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: 204
74
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lo as I recall we were on about breaking space time symmetry and you cherry picked one line from that post to go into wild speculationn. Besides any engineer in this world worth his salt will phoo phoo GR and actually feel like drumming those who embrace it
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Really that's surpRising since countless engineers rely on its equations. I think what you mean to say is engineers with little understanding of science. Like say a janitorial engineer.
Lol you are dreaming. no engineering discipline use any equations from gr.
tell me which equations and for what purpose?




posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol you are dreaming. no engineering discipline use any equations from gr.
tell me which equations and for what purpose?
GPS and CERN's LHC use relativity engineering

www.phys.lsu.edu...

the average frequency shift of clocks in orbit is corrected downward in frequency by 446.47 parts in 10^12. This is a combination of five different sources of relativistic effects: gravitational frequency shifts of ground clocks due to earth's monopole and quadrupole moments, gravitational frequency shifts of the satellite clock, and second-order Doppler shifts from motion of satellite and earth-fixed clocks.

By the way, if relativity time dilation was backward as you claim, this shift would need to be in the opposite direction, so the fact that GPS works proves your claim relativity has it backwards is false.

At CERN's LHC the beam dump can dissipate 165 pounds of TNT worth of energy which was determined necessary based on relativistic calculations. Without relativistic effects the proton beam would only have a tiny fraction of that amount of energy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 20151111 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I got another zany one.

I was thinking. fish gills. what's more efficient for combing o2 out of the water, ordinary fish gills that have one exit for the water on each side or a shark gill which has many 5-7 exits or for the water to exit on each side.

the variables in question.

would a single outlet trap the water giving it more time to circulate amongst the blood vessels in the gill thus insuring maximum harvest of o2 from the water, or the rapidly draining multi exit gills of a shark which allows a higher volume (I think but not sure on that) of water to pass through.

tuna are said to be the most efficient, while still very athletic fish of the sea. but sharks are no chumps either in the athleticism and efficiency department. just look at a mako accelerating after prey.

so granted capillary density is the same with the gills vascular system in each respective contestant.

if you were an engineer and had to make the choice. whats more efficient. single giant gill like a tuna or multi gill like a shark?
edit on 11-11-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
You are talking all rubbish. Talk to gps makers and ask them if GR has anything to do with gps.
Tnt explosion is all rubbish. Stay away from engineering, you have little knowledge of what goes into engineering design
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I agree with what you said, particularly about the bonding energies - forgot about the quantum level! I need to go through the links thoroughly, particularly the one on the chronology of the universe. I started Stanford's course in Cosmology as well online. There's something about a blackboard that resonates!
Thanks for the input.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Two questions. 1. Could there be another earth, traveling the same path, just on the ther side of the sun? 2. Speed of light question. An ant runs, it's not very fast. We walk, and it is an unreal speed to the ant. So if an object or being that makes us look like ants runs, could he reach a speed, that to us is light speed?



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kazber

1. Could there be another earth, traveling the same path, just on the ther side of the sun?


Some of the outer planets were discovered by the gravitational pull they had on the known planets. If there were an earth-mass object on the same orbit as us, no matter where it was, its gravity would have a noticeable effect on the orbits of Mars and Venus at least. Moreover, we have or have had space probes at suitable locations to peep also behind the Sun.


2. Speed of light question. An ant runs, it's not very fast. We walk, and it is an unreal speed to the ant. So if an object or being that makes us look like ants runs, could he reach a speed, that to us is light speed?


No. The speed of light in free space is an inherent property of our Universe. No matter what kind of physical entity we consider, it is bounded by the physical properties of the Universe.



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
just look at a mako accelerating after prey.
...
if you were an engineer and had to make the choice. whats more efficient. single giant gill like a tuna or multi gill like a shark?
How do you define "efficient"? "just look at a mako accelerating after prey" sounds more like a measure of acceleration than efficiency. A lamborghini accelerates more quickly than a Honda civic but the Honda civic gets better gas mileage if that's your measure of efficiency, so in the case of auto efficiency there's often an inverse relationship between acceleration capability and efficiency.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
You are talking all rubbish. Talk to gps makers and ask them if GR has anything to do with gps.
Have you done this? Give me the contact information of the person you talked to so I can confirm. They should say something along these lines if they know their business:

www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu...

While the primary general relativistic correction is taken care of on-board by setting the clock frequency before launch and does not need to be computed by an individual receiver, the special relativistic corrections that require knowledge of the orbital parameters of the specific GPS satellites whose signals are being measured are not. As described in the GPS Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C (10 Oct 1993), applying these corrections is the responsibility of the user's equipment (Section 20.3.3.3.3.1, "User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction"). The calculations are relatively straightforward, and use orbital information transmitted in the data packets that come down from each spacecraft.
So in addition to talking to the receiver manufacturers, to confirm the other relativity corrections you'd need to talk to the satellite designers about setting the clock frequency before launch, which the receiver manufacturers might not be able to tell you about, certainly not from first hand experience since they don't launch the satellites.

I've provided credible sources and as usual you've provided nothing but empty claims with no supporting data at all, zilch.


Tnt explosion is all rubbish.
That an energy equivalent figure, there's no TNT exploding at the LHC beam dump. If you prever to discuss a different energy equivalence rather than pounds of TNT, they have stated the amount of copper the beam energy could melt:

www.lhc-closer.es...

The high luminosity performance of the LHC relies on storing, accelerating, and colliding beams with unprecedented intensities. The transverse energy density of the nominal beam is 1000 times higher than previously achieved in proton storage rings. Tiny fractions of the stored beam suffice to quench (see below) a super-conducting LHC magnet or even to destroy parts of the accelerators. Note that a 10^-6 fraction of the nominal LHC beam will damage Copper. The energy in the two LHC beams is sufficient to melt almost 1 ton of copper!



This is the only element in the LHC that can withstand the impact of the full beam.

The block is a cylinder of graphite composite eight meters long and one meter in diameter, which is encased in concrete. As it absorbs the beam energy, it becomes very hot but does not melt. This size allows to spread out the hadronic showers over a large volume.



Stay away from engineering, you have little knowledge of what goes into engineering design

If you want to show that you know more about engineering than I do, then show me the engineering calculations that resulted in that beam dump being constructed to handle such large amounts of energy, without using relativity in your calculations. You can't do it so then it's obvious who is lacking engineering knowledge. In fact I used the beam dump as a specific example to give specifics for you to respond to, but much of the entire construction of the LHC requires engineering considerations related to relativity. The engineers need to know the momentum of the protons to figure out how powerful the magnets need to be to change their direction, and Newtonian math won't provide the correct momentum and will give extremely erroneous figures, so relativistic math is required.

edit on 20151112 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 12 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was going for overall athleticism. tuna and mako are both pretty much on top of their game as far as that goes. a mako is more like a cheetah, tuna more like a wolf, great endurance but no slouch in the sudden use of explosive power. a sword fish or marlin would also ben a good example of a single gill type athletic fish.

so maybe better question would be marlin or mako. which has the better kit when it comes to gills

so if you were going to design a predator fish would you go for single gill or multi gill to furnish the steady o2. given the capillary density is the same in both which woukd harvest more o2 from the water per volume.
edit on 12-11-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-11-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Lol don't you know that internet is notorious for keeping dogmas alive. what you find on the internet is not necessarily true. but to give you room, put all that you claim in a post with equations and calculations thereof and we will debate them.
when e = mc2 is resolved it phoo phoos the GR hook line and sinker and yet you ignorantf folks embrace it
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

In light of your revelation my GPS suddenly stopped working!



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was going for overall athleticism.
OK that removes some of the inconsistency about "efficiency" in your previous question.


so if you were going to design a predator fish would you go for single gill or multi gill to furnish the steady o2. given the capillary density is the same in both which woukd harvest more o2 from the water per volume.
I'm no expert on gill design but my guess is the capillary density would have a big influence on how much O2 is extracted from the water per unit volume. It's also my guess that the restrictions in the gill openings would control flow and thus how much volume of water passed through the gills. If the sharks 6 openings had about the same size in total as the single opening then conceivably flow rate could be about the same. However one difference you didn't mention is that many fish have a gill cover called a operculum and sharks don't, and it acts sort of like a pump when used in conjunction with the fish's mouth. As far as I know (which isn't much about this topic), it allows fish with the operculum to breathe more easily without moving through the water than the sharks which lack it, but I have no idea what role if any it might play in the "athleticism", be it help, hindrance or none.

I would also note that the oxygen exchange only becomes critical or relevant for longer hunting sessions. Vertebrates can get a quick burst of speed almost without breathing for a short time.

I think this gets more into evolutionary biology than physics but I suspect some some other factors might be involved, such as how the gills are defended from parasites, so it might not be all about performance.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol don't you know that internet is notorious for keeping dogmas alive. what you find on the internet is not necessarily true. but to give you room, put all that you claim in a post with equations and calculations thereof and we will debate them.
You've never demonstrated the ability for intelligent debate. You always seem to dismiss facts and legitimate sources with unsupported accusations and ad hominems like this:


when e = mc2 is resolved it phoo phoos the GR hook line and sinker and yet you ignorantf folks embrace it

Anyway here is the math showing how protons reach 7TeV energy levels in the LHC, and let me guess now instead of showing the math is wrong you'll just make some unsupported statement like "the ignorant folks at the LHC don't know how to do math"?

7TeV math using relativity

In the LHC each proton reaches an energy of 7 TeV. Firstly, we introduce some basic calculations in Special Relativity and afterwards we present a more detailed calculation about energy of collisions in relativistic terms....


edit on 20151113 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the universe is flat, isn't the Hubble sphere really an ellipse or a curve on a plane? The volume of the Hubble sphere is calculated as c/Ho. Volume for an ordinary sphere is v =4/3 pi r(cubed). Is "sphere" a misrepresentation of what the shape is - or maybe we don't know the shape?






I think that one cannot say space-time has a form. It expands arbitrary. When needed, on demand. When the demand is too much, black hole forms))

Hopefully what I said makes any sense.

edit on 13-11-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-11-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Question board,

if space-time was an open system, would not CMB be completely dissipated by now?
edit on 13-11-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   


QUESTION

if gravity is the driving force for the Sun to exist, and also for the solar system shape, why is this force not able to hold those tiny particle that leave the Sun and they accelerate moving away ???
edit on 13-11-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
I think that one cannot say space-time has a form. It expands arbitrary. When needed, on demand. When the demand is too much, black hole forms))

Hopefully what I said makes any sense.
It doesn't make any sense to me but if you want to cite any credible sources supporting these statements I'll take a look at them. I've never seen any such sources.


originally posted by: greenreflections
Question board,

if space-time was an open system, would not CMB be completely dissipated by now?
I'm not sure what you mean by "completely dissipated". For the CMB photons to disappear completely, they would need to be absorbed by something like a black hole perhaps, and many of them haven't been so absorbed. The photons that remain have dissipated to a large extent in the sense their wavelengths are much longer than they used to be from the metric expansion of space, so their energy is much lower. The wavelengths will continue to get longer as the expansion of the universe accelerates, but those that aren't swallowed by black holes etc won't be "completely dissipated", they will just continue to have lower and lower energies. The energies are already dissipated to the extent that the CMB isn't all that easy to detect.

The observable universe is open because there is nothing to close it off from the rest of the universe we can't observe. The entire universe might be closed but since we can't observe beyond the observable universe we can't make many claims about what we can't observe. However the energy loss of photons due to the metric expansion of space will occur whether the universe is open or closed.


originally posted by: KrzYma
QUESTION

if gravity is the driving force for the Sun to exist, and also for the solar system shape, why is this force not able to hold those tiny particle that leave the Sun and they accelerate moving away ???
The vast majority of particles don't escape from the sun. The fact that some do is a result of the energy levels of various particles having a statistical distribution with the energy of some particles less than average and the energy of some particles more than average. Only particles with significantly more than average energy escape the sun's gravity and very few particles have such a high energy.

Solar Wind

...the mean speed for hydrogen nuclei in such a gas if viewed as having a Maxwellian speed distribution is about 145 km/s. The escape velocity from the surface of the sun is about 618 km/s, so those hydrogen atoms with average speed would not escape. Considering the nature of the speed distribution would show that there will be a few with speed above the escape velocity.


"very few particles" in this context is further explained at the link:

less than 0.1% of the Sun has been lost through this mechanism in its 4.6 billion year lifetime


edit on 20151114 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

that's just a half answer, why they accelerate more and more after leaving the Sun is the second part of the question and the more interesting one



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Arbitrageur

that's just a half answer, why they accelerate more and more after leaving the Sun is the second part of the question and the more interesting one
Data from voyager probes has shown the solar wind is slowing down as it gets further from the sun:

NASA Probe Sees Solar Wind Decline

Voyager 1 has crossed into an area where the velocity of the hot ionized gas, or plasma, emanating directly outward from the sun has slowed to zero. ...

Analysis of the data shows the velocity of the solar wind has steadily slowed at a rate of about 45,000 mph each year since August 2007, when the solar wind was speeding outward at about 130,000 mph.


We plan to launch the solar probe plus in 2018 to measure solar wind velocities closer to the sun. A very simple prediction model was made in 1958 by Parker which treats the solar wind as an ideal gas expanding into a vacuum and such a model predicts declining acceleration with increasing distance from the sun, but we know the sun is more complex than this simple model. For example there are different types of solar wind depending on their origin, called "fast" and "slow" solar wind.

You can see a demonstration of the Parker model here, but I'm sure once we have data from the probe launched in 2018, scientists will be making efforts to develop more refined models to explain Solar Probe Plus observations:

demonstrations.wolfram.com...

This is a Demonstration of the Parker model (Parker 1958) for the solar wind. The plot shows the solar wind flux velocity as a function of the distance from the Sun....

This Demonstration shows that, regardless of the temperature of the plasma, the solar wind particles achieve a supersonic velocity within a short distance. Even though it is very simple, Parker's model agrees with observations.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

The first 6 minutes or so of the linked video seems to focus on the problem of preconception which becomes insurmountable as we age. I remember while learning to build radios as a child, somewhere in the lessons thermodynamics and "Maxwells Demon" was mentioned. Maxwell's Demon has inspired many theorists including "V on Neumann".

If there is an intuitive cosmology it will have to explain "entropy" fairly early on in the opening game.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
To Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections
I think that one cannot say space-time has a form. It expands arbitrary. When needed, on demand. When the demand is too much, black hole forms))



It doesn't make any sense to me but if you want to cite any credible sources supporting these statements I'll take a look at them. I've never seen any such sources.



Yes, I understand. But do you think idea is plausible? I am asking as myself can not do the math, I can barely multiply simple numbers without calculator which also proves at times to be challenging to operate.

You your self, what do you think of origins and what not? Can not be that you simply wait till someone's theory emerges and accepted by scientific community just so you could break it down here for us.

Thanks for your contributing!!
edit on 15-11-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
74
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join