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: 127
74
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr


Unless your adding energy to your electron you can shake it all day. Need to introduce a magnetic field to interact with the field of our electron because we need energy. This is what a device like a wiggler does I mentioned earlier it adds energy to our system.


Is the increase of velocity/momentum an increase of energy?
edit on 25-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I am only interested in knowing what is not known.



But first, you have to understand what IS known. And you don't.


Fundamentally, I understand more than you



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Its valid

You dont like that you dont know how to go about answering the nature of the questions within it that confound you

Its valid

You dont like that you dont know how to go about answering the nature of the questions within it that confound you

Its valid

You dont like that you dont know how to go about answering the nature of the questions within it that confound you

Its valid

You dont like that you dont know how to go about answering the nature of the questions within it that confound you



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I am only interested in knowing what is not known.



But first, you have to understand what IS known. And you don't.


Fundamentally, I understand more than you


You haven't shown that so far.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

Its valid

You dont like that you dont know how to go about answering the nature of the questions within it that confound you


Because the questions are so poorly formed, and based on misunderstandings you aren't able/willing to consider.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam


Because the questions are so poorly formed, and based on misunderstandings you aren't able/willing to consider.


Both of those statements are untrue. I am only questioning your knowledge. You do not want your knowledge questioned, you are satisfied with your knowledge. You do not want to discuss your ignorance. You do not want me to question your knowledge. So; you deflect my questions. I am not interested in your emotions or your fantasy of you as a character on the world stage, both of these things are absolutely meaningless and barely existent to me and the world and eternity. I only want to comprehend the deepest comprehension of how the fundamental substance of reality exists. If you admit that you do not fully understand how light exists, in relation to how much a human can possibly understand how light exists, then you would not be able to ignore a single one of my questions, because you would know they are good and relevant towards prying towards the truth, unless, you appeal to your emotions and fantasy character and feel embarrassed and ashamed at your ignorance and so instead just want to play pretend like you are science man and attacking the evil retarded mystical me. Petty, a waste of all our time (though it is entertainment to you and technically entertainment may be all that exists, and so if you determine that this is valuable entertainment for you you would only have your self to argue with). Whatever, I would never deny that you do not know how to build and play with toys. I would argue that you may not know the fundamental nature of electron and light (and quarks and gravity and others) as to if absolutely nothing existed but you, and your imagination which could draw and invent and bring into existence absolutely anything you imagined in your mind but only absolutely as you imagined it, if you could even recreate just some electrons and just some photons and just establish the ways in which they relate so that they produce and interact with each other as they do now.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Tell Einstein he wasnt allowed to use Gedanken


Einstein earned a doctorate in physics and studied it intensively as a young man.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   


I know enough about the general models, theories and interpretations in physics, plus my imaginative, intuitive and philosophical abilities, to make statements and proofs which would aeffect this persons comprehension of reality, and together we would be able to make corrections in regards to the contradictions and misinterpretations and misunderstandings in the state of fundamental theoretical physics today.


Why don't you learn the theoretical physics yourself so you don't have to split as much of the glory?

And also so mister or miss brilliant scientist doesn't throw you out on your posterior for wasting their time.

What do you think a top professor from Princeton would say to this proposal when you obviously exhibit less preparation than a undergraduate sophomore major, much less a research collaborator?



edit on 25-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I'll take ranch dressing, thanks.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

First you need to understand 1 thing first photons are energy it is a means to move energy from one thing to another. That I'd their job it is what they do that's why we refer to it ad a force carrier. Any time we are transferring anything in EM it involves photons. This seems to be missed by you.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi






I know enough about the general models, theories and interpretations in physics, plus my imaginative, intuitive and philosophical abilities, to make statements and proofs which would aeffect this persons comprehension of reality, and together we would be able to make corrections in regards to the contradictions and misinterpretations and misunderstandings in the state of fundamental theoretical physics today.


Then why don't you present your hypothesis in a coherent, well thought out manner.

Here's how you construct a hypothesis. Pay attention - test to follow:



The hypothesis is used to organize an experiment. If the hypothesis is carefully formed, all the steps of the scientific method follow - the hypothesis provides the structure.

A good hypothesis is the result of research and refinement and has a few key characteristics that make it helpful, understandable and provable. The best way to develop a hypothesis is by following the three-step process. This will help you to narrow things down, and is the most foolproof method to correctly achieve a testable hypothesis.

How to write a Hypothesis
(the If ... then hypothesis statement)

In writing hypothesis, a tentative relationship is stated. If you always ask yourself if one thing is related to another, then you should be able to test it.

The independent variable, or the variable that you will change (or control), should follow the "If" in the statement. The effect on the dependent variable (the prediction about what will happen) should follow the "then" in the statement. The ultimate value of a hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.

A good hypothesis has a few key characteristics that make it helpful, understandable and provable. Some guidelines to remember in developing a hypothesis are:
• Keep it simple and concise, not too broad.
A hypothesis should be written in one or two sentences.
•Avoid using words like I, think, believe, all, never, and sometimes. These words may either personalize it or are too vague and will result in too broad of an area to research.
•avoid using words such as “prove” and “significant” in a hypothesis.


iqa.evergreenps.org...


edit on 26-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

If what I said about currently being prepared to solve problems in theoretical physics by having a ~5 hour conversation in front of a blackboard with a very smart and passionate theoretical physicist who was interested in a wide variety of aspects of fundamental physics, is true.

If that is true.

Would you even consider yourself a schmuck for treating me the way you are? What is my consolation of all of the people on this thread suffering, if I am right? Its not fair that you are getting such no risk pleasure off something you are potentially wrong about.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Because that's hard work! Why do that when you can self-proclaim your genius without having to come up with the goods to back it up?



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Phantom423

Because that's hard work! Why do that when you can self-proclaim your genius without having to come up with the goods to back it up?


You are responding to me pleading to speak with a very smart and passionate theoretical physicist. My life has been the hard work, the ~5 hour conversation would be hard work, the goods would be produced to back it up via this.

If I am right, you are wrong, how would you feel? If you wouldnt feel bad, then you dont deserve to attempt to make me feel bad, which you arent doing, I am only abstractly feeling bad because you are speaking to me in anyway and not about the questions and content I have been speaking on.

Cool talk I came across




posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Now you're just making excuses. I'm sure you have access to the internet, go look up universities in your area and fire off some emails and reach out to some physicists.

Mind you, waffling for 5+ hours in front of an expert is usually called "defending your doctoral thesis".
edit on 26-5-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Phantom423

If what I said about currently being prepared to solve problems in theoretical physics by having a ~5 hour conversation in front of a blackboard with a very smart and passionate theoretical physicist who was interested in a wide variety of aspects of fundamental physics, is true.

If that is true.

Would you even consider yourself a schmuck for treating me the way you are? What is my consolation of all of the people on this thread suffering, if I am right? Its not fair that you are getting such no risk pleasure off something you are potentially wrong about.


If you're right about what??

I gave you an outline how to construct a hypothesis - and you're insulted. Go figure......



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423


If you're right about what??



If I am right about being able to make significant progress, revolutionary progress in the face of some of the major problems in theoretical fundamental physics today by having a long face to face conversation with a very smart and passionate theoretical physicist.

If that is true, and the only way I can possible do such a thing, is to simply, be in person to person discussion, free time, and a blackboard; that I cannot possibly right a paper including all the things in all the heads of all the people that are confused and wrong, but that if I had a representative, one of the smartest and more passionate amongst them, to work with, yes...it would be done.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

What exactly would this "representative" represent? If you can't articulate your ideas into a paper, what exactly are you going to be saying to this "very smart and passionate theoretical physicist"?

Sounds like you're making excuses not to knuckle down and do things the hard way.

Have you even bothered to reach out to any academics yet? Or are you expecting others to do that for you also?
edit on 26-5-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423
Here's the problem with your hypothesis suggestion, well, not a problem for me because it's what I suggested also, but I think it's a problem for ImaFungi:


The ultimate value of a hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.
Imafungi wanted to discuss light, and proposed a non-existent, probably impossible to construct light source.

I listed several real-world sources of light and asked ImaFungi to pick a real light source, any real light source, but ImaFungi had a problem with this and was quite adamant that he wants to go the gedanken route and showed no interest in learning what results would appear in an experiment.

The irony is so profound that someone who says they want to learn the ultimate truth about the real world is actually trying to avoid real-world experiments to test their ideas.

On the other hand, I see the appeal, because if you can gedanken away quantum mechanics and imagine the photon as a little wooden ball painted yellow, wiggling up and down, then you don't have to cope with the aspects of nature we may find a little unsettling, which you would surely be bound to confront in an actual experiment.



posted on May, 26 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Phantom423


If you're right about what??



If I am right about being able to make significant progress, revolutionary progress in the face of some of the major problems in theoretical fundamental physics today by having a long face to face conversation with a very smart and passionate theoretical physicist.

If that is true, and the only way I can possible do such a thing, is to simply, be in person to person discussion, free time, and a blackboard; that I cannot possibly right a paper including all the things in all the heads of all the people that are confused and wrong, but that if I had a representative, one of the smartest and more passionate amongst them, to work with, yes...it would be done.


And what happens if this smart person doesen't agree with you? What if he/she says "where's your evidence, what experimental data do you have?" Are you going to be insulted and walk out?

I think you're making some very lofty assumptions that just because someone is "smart" by your standards, that this person is even going to engage in a conversation with you on a topic that you can't even frame in a simple hypothesis.


edit on 26-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 124  125  126    128  129  130 >>

log in

join