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: 22
74
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
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.


  1. "Real physicists" are defined as what?
  2. A hydrino is defined as a new form of energy based on the collapse of the hydrogen atom, correct?




posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




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.


The NIST WTC7 report has a Fig 3-15 that shows the graph with the regression line yielding acceleration of 32.196ft/s^2. SEE the time interval between 1.75 and 4 is 2.25 sec. the interval where WTC7 does achieve a period of free-fall ACCELERATION.

we ALL know the significance of FREEFALL is NONE of the gravitational energy will be available to destroy the supporting structures below that mass accelerating, ALL converted to MOTION!

meaning, any bending, crushing, breaking connections, REMOVAL of structural RESISTANCE, BELOW the mass ACCELERATING, is occurring WITHOUT the assistance of energy from the mass accelerating. Zero resistance.


with all you are discussing here, and ya can't/REFUSE to tell me about basic, DOWN-TO-EARTH physics.....

like HOW did this NEW science fall WTC7 105 vertical feet DOWN TO EARTH at a rate EQUAL to g., 'globally and unified' for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse....

all TAUGHT science says a CLEAR PATH!!!!!!!!

explain this NEW PHENOMENON of "LOW TEMP THERMAL EXPANSION".....HYPOTHESIZED to fall WTC7 @ g. from fire no one sees.

if you had SPECIFICS in asking physics questions, ya should have posted that right off the bat.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
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.]


I don't think you will get any good answer to your question here.
This thread IMO is to prove the correctness of the standard model (MS science) and not to explain how any particular aspect in physics work. Not yours question for sure !

All you can get here is some links and history on how and why the MS science is what it is.

It is not about why A+B=C
it is about what A could be if it really exists,
what B is assumed to be because someone said so,
and how to measure C more accurately even not knowing what A and B are


edit on 2-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

Who cares why mainstream science is what it is?

Isn't that just making excuses?

Physics is physics whether it's mainstream or alternative.

Forget the politics.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: KrzYma

Who cares why mainstream science is what it is?

Isn't that just making excuses?

Physics is physics whether it's mainstream or alternative.

Forget the politics.


this what I see here in this thread.
People ask question and present opposite thinking to MS science, all they get back from the "physicist" here is how false those thought are and what the MS opinion is.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

With the word "crank" used to describe dissenting opinions.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
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.
I already answered this outside the atom as well. When the electron emits a photon, it can be the result of re-emitting some energy the electron has received from other sources such as electric or magnetic fields, or thermal sources. A high energy electron can also give up some of the energy it already has, which is called Bremsstrahlung radiation. See page 12 of the www.haystack.mit.edu... link I mentioned in this post


originally posted by: Mary Rose

  1. "Real physicists" are defined as what?
  2. A hydrino is defined as a new form of energy based on the collapse of the hydrogen atom, correct?
1. Real physicists have their PhDs in physics, and publish real peer reviewed papers, unlike Blacklight Power's Mills who doesn't have a doctorate in physics but graduated from medical school, and was caught plagiarizing part of his writing out of textbooks, I suppose to put alongside the crank stuff to try to make it look legitimate. Look at the date on this article from 14 years ago, not much has changed in 14 years; Mills is still not delivering any products 14 years later despite claims he would do so:
Academics Question The Science Behind BlackLight Power, Inc.

Researchers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), scientists for the U.S. Navy and a group of investors who have contributed over $25 million to his private company believe in the work of Harvard Medical School graduate Dr. Randell Mills.

However, scientists at the American Physical Society (APS), a trade organization for American physicists, and Harvard say his findings are unfounded.


2. Blacklight Power

BlackLight Power, Inc. (BLP) of Cranbury, New Jersey is a company founded by Randell L. Mills, who claims to have discovered a new energy source. The purported energy source is based on Mills' assertion that the electron in a hydrogen atom can drop below the lowest energy state known as the ground state. Mills calls the theoretical hydrogen atoms that are in an energy state below ground level, "hydrinos".[1] Mills self-published a closely related book, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics.[4]

The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Critics say it lacks corroborating scientific evidence, and is a relic of cold fusion. Philip Warren Anderson said he is sure it's a "fraud", and Steven Chu called it "extremely unlikely". In 2009 IEEE Spectrum magazine characterized it as a "loser" technology because "Most experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don’t present convincing evidence".[5] BlackLight has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but has not delivered a working product.
Further, regarding "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics":


"Unlike most schemes for free energy, the hydrino process of Randy Mills is not without ample theory.[48] Mills has written a 1000 page tome, entitled, "The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics", that takes the reader all the way from hydrinos to antigravity.[49] Fortunately, Aaron Barth [...] has taken upon himself to look through it, checking for accuracy. Barth is a post doctoral researcher at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and holds a PhD in Astronomy, 1998, from UC Berkeley. What he found initially were mathematical blunders and unjustified assumptions. To his surprise, however, portions of the book seemed well organized. These, it now turns out, were lifted verbatim from various texts. This has been the object of a great deal of discussion from Mills' Hydrino Study Group. "Mills seems not to understand what the fuss is all about." – Park



originally posted by: Mary Rose
a reply to: KrzYma

Who cares why mainstream science is what it is?

Isn't that just making excuses?

Physics is physics whether it's mainstream or alternative.
Here's one way you can tell if Randall Mill's physics is real physics or not: If he actually delivers a real commercial product consistent with his claims. He's got the funding so what's stopping him?


originally posted by: hgfbob
if you had SPECIFICS in asking physics questions, ya should have posted that right off the bat.
I'll repeat myself one more time and this is the last time:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I said you could ask, but I didn't promise you'd get an answer, and if you weren't satisfied with the answers you got in the 9/11 forum you wouldn't be satisfied with the answers you got here either so I really don't see the point in asking.
You don't appear to want answers or discussion, and you apparently haven't even read or comprehended the answers you already got to these same questions you posted in the 9/11 forum that you're re-posting here.

Re-posting the same things in multiple forums is a form of spam and if this continues I'll make a spam report. You can't tell me this topic doesn't belong in the 9/11 forum and you've already asked these questions in the 9/11 forum and got replies. This isn't the 9/11 forum.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma




This thread IMO is to prove the correctness of the standard model


no, this thread is for all to..."ask me any question about physics"......and I did.

all science has an acceptance that mass can not accelerate equal to gravity, unless there is a clear path to do so.

that is the bottom line.

I asked how the official claim ..."low temp thermal expansion", makes this possible.....for the first time in the history of history.

we see this 2.3 second interval of acceleration occurs globally....so does the investigating entity.
we see this 2.3 second interval of acceleration is occurring as a 'single unit'....so does the investigating entity.

those terms 'global' and 'single unit' have specific meaning within the context of science.

so does the acceleration equal to g.


there is nothing I take "out of context"....as already claimed I did.


I asked a physics question that he refuses to respond to.....wonder why?



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




You don't appear to want answers or discussion


there is no discussion....is there.....ONLY answers.





Re-posting the same things in multiple forums is a form of spam


what I post is ONLY considered spam by those whom cant respond to it.

there is no discussion in what I post....it is what it is...and if I didn't get back so many 'OUT-OF-CONTEXT' replies, I would not have to repeat myself.

I posted within the context of this thread..."ask me any question you want about physics".

I asked a question and I showed the reason why I asked the question......and all you can do is divert.....distract from that.

a simple high school physics question.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Can any laws of physics not be simulated in a computer and if so then whats to say that we are not inside a compter simulation/game ourselves ?

You need a miricale to make something out of nothing but not inside a computer simulation and the laws of physics in my mind are just like the CPU rules and instruction sets inside a PC.

Laws like matter (as we understand it) need to be created and they don't just happen by mistake and our DNS which is compputer code (read up if you don't get this yet) could not evolve by accident.

Yes you say but you need matter to create the computer in the first place but living inside a computer excludes us from ever knowing what matter is so in effect it is man made like time and distance and wont be understood unless you start to think about it from a perspective as being a "Object" running on ET's personal PC.

On the subject PC's are not personal and due to windows they have become little more than remote terminals for microsoft who only grew big because of the finance from the NSA and the cartel suport from all the other major players that are all CIA/NSA owned.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: VirusGuard
Laws like matter (as we understand it) need to be created and they don't just happen by mistake and our DNS which is compputer code (read up if you don't get this yet) could not evolve by accident.


Did you mean to say DNA?



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: VirusGuard
Can any laws of physics not be simulated in a computer and if so then whats to say that we are not inside a compter simulation/game ourselves ?
There's a paper which explores this idea, but one constraint is that the universe would have to be finite and we don't know for certain that it is. If the universe is infinite then attributing it to a computer simulation is problematic:

Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

In this work, we have taken seriously the possibility that our universe is a numerical simulation. In particular, we have explored a number of observables that may reveal the underlying structure of a simulation performed with a rigid hyper-cubic space-time grid....

assuming that the universe is finite and therefore the resources of potential simulators are finite, then a volume containing a simulation will be finite and a lattice spacing must be non-zero, and therefore in principle there always remains the possibility for the simulated to discover the simulators.
The authors talk about ways we might try to detect if we are part of a simulation. I admit "The Matrix" was a fascinating movie, but even in the movie there were glitches in the simulation. The idea seems far fetched to me but I'm not opposed to those authors looking for the evidence they discuss to try to prove or disprove the concept, but without evidence, it just seems like a hollywood movie idea to me.


Laws like matter (as we understand it) need to be created and they don't just happen by mistake and our DNS which is compputer code (read up if you don't get this yet) could not evolve by accident.
I didn't know matter was a law. Have you read the thread? Not too long ago I cited a source saying it wasn't even a fundamental concept in physics today, though the idea has a historical context.

By the way I can say "Elvis lives" (read up if you don't get this yet) and if you search that you should get millions of hits, so you can read all about it. That doesn't mean Elvis is alive. In physics, and for science in general, claims are held to a higher standard than whether the topic returns something in an internet search, in order to gain credibility. Or as someone once said, "don't believe everything you read on the internet".


On the subject PC's are not personal and due to windows they have become little more than remote terminals for microsoft who only grew big because of the finance from the NSA and the cartel suport from all the other major players that are all CIA/NSA owned.
There's no question about physics in here, but of course anybody not asleep through all the Snowden leaks knows the spying agencies got out of control. I don't think they are running the universe though, just a chunk of the pale blue dot they reside on.

edit on 2-8-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




By the way I can say "Elvis lives" (read up if you don't get this yet) and if you search that you should get millions of hits, so you can read all about it. That doesn't mean Elvis is alive. In physics, and for science in general, claims are held to a higher standard than whether the topic returns something in an internet search, in order to gain credibility. Or as someone once said, "don't believe everything you read on the internet".


....[shakes head].........




In physics, and for science in general,


there is an agreed consensus....now tell me how someone can claim a change in the agreed science and not have to validate....verify....peer review.....

tell me how thermal expansion occurring at low temps REMOVES the required resistance before 1.74 seconds of the collapse including....
105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support columns....
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams...
lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout...
tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
interior partitions.....
office contents...
utilities....

as must occur to allow the found FFA to occur.......how does thermal expansion at low temps do all that work.



posted on Aug, 2 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: hgfbob
a reply to: Arbitrageur




By the way I can say "Elvis lives" (read up if you don't get this yet) and if you search that you should get millions of hits, so you can read all about it. That doesn't mean Elvis is alive. In physics, and for science in general, claims are held to a higher standard than whether the topic returns something in an internet search, in order to gain credibility. Or as someone once said, "don't believe everything you read on the internet".


....[shakes head].........




In physics, and for science in general,


there is an agreed consensus....now tell me how someone can claim a change in the agreed science and not have to validate....verify....peer review.....

tell me how thermal expansion occurring at low temps REMOVES the required resistance before 1.74 seconds of the collapse including....
105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support columns....
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams...
lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout...
tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
interior partitions.....
office contents...
utilities....

as must occur to allow the found FFA to occur.......how does thermal expansion at low temps do all that work.


What has this got to do with anything we are talking about? Thermal expansion changes volume of an object and those can create stress on parts engineers have to plan around this constantly. In fact the expansion coefficient for steel is 0.0000072 so you times this by the increase in temperature and you can tell how much it increased. For example if we had a 100 in section of steel and we have a 100 degree increase in temperature the steel we would see an increase of .0072 so are 100 in piece of steel increased by .72 in almost 3 /4 of in in. The longer the steel the more the expansion also higher the temperature but even a 100 degree increase in temperature puts serious stress on a building. This is why bridges and buildings are built so they can expand take it beyond that an they collapse like a stack of cards.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
The design should be such that the free end can expand.
a reply to: dragonridr



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




What has this got to do with anything we are talking about? Thermal expansion changes volume of an object and those can create stress on parts engineers have to plan around this constantly.


again, as ALL the other replies before you, you IGNORE what I say....completely.


now please read my previous posts were I show the reasons, CAREFULLY, and tell me how this new phenomenon called "LOW TEMP thermal expansion" REMOVES the required resistance to allow the mass we see to globally accelerate equal to gravity...NOT expands the metal by .001.....REMOVES STRUCTURE COMPLETELY!..[that is the ONLY way mass can accelerate equal to g.]





buildings are built so they can expand


LMAO!!!...I have been building steel and stick for almost 30 years....FIRST TIME I heard about a building built to EXPAND!!!!!

sorry ..you are 100% WRONG!!!!!






100 degree increase in temperature puts serious stress on a building. This is why bridges and buildings are built so they can expand take it beyond that an they collapse like a stack of cards.


we are NOT talking about metal expanding in the summertime heat....we are talking about structural mass DISAPPEARING to allow the found GLOBAL UNIFIED acceleration equal to g.

SO....is this the pattern we are gonna see here now....all the minions coming in to leave these stupid comments that have nothing to do with the initial question....to distract from the initial question....

lol....and then blame me for the disruption.....



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard




computer simulation and the laws of physics in my mind are just like the CPU rules and instruction sets inside a PC.


and is only as viable as the data programmed into it....that is where 'peer review' comes into play....


Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.


except when claiming this.....


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."


to which I asked the initial physics question to explain how a new phenomenon called "low temp thermal expansion" removed structural mass, NOT expanded it, removes.....since all science states mass must be removed to enable mass to constantly accelerate equal to g.

except on 9-11 where fire at ONE end of the building creates this new phenomenon of science NO ONE can prove through science.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 05:16 AM
link   
There is certainly an unexplained science/tech involved with 9/11 scenario. I don't think any1 can pinpoint it
a reply to: hgfbob



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
There is certainly an unexplained science/tech involved with 9/11 scenario. I don't think any1 can pinpoint it
a reply to: hgfbob



uhm...I just did.

the ONLY unexplained science/tech, is with the asserted official claims pushed.......everything else it pretty straight forward.

EVERY video we see of WTC7 collapsing SHOWS, when the kink forms at 1.74 seconds, [according to the 2005 NIST scientific investigation], there is a 2.3 second interval of 'continuous' acceleration equal to g., or 105 vertical feet or 8 stories....
to which ALL taught, agreed upon science states can ONLY occur with a CLEAR PATH to allow acceleration!

we see it is symmetrical.
we see it moves as a 'single unit'.

WE KNOW what must occur for it to do so.

this collapse is singular to ONLY 9-11....never occurring before or since for any reason.....except 'controlled'.
science tells us an unobstructed 'clear path' is needed to CONTINUALLY accelerate...

the 2008 NIST hypothesis crew states new science occurred...


"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."


I saw this thread, "ask me any physics question"....so I did.

and look at the 'S'-storm it is causing....



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: hgfbob

I believe your in the wrong forum if people here wanted to discuss 9/11 im sure they would be happy to go to that forum. I explained to you what heat does to steel thats a question for physics. As i explained expansion does occur and create significant stress on joints for example every engineer is aware of this and makes sure when building anything he takes these stresses into account. As far as the official story whatever that is who cares thats an argument to be taken up elsewhere. If you have a specific question on physics ill be happy to attempt to answer it but if your just trying to push an agenda dont even bother.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join