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: 180
74
<< 177  178  179    181  182  183 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Stormbringer... how can one make money off all of this?

any tips would be gladly appreciated?




posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

HI, could you please go back to my post on side 161, I think you didn't commented on that..
www.abovetopsecret.com...

....
so... all the electrons in all of those "detectors" were synchronous ?
because then an only then a point like force would kick just one of them at the time.
otherwise... well, wave comes in and strike all of them at the same time, but only those in "comfortable" position would interact and make the readings you did.
....





An anomaly that we can reproduce and do measurements with at will... it is produce in nature too, there are isotopes that produce positrons... So you are saying that we have to invent a whole new system for radioactive decay too?

new system, why not ?
Why do we exist if antimatter has the same "right to exist" like normal matter ??
If BIG CREATION happened like the actual theory says and antimatter is as standard as not antimatter...

You are saying nature is annihilating it's existence (matter) all the time ?
But I hope it is also replacing the "annihilated" somehow, right ?
I know E=mc2 creates and destroys matter all the time, but how exactly do you create an electron or create an proton ??
..from nothing just "energy" , what is this "energy"", what is behind this words meaning ??

..charges speed is used as value of the "energy" as I can see it, but speed is relative to something that is "not moving"
and even than you can't really say which one is moving...
can you see my confusion >?
edit on 19-9-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
if you are not using economics except for some of the initial steps you don't have to pay the conventional price for dyson satellites. because they are made by things that don't get a pay check using stuff that is floating around in space so you don't pay for most of the material costs either. you only pay for the initial robots and launch costs plus some wage slaves to monitor the satellites when operational. these satellites would end up using microwave lasers to transfer power to collection nodes to orbital satellites that would beam it to the ground. you would pay for the earth satellite part and ground installations. but the vast amounts of resources and labor you would not have to pay for at all.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Stormbringer... how can one make money off all of this?

any tips would be gladly appreciated?
because you have some infrastructure and labor costs you'd have to charge utility bills and fees just like any other utility. depending on over head though and volume you might be more economical than normal utilities (maybe.) that said; a dyson system would be of more use to power things that require tremendous power supplies like beamed propulsion or antimatter production.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
new system, why not ?
I'm open to it if there's a better one but I haven't seen anything better from you. Most of your comments rather suggest you don't really understand the current system very well, which doesn't put you in a position to say whether a new system is needed or not.


Why do we exist if antimatter has the same "right to exist" like normal matter ??
If BIG CREATION happened like the actual theory says and antimatter is as standard as not antimatter...
Eros already wrote about that, see his post from page 159:

link

edit on 2015919 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



I'm open to it if there's a better one but I haven't seen anything better from you. Most of your comments rather suggest you don't really understand the current system very well, which doesn't put you in a position to say whether a new system is needed or not.


I'm working on one.
Not understanding the current one??
Which one?
Relativity?, QM?, standard particle model? ...

please explain to me the strong nuclear force !
You can't, it's a phenomenological model



A phenomenological model (sometimes referred to as a statistical model) is a mathematical expression that relates several different empirical observations of phenomena to each other, in a way which is consistent with fundamental theory, but is not directly derived from theory. In other words, a phenomenological model is not derived from first principles. A phenomenological model foregoes any attempt to explain why the variables interact the way they do, and simply attempts to describe the relationship, with the assumption that the relationship extends past the measured values.[1][page needed] Regression analysis is a popular example of a phenomenological model.


As I said, all assumptions !!
And you are telling me I'm not allowed to make my own picture and have to stick to the horde opinion ??

It's your thread however, I understand and go...
thanks, was fun !!



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Have there been any school curricula developed pertaining to the World Trade Center towers disintegrating? I'm curious because i think that would be a good way for kids to be interested in science and to prevent another similar tragedy.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Have there been any school curricula developed pertaining to the World Trade Center towers disintegrating? I'm curious because i think that would be a good way for kids to be interested in science and to prevent another similar tragedy.


Yes, its called mechanical engineering and its been around for years


And the tragedy was caused by the deranged acts of a few men, which has its roots spanning way way back to the 80s depending how you look at it.

Without wanting to go into the whole conspiracy theory stuff, this is not the place for it, the parameters for what happened are absolutely in the realms understood by science and engineering.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Cool - so a new model, sounds good, but you already seemed to say you are not going to be bound by mathematical language right.

No real aggression here, just saying it as it is. You say we do no good at explaining anything, but you offer up nothing tangible. Nothing that is actually addressing anything other than a mystic of 'I am a keeper of great knowledge... but you wouldn't understand.'

It doth butter no parsnips here.



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur



I'm open to it if there's a better one but I haven't seen anything better from you. Most of your comments rather suggest you don't really understand the current system very well, which doesn't put you in a position to say whether a new system is needed or not.


I'm working on one.
Not understanding the current one??
Which one?
Relativity?, QM?, standard particle model? ...

please explain to me the strong nuclear force !
You can't, it's a phenomenological model



A phenomenological model (sometimes referred to as a statistical model) is a mathematical expression that relates several different empirical observations of phenomena to each other, in a way which is consistent with fundamental theory, but is not directly derived from theory. In other words, a phenomenological model is not derived from first principles. A phenomenological model foregoes any attempt to explain why the variables interact the way they do, and simply attempts to describe the relationship, with the assumption that the relationship extends past the measured values.[1][page needed] Regression analysis is a popular example of a phenomenological model.


As I said, all assumptions !!
And you are telling me I'm not allowed to make my own picture and have to stick to the horde opinion ??

It's your thread however, I understand and go...
thanks, was fun !!



Hi KrzYma

I was thinking of posting a suggestion.

if you decide to start your own thread please do. I will be more than happy to contribute to discussion. Name it please something like "Put your cosmology ideas here".

This particular thread to me was meant to ask OP a question an answer to which is final and not open for further discussion. Sort of OP cites text book interpretations in best effort to help novice individuals.

Many more would like an idea of a new thread my thinks.
This way board members could choose where to ask a question they have. Formal stuff could go to OP of this thread. All other ideas and questions could go for discussion on a separate dedicated thread.

No?

cheers)
edit on 19-9-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
As I said, all assumptions !!
And you are telling me I'm not allowed to make my own picture and have to stick to the horde opinion ??
You can believe anything you want. There are scientists who have had ideas that started out as "fringe" which went against the mainstream, but using the scientific method they were able to convince the rest of the scientific community that their alternate explanation was better, and now those ideas are mainstream, like plate tectonics for example.

All I'm saying is that if your alternate ideas are really better, you should do all of us a favor and follow in the footsteps of those heroes who used the scientific method to convince us that the "hordes" were wrong, and their new idea was right, so we can all have our thinking corrected. Believe it or not scientists really strive for such new discoveries which will make them heroes too.

a reply to: greenreflections
If the topic doesn't involve the scientific method, and nothing about KryZma's posts suggest he's using the scientific method, then such a thread would be off-topic in the science and technology forum.

It might be suitable for the Philosophy and metaphysics forum, or some other forum, so I'm not saying to not make a new thread.

This thread allows any ideas approached with the scientific method, even if they aren't mainstream. For example, MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) is a model not accepted by a consensus of the mainstream, but that and similar scientific non-mainstream ideas are perfectly on-topic here because they follow the scientific method.

Specifically that means the alternate ideas have falsifiable quantitative predictions which can be tested.

If you don't have that and just string a bunch of words together about what ideas you like or don't like for personal reasons, it's not really science, is it? It may still be a topic worthy of discussion in another forum, which is not the science forum.

Here's a guy with a model that's not accepted by the mainstream at all, but again it's on topic here because the model makes falsifiable quantitative predictions which can be tested in experiments:

Garrett Lisi: A theory of everything


One thing that presenter has going for him that KryZma lacks is that when he says a new model is needed, his claim is more credible because clearly he understands the existing model quite well. That doesn't mean his model is right but at least he's used the scientific approach to present it. It would be cool if it is right, but even the presenter admits it might not be, and he's willing to defer to whatever the experimental results show in that regard.
edit on 2015919 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Have there been any school curricula developed pertaining to the World Trade Center towers disintegrating? I'm curious because i think that would be a good way for kids to be interested in science and to prevent another similar tragedy.


Yes it has now terrorism is actually taken into account on building designs. Let's face it slamming a 747 into a building your never going to prevent a tower collapse 100 percent. But engineers can buy time and that's the key to saving lives. First thing is new rules were out into place and now waivers are no longer given like they did with WTC. Had the building been built to fire codes it would have had several more hours. When they changed the biding codes some people said huge buildings would no longer be possible but with advancements made in materials that's not the case.

Problem with any talk building is weight distribution the taller you go the lighter the upper floors have to be. This means you sacrifice stability for hieght. Had the plane hit the first floor the building would still be standing. Though do to inadequate evacuation routes death toll would still be high. The new laws now require multiple routes protected by comcrete. Also high speed elevators is now a requirement meaning in an emergency firefighters can use them to get people out. Now I don't want to get the 911 crew in here arguing so I'll end by letting you read this it answers some of your question



engineering.stanford.edu...



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
engineering.stanford.edu...
From your link:


Given the expenses involved in adding extra layers of safety, however, and the vast inventory of structures at potential risk, changes percolate into practice very slowly.
This is the "bottom line" in more ways than one.

The design objective always has been, and continues to be, to ensure the building stays standing long enough to safely evacuate all the occupants. If it will take 4 hours to evacuate the building it needs to remain standing at least 5 hours to allow some safety margin. Once all the lives are saved this way, then it's just an economic decision. Do you invest another $50 billion in added cost of all new building construction to prevent a $1 billion loss? In a way that's a waste of $49 billion, and then people trying to rent office space will find it very expensive, since that $50 billion would have to come from somewhere.

Good point about the multiple exit routes protected by concrete, that's where the money can and will be spent since saving lives is the priority. Preventing the building collapse from impact of a 747 fully loaded with fuel, after everyone has been safely evacuated, maybe not such a priority given the relative comparisons of risk versus cost versus benefit.

edit on 2015920 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
maybe you could find a way to make stuff compressed in a diamond anvil into contiguous parts somehow. or we will find new super materials elsewhere. but it's also a matter of costs as has been pointed out. i bet contiguous diamond anvil processed tungsten steel sheet stock would cost a lot per square centimeter.

parenthetically; i read a recent article that said scientists think they can possibly stabilize the admirable properties things get under such pressures and temps and that there may be ways to join such materials into larger pieces.
edit on 20-9-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Thought you might be interested in this it's the strongest material known. And its made by nature amazing the stuff we find.

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Another consideration to building an actual sphere is the limit of material in the Solar system. If you utilized every planet, every moon, every asteroid, every estimated Kuyper Belt Object, every comet, and everything estimated to lie in the Oort Cloud, you would be able to produce a sphere 1 AU IN diameter, centered around the Sun, but with a wall thickness of only 8-12 inches (200-300mm). It would collapse due to lack of structural strength and fall into the sun. If you were to construct it with sufficient strength to prevent collapse, you would still not have sufficient gravity for anyone to stand on the inside surface.
A series of satellite power converters or habitat rings would be a far more feasible idea.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Has anyone with a strong background in particle physics, in this thread, ever taken a serious look at the model Swann has been trying to develop?



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Nice.



posted on Sep, 20 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: cfnyaami

I agree, but unfortunately most kids that are of the age where steering potential is still useful are too young to have been alive to witness those events, or were too young.
It was 14 years ago, which means anyone old enough to remember it and have truly understood what was going on would be 20 or so.
edit on 20-9-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
Has anyone with a strong background in particle physics, in this thread, ever taken a serious look at the model Swann has been trying to develop?
ErosA433 gave Swanne some good feedback in one of Swanne's threads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Modulii is actually trying to help you, as much as he doesn't appear to be, he is trying to say that theorists have toyed around and played with many many hundreds of models and gotten closer than this one... but they still were not able to prove anything substantial or match observed data. Because the data doesn't suggest anything smaller than a quark.


No need to rehash that thread here but that should get you started if you want to read that thread. If you don't want to read the thread, that comment more or less sums up the feedback I think.




top topics



 
74
<< 177  178  179    181  182  183 >>

log in

join