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: 194
74
<< 191  192  193    195  196  197 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19917239]ErosA433 So the followup as Arbitrageur said, the question appears to point out either a confusion or a non-understanding of how mass and weight differ.
Lol. If ambient time changes mass also changes due to change in time/dark matter compression/rarefaction. On the moon time runs slower so mass is less. MS has not wised up on this phenomenon as yet though.
So different ambient time will result in different processes going on in a nuclear bomb.




posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19918225]joelr
In gravity your clock will slow. So more gravity, time is slower. At full black hole gravity, time stops.
So where do you get stop gravity = stop time? It should be stop gravity = more time.


You sent me to the thread. So now I'm asking.
You got it backwards. GR is wrong. But they will not teach you this in the universities. So I don't blame you really



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Man read my thread again and watch both the videos. im not about to conduct a physics lesson.
a reply to: joelr



Dont worry Joelr, he/she isnt actually going to explain anything at all, but is going to randomly make statements that are not backed up by any evidence



source/evidence for this statement.... this thread
edit on 13-10-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Please don't think I'm stupid but I have a very dumb question.

I don't quite understand how we are able to observe stars in the nighttime sky here on Earth.

Like why don't we see a beam of light from each star to our own eyes?

Or why won't we see the light given off from each star scattered in the sky?

Sorry if I'm sounding like an idiot on this.

I went to a public school.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Well in order to observe a beam, there needs to be some scattering, if you have a laser pointer and shine it at the wall, it wont show a beam of light between the laser pointer and the wall. However, if you use something like smoke or water vapour, and do the same, you will see light that scatters on particles and reaches your eyes.


Space is a vacuum to a very high order, we are talking 1-2 particles per meter cubed, maybe up to 10 in a nebula.

So there simply isn't any substantial media to cause scattering or absorption that would allow us to see a beam from the stars through space. What bits of material are out there, coupled with the vast distances tend to reduce the amount of light from a star, more than scattering it. Remember... the 1/r^2 rule is a cruel mistress over hundreds of lightyears.

Through the atmosphere, we have to consider scattering and absorption at a high order. In order to observe a beam we need to scatter enough light away from the object and not have it absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches us. The night sky atmosphere does scatter light just like in the day. For example, generally the seeing (how dark the sky is) when the moon is out is less. This is not a human eye contrast effect but a scattering issue. The background level of light increases in the night sky when the moon is out. The point really is that there is very little light in the night sky compared to the day. So the chances of you eye being able to observe a beam of light in the way you describe is basically zero


----
It is possible to observe beams of light in the sky from cosmic rays, but this can only be done on moonless nights and for extremely high energy cosmic rays that cause a thin track of ionized air behind. The devices required to observe this are sensitive to single photons... bit less than the eye sees regularly.



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I have a question concerning physics with the whole particle entanglement issue is there a way to construct a faster than light communication system using particle entanglement with the different flavors of the electron if we could find a way to encode that and then send it somewhere and then decoded is that something that is possible is this something that has been thought about am i late to the party on this subject and just haven't seen anything on it yet?



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
phys.org...




Anton Rebhan and his PhD-student Frederic Brünner have now made a major step forward in solving this puzzle by trying a different approach. There are fundamental connections between quantum theories describing the behaviour of particles in our three dimensional world and certain kinds of gravitation theories in higher dimensional spaces. This means that certain quantum physical questions can be answered using tools from gravitational physics.




a second shoe drops?

So higher dimensional gravity. I assume they are talking about something like N=8 super-gravity. if so they appear to be lending evidence for N=8 or at least some form of SUSY gravity theory. the question is how "real material world" are these theories? I ask because well... There is some really ko0ky stuff that this would appear to lend real science support for.

because for about the billionth time at ATS and elsewhere i cite this:

www.preposterousuniverse.com...




Along the way, Zvi, John Joseph and Henrik, thanks to the time-honored method of “just staring at” the loop integrand provided by unitarity, also stumbled on a new property of gauge theory amplitudes, which tightly couples them to gravity. They found that gauge theory amplitudes can be written in such a way that their kinematic part obeys relations that are structurally identical to the Jacobi identities known to fans of Lie algebras. This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors. Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other. If you’ve ever looked at the Feynman rules for gravity, you’d be shocked that such a simple prescription could ever work, but it does.


these articles appear related to me. and it appears they are not just some mathematical construct. and...

*cough* Bob Lazar *cough*
edit on 13-10-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: typo patrol



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections
I have a question to OP to clarify for me Terrels rotation.

Length contraction is often debated as physical from pov of 'rest' frame to moving frame.

Said that, could you give more insides on how Terrel's rotation explains length contraction in basic terms?
It doesn't.


thank you.
so, object in accelerating frame is not physically shrunk but it's length represent our (rest frame) pov of it? When we measure it, it appears shorter, right?
Lets forget about time for now. Just trying to understand contraction as it seems like Terrils rotation put receding object in some sort of perspective where when we measure its ends, the reading shows that it is shorter then actual size (which was known in advance).

The term came to be for a reason, me thinks.

thank you.
edit on 13-10-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: blackcrowe
You asked for speculation, so here's some speculation. My main observation about hypothetical universes with different properties is that the the so-called "anthropic principle" seems to be backwards in claiming the universes are fine-tuned for life. It's the other way around. Life is fine-tuned for the universe.

So if another universe with different laws did spawn from a quantum fluctuation, it's possible that life in that universe could be much different from life in this universe. Then some beings in the other universe could claim that their universe was fine tuned for life, however that wouldn't be any more true than such claims in this universe.

My speculation is that if a new universe spawn after this one dies, it will probably have similar properties to our universe, rather than different properties. The mass/energy content may differ and I wouldn't expect it to be a clone of this universe, but I would expect the physical constants to be similar. There's no reason I know of they have to be similar and there could be some bias on my part, but my guess is that someday when we develop a deeper understanding of nature we might learn why constants of the universe have the values they do and I think there's good odds that will apply to future universes.


originally posted by: itanosam
Is Star Trek a reality someday?
Star trek portrayed a lot of technologies.

Smart phones are quickly evolving and some already have some limited tricorder functions.

Harold White at NASA is researching the speculative idea of warp drives. He posits that the vacuum appears to exhibit the same properties as the "unobtanium" he needs to power the warp drive, but I'm not sure this observation will help him find "unobtanium". I wouldn't hold my breath for it to happen but I wouldn't say it's impossible.

One technology that may be impossible is the "Heisenberg Compensator" used to make the transporters work. However we already have some technology that allows us to beam any blueprint anywhere at the speed of light using radio waves, where a 3D printer can create what's in the blueprint. So the ISS drops a unique and special tool on a spacewalk? We can't beam them the tool but we can beam them the blueprints for it and they could use a 3D printer to print one. Not exactly transporter technology but it has some aspects of it and it's pretty cool.


originally posted by: joelr
So where do you get stop gravity = stop time? It should be stop gravity = more time.
He posits that Einstein got it wrong and the thousands of experiments which are consistent with Einstein's theory also got it wrong, as proven by two candles, one of them in a stronger breeze, burning at different brightness, etc. As I said I could fill a book with the experimental problems of "The Ark" video so I don't think general relativity is under any threat from that.


originally posted by: ErosA433
Dont worry Joelr, he/she isnt actually going to explain anything at all, but is going to randomly make statements that are not backed up by any evidence
Pretty much true except it might be more accurate to say he provided flawed "evidence" in the form of a video of a device called "The Ark" and then rejected explanations for what it was actually doing.


originally posted by: Steffer
Or why won't we see the light given off from each star scattered in the sky?
Eros gave you an excellent answer. I just want to add that the "twinkling" we see of stars is a distortion of the light from the stars passing through the atmosphere, and in addition to the twinkling, some starlight is scattered by the atmosphere also, but there's not enough scattered light from the stars to turn the sky blue like sunlight does.


originally posted by: TripSquared314
I have a question concerning physics with the whole particle entanglement issue is there a way to construct a faster than light communication system using particle entanglement with the different flavors of the electron if we could find a way to encode that and then send it somewhere and then decoded is that something that is possible is this something that has been thought about am i late to the party on this subject and just haven't seen anything on it yet?
There's a poster on ATS who starts a new thread about once a year saying this is possible, but he doesn't understand the technology at all and cites research papers that don't support his claims.

We can't prove a negative, so we can't really prove it's impossible. However there are people trying to prove it's possible and so far all efforts to do so have failed. I think it's probably fair to hypothesize that it's probably not possible. There is a theorem stating this called the no communication theorem. I'm not presenting this as scientific fact, but I consider it to be very likely to be true until someone proves it false, which I doubt will happen:


In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer. The theorem is important because, in quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement is an effect by which certain widely separated events can be correlated in ways that suggest the possibility of instantaneous communication. The no-communication theorem gives conditions under which such transfer of information between two observers is impossible.


Here's a short video by Michio Kaku explaining that we can only send random information faster than light, not useful information:



originally posted by: greenreflections
thank you.
so, object in accelerating frame is not physically shrunk but it's length represent our (rest frame) pov of it? When we measure it, it appears shorter, right?
The official answer is that all observations in all reference frames are equally valid. But if you want an undistorted view of an object put it in the same reference frame as the observer, or at least in a frame where relativistic distortions are negligible. What's negligible depends on how precise you want to be with your observations.


Lets forget about time for now. Just trying to understand contraction as it seems like Terrils rotation put receding object in some sort of perspective where when we measure its ends, the reading shows that it is shorter then actual size (which was known in advance).
If you think you can figure out Terrel rotation without considering time, all I can do is wish you the best of luck, because I think it's impossible:

en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks to the differential timelag effects in signals reaching the observer from the object's different parts, a receding object would appear contracted, an approaching object would appear elongated (even under special relativity) and the geometry of a passing object would appear skewed, as if rotated.
Emphasis mine.

edit on 20151013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Thanks for speculating.
I would have to agree in a similarity to the way this universe works.
After all. This model does work well.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19921292]Arbitrageur


originally posted by: joelr
So where do you get stop gravity = stop time? It should be stop gravity = more time.
He posits that Einstein got it wrong and the thousands of experiments which are consistent with Einstein's theory also got it wrong, as proven by two candles, one of them in a stronger breeze, burning at different brightness, etc. As I said I could fill a book with the experimental problems of "The Ark" video so I don't think general relativity is under any threat from that.

Heck you can take 2 candles and compare the flames at the same level and then set them apart vertically by 2 m. The higher candle will burn out faster. So there.
Besides the video is not flawed evidence but true evidence. You and eros offered some alternative explanation only to support GR



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
I already stated I tried that experiment with candles at a height difference of 2m and saw no difference. So your claim of a difference has not been confirmed by another test.

We have already explained some of the variables that might have skewed your experimental results with your candles.



posted on Oct, 14 2015 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
I already stated I tried that experiment with candles at a height difference of 2m and saw no difference. So your claim of a difference has not been confirmed by another test.

We have already explained some of the variables that might have skewed your experimental results with your candles.

Then how come every time I do it with either 1 or 2 candles, the higher one burns brighter and also consumes faster. both results corroborate or compliment each other, don't they?



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

You seem to not know some things about candle flames. A candle on a wall will always burn brighter than a candle on a desk for example. Because the key factor for a candle flame is fresh air. Notice I didn't say air. You could take a jar filled with air place it over a candle and you will see the flame weaken and go out. It's not because a lack of oxygen it's a lack of air flow. The more air the candle wick can get going over it the brighter it burns.

There is also other factors that invalidate the use of candles for any scientific experiment no two candles burn the same. Even the same candle changing its position in a room will cause it to change brightness do to air circulation. Candles also tend to burn better in rooms closer to the ceiling because the air will be warmer. You saw this effect a lot in castles there was a reason they kept the candles near the ceilings and had to use sticks to light them. It would have been much easier to just keep them within reach. Your describing something they figured out hundreds of years ago and it has nothing to do with time but even they figured it out.



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Lol whoever told you that my candle/s were anywhere near the ceiling. Only arb performed the expt with one candle. Now you perform both the expts and report.
a reply to: dragonridr



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
ETA if by any chance you have any access to a college lab, take 2 sunlight spectrums one on the rooftop and one at ground level and ell me which one comes blue shifted.
a reply to: Nochzwei



posted on Oct, 15 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

So... question... why cant we use a LED light source for this?

I ask because i happen to have used a calibrated light source on the surface of the Earth... precisely controlling intensity and proving it is constant. and then shipping the apparatus underground 2km and performing the same experiment (to check everything works) and then deploying the system in a multi-million dollar scientific experiment...

I can say right now with a high level of certainty that i saw No difference in the brightness of the source, or colour of the LED
edit on 15-10-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

So... question... why cant we use a LED light source for this?

I ask because i happen to have used a calibrated light source on the surface of the Earth... precisely controlling intensity and proving it is constant. and then shipping the apparatus underground 2km and performing the same experiment (to check everything works) and then deploying the system in a multi-million dollar scientific experiment...

I can say right now with a high level of certainty that i saw No difference in the brightness of the source, or colour of the LED


Simple candles use magical ferry dust that shows anti gravity effects. While things like lasers and led lights that can be measured and verified using equipment doesnt. See anti gravity only shows up in the presence of candles and only if you spin 3 times while shouting I want to believe.



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   
If you missed it, I had explained earlier , electric sources are not good. Voltage/current self limiting, due to resistance /temp changes. Fuel source should be there for the asking.that's why candles or radioactive sources are ideal. a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Oct, 16 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

So... question... why cant we use a LED light source for this?

I ask because i happen to have used a calibrated light source on the surface of the Earth... precisely controlling intensity and proving it is constant. and then shipping the apparatus underground 2km and performing the same experiment (to check everything works) and then deploying the system in a multi-million dollar scientific experiment...

I can say right now with a high level of certainty that i saw No difference in the brightness of the source, or colour of the LED


Simple candles use magical ferry dust that shows anti gravity effects. While things like lasers and led lights that can be measured and verified using equipment doesnt. See anti gravity only shows up in the presence of candles and only if you spin 3 times while shouting I want to believe.
Lol. there is no ardent researcher amongst ya'll, is there.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 191  192  193    195  196  197 >>

log in

join