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: 208
74
<< 205  206  207    209  210  211 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower

I intuitively think black holes (at least galacticly central ones) maybe be physically mechanically similar to the real concepts of; 'eyes of' whirlpool, tornado, hurricane. Except instead of water, or wind, in the case of black hole, the material in question, I presume under this assumption to be; the material of that which along with visible matter allows the phenomenon of gravity to be noted.

Along with such an assumption, as if that is not already close enough or pretty much what the standard theory of black hole is, to make it closer; it is possible, any visible matter which gets close enough to such a powerful vortex, is shredding into a state of substance we are likely not familiar with, perhaps a ever increasing, twisting rotating soup of fundamental particles along with a novely forced interaction with the fundamental substance of the gravity material, especially considering if photons cannot escape, they would just be continually zipping around, wondering how dense of an object this is theorized to be, how the photons might zip around interact and effect the soup.




posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Oy replicate that video, will ya. forget eros for now, first made good on your excuses, then we will deal with eros.
That's a replication of the streak so if you're not going to deal with replications already provided what's the point in providing more?
iv already said, the streaks on the ark video get stronger wrt time and may not be entirely an artifact. I am unable to replicate any of the effects on the ark video, except for moving candle vertically up.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol you are making a lot of excuses. Pl replicate all the effects in that video, that you made excuses about, thermal expansion, streaks, light bending, candle breeze an also anti gravity. then you will be vindicated of all the excuses.
even my cheap mobile camera cannot produce those streaks, light bending, image distorsion etc. I tried to get an image distorsion of my rectangular fridge and failed.
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok. In the 40s, the Arab politicians did not find any “Palestinian people”.

Again see my post on optical sensors and then do some research to see what your cheap phone has.
Dunno wt my cheap phone has, but I will look into it.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I think Newton was wise to use the term philosophy for the correlation of observations from distant sources that may or may not even still exist or which might be just gravitationaly lensed mirages.

You would think the LHC would be a better place to study the source of gravity. When the LHC uses a massive amount of energy to create a heavier particle the event is recorded under the scrutiny of precision sensors. A particle increasing its gravitational attraction as it becomes heavier should give an accounting of the event unless gravity is a just some geometric anomaly of space time.

The only other intuitive question I have concerns probability and free will. A perfect machine would act predictably, for every action there could be no randomness. A Von Neumann robot would easily be able to replicate itself because there would be only one way to build. In the real world there appears to be free will and variation. Intuitively it seems to me that the physical design of our universe should dictate that degree of freedom.
We might even study the laws of probability for clues as to the physical design of the universe.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Oy replicate that video, will ya. forget eros for now, first made good on your excuses, then we will deal with eros.
That's a replication of the streak so if you're not going to deal with replications already provided what's the point in providing more?
iv already said, the streaks on the ark video get stronger wrt time and may not be entirely an artifact. I am unable to replicate any of the effects on the ark video, except for moving candle vertically up.

Try using the same camera you used originally to record that video.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower
You would think the LHC would be a better place to study the source of gravity. When the LHC uses a massive amount of energy to create a heavier particle the event is recorded under the scrutiny of precision sensors. A particle increasing its gravitational attraction as it becomes heavier should give an accounting of the event unless gravity is a just some geometric anomaly of space time.
No you wouldn't think that if you had any idea how big a trillion times a trillion times a trillion is. That's the difference between gravitational and weak nuclear force, and for strong nuclear force multiply by another 1000. Gravity is so weak on the scale of a proton that even when you increase the gravity of proton by a factor of 7460 like the LHC does, that is not going to help much with effects that are 36-39 orders of magnitude weaker, as 7460 is not even 4 orders of magnitude.

edit on 20151119 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




No you wouldn't think that if you had any idea how big a trillion times a trillion times a trillion is.


Its a lot less than 1000^1000.

You state that my sources seem "odd" and you are unable to find the links to them.
We are posting on a forum devoted to the study of "difficult to identify observations".
Classic UFO's often turn out to be secret military aircraft.
Some of our members are very good at searching the night sky. Theoretically the human eye can detect a single photon (Hecht, Schlaer and Pirenne `42). Some of our members have some exceptional kit to capture imagery. Talking about the ability to detect at various candle just seems like natural allegory to me.

Chromatic aberrations of distant stars or tumbling LEO objects present a similar challenge.
Newton published a theory of Colors in 1672 during the Newton/Hooke debates.
Goethe published a theory of colors in 1810.

If I were a mod I wouldn't ban someone just because their post was too abstract for me to comprehend.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower
If I were a mod I wouldn't ban someone just because their post was too abstract for me to comprehend.
The mods don't ban people for having non-verifiable sources or no sources, but they can and have moved threads from the science forum to skunk works forum for that.

My guess is DaVinci's drawing didn't have anything to do with X-rays so yes that seems like a very odd claim and I wouldn't give it the benefit of saying it's "difficult to verify" like UFO observations. DaVinci was obviously a genius, but I still have no reason to think he was making drawings related to X-rays, and your completely irrelevant citations about UFOs gives me no reason to consider otherwise.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower

I think the source of gravity is an aether like medium of an all encompassing field (aether pretty much means,the universe is jam packed with material; the source of gravity seems to be a fundamental material that is non visible and jam packed in the universe). So it is difficult to detect or experiment on the source of gravity, because it is possible that it is as if, every time it is attempted to detect gravity, and this is indicative of all action and movement in general, the source of gravity moves, a dog that cant catch its tail. It is like if there were no reflective surfaces that existed, and you wanted to see your own eyes. The source of gravity is jam packed absolutely everywhere, fundamentally, so how can it be detected? Like a bird that wants to see an air molecule. It can note the existence of air, by moving its wings against it, we can note the source of gravity by moving things against it. But to see the fundamental source, or if it is composed of particles, and if so what if any binding strength do they have, proves to be difficult; it is possible in particle detectors they have detected gravity source particles since the beginning and not noticed it. It is possible there is a deep fundamental relation between photon and the source of gravity. Ok so maybe I was wrong with the eye seeing eye and dog tail analogy, maybe it is just that the scale is too small to see...but maybe the air analogy isnt far off, being that light traveling through leaves no apparent indication of material.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

As weak as gravity may be in relation of scale, gravities immense strength cannot be ignored, to ultimately keep the planets continually near the sun.

How does the mass and force involved with the objects of a nucleus kept together, compare to the mass and force involved with the object sun and object earth being kept together.

I understand what you say and mean, and that the forces have to be considered together, or in tandem, because nuclear forces hold the sun and earth together too; but still.

What gravity being weak means, it seems, is that it requires a heck of a lot of gravity source particles (the area of the solar system and beyond quantity) to keep the solar system together. And it takes less particles to keep elementary particles together. Still neither can be so flippantly written off, as claiming that just because gravity is very weak, is why it is difficult to detect, the source of gravity is seemingly literally everywhere, so why would something seemingly everywhere be difficult to detect; and that is when you answer that its particle must be very small/tiny; and I would say, a photon is small and tiny?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




I think the source of gravity is an aether like medium of an all encompassing field (aether pretty much means,the universe is jam packed with material; the source of gravity seems to be a fundamental material that is non visible and jam packed in the universe).


The term aether has a superposition of meanings, there might even be a class of Von Neumann robots that build their experimental hardware without the necessary resources at hand.

en.wikipedia.org...

Big science is quite lucrative, and you can sometimes teach more with a failed experiment than a successful one.

I'm still working on the probability issue, I get distracted by what seem to be random coincidences such as the "theory of color" being published by both Newton and Goethe. Strangely enough I learned after posting my reply that Von Neumann recited Faust on his death bed. Maybe it was the idea that Hooke being used as a foil for Newton was similar to Faust acting as a Von Neumann robot for Méphistophélès?

Faust is required reading in many German high schools but is often over the head of most of the pupils.

Explained the boot strap problem we face understanding physics for some obviously.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower

"According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.[citation needed] The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment" - wiki

Einsteins 'warpable space-tme' is this 'aether'. Proposed 'graviton' is proposed particle that makes up the aether.

I am sure there were many others who were studying color prior to and during Newton and Goethe, it is just that they are historical heavyweights of figures, so such a coincidence stands out, there doesnt seem to be anything too significant about it, zeitgeist and all, the possibilities of the times, the potential areas of intrigues of general geniuses.

What is your intrigue about Von Neumann robots, I just looked up some about it, and it is quite interesting, but you keep bring it up, is there a larger point you wish to discuss in relation to such?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
What gravity being weak means, it seems, is that it requires a heck of a lot of gravity source particles (the area of the solar system and beyond quantity) to keep the solar system together. And it takes less particles to keep elementary particles together.
Exactly. The gravity from ten trillion trillion trillion atoms might be comparable to one atom's electromagnetic interaction.

Even with our sensitive measurements of gravity on instruments with large numbers of atoms, we are finding variations that haven't yet been explained but one candidate explanation is an effect from Earth's magnetic field:

Measurements of Newton's gravitational constant and the length of day

About a dozen measurements of Newton's gravitational constant, G, since 1962 have yielded values that differ by far more than their reported random plus systematic errors. We find that these values for G are oscillatory in nature, with a period of P = 5.899 +/- 0.062 yr ... We report the G/LOD correlation, whose statistical significance is 0.99764 assuming no difference in phase, without claiming to have any satisfactory explanation for it. Least unlikely, perhaps, are currents in the Earth's fluid core that change both its moment of inertia (affecting LOD) and the circumstances in which the Earth-based experiments measure G. In this case, there might be correlations with terrestrial magnetic field measurements.
So we have a mystery, what's causing the variation in gravity measurements? If it does turn out there's a correlation with Earth's magnetic field then you might want to avoid making your gravity measurements near superconducting magnets with fields 140,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field.

edit on 20151120 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I was looking for fundamentals that might make a good basis for physical processes like fission and wave interactions or even ESP. Did some experiments with simple coin flip experiments and noticed the base 10 digits of pi showing up in the run counts for large coin flip samples of about a billion. Went looking for an explanation and ended up reading some of John Von Neumanns work on entropy and game theory. The idea of the Von Neumann robot scales a little better for me than the Asimov robots. One example is that there is a nature vs nurture issue for a Von Neumann robot. By that I mean if a Von Neumann robot is left in a particularly rich (high energy) environment it has more resources to replicate itself, possibly closer to the complexity of its maker. Computers can beat humans at activities like chess so with self generating software the possibilities are endless.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Is it agreed that if you take a mass anywhere in the universe, at least lets say in the galaxy to be safe, that it will be exerting a force of gravity;

Must you not agree, that it would follow, that this means everywhere in the galaxy, exists 'material', which is existing and waiting, for a mass, to allow the exertion of the force of gravity to exist.

A mass + purely nothing = cannot exert force of gravity.

A mass + *mysterious gravity material* = A mass exerting force of gravity. (for the mass, warps the gravity material).

This is extremely important.

Because it makes one wonder the nature of that gravity material, and how it exists potentially inside the nucleus, or how it interacts with nuclear forces.

Also the same principle must be asked and applied for the particular masses which nuclear force applies too;

Proton + neutron (and/or quarks + quarks if you like) + nothing = no nuclear force.

Proton + neutron (and/or quarks + quarks) + gluons = nuclear force.

If you bring quarks or protons and neutrons anywhere in the universe, they have the potential to attach strongly? Which means gluons must be everywhere in the universe, really, waiting to be utilized in such a way.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower

How do you think the human mind relates to such a generator or replicator and evolver, the very nature of learning?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Despite your excellent trolling no one seems to care enough to look.

This power-point document has some good search terms for quantum gravity research at the LHC.

indico.cern.ch...

As for the Davinci gravity well.
I'm sure Newton could calculate that there was a tremendous gravity well near the center of (our sun).
Some theory of mass to energy in that gravity well wouldn't be exactly rocket science.
I'm sure there were sheep dung burning nay sayers.
The visible spectrum of light from (our sun) was well known(Noahs ark), wave lengths outside the visible spectrum in the IR also theorized.
There were materials like Vellum that block IR rays but become more and more transparent as you reach the violet end of the spectrum.
Dreaming up radio science as a purely mathematical extension of the visible light spectrum, fun science fiction.
edit on 20-11-2015 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Before the printing press artists were commissioned to "frame" ideas into their works for public consumption.
There would always be a wide range of different interpretations from alternative paradigms.
Some classical artwork and writings still have hidden interpretations that aren't made public.
Its an interesting subject but we are getting off topic.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
A mass + purely nothing = cannot exert force of gravity.
Can a mass even exist without space-time or the vacuum as we know it? It's a Newton's flaming laser sword type of question which you seem to like but I find completely useless.


If you bring quarks or protons and neutrons anywhere in the universe, they have the potential to attach strongly?
I've never been anywhere else in the universe but so far the only evidence I've seen that the universe is different at great distances is that galaxies are less "evolved" further back in time, metallicity is lower, and similar observations you might expect if the big bang theory is true. There are unconfirmed claims about the fine structure constant varying, but otherwise the same laws of nature seem to apply to what we can see in the observable universe, as far as we can tell.

We doubt you can bring quarks by themselves anywhere, and we've never observed an isolated quark. But yes if you bring a proton anywhere else it will still be a proton. Neutrons by themselves only last about 15 minutes on average so it may not be a neutron by the time you take it somewhere else, it may have decayed.

edit on 20151120 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Despite your excellent trolling no one seems to care enough to look.

This power-point document has some good search terms for quantum gravity research at the LHC.

indico.cern.ch...

As for the Davinci gravity well.
I'm sure Newton could calculate that there was a tremendous gravity well near the center of (our sun).
Some theory of mass to energy in that gravity well wouldn't be exactly rocket science.
I'm sure there were sheep dung burning nay sayers.
The visible spectrum of light from (our sun) was well known(Noahs ark), wave lengths outside the visible spectrum in the IR also theorized.
There were materials like Vellum that block IR rays but become more and more transparent as you reach the violet end of the spectrum.
Dreaming up radio science as a purely mathematical extension of the visible light spectrum, fun science fiction.



As far as the Vellum block IR, that is a product of the difference in wavelengths as you progress towards the violet 'end' of the spectrum. It is a result of the rerfractive index of the material and the angle of incidence caused by the 'bending' of the IR wave. This is largely a result of the electromagnetic properties of the material. These waves/particles travel in packets which have largely been explained last century, so IDK about radio science being a being dreamed up as a mathematical extension. Radio transmission was developed from the propagation of electric and magnetic fields rather than from examining light.

Interesting power point though.

-FBB



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 205  206  207    209  210  211 >>

log in

join