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: 167
74
<< 164  165  166    168  169  170 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
The force is cohesion, it is due to the shape of the molecules, not magnetism or electron bonds.


But the shape of the molecules is due to magnetism and electron bonds right? What is keeping the surface molecules from drifting off?




There is no difference. The effects of cohesion are observed as surface tension at the interface between the water and the surrounding medium, or lack thereof. The cohesive bond is stronger than the bond between water and the surrounding medium (or lack thereof) so it dominates and causes the water to assume the smallest surface area possible.


Ok I am genuinely interested, not meaning to be so repetitive, what physicality is the cause of the actual physical movement to the smallest surface area;

One moment there is not the smallest surface area, what physically occurs, to what physically exists, so that what physically exists moves; what are the parts of the molecule/s that move, and/or how do they move? One moment they are one way, is it just their uncontrollable constant movement that jitters them into place? I suppose any answer you give will boil down to 'uncontrollable movement'...

So the molecules are vibrating, moving in relation to one another regardless... they are in the shape of a cube and manifested into existence... nothing changes about the way in which the molecules are vibrating... but for some reason as time passes, the motions of the collective vibrations, form into a sphere?










posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

No. There is no superlative to infinite. "Especially infinite" is a meaningless phrase.


I know, thats why its humorous.

I stated requisites for the thought experiment. Someone responded with an example which does not meet one of the requisites, in a manner that can potentially be interpreted as patronizing or condescending. I humorously pointed out to them their example does not meet the requisite, to imply that their example might not be so obviously an answer to my question.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

But the shape of the molecules is due to magnetism and electron bonds right?
I've been here before, and so has everyone else. You are not going to get a complete chemistry lesson from me.


What is keeping the surface molecules from drifting off?
Cohesion.



Ok I am genuinely interested, not meaning to be so repetitive, what physicality is the cause of the actual physical movement to the smallest surface area;
You may not mean to be repetative but you are. Think about it. A force over an interface is going to do what? Will it "want" to equalize or the converse? Can the forces on a right angled edge be equal?



One moment there is not the smallest surface area, what physically occurs, to what physically exists, so that what physically exists moves; what are the parts of the molecule/s that move, and/or how do they move?
The entire molecule moves in such away to minimize the stress between the molecules at the interface.


but for some reason as time passes, the motions of the collective vibrations, form into a sphere?
What vibrations? Due to equalization of forces a sphere is formed.

Your questions, as usual, seem to be more challenges than inquiries. There is nothing wrong with that, but when it comes to very basic principles it rapidly becomes tiresome.



edit on 9/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
ImaFungi
After I made that post, and saw that you did not answer the two questions
I did answer your questions, you just didn't like the answers.


Is space an object or objects? or is 'space itself' 'the absence of object itself'?
...
The distance between two galaxies increases, but the galaxies are not moving (and not moving faster) the space in between them is expanding and expanding faster.
The objects are the galaxies. The distance between them is space. The space usually has maybe one or a few hydrogen atoms per cubic meter so it's not completely empty but it's better than the best vacuum we can make on Earth so it's pretty empty, except for the occasional gas clouds and what not.


You said, without spatial expansion or accelerated spatial expansion, all objects would be attracted toward one another and all would come together.
First of all that's not what I said. That was Einstein's rationale for the cosmological constant since he thought the universe was static. If objects are flying apart, that's not exactly static, is it?


I tried to propose a scenario that depicts that it does not seem as if it is true that objects must come together; No spatial expansion or accelerated spatial expansion, only two bowling balls exist and they are forced to move in opposing directions, you are suggesting that gravity will force them together? And there is no initial force the bowling balls can be put into motion with that would change your mind?
if the bowling balls are moving apart, they aren't static. In fact in Einstein's time it was thought that the galaxies were moving apart like bowling balls move apart in your example, so that's what caused him to abandon the cosmological constant. We now know that view was wrong and it's the space that's expanding rather than galaxies moving through space (as in special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts like happened when Einstein tossed his cosmological constant), as explained here:

Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

We analyze apparent magnitudes of supernovae and observationally rule out the special relativistic Doppler interpretation of cosmological redshifts at a confidence level of 23 sigma.



The water in the ISS is infinitely far away from any gravity wells right? Especially the suns. Read my response to Phage to discover more of why I asked that question.
The orbit of the ISS doesn't exactly cancel Earth's gravity, but there's a reason it's called "zero-G" or microgravity as that's the apparent gravity, not the actual gravity.

edit on 201598 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I know, thats why its humorous.
No, it isn't.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Your questions, as usual, seem to be more challenges than inquiries. There is nothing wrong with that, but when it comes to very basic principles it rapidly becomes tiresome.

Is it possible that there is something inaccurate regarding those "very basic principles"?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Phage
Your questions, as usual, seem to be more challenges than inquiries. There is nothing wrong with that, but when it comes to very basic principles it rapidly becomes tiresome.

Is it possible that there is something inaccurate regarding those "very basic principles"?



Basic principles have been well established through experimentation. So unless the universe suddenly changes the way it does things id say its unlikely. when we say basic we mean that observation and experimentation has shown these things to be true.In order to deny this is simply saying you dont like the way the universe works and choose not to believe it.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

That's fine if there is no such thing as secrecy.

But there is.

The only way one can know what true physics is, is to be inside a black project, or, investigate what whistleblowers from black projects share with the public, quite courageously, I might add.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

The beauty of science is anybody (within reason) can reproduce the results for themselves. There's no 'secret science'. Science is, by its very nature, open.


What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?

-Dr. Steven Novella



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

What you have not addressed is the active suppression of science, which is part and parcel of the modus operadi of the shadow government who carries out the suppression via. their minions who do the dirty work.

Yes, anyone can reproduce results which are consistent with going along to get along.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

You would need to provide evidence of such suppression. In my experience, it's nearly always cranks who try and sell the narrative of secret/oppressed science, usually as a pitch for their unscientific ideas.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ConnectDots

You would need to provide evidence of such suppression. In my experience, it's nearly always cranks who try and sell the narrative of secret/oppressed science, usually as a pitch for their unscientific ideas.


this one is not about particularity physics, but a good start...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

I'm not a fan of getting controversial information from YouTube, paritucalry when:


Graham Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and journalist. Hancock specialises in unconventional theories[1] involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical/astrological data from the past. One of the main themes running through many of his books is a posited global connection with a "mother culture" from which he believes all ancient historical civilisations sprang.[2] His work has been rejected by scientists as an example of pseudoarchaeology.[1][3][4]


en.wikipedia.org...

Are there any credible academic sources for suppression of science?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

if you assume WIKI is the true source of information and not controled, our conversation ends here... !



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

No, not really, although the paper trail of citations helps. However, my argument does not rest on a wiki article. I was asking for credible academic sources of your claims.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Academic sources are not credible; that's the problem.

Until one comes to grip with the world we live in, one will never get it.

In my opinion, everything starts with 9/11.

If you believe the official story, you are stuck.

9/11 was the wake-up call for planet Earth in regard to science, technology, government, the military, medicine, mainstream media, academia, religion, the whole nine yards.

If you refuse to listen to whistleblowers and investigate alternative sources, there's no hope for you.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: GetHyped

Academic sources are not credible; that's the problem.


I can't help but think that this is a convenient narrative to avoid academic scrutiny of ideas.

But in any case, Arb's thread has a specific purpose and this conversation is off-topic so I'm going to bow out.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

I agree with you about Wikipedia.

It is thoroughly mainstream.

It might as well be a television documentary on the mainstream media, which serves the interests of the powers that be, who intend to remain in power, no matter what it takes.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
Do you have any examples to show of something not ''mainstream'' but actually works?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

No. There is no superlative to infinite. "Especially infinite" is a meaningless phrase.



The number infinity is infinitely distant from the number 845943859345834 but it is especially infinitely distant from the number 1. ?



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 164  165  166    168  169  170 >>

log in

join