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: 164
74
<< 161  162  163    165  166  167 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
we have a "dark matter" detector. its our eyes. wherever you see darkness there is dark matter lol
I should have said "Direct dark matter detector", because we do have indirect dark matter detectors of sorts, called "gravitational lenses".

But if you see darkness with your eyes, how do you know if it's from dark matter or from the absence of any matter? Oh wait, I see the lol, you were joking, so no need to answer that. You're as bad as Alex Filippenko, who says "let me show you my favorite picture of a black hole" and puts up a slide that's completely black. Of course he's joking too.





posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333
we have a "dark matter" detector. its our eyes. wherever you see darkness there is dark matter lol
I should have said "Direct dark matter detector", because we do have indirect dark matter detectors of sorts, called "gravitational lenses".

But if you see darkness with your eyes, how do you know if it's from dark matter or from the absence of any matter? Oh wait, I see the lol, you were joking, so no need to answer that. You're as bad as Alex Filippenko, who says "let me show you my favorite picture of a black hole" and puts up a slide that's completely black. Of course he's joking too.



well i kinda was joking. but what i was joking about was that i dont believe dark matter will be found as a particle. more like a blob of plasma in appearance. but yes i believe that anywhere there is empty space, when you take away the minute particles, atoms and neutrinos leaves you with a pure wholesome fabric of fluid darkness thats already everywhere permeating everything.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: KrzYma

Why are you so determined to prove the EU theory right, when it's wrong?


I'm not determined to prove anything at all.
Just showing you what other people think.

haha.. there is no such thing as right or wrong, it's only the judgment making it...



Our current theories describe everything quite well, being capable of making predictions within incredible accuracy.


hm... there was no dark matter before the discovery that gravity alone can't explain the observed, so it was invented.
Dark energy came out of equations that didn't hold the theory without it.
All the constants we made up are based on local observations. And we place them into existence the way it suits us!

if MS science some day will be able to explain why an apple falls to the ground, and I mean explain knowing why and be able to change it, not just describing the observed, I will listen...
Concepts such as bend space and mathematical diagrams mean absolutely nothing. It's a construct in our brain.

electricity and magnetism is still not explained, but at least we can manipulate those behaviors, create and manipulate it. Electromagnetic Universe ! EU

bend space-time, particle zoo, Qm and string theory mean absolutely nothing. It means as much as angels and God
believe system with big bang creation act.

QM is based on false interpretations, like the black body radiation which has been proven wrong by EU theorists.


The SM sun model is wrong...


Black Holes disaster..


mathematical creation of a black hole... "if we assume that..."


and in my opinion math goes the wrong way.
nothing + nothing is NOT nothing, it's 2 nothings
+ charge and - charge is NOT no charge, it's 2 charges measures zero
that's the field density, giving mass and inertia...



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
well i kinda was joking. but what i was joking about was that i dont believe dark matter will be found as a particle. more like a blob of plasma in appearance.
I have no idea what that means. A blob of plasma is a collection of particles, and plasma isn't "dark", it gives off radiation.


originally posted by: KrzYma
The SM sun model is wrong...
Please give me the time index where he says the sun is electric. He seems to be arguing that the sun has some fluid-like properties. I dont' know where he got the idea that plasma under a strong gravitational influence like a star can't exhibit some fluid-like properties, nobody ever told me that. But I was taught that plasma isn't a liquid or a gas and the sun is made out of plasma even according to EU folks so why is he debating whether the sun is a liquid or a gas? It makes no sense.



Black Holes disaster..
There's a disaster all right, in Crother's understanding of math, and I've never seen someone's lacking math skills disparaged this politely where the author compares Crothers to Einstein, sort of:

www.ptep-online.com...

the claim that the black hole “is not consistent at all with general relativity” is completely false.

General relativity is a difficult topic, which is grounded in advanced mathematics (indeed, Einstein himself is quoted as saying something along the lines of “Ever since the mathematicians took hold of relativity, I no longer understand it myself!”). A sound understanding of differential geometry is a prerequisite for understanding the theory in its modern form. Thus to paraphrase Lao Tzu [12] — beware of the half-enlightened master.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 11:34 PM
link   
thermodynamic time runs backwards in blackholes

phys.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
thermodynamic time runs backwards in blackholes

phys.org...



Seems to me they are misinterpreting a holographic screen. Holographic screens only exist because time stops. For example let's say I drop a book into a black hoke. I will see it fall then eventually stop at the event horizon. Where it it frozen for infinity. We would always see the image of the book. It's been converted to a 2 d image on a screen. You can't believe holographic screens exist then try to say time runs backwards on anything the two are not compatible.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
You could try dropping a gamma-ray source instead of a book so you could see it longer but with either one I think you would never see it stop because the light or gamma radiation will become so red-shifted as it approaches the event horizon that you just won't be able to see it anymore so you'd only be able to see it get redder and redder until it faded from view when the wavelengths got too long to detect.

I find their claims dubious but the nice thing about making claims about what goes on inside the event horizon is that you can say anything you want and nobody can prove you wrong!

At least with that method of alleged backward time travel I don't think you'd have to worry about the grandfather paradox, since if light can't escape the black hole, neither can the guy who wants to go back in time and kill his grandfather to see what will happen.

edit on 201594 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Can someone explain to me how it basically works please ?


There is lack of information that I'd like to know in the description.

edit on 492015 by FederWBush because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: FederWBush

Its called quantum levitation or quantum locking. The way it works is The object he made is called a superconductor. Super conductivity is a quantum state of matter where an object has no electrical resistance and expels magnetic fields from its interior. I guess ill start by explaining electrical resistance. when we run a current through something electrons collide with atoms and produce heat Think of a stove top as you watch the elements heat up the more electricity we use the hotter they get. well in a super conductor there is no collisions at all. In clasical physics there is always some friction or energy loss in quantum mechanics thats not the case.

Now the other feature i mentioned is magnetic fields superconductors hate magnetic fields they literally push them away expelling them from there interior.Now like all things in life nothing is perfect in the process of our object trying to remove these magnetic fields it creates discrete magnetic fields. normally magnetic fields are lines but this being quantum mechanics quanta being the key word now are magnetic field behaves as individual particles.Though i want to say they are not i said like particles meaning they form into separate individual objects. These magnetic field lines well still trying to flow through are superconductor move as the super conductor continually traps and attempts to expel them. What happens when we introduce it to a magnetic field well a superconductor cant have thee magnetic fields just roaming around that looses energy and makes heat. So how does it do it it pins or locks itself in place making sure the magnetic fields or flux lines dont move around it and the ones moving through it enter and expels at specific locations. Now i actually show this to students but to get the true idea dont think of this as levitation its not.

It is quantum locking ,and i can place our super conductor on top of a magnet turn the magnet upside down and it will hang there under the magnet. You can tilt the configuration and it will stay that way. So i prefer the term quantum locking but i dont get to name things i didnt discover so we also use the term quantum levitation. Hope that helps



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I too am interested in the exact time reference, no one has ever said that a highly compressed plasma cannot exhibit fluid properties. The MS is not exactly hiding it, ignorant of it, or pretending it cant be that way, when quite openly the mainstream will theories that the highly compressed cores of Gas giants are metallic hydrogen.

Sooooo yeah, the sun is not exactly on trial there at all.

Also Dark matter didn't exist before it was invented? Seriously, that goes back to the whole if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it does it make any sound.

Its just as slow minded as those who thing the universe only exists because we perceive it. Hate to break it to you all but, the Universe has been around for a lot longer than the Earth has, and it was doing just fine without us back then.

by that very logic, i guess Johann Gottfried Galle invented Neptune... pretty powerful guy!

On bending of spacetime, id love to see a theory that can explain gravitational lensing how we have observed it... and explain the orbit of mercury too...



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433



Also Dark matter didn't exist before it was invented?


it didn't existed in the theory, NO, it was added after the discovery that gravity alone can't be responsible for what we observe. So it was added (invented) to hold the theory. to have more mass that there actually is.



by that very logic, i guess Johann Gottfried Galle invented Neptune... pretty powerful guy!


haha.. no, he was the first person to view the planet Neptune.



On bending of spacetime, id love to see a theory that can explain gravitational lensing how we have observed it... and explain the orbit of mercury too...


not sure about EU theory on that...

my picture is this>
field density, denser field - slower propagation speed for EM radiation,
and if you see EM as it is, not a point like particle but as an "surface" of directional change, it becomes clear.

imagine the electric field propagating many billions time faster then C, and only the magnetic field, which "reconfigure" the EM field, propagating with C.

now, a galaxy rotates "too fast" for a model without dark matter in the outside regions because the field density is smaller.

"black hole" is a region in space with such density that magnetic fields can't propagate, there fore no EM comes out.


edit on 4-9-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

only in appearance. fluid in behaviour. with multiple different currents to the flow. particles? no because it's a force. and a force doesnt have particles. it's like water but without the smaller molecules.



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

What controls the speed and direction? It seems to slow down and speed up. When the superconductor was hanging, it appeared to reverse course. Is that correct?



posted on Sep, 4 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433

haha.. no, he (Johann Gottfried Galle) was the first person to view the planet Neptune.
OK, but what led up to him finding it? Observations by Le Verrier indicated there should be some mass in that location, and Galle found it where Le Verrier predicted it:

Johann Galle

Urbain Le Verrier had predicted the existence and position of Neptune, and sent the coordinates to Galle, asking him to verify. Galle found Neptune in the same night he received Le Verrier's letter, within 1° of the predicted position. The discovery of Neptune is widely regarded as a dramatic validation of celestial mechanics, and is one of the most remarkable moments of 19th century science.
That's similar to the way we predict dark matter. We observe gravitational effects and predict something must be there. So Neptune was there all along and so was dark matter, the only thing we discovered were the gravitational effects in both cases.

Where is the time index in the video about the sun saying it's electric? All I heard was a guy who doesn't seem to know what the mainstream model is saying the mainstream model is wrong, but I never heard him say the sun was electric.


imagine the electric field propagating many billions time faster then C, and only the magnetic field, which "reconfigure" the EM field, propagating with C.
I could imagine lots of things including that, however we are not constrained by our imagination but by observation which shows that electric fields don't propagate faster than c.


originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Arbitrageur

only in appearance. fluid in behaviour. with multiple different currents to the flow. particles? no because it's a force. and a force doesnt have particles. it's like water but without the smaller molecules.
Assuming you're not joking anymore, do you know that while we still don't know what dark matter is exactly, we have identified certain properties of it? Have to familiarized yourself with the properties we know of and compared your hypothesis to those known properties?


originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: dragonridr

What controls the speed and direction? It seems to slow down and speed up. When the superconductor was hanging, it appeared to reverse course. Is that correct?
The only things I saw at work in the video affecting those were momentum and gravity, and when you see it going faster, that's because he gave it a little push but that's sometimes done outside the camera's view. Because it's floating there's not much friction to slow it down, but when you tilt the track at an angle, gravity can certainly make it reverse direction.

edit on 201594 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: stormbringer1701
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Why do I get the impression you already know the answer to your questions?

You know that neutrons have charged quarks and you probably know that we don't know of any such charged particles comprising neutrinos so why should we be able to do something similar to neutrinos? I don't know what I could add that you don't already know about that.

The evolution of particle detectors seems to show that they keep getting better over time. A lot of these changes are incremental rather than breakthroughs but I don't know of any breakthroughs on the horizon in neutrino detector technology. Maybe somebody else does. What we really need is a dark matter detector. At least we can detect neutrinos even if difficult and with detectors that are not compact.


we have a "dark matter" detector. its our eyes. wherever you see darkness there is dark matter lol
Dark matter is nothing but good ole electrons in the time domain. Hope that helps. Lol I am the only person in the world that knows this.

Source : Me



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



For example let's say I drop a book into a black hoke. I will see it fall then eventually stop at the event horizon. Where it it frozen for infinity. We would always see the image of the book.


??? hahaha

but you can't see a black hole even if it "eats " all the mater surrounding it ?

stupid !

edit on 6-9-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



That's similar to the way we predict dark matter. We observe gravitational effects and predict something must be there. So Neptune was there all along and so was dark matter, the only thing we discovered were the gravitational effects in both cases.


F.. NO!!

we were aware about stellar objects and one was missing in the picture. dark matter was constructed AFTER the gravitational theory was observed to be wrong! therefore CORRECTED by adding new bull.sh !!
"who ordered this ?? " ....if you remember



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
but you can't see a black hole even if it "eats " all the mater surrounding it ?
The black hole itself? No, you can't see that. The matter falling in? That depends on a lot of factors like whether it's "eating" a gas cloud or a star, as explained here:

What happens to matter when it falls into a black hole?


a reply to: KrzYma
It's true that when we looked where Neptune was supposed to be we saw the baryonic matter that was Neptune, reflecting sunlight. It's also true that when we look for baryonic matter to explain the gravitational influence attributed to dark matter, we don't think there can be enough of it. But this doesn't mean gravitational theory is wrong. For example, we know that neutrinos have mass and are not baryonic, so just because we don't see baryons doesn't mean there aren't neutrinos and perhaps other things which are difficult to detect.

Anyway mainstream certainly doesn't have all the answers about dark matter and doesn't claim to. However when we consider your alternative explanation for gravitational lensing, we can prove electric fields don't propagate faster than c as you suggest, so we know your model is wrong.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



It's true that when we looked where Neptune was supposed to be we saw the baryonic matter that was Neptune, reflecting sunlight. It's also true that when we look for baryonic matter to explain the gravitational influence attributed to dark matter, we don't think there can be enough of it. But this doesn't mean gravitational theory is wrong. For example, we know that neutrinos have mass and are not baryonic, so just because we don't see baryons doesn't mean there aren't neutrinos and perhaps other things which are difficult to detect.


F.. NO!
it means, you have change what you have said before to fit what you say is the truth.
you adopt like a flag in the wind....

there is nothing wrong in it!
I adjust all the time, that's why I have abandoned the MS picture



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Question !

all experiments with light, have bin done with mirrors (matter).
what gives you the certainty the correct answer is what you get?
is it the property of light or maybe the property of the apparatus you deal with ??



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 161  162  163    165  166  167 >>

log in

join