is no scientific consensus about the underlying reality of the model. The most popular interpretation is called the "Copenhagen interpretation", but there are others, some of which are discussed in this video...

I'm not personally a fan of the "Many worlds" interpretation mentioned in that video but even the proponent of that interpretation says the troubling part isn't that scientists don't agree with his favorite, it's that there's no consensus, on ANY of the interpretations.

So as an introduction to this topic of asking questions about physics, I think it's worth noting that as admitted in this video, scientists don't have all the answers and don't claim to. So if your question was, "Which interpretation is correct?", as explained in the video, nobody knows, so not all questions can be answered. We could however discuss things like pros and cons of various options in cases like this.

Some people have the idea that scientists like the implications of QM, but actually it was not accepted with open arms because it doesn't seem compatible with a human sense of logic...


And yet, a postulate comes along that challenges the status quo and gets poo-poo'd for no good reason other than "philosophy" (meta-physics) has no place in science?? Shameful, intellectually dishonestly, deceitfully shameful. I'm done with this thread. Disgusting. Good day, flip-flopping madams and sirs.



posted on May, 23 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: darkorange
What do you think will be an outcome of the experiment?


You'll get photons, of course. Photons don't require old photons or whatever. There isn't a medium as such.


Things are much easier to understand when you dont think about them


Or if you understand them already.

eta: consider the LCD you're looking at. It has a lot to tell you about the nature of light, if you would listen.


You dont know and understand how light exists. You just dont know.


No, u!

What does Mr LCD tell you? Have you heard it yet?



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join