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: 21
74
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
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.



No they dont your just misusing their research and applying it somewhere it doesnt belong no surprise there huh.And Engineers go off scientific research just so you know Engineers dont have to know why something occurs and often times dont. What they rely on is the equations scientists give them from research yet you continually try to separate the two and you cant sorry. Engineers create things using the science discovered by scientific research in your world engineers go into labs and play with stuff until they find something but the world doesnt work that way. Your clueless on what engineers do yet you have claimed to be one in the past odd really.




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I am capable of reading ya know.

I truly find it fascinating that you can deny the black and white print that I've put in front of your face.

You guys are so ripe for a psychological case study.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

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.





nice analogy to wave transfer in matter, what this has to do with EM field I don't see.
Empty space between matter is not a spring nor does it force back or resonate.
EM field is the carrier that only transferees potential difference and no particle move with C in it.
That changing potential difference in E field caused by moving charges, causes other charges to displace its positions.
There is no travelling photon as physical thing, photon is an mathematical construct to represent the energy of a wave.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma
As I said "this or any other classical analogy will break down at some point if you try to compare it too closely to a photon." And you are correctly pointing out the many limitations of the analogy, some of which I pointed out myself in my prior post. It's not intended to illustrate EM propagation but an analogy of wave particle duality in response to this line of questioning:


originally posted by: ImaFungi
Do real, actual, fundamental, ball like particles exist?

Do real, actual, fundamental waves exist?

Are the waves made of particles?

Are the particles made of waves?

Do the particles wave?...

The main point I'm trying to get across to ImaFungi is that "particle" doesn't necessarily mean "ball-like", and in this illustration of photons in the photoelectric effect the photon particles are not illustrated as balls, but as "wave packets" which is a quantized amount of wave energy (and there is a pseudo-quantized amount of wave energy traveling down the spring in the first part of the subject video):

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Notice this illustration isn't concerned with explaining EM propagation, but with illustrating the "particle-like" behavior of photons, yet it's showing them as containing a quantized amount of energy, The photons are behaving like particles here, but "ball-like" isn't necessarily a helpful view of this particle-like behavior.

But if you don't like the analogy, or if it doesn't help you, don't use it. Galaxies aren't actually like shriveled grapes but we use that analogy a lot so try to understand what the analogy is intended to demonstrate and realize that virtually every analogy ever used fails to accurately portray what it is being compared to, because it is always something different, and therefore, it' can't be the same. In spite of this, some educators and students can find them helpful.

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



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, I grasped that part, which is why I asked the next part, which was why dont the waves of the wavepackets, not the wavepackets themselves, spread out? The relative wavepackets themselves spread out and that is red shifting right? the fact that 10 wave packets might not all travel on the exact same proverbial rope, but I am asking why the waves themselves, see the up down motion of a wave, the slinky, why doesnt the slinky wave outwards instead of going straight, well thats because it is attached to itself, it is taught. We dont think the wave of the wave packet is attached to anything is it? It is just a 'broken' string of energy vibrating, and the string has ends? Or...is the entire universe PACKED with strings on string next to strings going every way, and when an electron vibrates , all the strings around the electron send out their 'ripple' (wave packet)?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, I grasped that part, which is why I asked the next part, which was why dont the waves of the wavepackets, not the wavepackets themselves, spread out?

Dragonridr gave an explanation why photons don't spread, and it may be correct but I would say it's observed that they don't unless something stretches the wavelength, like the expansion of space, or a Doppler effect. The alternative "tired-light" possibilities for causes of redshift have been considered and rejected, though I suppose someone could come up with a new tired light model that hasn't been evaluated yet, which we could then evaluate.


The relative wavepackets themselves spread out and that is red shifting right? the fact that 10 wave packets might not all travel on the exact same proverbial rope, but I am asking why the waves themselves, see the up down motion of a wave, the slinky, why doesnt the slinky wave outwards instead of going straight, well thats because it is attached to itself, it is taught. We dont think the wave of the wave packet is attached to anything is it?
Light travels in a straight line unless something bends it (gravity). It doesn't need to be attached to anything to do this. Alternatively, it can be said that light always travels in a straight line through curved space-time, so in this sense why would you expect it to do anything else? If it's going to deviate from a straight line what would cause that deviation? If nothing, then it will go straight.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Dragonridr gave an explanation why photons don't spread, and it may be correct but I would say it's observed that they don't unless something stretches the wavelength, like the expansion of space, or a Doppler effect. The alternative "tired-light" possibilities for causes of redshift have been considered and rejected, though I suppose someone could come up with a new tired light model that hasn't been evaluated yet, which we could then evaluate.


I didnt understand his explanation, can you explain why the waving part of energy, of a wave packet, doesnt spread out? In surface ocean waves for example, we know the crest and trough dont continue to increase until they dissolve into the ambient average because the rest of the mass of the water underneath is 'stronger (?)' or has an easy time exerting an equal and opposite force on the crashing wave, so instead of the energy traveling to the bottom of the ocean, it is pushed back upwards? (I admit I may be totally wrong about this), And well, the crest doesnt continue ever upwards, because gravity disallows that. Sound waves do not stay consistent right, because they themselves are not matter, like the water wave, interacting on a surface, but they are the medium itself, interacting with itself, so a strong enough force, can shake the whole medium, like a bolt of lightening, and that can travel far and direct, but a very small opening emitting a sound, will not travel perfectly and tight knitly straight like a wave of light right? Im not suggesting tired light, or attempting to do anything other, than have an open mind, while asking the question, 'why/how' does a wave of light contain its tight wave pattern over a distance of space a time of time?


Light travels in a straight line unless something bends it (gravity). It doesn't need to be attached to anything to do this. Alternatively, it can be said that light always travels in a straight line through curved space-time, so in this sense why would you expect it to do anything else? If it's going to deviate from a straight line what would cause that deviation? If nothing, then it will go straight.


Oh, well ok, maybe I misunderstood stuff, I wasnt really claiming to understand anything, more just questioning, and/or maybe you misunderstood me, the nature of my question. But, I was wondering about red shift, can redshift be measured by just measuring 1 photon, 1 wavepacket, and just from the nature of that wave, you can detect it and state, this wave is redshifted? Or you need multiple wavepackets to make such a statement? And is the statement comparing something about the waves of the wavepackets, and/or the time between receiving/detecting each wavepacket?

Say you are pointing a detector at a distant galaxy, and you detect a wavepacket, and its wave is a value of 5 (just because), so you write that down, then you detect one that is a value 7, then a value 9. Is something like this, the nature of the concept of redshifing? Asking, 'hey...why do the wavepackets being emitted from the same galaxy, have different values? This must be redshifting'?

What I suggested might be of play, which you responded to, was that, although individual wavepackets travel in straight lines, think of how large a star is, think of how small a wavepacket it, think of how many wave packets are emitted in a second in a square mile area of a star, yes they are all traveling in a straight line, but that may all be slightly different directions, and now this is occurring from all the stars of that galaxy, and all the stars of our galaxy, and all the galaxies, all incoming slightly different angles, all passing through the gravity wells slightly different moments.

Oh, and your argument of thinking about light traveling through gravity well might be incorrect. Well, it may be correct for light that enters a galaxy, and than exits. But for light that begins in a galaxy and than exits it may be incorrect.

First, you have to stop thinking of gravity wells as 2d because they are not, its very hard, because we dont have all the conceptual pieces to the gravity puzzle yet, but its more probably that the nature of a gravity well of a mass is 3d, so instead of a circle dipping, this would be a sphere, surrounding, and the 'dip' would be a 3d displacement of local density. So first of all, who knows if light from outside a galaxy that is heading towards a galaxy, goes into the galaxy and then out the other side, or if the lensing is not , because most galaxies are rotating, and the gravity field or gravity sphere is likely rotating, and I theorize at least, perhaps there might be at the outer edge of a galaxy a similar mechanism as exists at the inner edge (event horizon), is it not possible light from another galaxy, traveling towards a galaxy, would be reflected off the outer edge of rotation and then passed on, instead of passing through? Like if you were to take a bowling ball and spin it 100 miles an hour and tried to throw water through it? I agree, it is very likely if a galaxy is not rotating, depending on the nature of the 3d gravity well at the outer scope of a galaxy, then light will enter the gravity well, travel through a galaxy, miraculously become absorbed by no matter, and make it through and out the other end unscathed.

But considering light created in the galaxy, and considering what I mentioned about the creation of wavepackets by a star and the fact all the wavepackets arent going on the same exact path and are not created at the same exact time, the difference in angles and how the only gravity wall they may hit as they exit their galaxy, well might not be only, as they might be affected by planets and other stars on their way out, but for a star right near the edge, the well might effect their straight path trajectory from the emittion from the star.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
From the “NASA Confirms New EM Thruster Violates Laws Of Conservation” thread:


originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

The people who still don't believe in Blacklight are going to be in for a rude awakening. These guys are already dealing with major defense contractors, major solar distributors, and a host of other firms that are going to be cooperatively bringing this technology to market. Energy production is going to change. Soon. I just watched a representative of a major defense contractor give a presentation along side Mills at a Blacklight press conference.

Beyond the fact that Blacklight is going to revolutionize the energy industry, they are also going to revolutionize physics. Mills has created a system of quantum level physics based entirely on classical physics. His models are hyper-accurate, and they are the only models that can describe what is going on with their energy production. The defense contractor was openly saying Mills work was going to revolutionize all of science. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Keeping the above in mind, please comment on the information in the following post by Mary Rose from the now closed thread “Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin”:


posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

I am searching cheniere.org (Bearden's site) for "feynman lorentz regauging."

I'm going to post passages that seem related, even if indirectly, to the issue you raise re. Feynman on the Lorentz regauging. (By the way, I hope that there is no confusion in play here regarding two different people: Lorenz and Lorentz.)

From "Dr. Randell Mills and Blacklight Power":


If you go to "Technical Papers by T.E. Bearden (et al.)" and scroll down to "Errors and Omissions in the CEM/ EE Model - June 27, 2005," the link is to a 35 page Word document. From the Foreward:


Keywords? "The continuing false use of force fields in space—a total contradiction even pointed out by Feynman in his three volumes of sophomore physics . . . "

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




I don't suppose you have a source for this


....and I thought observation was key criteria for being a rocket scientist.

I posted the source of the found global unified acceleration equal to g. occurring in WTC7...

I posted the hypothesized claim by bthe 2005 NIST hypothesis crew claiming a new kind of thermal expansion that occurred at low temps....

and the denial to prove.....well, go get your own letter...


Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST






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?


oh...is that how you do it......the authors of the official claims made models they TOLD what to do....besides...the buildings already collapsed.





Besides this topic is to ask questions about physics.



I did...lol.......and look what you did.........everything you can to distract from my question about low temp thermal expansion creating the 105 vertical feet of global unified acceleration equal to g.!!!!!!







So the thread was closed because of so much regurgitation of material that has been posted ad-nausea there,


yea....pretty much the same as you attempt to do here........and then I ask the same question again pointing out your failures.

but hey, there are plenty of WTC7 threads that discuss this....and they are not closed......Hmmm..






I said you could ask, but I didn't promise you'd get an answer,


nor did I expect one...you can't answer the question without calling the official story a lie......

you KNOW structural mass can not accelerate equal to g. as it's making the path it falls into.......ENTER the new physics of LOW TEMP THERMAL EXPANSION!!!!

and it's ability to create conditions for global unified acceleration of structural mass in a steel framed building from isolated fire at one end.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

You are aware of this forum, right?



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I didnt understand his explanation, can you explain why the waving part of energy, of a wave packet, doesnt spread out?
No I can't explain it, which is why I said it's what we observe, and when I read dragonridr's explanation I thought of the guy at the pizza parlor spinning the pizza dough as he tosses it in the air, and what does the spinning do? It makes the dough expand, so saying the reason a photon doesn't expand is because of spin didn't really jive with that example, however photon spin is not really like classical spin. So it may be a technically correct explanation but it doesn't seem intuitive, which is par for the quantum mechanics course.


Im not suggesting tired light, or attempting to do anything other, than have an open mind, while asking the question, 'why/how' does a wave of light contain its tight wave pattern over a distance of space a time of time?
All I can say is we know that it doesn't because observations show light doesn't get "tired". Maybe dragonridr can clarify his spin explanation in a way that doesn't make me think of pizza dough, but I don't have an explanation.



Oh, well ok, maybe I misunderstood stuff, I wasnt really claiming to understand anything, more just questioning, and/or maybe you misunderstood me, the nature of my question. But, I was wondering about red shift, can redshift be measured by just measuring 1 photon, 1 wavepacket, and just from the nature of that wave, you can detect it and state, this wave is redshifted? Or you need multiple wavepackets to make such a statement?
I think measuring the shift of spectral lines becomes a signal to noise issue though Eros or a professional astronomer could give you more details (Eros said he used to do astronomy). The problem with a single photon especially if it's red-shifted is there will be a lot of noise with the signal, so one way to improve the signal is to detect more photons.


Say you are pointing a detector at a distant galaxy, and you detect a wavepacket, and its wave is a value of 5 (just because), so you write that down, then you detect one that is a value 7, then a value 9. Is something like this, the nature of the concept of redshifing? Asking, 'hey...why do the wavepackets being emitted from the same galaxy, have different values? This must be redshifting'?
The differences in redshifts of rotating galaxies led to the idea of dark matter, because the redshifts told us the rotation speeds at various distances from the center, which didn't fit with the gravitational profile of light-emitting matter, as shown here:

cosmictimes.gsfc.nasa.gov...



What I suggested might be of play, which you responded to, was that, although individual wavepackets travel in straight lines, think of how large a star is, think of how small a wavepacket it, think of how many wave packets are emitted in a second in a square mile area of a star, yes they are all traveling in a straight line, but that may all be slightly different directions, and now this is occurring from all the stars of that galaxy, and all the stars of our galaxy, and all the galaxies, all incoming slightly different angles, all passing through the gravity wells slightly different moments.

Oh, and your argument of thinking about light traveling through gravity well might be incorrect. Well, it may be correct for light that enters a galaxy, and than exits. But for light that begins in a galaxy and than exits it may be incorrect.
Right well of course photons leaving all stars of about the same mass start out with about the same redshift due to that mass, so it's an apples to apples comparison of same mass/class stars at different distances, and it turns out to be a very small effect relative to cosmological redshifts. This doesn't in any way make my explanation about what happens to the photons after they escape the gravitational well of their source incorrect, but you're right it didn't consider the initial gravitational well, but when you do this with two similar stars it's apple versus apple comparison.


First, you have to stop thinking of gravity wells as 2d because they are not, its very hard, because we dont have all the conceptual pieces to the gravity puzzle yet, but its more probably that the nature of a gravity well of a mass is 3d, so instead of a circle dipping, this would be a sphere, surrounding, and the 'dip' would be a 3d displacement of local density. So first of all, who knows if light from outside a galaxy that is heading towards a galaxy, goes into the galaxy and then out the other side, or if the lensing is not , because most galaxies are rotating, and the gravity field or gravity sphere is likely rotating, and I theorize at least, perhaps there might be at the outer edge of a galaxy a similar mechanism as exists at the inner edge (event horizon), is it not possible light from another galaxy, traveling towards a galaxy, would be reflected off the outer edge of rotation and then passed on, instead of passing through? Like if you were to take a bowling ball and spin it 100 miles an hour and tried to throw water through it?
I see why water would splash off a bowling ball whether the bowling ball was rotating or not, but I fail to see the correlation of this with light hitting the outer edge of a galaxy.

Also I think you're mixing up frame-dragging and the gravitational lensing which are two different things.


I agree, it is very likely if a galaxy is not rotating, depending on the nature of the 3d gravity well at the outer scope of a galaxy, then light will enter the gravity well, travel through a galaxy, miraculously become absorbed by no matter, and make it through and out the other end unscathed.

But considering light created in the galaxy, and considering what I mentioned about the creation of wavepackets by a star and the fact all the wavepackets arent going on the same exact path and are not created at the same exact time, the difference in angles and how the only gravity wall they may hit as they exit their galaxy, well might not be only, as they might be affected by planets and other stars on their way out, but for a star right near the edge, the well might effect their straight path trajectory from the emittion from the star.
Of course they aren't all going on the same path, that's why we get an Einstein Ring. Here's a nearly complete one:



This image shows how the mass of a red foreground galaxy has distorted the space-time around it forming what is called a "gravitational lens". The lens has warped the light from a far distant galaxy into a near perfect ring. These are called "Einstein Rings" as they arise from a prediction of his General Theory of Relativity. It is rare that the alignment of the two galaxies is close enough to give rise to a ring and, more normally, two distinct images or an arc are seen.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob
You're doing the same thing with my reply you do with the official sources, taking things out of context. I asked for a source related to a specific claim and you ignore that context completely and cite other sources which aren't what I asked about. You also cite official sources out of context which was pointed out to you in the other thread.

Please go to the 9/11 forum to discuss 9/11, but my advice is to please study the concept of "context" and try to apply it. Thank you.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




Please go to the 9/11 forum to discuss 9/11


uhm....I asked a 'physics' question.

the TITLE of this thread is..."ask me anything about physics"!


please answer the question...
...tell me how this new kind of LOW TEMP thermal expansion creates 105 vertical feet of global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. within a steel framed building for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse..




[and why is it I always get a reply back..."you're taking it out of context"...yet none of you can show that I am...they just say it....even the rocket scientist.]



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




I asked for a source related to a specific claim and you ignore that context completely


then here is is again.....the sources you asked for.

the found global unified acceleration equal to g. 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"


when did FFA occur......1.75 seconds, when we see the kink form, to 4.0 seconds.

distance traveled......... 105 vertical feet or 8+ stories.

occurring 'globally' = symmetrical = encompassing all

occurring as a single unit = unified = moving as one


now here is where they stall......3 years, till this fantastic new phenomenon....


"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 2008 NIST technical briefing

there is a PDF transcript right below the video link...that quote is on page 34.


do I need to repeat the question?


please tell me how "low temp thermal expansion" works to create zero resistance globally within a steel framed building for 105 vertical feet for 1/3 of it's unified 6.5 second collapse.....
edit on 1-8-2014 by hgfbob because: I repeated the question



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
No I can't explain it, which is why I said it's what we observe, and when I read dragonridr's explanation I thought of the guy at the pizza parlor spinning the pizza dough as he tosses it in the air, and what does the spinning do? It makes the dough expand, so saying the reason a photon doesn't expand is because of spin didn't really jive with that example, however photon spin is not really like classical spin. So it may be a technically correct explanation but it doesn't seem intuitive, which is par for the quantum mechanics course.


So the explanation is that the physical 'lineness' of the wave, is rotating as it is also waving up and down? This actually might make some sense, but then I am brought back to some questions I have been asking you too for a year or more. And that is; when the electron vibrates to create a wavepacket, where does the wave packet come from? Did the energy/matter of the line of the wave exist prior to the electron vibrating, was it like a tail hanging off the electron awaiting being shook off? If you attempt to argue that it did not exist, but that when an electron vibrates 'it creates the energy/matter line wave', can you at least attempt to describe how this may be possible in any way, for nothing to exist, and then an electron vibrate, and a quanta of energy/matter waving now exists which was created 'by'? and came from? nowhere?




I think measuring the shift of spectral lines becomes a signal to noise issue though Eros or a professional astronomer could give you more details (Eros said he used to do astronomy). The problem with a single photon especially if it's red-shifted is there will be a lot of noise with the signal, so one way to improve the signal is to detect more photons.


So when you detect more photons, what about them are you comparing? If they are different values, how do you know they came from the same source? How could you possibly tell 1 photon is redshifted, if you just receive a value of a photon, that is a value that is possible to exist in the universe, you have to assume you know what the value should be, based on your assumption that that photon came from exactly where you think it came from?



Right well of course photons leaving all stars of about the same mass start out with about the same redshift due to that mass, so it's an apples to apples comparison of same mass/class stars at different distances, and it turns out to be a very small effect relative to cosmological redshifts. This doesn't in any way make my explanation about what happens to the photons after they escape the gravitational well of their source incorrect, but you're right it didn't consider the initial gravitational well, but when you do this with two similar stars it's apple versus apple comparison.


Well I mainly stated that sort of line of thinking, in a way of wondering, if the angle a photon hits the detector will skew its energy value?


I see why water would splash off a bowling ball whether the bowling ball was rotating or not, but I fail to see the correlation of this with light hitting the outer edge of a galaxy.


If you look at and read your quote of the gravity lensing at the bottom of your post, you will notice it is the image of light from behind the galaxy. It does not suggest the light went directly through the middle of the galaxy, it appears as if the gravity well of the galaxy compelled the light towards it, but did not let it pass straight through, it appears as if it forced it to its edges, and then sent it on its way.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose
Blacklight's supposed technology is based on the hydrino which is a state of the hydrogen atom that real physicists are pretty sure doesn't exist. Of course Blacklight is welcome to prove the physicists wrong by delivering an actual product, something they have been failing to do for decades, and they will continue to fail because it's a hoax.

This doesn't have anything to do with Bearden's rant and by the way he has nothing to show either except a transformer, which is a pretty common piece of technology. He can't make an actual product, like blacklight.

Now the NASA test of the thruster is interesting. The report says:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma
I'm not familiar with the test details, but here's what I can say about that. Photons are not a classical EM concept, but the idea gained some fame starting in 1905 when Einstein wrote the paper about photons that won him the Nobel prize (on the photoelectric effect, that I illustrated above). Photons have no rest mass but they do have momentum, so if you have a drive kicking photons out one end, then this momentum should create a reaction against the drive ejecting the photons, and that's my guess of what is going on with the EM drive.

Now why they would say it's not due to classical EM phenomena which to me means going back in time before Einstein's 1905 paper, I have no idea, but that's the way it reads to me, since to me "classical" means "pre-quantum". Maybe there's some new physics here but it doesn't really sound that way to me. Maybe the quantum mechanics of the drive's operation is not well understood.



originally posted by: ImaFungi
can you at least attempt to describe how this may be possible in any way, for nothing to exist, and then an electron vibrate, and a quanta of energy/matter waving now exists which was created 'by'? and came from? nowhere?
No the photon doesn't come from nowhere, but apparently virtual particle antiparticle pairs can, but let's stick to photons for now. It takes energy to make energy, and energy can change forms. So apply energy to an atom, and electrons will get excited, bump up an orbital and then when it drops back down it can emit a photon with energy equal to the difference in the energy of the orbitals. Also I suggest re-watching the veritasium video on where your mass comes from because it also talks about energy being able to create particles where there were no particles before, but they didn't come from nothing, they came from energy (Watch the 25 seconds from 2:45 to 3:10):


If you run a radio broadcast tower it's getting its energy perhaps from a coal burning power plant making electricity which uses the electricity to excite the electrons so from coal to electricity to radio waves, you have a process of energy being converted from one form to another to another.


So when you detect more photons, what about them are you comparing? If they are different values, how do you know they came from the same source? How could you possibly tell 1 photon is redshifted, if you just receive a value of a photon, that is a value that is possible to exist in the universe, you have to assume you know what the value should be, based on your assumption that that photon came from exactly where you think it came from?
Even after collecting lots of photons, some spectral lines can be faint or hard to see, so if you're familiar with the concept of "frame stacking", it's something like that. If you're not familiar with it, look at the before and after images here:

www.astrostack.com...

If you're only getting a small number of photons you're trying to stack them to gain better signal to noise, though in spectroscopy they are looking at spectral lines.


If you look at and read your quote of the gravity lensing at the bottom of your post, you will notice it is the image of light from behind the galaxy. It does not suggest the light went directly through the middle of the galaxy, it appears as if the gravity well of the galaxy compelled the light towards it, but did not let it pass straight through, it appears as if it forced it to its edges, and then sent it on its way.
How would you know if it went straight through or not? If the lensing object is a black hole, then may "eat" photons, but if a lensing object is a galaxy the photons from the background object can try to pass through, and some probably do but they would normally be obscured by the foreground object. So for example an Einstein Cross is another type of lensing effect which can theoretically make 4 extra images in addition to the original image at the center, but the center image is obscured if the foreground image is closer and brighter which is usually the case.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 1-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well i didnt want to get deeply into this because there is several reasons photons wave packets do not expand. The main one is light is a transverse wave meaning its waves occur a right angles to its direction of energy transfer. Now much like a spinning football allows a foot ball to go alot further. Our spinning photon has a similar effect. It creates a spinning magnetic field. See people think light doesnt have a charge well thats not true it just oscillates back and forth between plus and minus giving an overall charge of zero. Now we move this at the speed of light with the spin and it creates a wave very much light the shape of or football and do to this shape the envelope actually moves faster than our wave packet meaning it continually follows a tunnel.



posted on Aug, 1 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Regarding the NASA test of the thruster,

ntrs.nasa.gov...

not attributable to any classical electromagnetic phenomenon and therefore is potentially demonstrating an interaction with the quantum vacuum virtual plasma


maybe “classical” doesn’t mean "pre-quantum" but rather the understanding of electromagnetic phenomena to date.

It could be saying all of our knowledge to date does not explain this.

Regarding Bearden, the problems of getting funding to develop a prototype is a separate issue from the theoretical papers he has written.


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Maybe there's some new physics here but it doesn't really sound that way to me. Maybe the quantum mechanics of the drive's operation is not well understood.


The new physics would be an understanding of the quantum vacuum virtual plasma. I guess Bearden calls it vacuum potential. Are they the same thing?

Bearden’s papers talk about previously recognized phenomena that were stripped from electrodynamics texts in error. If the phenomena were to be returned to the texts, there would be a new physics.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Ok, you used the example of an electron in an atom, but you ignored my main proposition, and I understand about the higgs and mass and I am not really talking or asking about that, thank you if it does relate to my question but the beef and essence of my question is more than that.

Instead of using electron in an atom, lets use electron outside an atom.

An electron outside an atom can create a photon right?

As for virtual particles, if you want to be realistic, theoretical, logical, reasonable, and rational, you must say that 'yes, before we detect or measure an area, we are not detecting or measuring an area, but for some reason and for some how, particles can come from an area we are not detecting or measuring'. 'Lets call these particles virtual particles'.

This is pretty close to admitting that that 'space...the...dark stuff inbetween the matter stuff', has some substantial/substance like essence to it, which the matter stuff, interacts with, or is coupled to.

What you cannot do is say. An electron is traveling through absolutely nothing, vibrates, and a virtual particle pops out, which was created by the electron interacting with nothing.

Now, I will be honest, and admit, it is too simple to say in my example 'lets imagine an electron that is traveling, and then it vibrates and a photon now exists', because, electrons dont just vibrate for no reason, it needs to interact with something, another electron, another particle, a gravity field, the EM field of another particle.

So, considering that, well, we, or I, still dont have it clear...to be easy lets say instead of electron traveling on its lonesome and vibrating, now that I have admitted it must interact with something to vibrate and produce a photon (even if there is theory it doesnt, it can interact with virtual particles or fluctuations, lets just go with this to humor me), lets use in our example, two electrons, traveling a straight constant velocitied path, towards each other.

I know, there is debate whether or not a constantly traveling electron is constantly emitting photons, but if it is, that is just a bigger part of my problem, so to be thorough, lets imagine its not.

Now, part of the problem, is I dont know how the EM field exists, in relation to an electron traveling a steady path (lets say far away from any galaxies, gravity wells, debris, etc.).

Is there a 'somethingness/not nothingness' EM field, that exists throughout the space inbetween galaxies, that the electron is always attached too? Or is the electron, while it is traveling straight, attached to no EM field?

Or you would say, if the EM field does not exit and extend in all directions everywhere, it only exists very locally just outside the electron itself.

I would have to say...um, wut... So the electron is traveling through a nothing space, but it constantly interacts with the nothing, and creates a lot of virtual particle photons every pico second that just bubble around it and thats its EM field? And thats what will interact with an incoming EM field, and when those physically sense one another, they will alter each others trajectory, and this alteration or vibration, will cause the photons the electron is constantly locally creating around itself, to shoot off in all directions 360 (? , not 3d 360 which would be all directions spherically, and this is pretty much what is meant by transverse wave?).

What I am trying to say, is it is very impossible to use the virtual particle trick, without inciting the existence of an all encompassing EM field, that is the source of the constant energy the electron formulates around itself by interacting with.

Maybe, you might be claiming, that as two electrons approach, the electrons temporarily lose mass as their trajectories are adjusted and that mass is EM radiation, but the trajectory since the electron goes towards, meddles, and then passes, knocks it off the course, but then puts it back on, and the putting it back on its course, is the giving it back its mass?

But this is suggesting that EM radiation would be made of pure electron material.

Well those are some thoughts for now, maybe you can respond to them, and see where we are at.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well i didnt want to get deeply into this because there is several reasons photons wave packets do not expand. The main one is light is a transverse wave meaning its waves occur a right angles to its direction of energy transfer. Now much like a spinning football allows a foot ball to go alot further. Our spinning photon has a similar effect. It creates a spinning magnetic field. See people think light doesnt have a charge well thats not true it just oscillates back and forth between plus and minus giving an overall charge of zero. Now we move this at the speed of light with the spin and it creates a wave very much light the shape of or football and do to this shape the envelope actually moves faster than our wave packet meaning it continually follows a tunnel.



Doesnt an ocean waves waves occur at right angles to its direction of energy transfer? Dont most waves actually, isnt that what a wave is?

So with the mentioning of charge, are you suggesting the wave doesnt expand because it is magnetically attracted to itself? Or creates a shell, like a pseudo wire made of local space for it to coil through?



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join