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: 20
74
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
this is quite convenient, right ?
EM waves red shift but photons ( theoretical construct ) do not.
As I said here, photons from the Andromeda galaxy are blue shifted, so how does this fit into your science denial vision?




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: KrzYma
this is quite convenient, right ?
EM waves red shift but photons ( theoretical construct ) do not.
As I said here, photons from the Andromeda galaxy are blue shifted, so how does this fit into your science denial vision?


how is this a problem ?
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.

I said that some far away light source is red shifted even if its not moving away.
That wave length changes respectively to velocity between the source and the observer is clear I think.



edit on 30-7-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




science denial


sounds like I shall be punished for blasphemy, right ?
sorry I don't belong into your believe system.
but hey, freedom of religion,



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
how is this a problem ?
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying.
I thought I knew where you were going with this, but now it's true after your "clarification" below, I definitely don't understand what you are saying:


I said that some far away light source is red shifted even if its not moving away.
Here you seem to be saying red shift doesn't depend on velocity between the source and the observer. What else would cause the redshift? "Tired light" has been investigated as a possible cause, and ruled out.


That wave length changes respectively to velocity between the source and the observer is clear I think.
Here you seem to be saying red shift does depend on velocity between the source and the observer, since red shift is a wavelength change. Does this conflict with the previous statement and if not why not?



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



The fact that light from stars spreads out as many different photons, but individual photons don't seem to spread out is amazing.


please clarify me if I understand it right...
more of photons - interaction
one photon - no interaction

is that what you say ?

what king of machine did you used for catching one single photon from a galaxy billions light years away ??



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



What else would cause the redshift?


wave spreading out in length over very long distance.


Does this conflict with the previous statement and if not why not?


I never said Doppler effect wasn't there,
I said ...even if no motion is there, we still see more distanced light sources red shifted. Doppler effect and spreading of the EM wave in length, BOTH!



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
please clarify me if I understand it right...
more of photons - interaction
one photon - no interaction

is that what you say ?
I didn't use the word interaction in that statement, so no I didn't mean any interaction. Photons radiate in all directions from a typical star which has nothing to do with interaction of photons with each other. I'm having difficulty understanding why you're asking this question, though you're welcome to ask.


what king of machine did you used for catching one single photon from a galaxy billions light years away ??
The Hubble Space Telescope, though I didn't personally use it.

hubblesite.org...

Searching for the faintest objects in the Ultra Deep Field is like trying to find a firefly on the Moon. Light from the farthest objects reached the Hubble telescope in trickles rather than gushers. The orbiting observatory collected one photon of light per minute from the dimmest objects. Normally, the telescope collects millions of photons per minute from nearby galaxies.



originally posted by: KrzYma
wave spreading out in length over very long distance.
That is what cosmologists call a "Tired light" model. Here are some reasons they discount that possibility now (with further explanation in the link), but it wasn't a dumb idea initially, and was definitely considered:

Tired Light

By the 1990s and on into the twenty-first century, a number of falsifying observations have shown that "tired light" hypotheses are not viable explanations for cosmological redshifts.[2] For example, in a static universe with tired light mechanisms, the surface brightness of stars and galaxies should be constant, that is, the farther an object is, the less light we receive, but its apparent area diminishes as well, so the light received divided by the apparent area should be constant. In an expanding universe, the surface brightness diminishes with distance. As the observed object recedes, photons are emitted at a reduced rate because each photon has to travel a distance that is a little longer than the previous one, while its energy is reduced a little because of increasing redshift at a larger distance. On the other hand, in an expanding universe, the object appears to be larger than it really is, because it was closer to us when the photons started their travel. This causes a difference in surface brilliance of objects between a static and an expanding Universe. This is known as the Tolman surface brightness test that in those studies favors the expanding universe hypothesis and rules out static tired light models.
Before all the tests disproving it, it wasn't a dumb idea, but I've noticed the people who doubt the experimental evidence refuting tired light models don't usually have good explanations of why the models shouldn't be rejected based on the observations, do you?

edit on 30-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The quote that talks about tired light, its says 'in a static universe...', what about non accelerating,expanding non static universe? Spinning universe maybe? Maybe some galaxies are rotating at different angles, speeds, and spinning, and this causes light to intercept with us, who is also spinning, and the light travels through many changes in gravity fields before it gets to our detector.

And, what kryzma was responding to, was that dragonrider appeared to say that the wave of the wavepacket does spread out over time, and that is redshift. So kryzma responded by saying, if that is redshift, why is the expanding universe model needed to explain redshift, if that fact that over time the wave does spread out by itself.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
This sure is an interesting thread.

My Questions to the Physicists.

What is your opinion on:-

1. Time. If Einstein is correct on how Gravity is formed or created from Mass, could Time be the same for Gravity that Gravity is to Mass? aka Gravity creates Time just like Mass creates Gravity.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:31 AM
link   
All this talk about Quantum Physics, Time, and the such, but how about a little down to earth physics!!!!!

can you tell me about the physics of "low temp thermal expansion" and how it removes the required 105 vertical feet of structural resistance within a steel framed building to enable it to globally accelerate unified equal to gravity for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.......

as found by the 2005 NIST scientific investigation....


NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"


after 2005 NIST found no scientific reason for collapse, they stall till the 2008 NIST crew claims this new phenomenon of science occurs, which is the official claim pushed that fell WTC7 from the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew at their webcast tech briefing.


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."
Shyam Sunder at NIST technical briefing

The authors refuse to prove this new phenomenon that only occurred within a steel frame on 9-11....

.....any ideas why they would refuse to prove this new science through science?

can you show us how structural mass can accelerate through itself at that rate...as a 'natural' occurrence....with fire being the only allowable agent effecting the steel.


edit on 31-7-2014 by hgfbob because: fixed typo



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The quote that talks about tired light, its says 'in a static universe...', what about non accelerating,expanding non static universe? Spinning universe maybe? Maybe some galaxies are rotating at different angles, speeds, and spinning, and this causes light to intercept with us, who is also spinning, and the light travels through many changes in gravity fields before it gets to our detector.

And, what kryzma was responding to, was that dragonrider appeared to say that the wave of the wavepacket does spread out over time, and that is redshift. So kryzma responded by saying, if that is redshift, why is the expanding universe model needed to explain redshift, if that fact that over time the wave does spread out by itself.


Not what i said he has a tendency to misunderstand things. I said photons do not exhibit dispersion even said why. Em wave packets do however thats why to transmit radio further you need more power. But in the visible spectrum do to the shape of the wave itself it does not expand as it travels. Now the reason we know the speed of light isnt changing is we would see it in a couple of ways for example though blurring or aberrations in the spectrum or a change in spin. Since we dont see any of these things light varying speed is not possible because you need to add energy or take energy away and we could see that.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
This sure is an interesting thread.
I'm glad you like it. Thanks for contributing.


Questions to the Physicists.

What is your opinion on:-

1. Time. If Einstein is correct on how Gravity is formed or created from Mass, could Time be the same for Gravity that Gravity is to Mass? aka Gravity creates Time just like Mass creates Gravity.
This relationship is established by the theory of general relativity, which says that time slows down near a large mass and if the mass is a black hole, time can stop. We've only tested the theory outside of a black hole and the theory seems to work well in explaining observations, but of course we've never tested it inside a black hole to see if time actually does stop completely or not. The theory sort of breaks down with an infinite density calculation for the black hole so we're not sure about the black hole math. We're looking for some quantum math, but don't yet have a "theory of quantum gravity".


2. Freewill. All scientific papers I have read on Freewill all point towards we are just automated bio-machines, in laymans terms we unconsciously make a decision... I think its 8mili seconds to a whopping 9 seconds before we are consciously aware of said decision. I can never really accept this, so in trying to rationalise it I have sort of incorporated the double slit experiment with this.

If the double slit experiment can send back information from a wave to make the wave function collapse in the near past to become a particle, could this not explain freewill. If particles can do this, could not the particles that make up your consciousness also utilise the same function?
Consciousness is not fully understood, but there is some debate about the ability of entangled particles to maintain their entanglement in the brain and if you're suggesting entanglement of particles inside and outside the brain, how do you propose such entanglement could even occur? Your brain casing is designed to not let much stuff in or out besides the bloodstream.

If you do some "bloodletting" some of the blood could have come from your brain and you might have some entanglement between the blood you leaked out and your brain, though I doubt it, but even if you did, what do you expect this connection to do? If you zap the puddle of blood it might have a quantum effect on a few particles in your brain? I don't see how this can work and unfortunately there is a whole field of pseudoscience where charlatans (even some PhD's) make up some nonsense and call it "quantum" something as if that explains the magic they propose.

Here's a little article on Quantum consciousness worth considering:

Quantum consciousness (sometimes called quantum mind) is all too often a ham-fisted attempt to prove free will and/or god and/or magical pixies by jamming quantum physics into neuroscience.

Whether or not quantum effects influence thought is a valid topic for scientific investigation, but simply stating "quantum effects cause consciousness" explains nothing unless scientists can come up with some suggestion about how quantum effects could possibly cause consciousness. The argument goes:

I don't understand consciousness.
I don't understand quantum physics.
Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics.

It's god of the gaps with "quantum" as the all-purpose gap filler.
Much more reading on the topic is available at the link.


3. The 3d Brane World.
Not sure the exact name I read this on the String Theory for Dummies book. It was another explanation for the begining of the Universe.
The way I understood it, is there are two 3rd Branes which was described as a table cloth flapping in the wind. I prefer a flag as opposed to table cloth when picturing it.

The 2 flags (Branes) flap close to each other and the areas that touch creates a massive explosion (Like a Big Bang. lol)
and when it condences into matter we get galaxies such as the Milky Way. And the reason there are massive gaps between Galaxies is because the flags (Branes) did not touch there. So its just remnant energy spreading out from the Galaxies.

I find this theory of the begining easier to understand than the usual Big Bang Theory. Although like all scientists I wouldnt put my money on it.

Whats your opinion on the 3d Brane world?
It's speculative.


originally posted by: hgfbob
The authors refuse to prove this new phenomenon that only occurred within a steel frame on 9-11....
I don't suppose you have a source for this, and even if you do, you mean they didn't have a spare skyscraper of identical design they were willing to destroy in a test? Did you offer them a skyscraper of the same design to destroy? They aren't cheap and even if I had a skyscraper, I wouldn't let them destroy mine in a test. Besides this topic is to ask questions about physics. Consciousness is somewhat beyond the current understanding of physics as discussed above and to the extent it's understood which might explain people's behaviors like what they will or won't do, it's more a topic of neuroscience than of physics.

I think you've made these same points in the 9/11 forum:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Is the 9/11 Forum Dying?, page 10

The Topic: Is the 9/11 Forum Dying? Has been more than covered and due to the bickering and constant regurgitation of material that has been posted ad-nausea, this thread is now closed
So the thread was closed because of so much regurgitation of material that has been posted ad-nausea there, and since the mods ended the discussion there you want to re-regurgitate material that has been posted ad-nausea there, here? Please don't. Thank you. I said you could ask, but I didn't promise you'd get an answer, and if you weren't satisfied with the answers you got in the 9/11 forum you wouldn't be satisfied with the answers you got here either so I really don't see the point in asking.

edit on 31-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Not what i said he has a tendency to misunderstand things. I said photons do not exhibit dispersion even said why.
Yes this is why I said it's amazing photons don't exhibit dispersion since we do see dispersion on other cases.


originally posted by: ImaFungi
The quote that talks about tired light, its says 'in a static universe...', what about non accelerating,expanding non static universe? Spinning universe maybe? Maybe some galaxies are rotating at different angles, speeds, and spinning, and this causes light to intercept with us, who is also spinning, and the light travels through many changes in gravity fields before it gets to our detector.
The light may pass through gravity fields, and they may affect the direction of the photons as we see in gravitational lensing.

But as for redshift versus blueshift, as the photon passes near a star, think of the star as a "gravity well" analogous to a valley between two hills. Yes the photon is blueshifted going down the hill into the valley as it approaches the star, but leaving the valley going up the next hill as it moves away from the star, it's redshifted again in effect canceling the blueshifting, so the net effect on wavelength is zero. There may be some non-zero effect on direction.

By the way here is a very crude classical analogy of wave-particle duality, where a somewhat quantized burst of energy is sent as a wave pulse. We can even see change in velocity effects and barrier effects which might be analogous to the photon traveling from air into water, and a reflection like hitting a mirror at the end of the path. So you see the wave property propagates, and the "quantum" of finite amount of energy in the pulse could be thought of as sort of a "particle", for about the first two minutes of the video. Starting at 2:09 they do a constant wave motion and then we no longer see a "quantum" analogy of a particle, it's more of a wave-only example. But as I said this or any other classical analogy will break down at some point if you try to comare it too closely to a photon. It's kind of like saying galaxies spread like raisins separating in a baking loaf of raisin bread...they're not really, it's just another over-simplified analogy to demonstrate crude concepts.




edit on 31-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Before all the tests disproving it, it wasn't a dumb idea, but I've noticed the people who doubt the experimental evidence refuting tired light models don't usually have good explanations of why the models shouldn't be rejected based on the observations, do you?


I do.

Of course, you already know this because I've linked the papers on here dozens of times, yet you chose to discuss antiquated tired light models instead.

Wolf Effect:
en.wikipedia.org...

CRIEL Effect:
arxiv.org...

Plasma Self Focusing


edit on 7/31/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Before all the tests disproving it, it wasn't a dumb idea, but I've noticed the people who doubt the experimental evidence refuting tired light models don't usually have good explanations of why the models shouldn't be rejected based on the observations, do you?


I do.

Of course, you already know this because I've linked the papers on here dozens of times, yet you chose to discuss antiquated tired light models instead.

Wolf Effect:
en.wikipedia.org...

CRIEL Effect:
arxiv.org...

Plasma Self Focusing



This would cause blurring in the spectrum which we do not see. So as they say try again i love it when someone thinks they found a loop hole but doesnt truly understand what they are reading.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Not true.

To quote one paper:

"Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light (CREIL), shifts the frequencies of normally incoherent light without any blurring of the images or altering the order of the spectra. "

I love it when you don't even bother to read the abstracts before commenting. It just shows how ideologically driven you are.


edit on 7/31/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I think I've replied to you on the CRIEL effect already in another thread, so I won't rehash that, but I don't recall discussing the Wolf effect, and I'm surprised you'd cite that, since Wolf didn't propose it could explain how our redshift observations could be consistent with a static (non-expanding) universe, he said it might explain "small differences" in spectral line shifts:

From your link:

In his 1987 Nature paper, Wolf argues that the mechanism outlined

"...may be responsible for some of the so far unexplained features of quasar spectra, including line asymmetries and small differences in the observed redshifts of different lines"
An effect explaining "small differences in the observed redshifts of different lines" falls far short of explaining large differences we actually observe which are consistent with an expanding universe.

The plasma self-focusing link is talking about lasers:

Advances in laser technology have recently enabled the observation of self-focusing in the interaction of intense laser pulses with plasmas.
I think you're grasping at straws here if you're saying this applies to starlight somehow since your link doesn't say that it does, but you do get some credit for trying harder than KrzYma.
Also I'm not even sure what you think it's supposed to explain, is it redshift, or the Tolman surface brightness test, or what?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's because those arguments are theoretically being applied to a pure vacuum. Space is not a pure vacuum. Space is filled with a sea of charged particles.

To quote another paper on the Wolf Effect:


The frequency shift of spectral lines from astronomical objects is most often explained by the Doppler Effect arising in relative motion and the broadening of a particular line is supposed to depend on the absolute temperature, pressure or the different line of sight velocities. The Wolf effect on the other hand deals with correlation induced spectral changes and explains both the broadening and shift of the spectral lines. In this framework a sufficient condition for redshift has been derived and when applicable the shift is shown to be larger than broadening. Under this condition of larger shift than broadening we find a critical source frequency below which no spectrum is analyzable for a particular medium. This gives rise to new type of screening effect which may play a significant role both at laboratory scale as well as in the astronomical domain. We apply a simple interpretation of the discordant redshifts in galaxy-quasar associations.


The medium the light passes through plays a large role in the observed red shifting.

I don't recall your arguments against CREIL.

Oh, and your dismissal of plasma self-focusing is expected. The theory applies to all relativistic plasmas, not just those created by lasers. You ignore the part that you don't like, as usual.


edit on 7/31/2014 by AnarchoCapitalist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

Not true.

To quote one paper:

"Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light (CREIL), shifts the frequencies of normally incoherent light without any blurring of the images or altering the order of the spectra. "

I love it when you don't even bother to read the abstracts before commenting. It just shows how ideologically driven you are.



Didnt read either just knew the wolf effect isnt even a contender in the game. It shows blurring now the Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light could not be the cause of cosmological redshift either the effect is way to small.And second the refracted light would show a change in polarization which we dont see.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The scientists who wrote the papers and studied the phenomena obviously disagree with you on those points.

It doesn't really matter though. It seems like every day I find another scientific advancement that undermines the standard theory of cosmology. Engineers, who actually work with real things in real labs, are going to make the standard model irrelevant as they continue to find real solutions to humanities problems.

There will come a point where people look at the believers in SR like they look at people who believe in organized religion. As strange curiosities that are best left alone to their own devices.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join