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: 215
74
<< 212  213  214    216  217  218 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

my bad. I thought you were poking fun at me for being the blacksheep in the thread n always talking about crazy stuff.

Sorry.

Have a look. Actually I'd like MB, Arb, and Bedlam to take a look at his stuff and give me their opinion. Again one of those want a real physicist to take a look before I accept their theories into my paradigm. It's bad enough I already let Bearden in and cant get him off my couch. He keeps raiding my fridge and pulling rotten items out saying 'I can rejuvenate that'
edit on 2-12-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

yeah I figured the whole idea was a bad one
I only sat down and even put any more thought effort into it because of what was said on the previous page

lol see what happens when you encourage someone who doesn't have a grasp of this sort of thing anyway thanks again for all the info



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Is it possible electrons and photons are not two different things, but there is only 1 type of particle, lets say there is no such thing as electron but only photon; and nucleus has the ability to capture some photon but only so much, and photons can interact with each other, or at least with the nucleus so that is how cloud levels grow and lessen?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: MoshiachIusDei
In general relativity, space-time is curved around a mass.
If your idea is different from that, you need to define "curved time" as I don't know what that means.


Not curved by a mass, but curved in general, the curve changing as the mass of the universe increases. Like this:



It's a bit rough and ready but it gives the impression I'm aiming for.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Haha no worries, it's hard to express sarcasm over an Internet post. And even harder to identify it!

I love talking about crazy stuff too.



I'm hoping I can find a logical path to follow that will lead to FTL travel, but not much has turned up. All we have is theories.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

So, from my understanding, it sounds like 99% of mass comes from the gluons binding the protons with the nuetrons inside the atom.
Yes, 99% of the mass comes from the gluon fields and the kinetic energy of the quarks though I don't know the breakdown between those two, but mostly gluon fields. 1% comes from the mass of quarks and electrons


And these gluons are basically the strong force?
gluon fields, yes.


Which is many magnitudes greater than gravity?
Yes, I think the strong force is something like two orders of magnitude stronger than EM, three orders of magnitude stronger than the weak interaction, and thirty-nine orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.


Could this strong force be used practically somehow? It sounds like an awful lot of energy and it's hidden inside the nucleus.
Yes, it's the source of fission and fusion energy. Human made fusion is still being researched though Lockheed Martin said they're getting close. In both fission and fusion a small percentage of the mass coming from the gluon fields is converted to energy.


As I'm writing this, another idea just popped into my head. Could further understanding of this interaction. Lead to an easier form of fission/fusion?
That's always possible. I think the challenges with man-made fusion lie primarily in our inability to engineer the device, not in our lack of understanding of fusion however. "Cold fusion" or whatever people now want to call it (LENR?) hasn't been confirmed, but it of course would have been a breakthrough if it had been confirmed. According to our present understanding there's is a "discrepancy" of about 50 orders of magnitude between fusion theory and cold fusion conditions, so "discrepancy" is an understatement.


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
trying to better understand this. in quantum dots how do tuned laser beams generate repulsive evanescent electric fields?
Link to source?


originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Frank Znidarsic believes he has discovered the speed of the quantum transition and when coupled with resonance or something it brings the forces into parity making them all equally accessible or something like that.
He's written a book about cold fusion and anti-gravity.

I'm tired of reading books about those topics. I want to see peer-reviewed scientific papers or better yet, the actual devices. Talk is cheap, though in Znidarsic's case it would be cheaper if you didn't have to pay for his book.


originally posted by: MoshiachIusDei


It's a bit rough and ready but it gives the impression I'm aiming for.
As with any idea or guess, follow the scientific method as explained here:



You've apparently completed step 1, so now you can proceed with step 2 and give us an update on that. Your drawing doesn't really do that, and I don't understand your idea well enough to do step 2 for you.

edit on 2015122 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

Have you looked at giving ol Einstein the bird and looking into mass reduction/Shielding to get around relativity?



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Source wise google Kenneth Edwards NASA Positronium Traps



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Step 1 wasn't a guess. Einstein used the same source for E=mc^2.
To support it, in Genesis people lived to over 600 years. That reduced to 70. The reason, time is curved and spiraling inwards.

OK. Step 2 Compute the implications: If we exist in curved time that is spiraling inwards we will sense that time is travelling faster the older we are.
Step 3 Experiment: Ask a load of people if time goes faster the older they are. Result: 99% agreed
Step 4 Law: Time is curved and currently is spiraling inwards. The older you are, the faster time goes.

Obviously it's not possible to experiment in the future when time might be going in a different direction, but this is something to work on in the present.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
It's bad enough I already let Bearden in and cant get him off my couch. He keeps raiding my fridge and pulling rotten items out saying 'I can rejuvenate that'


Worse, he can turn old oatmeal into steak.



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR
Looks like you're asking about this?

www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar04/Edwards_Kenneth.pdf

The term "notional" suggests to me that maybe it hasn't been made yet? I understand a fair amount of the technology and some parts are explained well, but not the part you asked about, so I'm afraid I don't know the answer to your question and I have the same question as you.

a reply to: MoshiachIusDei
Yes we perceive time as going faster as we age, but that's a result of our perception of time. It's not what time actually does and science works very hard to find ways of measuring things which are separated from human perception since our perception has many flaws such as that.

Also I wouldn't take the bible too literally, about the Earth being 6000 years old nor about people living over 600 years. It's supposed to be a source of spiritual inspiration but not a scientific reference according to some bible scholars.


edit on 2015122 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Oh I've dived so deep into the realm of pseudoscience that I've almost forgotten my sanity. Trust me when I say, I take all possibilities into account.

The only problem with attempting to dethrone Einstein is the numerous amounts of evidence. And the fact that there is a huge group of people supporting him. I think there's a better chance of an alien crash landing in your backyard than there is out-witting Einstein.

Anyways, I think it's smarter to learn the current theories and add to them, rather than discarding them. Think of how much work has gone into the current theories. It's illogical in my opinion.
edit on 2-12-2015 by IAmTheRumble because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

Have you looked at giving ol Einstein the bird and looking into mass reduction/Shielding to get around relativity?
Its a done deal. read the thread in my signature



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei
The thread in your signature contains a fair amount of bickering in cross-purposes, some videos with not very well substantiated claims, and a few indications of something happening. I would be happy to read another thread where there is some background work and real evidence. For example, a link to a page where, as you phrase it "E=mc2 is resolved". (I would prefer seeing E^2 = p^2c^4 + m^2c^4 but I'm not picky.)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
well he just converted all my beer to something else so I'm not surprised one bit about the oatmeal.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
have posted the breakdown of e=mc2, at least twice before, pl look it up
a reply to: Pirvonen



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

So, from my understanding, it sounds like 99% of mass comes from the gluons binding the protons with the nuetrons inside the atom. And these gluons are basically the strong force? Which is many magnitudes greater than gravity?


Precisely! Yay, somebody on ATS who actually wants to learn science




Could this strong force be used practically somehow? It sounds like an awful lot of energy and it's hidden inside the nucleus.


Yes, the Japanese have an unpleasant familiarity with it.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
dup please delete
edit on 3-12-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: IAmTheRumble
a reply to: IAmTheRumble

So, from my understanding, it sounds like 99% of mass comes from the gluons binding the protons with the nuetrons inside the atom. And these gluons are basically the strong force? Which is many magnitudes greater than gravity?


Precisely! Yay, somebody on ATS who actually wants to learn science







Like a Gravity "A" and a Gravity "B" wave like what Bob Lazar proclaims?



Nuck,Nuck,Nuck - scampers out of room like the fourth Stooge before MB can smack him.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson




NICE !!


1:08
"the rules are pretty simple... in order for a particle to exist, it must be colorless, or..white... "
"you can accomplish this in two different ways, you can MAKE tree quarks where each one in a different color..."

HALO ?? is anybody thinking ?? are there any brain activity ??

what a peace of BS !!

if there can be no particle with a color, just colorless, how can there be 3 particles with color that make up an colorless something that can exist ??



MAKE... is the magic work here !!
edit on 3-12-2015 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
74
<< 212  213  214    216  217  218 >>

log in

join