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: 209
74
<< 206  207  208    210  211  212 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.


Define space-time; Space-time = __________________________



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.


The nuclear forces hold quarks to quarks, and protons to neutrons right?

Protons can exist on their own, neutrons can exist on their own?

That means if you take a proton any where in the galaxy, and then place a neutron near it, they will bind due to gluons? Which means gluons must be everywhere? Or gluons always 'attached' or travel around with protons and neutrons?

Same for quarks. Is the hypothesis that a quark is something that exists a testable theory? When quarks first came into existence did they come into existence immediately attached to other quarks forming protons and neutrons? When quarks first came into existence, were they all surrounded by gluons?




posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

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.
Lol, did some1 rattle your cage? The only camera in my possession is my mobile phone.



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

State 1 simple fact that you know about the fundamental nature of the universe. Then another, then another. Instead of stating that what others propose is wrong, can you state exactly what is right?



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Define space-time; Space-time =
www.britannica.com...

Nothing certain is known of what the properties of the space-time-continuum may be as a whole....
space and time are welded together into a uniform four-dimensional continuum. See RELATIVITY.
I suggest reading that article 50 times, as you did with the article on electromagnetism, though I'm not sure how much the extra 49 readings helped. Seriously though, it's an excellent article, worth reading more than once and you seem to keep asking this same question. Any short excerpt such as the above can't provide the full context of the entire article.


The nuclear forces hold quarks to quarks, and protons to neutrons right?

Protons can exist on their own, neutrons can exist on their own?

That means if you take a proton any where in the galaxy, and then place a neutron near it, they will bind due to gluons? Which means gluons must be everywhere? Or gluons always 'attached' or travel around with protons and neutrons?
In nuclear fusion say of hydrogen converted to helium, mass is converted into energy. For the conservation of energy in the nuclear reaction you don't need an external source of energy, however that's needed to overcome the coulomb barrier.

In nuclear fission mass can be converted to energy when relatively large atoms like Uranium are split apart or decay. This reaction can occur spontaneously and in fact there's a natural nuclear reactor on Earth that facilitated such mass to energy conversion.

So the answer is it depends on how the protons and neutrons are configured as fission and fusion use opposite approaches to convert mass to energy by either combining them or separating them. If you want to reverse those processes of course the energy flow in the reaction must also be reversed, and in that case you can convert energy into mass. For example uranium is produced during supernovae where there is a tremendous source of energy available, so in that case the gluon fields making up the extra mass in the uranium atoms didn't just pop out of the vacuum, the origin lies in energy from the supernovae.


Same for quarks. Is the hypothesis that a quark is something that exists a testable theory?
We have evidence for quarks, some of it already posted to this thread. I'm sure you know how to use a search engine well enough to find more information about this.


When quarks first came into existence did they come into existence immediately attached to other quarks forming protons and neutrons? When quarks first came into existence, were they all surrounded by gluons?
I wasn't around when quarks first came into existence, nor was anybody else, but even the scientists studying quark-gluon plasma say it's not fully understood.

LHC creates liquid from Big Bang

While we believe the state of the universe about a microsecond after the Big Bang consisted of a quark-gluon plasma, there is still much that we don’t fully understand about the properties of quark-gluon plasma.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If space-time exists 'everywhere' (and is in some way, along with mass, the source of gravity) why can it not be detected?

Every movement, is an action that incorporates the existence of space-time (to be clear again, I am really concerned with detecting and understanding 'that material, which along with mass, causes gravity), so every action is a detection of space-time, how come it cannot be formally detected?



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei

State 1 simple fact that you know about the fundamental nature of the universe. Then another, then another. Instead of stating that what others propose is wrong, can you state exactly what is right?
Read again wt I have posted. seems you did not read my post



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You could at least outline that a coulomb is a measurement of the electric force, and outline that the energy is essentially an ambiguous term mostly dealing with how fast something is moving.

It is very simple to imagine someone being confused as to how a particle with mass can loose that mass as it is converted into 'energy.' The entire field of physics often presents these topics as pure fact when to the general population it appears to be very esoteric.

Rereading articles is usually very helpful, I don't understand why you are mocking someone for reviewing material as that seems rather gauche.

-FBB



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If space-time exists 'everywhere' (and is in some way, along with mass, the source of gravity) why can it not be detected?
I consider this a form of detection:

en.wikipedia.org...:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG

If space-time didn't behave as Einstein's article explained, such an observation would not be possible.


Every movement, is an action that incorporates the existence of space-time (to be clear again, I am really concerned with detecting and understanding 'that material, which along with mass, causes gravity), so every action is a detection of space-time, how come it cannot be formally detected?
Your definition of "detected" is too narrow. See above.


originally posted by: FriedBabelBroccoli
You could at least outline that a coulomb is a measurement of the electric force, and outline that the energy is essentially an ambiguous term mostly dealing with how fast something is moving.
Feel free to add any clarifications you wish. You obviously know something about physics so your contributions are welcome here.


Rereading articles is usually very helpful, I don't understand why you are mocking someone for reviewing material as that seems rather gauche.
You lack context here, I don't fault you for that nor do I feel the need to rehash hundreds of posts to provide context. Here's one though: www.abovetopsecret.com... Not that I disagree completely with that sentiment in that particular case, but that's apparently also his sentiment regarding physicists who think they know what a photon is.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Article said The first complete Einstein ring, designated B1938+666, was discovered by collaboration between astronomers at the University of Manchester and NASA's Hubble Space Telescope in 1998.

These rings can also be seen with ALMA (Long Baseline Observations)

Wonder why they named it after Dr. Gotschaulk?



Could it have something to do with a "lighthouse" effect?



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: greenreflections
That what I wrote about. That black holes were not formed from concentration of matter. That it makes no sense. Matter spreading away has lesser opportunity to bind as the distance between particles ever increases.


The part you don't seem to be getting is that the distance between particles isn't ever increasing in local gravitational fields that hold a galaxy together, for example, or other local gravitational fields. The space that's expanding isn't the space between particles that will form a black hole, it's the void between superclusters of galaxies, where particles are relatively scarce, maybe on the order of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.



Why are you bringing 'galaxy' word to no end? I understand you have a lot on your plate answering all kinds of questions but please, I was referring to the period of cosmic expansion before any galaxy could be formed. You must have taken me for some one else.






edit on 21-11-2015 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
the Einstein ring is wrongly named imo. this observation is due to time compression curves and not due to bending of space.
a reply to: Arbitrageur



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei


'Time' is not 'a thing'; therefore time cannot be compressed.

Only that which is some thing, can be compressed.

Time is related to things, a description of things. Time is not a thing in and of itself; as in 'object/material/matter/substance'.

Perhaps an unavoidable descriptive fact of 'things existing'; but the meaning of 'that descriptive fact, the relation between objects and rates of motion, being compressed' finds its source, in other things first, physical objects, and their rates of motion; is what is being compressed, if anything.

Time = relative motion.

According to your understanding, how is relative motion compressed?

edit on 21-11-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I am sure there can be other explanations for that, like the rotation of materials including our planet, perhaps an effect of dark matter or energy, or a certain interaction with a certain matter moving in a certain way and of certain material properties.

Though, I do believe the great possibility of there being a gravity force medium ala Einstein; I think my curiosity still stands when I wonder;

Every time an object is dropped on Earth, and just constantly continously at all moments on and around and in Earth, the gravity force medium is interacting with mass to keep things as they are; When you drop a book on the floor, that book physically interacts with the gravity force medium; how come the gravity force medium (partially space-time) cannot be detected as such, yet it is embedded all around and in us and interacts with everything?



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei


'Time' is not 'a thing'; therefore time cannot be compressed.

Only that which is some thing, can be compressed.

Time is related to things, a description of things. Time is not a thing in and of itself; as in 'object/material/matter/substance'.

Perhaps an unavoidable descriptive fact of 'things existing'; but the meaning of 'that descriptive fact, the relation between objects and rates of motion, being compressed' finds its source, in other things first, physical objects, and their rates of motion; is what is being compressed, if anything.

Time = relative motion.

According to your understanding, how is relative motion compressed?


Let me to comment please.

Space and time are synonymous. We say 'space-time' for a reason.

The fact of time flow is evident of space expansion.

No expansion -- no time.

cheers)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




how come the gravity force medium (partially space-time) cannot be detected as such, yet it is embedded all around and in us and interacts with everything?


When I was less than 10 years old I had the thought that maybe what was keeping me on the ground was just the Earth expanding at 10 meters per second at the surface. The ratio of the radius of the Earth to circumference stays fixed at about 6.2 to 1. My cosmological model didn't explain (orbital capture) so I decided my cosmological model needed a little space curve tweaking to fit. That's when I found the write up about the Eddington expedition to prove that light bent in the curvature of space near where the Sun was expanding.

I had the thought that maybe the curvature of space had something to do with the 3.1 semicircle being larger than the "1" radius. I read Phi had a ratio that was close at 1.618. Funny how your mind works as a child.


edit on 21-11-2015 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei


'Time' is not 'a thing'; therefore time cannot be compressed.


On the contrary time is a physical entity and definitely a thing.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Nochzwei


'Time' is not 'a thing'; therefore time cannot be compressed.


On the contrary time is a physical entity and definitely a thing.


Define 'time' as you are using it please. Further a definition of physical entity would also be helpful because as it stands I don't really understand how you are using it.

Thanks

-FBB



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If space-time exists 'everywhere' (and is in some way, along with mass, the source of gravity) why can it not be detected?

Every movement, is an action that incorporates the existence of space-time (to be clear again, I am really concerned with detecting and understanding 'that material, which along with mass, causes gravity), so every action is a detection of space-time, how come it cannot be formally detected?


Space time is just a way of locating something in the universe nothing more. Think of it as street signs letting you know where you are. Those street signs only work when you have two. For example main and east broad intersection. Space time is merely the street signs for the universe we can use spatial location and the time to tell us where we are in the universe. Your trying to make more of it than it is. The universe doesn't care about space time we do to model the universe. Do to relativity we learned there is no universal time and how something experiences time is dependent on its point of view.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Incorrect, because conceptually, you can conceive that the totality of non nothing (the totality of that which is something) could be eternally motionless. If the totality of 'somethingness' was eternally motionless; object would exist, space would exist, but time would not exist;

Because; Time is, the movement of object;

Movement requires space;

Movement is not space;

Time is not space;

Time is movement.

This is in response to you saying "Space and time are synonymous".

We can conceive of pure nothingness (if eternally somethingness never existed), such would be spatial, the geometric concept of area, though there would be no component, no boundary (as there might must be regardless);

Thus, space would exist, and time would not; for, space is not time, thus space is not synonymous with time.

Time is; the 'rate' at which objects move;

In a sense time is synonymous with energy (well, obviously, because energy is the rate at which objects move/can move); and I am not sure if I should say entropy, though may it relates.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If space-time exists 'everywhere' (and is in some way, along with mass, the source of gravity) why can it not be detected?

Every movement, is an action that incorporates the existence of space-time (to be clear again, I am really concerned with detecting and understanding 'that material, which along with mass, causes gravity), so every action is a detection of space-time, how come it cannot be formally detected?


Space time is just a way of locating something in the universe nothing more. Think of it as street signs letting you know where you are. Those street signs only work when you have two. For example main and east broad intersection. Space time is merely the street signs for the universe we can use spatial location and the time to tell us where we are in the universe. Your trying to make more of it than it is. The universe doesn't care about space time we do to model the universe. Do to relativity we learned there is no universal time and how something experiences time is dependent on its point of view.


I am aware of that; 90% of the time I ask a question, I am doing so to prove the person I am questionings knowledge lacking. Socratic method. Arb believes in space-time, I was questioning his beliefs, all I have done on this thread is question beliefs. (and offer insights into potential directions towards potentially more valid ones)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 206  207  208    210  211  212 >>

log in

join