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: 165
74
<< 162  163  164    166  167  168 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Imagine absolutely nothing existed, an infinite 3d area of pure nothingness. No matter, no energy, no fields, no particles, no potential... nothing, nothing nothing nothing.


Then imagine only exactly 2 masses existed; 1 a pure solid mass the size of the sun (out of some material like marble (to not confuse things with bringing up plasma and em etc, just imagine the simplest concept of a collection of substance, as a spherical body the size of the sun, but there are still not fields or anything else beyond, just this contained sphere object)

and the other, a pure solid mass the size of Earth (same situation, to make this thought experiment, and the point, as simple and clear as possible, just imagine the only 2 things that existed were perfectly self contained (meaning no matter or plasma or em spurting out) objects; 1 sphere the size of the Sun, one the size of Earth.

(no gravity fields, or dark matter, or dark energy... ok... infinite 3d area of pure nothingness, besides just 2 spheres.)


Side note:

According to our understanding and theory of the universe; if we paused the motion of the sun, so the sun was just motionless;

and we took the earth in our hands, and bowled it towards the sun;

if the earth from the point of our release, had a calculated trajectory, in which using pure absolute straight lines, it was determined that the earth would not hit into the sun (ignoring gravity for a moment, because this is my point);

according to our understanding of the universe, there is an amount, by which even if we tossed the earth towards the sun, and in absolute straight lines it was seen that the earth would not collide with the sun (ignoring gravity, as it is the mystery we are discussing), that there is some reason, as to why there is an amount, by which even if the earth is not aligned to touch the sun when tossed towards it, and the sun is motionless; the earth may still hit it;

Now back to the original opening statements of this post, before that side note;

Nothing existing, infinite in infinite directions (still 3d? or infinite d? is dimension more a statement about the nature of substance than the nature of pure nothing space?) 3d nothing space;

all that exists in this nothing space are 2 spheres; 1 sun size, 1 earth size.

Same experiment as in the side note.

Toss the earth towards the sun.

Now we rightfully assume, that when we let go of the earth, and it travels for a distance, and we take our lasers or what have you, to make straight lines and determine that the earth is on a path to either his the sun or not, that if it is determine via the straightness of the object put in motions trajectory, that the earth will not hit the sun;

Then it appears right to assume that no thing, that nothing, that there is nothing, to cause the earth to hit into the sun, if the earth is not on a straight path that will hit the sun.


How can this be? How can our observations of the universe suggest that if a mass is on a straight line trajectory toward another mass but it is certain via the absolute straightness of the area of the mass extended forward in space -time, that it will not hit the larger mass; that in our universe, there is a degree in which the straightness does not remain straight.

What can that be due to?

What has to change about the original scenario in the opening of this post, in order for a mass headed toward another mass, which is determined via absolute straight line, to not hit the mass it is headed toward, to hit the mass it is headed toward?

I would be forced to argue, it appears it must mean, that there is 'something' (not nothing) in between the masses, which allows what would be a straight path through pure nothingness, exist as not a pure straight path through not pure nothingness.




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
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 ??
Good question and the answer is complicated. I've never seen a better explanation than Richard Feynman's which starts off by explaining how mirrors and even a reflective surface of a pane of glass posed theoretical difficulties for centuries:

QED: Fits of Reflection and Transmission -- Quantum Behaviour -- Richard Feynman (2/4)


That's lecture 2 of 4, and he probably assumes you already understand the concepts from lecture 1 of 4, so you may want to watch that one first. You seem to get a lot of your science from Youtube videos, so it wouldn't hurt to watch one or two made by real scientists instead of EU quacks.


a reply to: ImaFungi
I'm glad to see your efforts to get yourself b@ were unsuccessful! I figured you were off finding a professor to brainstorm with so you and he could solve all the unsolved problems in physics. If you did be sure and let us know the answers!



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



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.


could you please point me to the experiment which determines the speed of electric field ??
not the electromagnetic field as combination of those two like it is said in the theory, but just the electric field ??

...

I'm not sure what you know about EM radiation, I'm afraid you have only a picture forced by the media...
So please let me point it out.

radio waves are magnetic waves in action and not electric.
magnetic fields influence electrons.. remember?
the distance between emitter and the receiver makes it impossible for the electric field to "do action".
electric field would "push" and not "move up and down" but it is insignificant at a distances...
this having clear...
polarization is magnetic in nature, not electric !


EM spectrum goes over -> transverse wave (radio) -> longitudinal waves (gamma)

magnetic field is the "transmitter" of the "information" about the change in the electric field, time dependent, or better said "time making" part of it which is measured C.

field density determines the propagation speed of the B field, this bends the light or makes it stop.

entanglement is the electric connection, and I told you it's many billions times faster than the magnetic field



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

just started reading.. but this statement makes no sense in my mind


Imagine absolutely nothing existed,


if I imagine, it exists, so it is NOT nothing !
NOTHING is a term to describe "something"

but I'm still reading your post...
...



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




I would be forced to argue, it appears it must mean, that there is 'something' (not nothing) in between the masses, which allows what would be a straight path through pure nothingness, exist as not a pure straight path through not pure nothingness.


there is !!! the time it takes for the EM field to transfer the "information" depending on the field density.
field density *(proton + electron = 2 density with charge of 0)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ImaFungi

just started reading.. but this statement makes no sense in my mind


Imagine absolutely nothing existed,


if I imagine, it exists, so it is NOT nothing !
NOTHING is a term to describe "something"

but I'm still reading your post...
...


When I say imagine nothing exists I mean;

Imagine no thing existed.

thing = matter, energy, field, particle, potential...anything.

None of that = nothing.

numbers 1 through infinity represent something.

0 represents no thing.

Imagine the idea of area; 5 feet by 5 feet by 5 feet...

infinite feet by infinite feet by infinite feet....

and in that area there is no thing...

there is only area...

Then, I go on to say, imagine in that area, exists 2 objects, 2 things.

The things can be 1 foot away, 2 feet away, 3 feet away, 5 million feet away. The distance is a real distance, but what is in between them is no substance, no matter, no particle, no field, no thing.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ImaFungi




I would be forced to argue, it appears it must mean, that there is 'something' (not nothing) in between the masses, which allows what would be a straight path through pure nothingness, exist as not a pure straight path through not pure nothingness.


there is !!! the time it takes for the EM field to transfer the "information" depending on the field density.
field density *(proton + electron = 2 density with charge of 0)


Woah, please slow down. I was attempting to speak about gravity and dark matter, what I responded to initially your post.

My post was expressing that the difference between;

a moving mass which is seen by using straight lines to not be on a trajectory to hit into a mass at rest it is heading towards; both masses of which are existing in an area of complete and pure nothing.

The difference between that and;

a moving mass which is seen by using straight lines to not be on a trajectory to hit into a mass at rest it is heading towards; but it does.

Einstein said, the difference presumably is that there is not complete and pure nothing in between the masses;

There must be something (matter, energy) in between the masses,

and it is that something, which the motion and potentially very existence of the masses, alters the way in which that something exists, and it is this action, which is called gravity.

Gravity requires mass/body, but also an area of matter/energy/something, which the mass/body warps/curves.

It is the relation between these that is called the action or force of gravity.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

yes, but he explains it with his theory... this is nothing I can count it
he says something can see something ( assumption it can "see" ) and all is based on some kind of believe system.

and my biggest problem is the minus in in the math

I admire Susskind, he opened my thinking at some point,
BUT, I went into a despair what he proclaimed in this lesson
black hole of the size of a proton??
imagination, nothing else...



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



The distance is a real distance, but what is in between them is no substance, no matter, no particle, no field, no thing.


NO NO NO... there is "something" in between
magnetic field propagating with C that reconfigure the electric field !



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Start your thinking with the thought that, there can only ever be something (energy) and nothing (nothing) and only the something 'exists', the nothing is 'non existent', the infinite absence of something.

Then have the thought that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Then figure how the varying styles of 'somethings' that is our universe, interacts with itself. There is only truth. We dont need to be so dramatic, we are all on the same team working towards the same thing, the truth.

Now part of the trouble is our knowledge of the universe may be bias due to all of our interactions with the universe being from our human perspective (lots of varying motions, lots of ignorance, not an absolute outside of the system perspective);

Which is summarized by Kant as the Noumenon ( en.wikipedia.org... )

In contrast to; en.wikipedia.org...

It seems you and I might be interested in Noumenon, absolute truth, how reality fundamentally exists exactly as it is in and of itself;

Where as science might have admitted, rightfully so, that such might be impossible, so the task of science is to understand how reality exists to our perception and tools and best of our ability at a given time, utilizing the piggy backed collection of past time and efforts, in a continual progression to attempt to know more and more about how reality appears to our perspective when we tamper with it.

This appears to be why, 'MS science' is not so concerned with absolute Truth, but more concerned with 'just read what is written in the book and we will build a rocket'.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

I am talking about gravity and dark matter.

But ok, you want to talk about EM.

Explain what you mean by Magnetic, and what you mean by Field.

What does magnetic mean? What is magnetic? How is magnetic?

What does field mean? what is field? how is field?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

there are only 3 things in the world, religion says it's the father, the sun and the holy ghost.
proton charge
electron charge
the interaction

all else you can see is the "play" or "will" or whatever any theory will tell you.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



I am talking about gravity and dark matter.

I cant tell you anything about what other imagine there exist.
ask them...



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

So physically why/how do you think the earth is traveling around the sun?

Is that where your EU theory comes in?

You do not believe gravity is mass (sun) warping an 'invisible' material medium (graviton/gravity field particle field) which forces mass (earth) to follow the path of the warp?

You believe gravity is mass (sun) electrically and/or magnetically interacting with the 'invisible' material medium surrounding it, such that mass (earth) follows the sun?

You believe the sun is a magnet which attracts earth, and the idea of gravity being anything other than electro magnetism is wrong?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
could you please point me to the experiment which determines the speed of electric field ??
not the electromagnetic field as combination of those two like it is said in the theory, but just the electric field ??
You're the one claiming it's faster than c, where's your experiment showing that?

We accelerate charged particles in the LHC and the particles themselves never exceed the speed of light and they carry the electric charge.


entanglement is the electric connection, and I told you it's many billions times faster than the magnetic field
Entanglement is a FTL correlation between two or three particles. But I thought we were discussing your explanation of gravitational lensing, no? When photons are used in entanglement experiments, they are sent to their destinations at the speed of light, then at the destinations a faster than light correlation is measured if the photons are entangled. But they don't get to their destinations faster than the speed of light, and they don't carry electric charge.

Electrons and protons carry electric charge, but they travel even slower than photons, below the speed of light, and I don't see how any of this explains gravitational lensing and it sounds very convoluted. The photons involved in gravitational lensing don't have measurable electric charge. They carry electromagnetic fields but you said you don't want to talk about those, so I don't understand what kind of experimental setup you think would show electric fields propagating faster than c, maybe you can explain it, and does that have anything to do with gravitational lensing? Or are you going off on a tangent?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Can you try to think of one other hypothetical and/or theoretical, physical explanation for the observation of entanglement, besides;

1. There exists a field (network of particles) which is currently directly undetectable, which transfers information faster than the speed of light.

2. (this might be the same essential concept as 1., but) the universe we observe is in some sense 'fake', computer idea and what not, the interactions of physical systems we perceive is computer elsewhere and potentially obeys physics outside our system. (I know that sounds completely different than '1.' , but in essence I say it might be the same concept, that eventually when you look at the raw facts, that would entail there being 'a network of 'particles' which transfers information faster than light).

3. The concept of entanglement is an error in the physicists way of thinking.

4. ?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How much missing mass is estimated to be thought to be dark matter?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Can you try to think of one other hypothetical and/or theoretical, physical explanation for the observation of entanglement, besides;
I'd start with the video in the OP by Sean Carroll, about which interpretations of quantum mechanics are popular among physicists. The nature of entanglement varies by those interpretations.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

How much missing mass is estimated to be thought to be dark matter?
That depends on where you look. In our own solar system and in some galaxies like NGC 3379, there doesn't appear to be any significant amount of dark matter, while in some other galaxies there appears to be larger than average amounts of dark matter. Overall the ratio of dark matter to visible matter is something like 8 or 9 to 1.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
That depends on where you look. In our own solar system and in some galaxies like NGC 3379, there doesn't appear to be any significant amount of dark matter, while in some other galaxies there appears to be larger than average amounts of dark matter. Overall the ratio of dark matter to visible matter is something like 8 or 9 to 1.


Ok, well that is an interesting twist on the situation. But if you dont mind, I would like to try to ask you a series of questions, (since you are studious and math inclined) which will progress one of my thoughts on a potential physical reason for dark matter (which I have blurted 2 or so years ago, but just have not thoroughly attempted to pursue the potential for the idea being correct, but since I have observed that you do not appear to mind doing some math, for other peoples questions, perhaps I can ask questions and we can try to work out whether my theory has any potential, and I should be more humble than this but, we can split the nobel if I am right).

It already is slightly troubling to my theory that different galaxies are observed to have almost no dark matter, but at the moment I can on one hand assume that observation might be entirely correct, and on the other hand hold some doubt that there may be small errors somewhere down the line which lead to the numbers in such observations.

So, shall we choose 2 different galaxies, or just 1 to start; I think perhaps 1, galaxy to start, and then after pursuing my ideas towards it, if anything novel or interesting does be seen, then maybe we can look at a galaxy which appears to have very little dark matter.

So can you choose 1 galaxy, maybe the closest galaxy to us, which has a significant amount of dark matter?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
So can you choose 1 galaxy, maybe the closest galaxy to us, which has a significant amount of dark matter?
The Triangulum galaxy aka M-33 is in the "local group" so it's fairly close. Here is the rotation curve we'd expect for luminous matter versus the actual rotation curve, the difference thought to be caused by non-luminous matter aka dark matter:

www.learner.org...



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 162  163  164    166  167  168 >>

log in

join