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: 196
74
<< 193  194  195    197  198  199 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
If m=F/a and m=E/c*2 then √(Ea/F)-c=0. If acceleration is less than 0, so then will F. (If a = -1 and m = 1 then F = -1). The square root of a number has two values, one positive and one negative. This means that E in this example is either a very big positive number (c^2) or a very big negative number (-c^2). If positive, why does it require so much energy (9x10^16 Joules) to slow something as small as a kilogram down? If negative then mathematically negative energy exists? And if it does, doesn't that mean that you have to have negative mass as well? If you can have negative mass then F=ma is still valid? Isn't there the implication that slowing something down makes it decrease in mass and a long duration would result in mass becoming zero and therefore immune to gravity? The alternative is that c is variable?




posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb
If m=F/a and m=E/c*2 ...
E=mc^2 is not the right equation, hence m=E/c*2 isn't quite right either.

Start with the right equation and try again. I made a thread about this:

Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?
Here is the right equation as explained in that thread:


Now work from that and you'll come out with different answers.

F=ma doesn't explain what's happening at the LHC but it works for simple classroom experiments, because Newtonian mechanics only works as a limited case of relativity where relativistic effects are negligible.

edit on 20151019 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 19 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Excellent reply there



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
in time dilation the ceasium atom/and or the associated electronics will put out a higher freq. and hence the clock will erroneously show faster time. well this is only common sense, isn't it?
It's a double negative.

You say time dilation=faster time
You say relativity has it backwards

But time dilation means time is slower by definition, not faster, so since you have that backwards and you think relativity is backwards maybe you're in agreement with relativity after all.

It's hard to make sense out of contradictory statements like "time dilation is faster time". It's basically nonsense, not common sense.

But yes as time slows down, frequency increases which is why the pound-rebka experiment did what it did. However you seem hopelessly confused between time and frequency going in opposite directions, and talk about time dilation correlating to faster time when frequency increases, but it's the opposite of that; time is slower as frequency increases in gravitational blue-shifting. You just misunderstand basic concepts and basic definitions of terminology like "time dilation".


originally posted by: Nochzwei
Put it all in a post if you can, rather than just a link, without your twist or take on it..
a reply to: dragonridr
I hardly see the point in explaining it since it's one of the hundreds of careful experiments and observations confirming the predictions of general relativity, and you will just point to two uncalibrated candles as evidence those hundreds of calibrated experiments are wrong. The Pound Rebka experiment was explained and all you said was "it's bunk"; you didn't state specifically how they should have performed the experiment differently.
Lol you have gone gobbledygook on purpose, looks like. But nvm.
Pound rebka, why not just take sunlight spectrums as suggested earlier and see which one comes out blue shifted, 23.6 m is good height diff, instead of performing conjuring tricks with photon absorption and all the rest of it.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: TheLamb
If m=F/a and m=E/c*2 ...
E=mc^2 is not the right equation, hence m=E/c*2 isn't quite right either.

Start with the right equation and try again. I made a thread about this:

Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?
Here is the right equation as explained in that thread:


Now work from that and you'll come out with different answers.

F=ma doesn't explain what's happening at the LHC but it works for simple classroom experiments, because Newtonian mechanics only works as a limited case of relativity where relativistic effects are negligible.


Thanks, I think. If momentum is zero, which will happen when an object is slowing down, you're still back to E=mc^2. F=ma is still applicable when v=0 so the question still stands. What happens to the negative result of the square root in my original equation and why is E so big when acceleration is less than zero?



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLamb
F=ma is still applicable when v=0 so the question still stands.
I don't see how it's applicable when v=0. If v=0 doesn't that imply that acceleration a is zero and therefore F is zero? Then your equations just becomes zeroes and they don't tell you anything.

It seems like what you're trying to do is say v=0 so you don't have to deal with the momentum term, then make your f=ma substitution but that substitution only has one valid result where the momentum is exactly zero because that's the assumption you're making. Therefore your original question can't stand, such as "why does it require so much energy (9x10^16 Joules) to slow something as small as a kilogram down? " That question doesn't make any sense because the physics doesn't imply that to be the case. That's the amount of energy you'd get out of the kilogram if you converted the mass to energy.

There's nothing in that figure about slowing anything down. You're asking about slowing something down which you now want to say has a velocity of zero, do you see the problem with that? What's slower than zero velocity? If you're talking about slowing something down you have a non-zero velocity and momentum and then you must consider the momentum term. You can't ignore it as you're still trying to do when you say your original question still stands.


What happens to the negative result of the square root in my original equation and why is E so big when acceleration is less than zero?
Did you watch the video in the other thread explaining why E=mc^2 is wrong? The end of that video explains how Dirac interpreted the negative energy result of the correct equation in quantum mechanics as antimatter, before the discovery of the positron.



originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol you have gone gobbledygook on purpose, looks like. But nvm.
Pound rebka, why not just take sunlight spectrums as suggested earlier and see which one comes out blue shifted, 23.6 m is good height diff, instead of performing conjuring tricks with photon absorption and all the rest of it.
I asked you if you did that experiment and you never answered.

When I perform experiments, it's because I'm looking for answers to something I don't know, or if I want to confirm a model. If I already have a lot of confidence in the model I'd rather perform a more useful experiment.

I have a very high confidence level that while I can calculate an expected blue shift at 22.5m lower altitude, that any spectrometer I have access to will not be able to distinguish a difference of 4.92 x 10^-15 using visible light from the sun. This doesn't mean I think it's completely impossible and there are some clever experimentalists out there who have figured out clever ways of doing experiments I didn't think of, but for me this would be a waste of time.

My expectation is based on what other experimentalists have done, like the NIST scientists who elevated their optical clock and measured the time difference, which is another confirmation of the predictions of general relativity which was an independent experiment from pound-rebka.

Another reason I'm not inclined to perform the experiment is because my candle experiment failed to replicate the result you predicted, so this means you have a 100% failure rate in predicting the results I should observe in my experiments, so far. Other scientists have a much better track record when they predict the results I should expect to observe.

edit on 20151020 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
What does this mean?


and the pulse frequency is tuned to the resonance frequency of the selected sensory resonance.


if the example is lets say 2,5Hz



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperia
The most famous example of resonance engineers are shown is the Tacoma Narrows bridge which destroyed itself due to resonance:



A more everyday example is when you push someone on a swing, you have to time your pushes just right if you want them to swing higher. You could call those pushes "pulses". The resonant frequency in that case is usually a fraction of 1 Hz.

If you want more explanation of your quote, more context is needed. Without more context it sounds like woo.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
roughly 2km is a good distance also.


Actually the experiment using candles would show the opposite, that going down, the brightness would increase, but not because of any GR or reversal of GR... but because the pressure underground at that distance is roughly 20-30% higher, oxygen content is thus more concentrated. :p

I could have just invoked magic and said "OMG my candle is brighter when i go deeper! GR is... right?....wrong?"



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Lol a double negative on you and eros. My theory is opp to gr.
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
And the theory has been disproven... lots the only thing is your own acceptance



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
And the theory has been disproven... lots the only thing is your own acceptance
My theory can never be disproven.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Therefore, it's not science.



posted on Oct, 20 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
It is with that statement i must say the following

You theory is not defined, largely because that what you call theory is actually just a belief only and is not science.

I come to this conclusion due to
-Refusal to accept other peoples data,
-Refusal to understand the constraints and accuracy imposed by the use of none calibrated equipment (ie candles),
-Refusal or inability to understand why candles make bad light sources for accurate measurements
-Refusal or inability to provide quantitative statements and predictions,
-Inability to maintain logically sound theorizing that is self consistent (you change your mind over and over or make statements to the effect)
-Reliance on dubious or otherwise flawed experimentation,

I come to the conclusion that you simply want to impress upon the un-initiated and people vulnerable to very large confirmation bias against the MS that you are in possession of great knowledge, but no one will listen to you because you are too smart/knowledge you hold is just so hard for people to understand.

In all... I can say that we entertained your ideas, spent time on your videos, and did have real life scientific data which could be presented to you, the MS did not suppress you or belittle you, it listened, and what it heard was incoherent ramblings, and what was coherent was not logically self consistent and or proven to be false.

keep at it if you like, but my interactions with you on this thread will be reduced since this appears to be a one way exercise...
edit on 20-10-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-10-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
resolve the equation e = mc2 and see what you get.
a reply to: ErosA433



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Well... what do you get? We have been very accommodating of your requests... I asked for predicitons of effects, got none... and your request doesn't actually make any sense at all what do you mean by resolve the equation? Solve it?



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

Well... what do you get? We have been very accommodating of your requests... I asked for predicitons of effects, got none... and your request doesn't actually make any sense at all what do you mean by resolve the equation? Solve it?


I stopped playing a while ago you should do the same. Some people just have to believe they know things others do not. And any evidence to the contrary will just be ignored or used as proof that main stream science is hiding the truth. Every scientist would love to be the one to prove Einstein wrong. They would become an international superstar and lead science in a new direction. yet it hasn't happened despite all the effort. And I find it unlikely it's going to be done with candles and a machine that spins😅



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

indeed!
need to stop playing. People do seem to want to believe in often rather random things. Be it an ego thing or of all else just for attention.

We tried... but we failed... still that being said, convincing anyone of anything is hard enough, let alone trying to expose what appears to be a huge delusion



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Does Time exist or is time simply a human perception of distance traveled in a non-3 dimensional plane of travel?

For example if we imagine the cosmos (however large that maybe) as encompassing everything (from ‘our’ past, present and future) as well as every physically possible combination of events (ie like the multiverse theory) as all existing at once spread out on a the surface of a table.

Think of those things spread out on the table as photographs; a snap shot of what your eyes would observe if you were standing at a specific point on the table.

Now as the observer moves in a partial direction on the table, imagine he collects up some of the photographs and sort of places them in a flip book and begins to flip through them. The result could be a movie of something happening over what we call TIME.

For example maybe his photos while flipping show a cat jumping off a table. In the first picture the cat is on the table, in the last picture the cat is on the floor. And as he flips the pictures show the cat moving from the table to the floor.

But going back to cosmos table the picture of the cat on the table and the picture of the cat on the floor (as well as the pictures in between) all existed together. It wasn’t until the observer scooped up the pictures, arranged them and flipped through them that TIME came into existence.

This collecting, arranging and flipping could be analogues to our brains perception of time. Its only in our brains where we flip through the movie of life that time has any real meaning.



posted on Oct, 21 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Does Time exist or is time simply a human perception of distance traveled in a non-3 dimensional plane of travel?
Humans are great but they can have flaws like not caring enough about the environment, or they can be egocentric and think time can't exist without their perception, or in some cases it's been posited that even the universe doesn't exist without human consciousness.

OK you didn't ask the consciousness question but I still see some parallels in the question and the answer. Whatever time is, there is pretty good evidence that it and the rest of the universe and universal laws don't depend on humans, human consciousness, or human perception at all.

Modern humans have only been around for the blink of an eye on a cosmic time scale, far less than a million years, and radiometric dating humans use involves rocks not doing a whole lot except undergoing radioactive decay, the vast majority of which occurred long before humans existed. This time scale puts our solar system in perspective:


The line for the arrow that says "now" is over 10 million years wide so there were no humans to the left of that arrow on this scale, but there was lots of time before humans were around to perceive anything.
edit on 20151021 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 193  194  195    197  198  199 >>

log in

join