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: 222
74
<< 219  220  221    223  224  225 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

I don't know what that means. A certain amount of luminous matter shows up in the telescope. That's not enough to account for the galaxy rotation curve. Of course we know we're not detecting things like brown dwarfs in other galaxies, we can't even see those in the most distant parts of our own galaxy. I'm not sure I'd call that an error since we are not expecting those to show up.


'Error' would be;

There are many more brown dwarfs than there are thought to be.

One or more fundamental oversight in regards to the instruments of detection.

One or more fundamental oversight in the mathematical symbolism, theory.




It's better if you try to apply the math and let someone else critique it. If you have no idea how to apply the math I don't know how you expect someone else to apply it. If you really had "theories", they would need to have math. If you just want to discuss something qualitatively without using any math, as I said you can start by explaining the bullet cluster observations, but you would need to start by understanding how those observations were made.



Reality is not math, reality is physical objects; math is a middle man I have avoided. Who knows more about an apple, he who sees the image of an apple in his mind, or he who only sees the word Apple?

I am asking you to work together, you know math, I know the imagery and logic of reality and I know my groundbreaking theories and insights. You and your ilk only accept groundbreaking theories and insight in the language of math, so you can help me translate my vision, and we can share the glory.

Either you do not have faith in your knowledge of the math language, to translate and be of sufficient service to me, or you are employed to spread propaganda and keep the truth a secret.

There is absolutely no reason, you would waste many minutes and hours, on this thread, answering inconsequential questions, with style and substance, and not be ok with dedicating maybe in total an hour of clear and present time to discuss with me here my theories, with the innocent and worthy desire to transcribe them into the accepted format, for the name of science, for the name of denying human ignorance.




posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


originally posted by: ImaFungi
I can not be so sure that those blue and red smudges represent dark matter and non.

OK how about starting with an alternate explanation that at least shows you understand the method used to create that image. If it's not evidence of dark matter, then how do you explain the gravitational lensing in the blue areas of that image?

Here's a related paper:
Catching a bullet: direct evidence for the existence of dark matter

edit on 20151220 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi


originally posted by: ImaFungi
I can not be so sure that those blue and red smudges represent dark matter and non.

OK how about starting with an alternate explanation that at least shows you understand the method used to create that image. If it's not evidence of dark matter, then how do you explain the gravitational lensing in the blue areas of that image?

Here's a related paper:
Catching a bullet: direct evidence for the existence of dark matter


Only one other explination I can think of. Since we are dealing with kinetic energy of the universe there is something called gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic fields. Granted I find the explanation unlikely because I'm not convinced these fields would cause gravitational lensing we could detect. Excluding this there is only one answer something is causing a gravitational field and we can't see it but it has a mass large enough to curve space.
edit on 12/21/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Does an object need to be moved by something in order to move at all?

That is to say; for an object that is at time A, B, and C, relatively stationary, to then be moving at time D,E,F;

There has to be some physical reason/force/touching/interaction of physicality's/interaction of realness', which result in the environmentally describable difference between A, B, C, and D,E,F;

Would you not agree?

(I am leading up these questions, to show you how little you comprehend gravity, but maybe you will prove me wrong...or yes, you will try to finagle your bogus magic definitions and not attempt to explain physics at all)

So when you drop a brick from a tower, when the brick is on top of the tower at time A...B...C...

And then when it is falling toward the ground starting at D... (and then on through its travel downward)

Because I presume, the force you might use to let go of the brick, is not an equal force to the velocity of the brick traveling toward the ground (so it is not simply, an object in motion stays in motion), there must be a physically touching reason, as to why the brick falls;

There must be continuous physical touching (unless one would posit, when one lets go of the brick at C-D, there is besides your hand and force and what not, a single moment of physical touching force, which puts the brick in its velocitied motion which it stays in until stopped by ground) of the brick which forces it down.

Do you comprehend how the brick is continuously physically touched on its journey to the ground?

And that that, is one side, of the meaning of gravity?



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There must be continuous physical touching (unless one would posit, when one lets go of the brick at C-D, there is besides your hand and force and what not, a single moment of physical touching force, which puts the brick in its velocitied motion which it stays in until stopped by ground) of the brick which forces it down.
I can see why such a statement would have been logical centuries ago, however, we have learned a lot since then. Now we know that even if you attach things to the brick to move it, like ropes and pulleys or springs, etc, that there's not really any physical touching going on at microscopic scales.

Field Theory and Action at a Distance

One thing that we discovered was that the notion of what it is that does the pushing gets fuzzy at the microscopic scale. We saw some of this at the macroscopic scale. One of our favorite forces was gravity. However, gravity exerts a force on an object over here due to another massive object over there. This is difficult to fully understand - how does an object over there do anything to one over here? They are not in contact. There are no ropes or pulleys or springs connecting them. Yet they accelerate in a way that makes it clear that there is a force between them.

If we look inside the ropes and pulleys and springs, the same problem exists. All of these objects are made up of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of electrons and nuclei which are made of protons and neutrons which are made of quarks, and something is holding each level of ``elementary'' particle together to form the ``elementary'' particle of the level above it. We labelled all of these forces, although in each case there is no direct contact (so to speak) between the massive objects interacting by means of these forces. The strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces are thought to be the only forces that glue all of the particular (massive) parts together into the wholes.

Although this was very useful, it doesn't solve our philosophical difficulties: How is it possible for an object (particle) over there to act upon one over here? Indeed, what is the nature of the space in between that we blithely cover with coordinates and arrange into a sequence of time-labelled events? Finally, how can we understand the greatest mystery of all. The interactions we observe and name have a geometric structure, and the equations of motion for systems of particles connected via these interactions somehow blend geometry in our coordinatized space and calculus.

I wish that I could tell you what the answers to these questions are. Unfortunately, they don't have an answer that can just be told. The only way to begin to appreciate the answers to these questions is to study one of these interactions in complete detail, hoping that as our mechanical understanding of the interaction increases, so will our philosophical insight into its true nature.


Even before you let go of the brick, we can say our hand is "touching" the brick, but now we know that this "touch" is not really happening at a microscopic level. What is happening is that coulomb forces combined with the Pauli Exclusion Principle result in "action at a distance" (albeit a very short distance) between our hand and the brick, which allow our hand to support the brick.

So this whole idea of things physically "touching" each other which might have made sense several centuries ago, falls apart in modern science and now we understand that "action at a distance" is more the norm of the way nature works. "Action at a distance" refers to archaic failure to understand how nature works, and we now call our understanding of this a "field". As we already discussed the true ontology of field theory hasn't been resolved, but the ability of field theory to make accurate predictions in many experiments and observations is remarkable.

It is in this light that we say that field theory has made a prediction, that the effect we see of gravitational lensing, has a cause. We don't fully understand the cause, which is why we call it "dark" matter, but as dragonridr said other models to attempt to explain this lensing without some kind of invisible mass don't seem to work, so if you have a new model let's hear it without dragging us through centuries of scientific discovery to bring you up to speed in understanding that now we know that "touch" is a macroscopic concept that doesn't really result in physical touch on molecular or atomic scales so the very line of questioning implies a certain lack of understanding of physics developed over centuries.

Besides the question seems further irrelevant since what is being lensed in the bullet cluster is light, which is a form of energy, and you can't hold light in your hand like a brick.

edit on 20151221 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

OH, now I get it...



So choosing the sun to worship does seem to have some scientific rationale as it's observable. Allegedly Ra is the being who was channeled to confirm Dewey Larson's theories are true, though I'm not sure if it's the same Ra sun god the Egyptians worshiped. Also have you ever noticed how people get delirious and can't think straight when their temperature reaches 106 degrees F/ 41 degrees C? Given Ra is at millions of degrees he appears to be even more delirious since the Larson theories he supposedly "confirmed" via channeling don't match observation.



...BUT, worshiping the Sun is still more less imbecile than worshiping an grey-bearded guy sitting in the clouds, yet, millions choose the second one...

this is actually the perfect analogy...
believing in ghosts ( sub-particles ) strange mystical forces ( dark energy ) invisible realms ( dark matter ) is exactly that you do, right ?


is an inventive theory... this one you preach

and again, looks like again, a new "particle" has been invented at LHC, right?
and they will not stop "appearing" any time soon...
LOL !!!

how do I know ?
the ripples are complex, you guys are just on the surface right now...



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
believing in ghosts ( sub-particles ) strange mystical forces ( dark energy ) invisible realms ( dark matter ) is exactly that you do, right ?
The effects are observed, the causes are unknown hence the "placeholder" terms "dark matter" and "dark energy". Dark energy is probably vacuum energy, and while WIMPs are a leading candidate for dark matter we don't really know what it is, but it's probably more than one thing. We are standing on one type of dark matter (baryonic) so I'm sure that type of dark matter exists. I fully support the experiments to try to discover what the rest of the dark matter might be composed of, since it's obviously not all baryonic.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I never intended my quip to be relevant to bullet cluster and dark matter, I was starting with a musing on gravity, to have you show your cards, to set the table.


Your axiom, that it is possible for a thing to be moved 'Without being touched at all', is where and why you are wrong.

Once you are willing to believe that, you are building your theory on not even shaky ground, but literally no ground.


Give me one mechanical explanation, as to how an object can be moved, without being touched by something?

Is this your semantic game; where you say, Energy is not something, but an object can be moved by energy?

So when two objects collide, matter does not collide...atoms do not collide...but energy collides, is that another way to say light collides? Or the light created by atoms a, b, c collides with the atoms x, y, z, and the light created from the atoms x, y, z collide with the atoms a, b, c, .... Still there must ultimately be touching!

Something must ultimately touch something.

If you imagine that all things are embedded in some field, and the things themselves are never touched, but the field is touched, and the touching of the field, alters the location of the things embedded in it... then there is still touching, as there must be, obviously eternally.

When you speak of spooky action at a distance, you are ignoring that if such is true, there must be a real existing field between the two objects interacting, which is the transferrer of the interaction.

The touching, is between the objects and the field.

There must be touching.

That is axiom that must be true.

There are only two possible ultimate scenarios; Either a reality can exist in which parts exist, and the parts can effect one anothers existence, WITHOUT ANYTHING TOUCHING ANYTHING (or do you concede on this point, that you were not being clear enough with your terms and descriptions... that I can take a basketball in a pool, which contains multiple basketballs, and I can drop the basketball in the water, and the other basketballs can move, and you would say, spooky action at a distance! The particles/basketballs dont touch!... And I would say, and am saying, there is a real physical field, they do interact with, there is something touching something which touches something.)

Or; a reality exists, in which things only move because things are moved by things which move and can move by touching things.

You believe a reality exists, or is even hypothetically theoretically possible, in which real thing, can be moved by force outside of it (I say outside of it, to exclude, motorized objects, or internally motive objects), without ANYTHING AT ALL, touching the real thing. You have no attempt at even written a theory as to how this is possible, because it is eternally impossible and meaningless, only in a video game is non logic and non reason possible, only in a mind is non logic and non physical reason possible.



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If you imagine that all things are embedded in some field, and the things themselves are never touched, but the field is touched, and the touching of the field, alters the location of the things embedded in it... then there is still touching..

The touching, is between the objects and the field.

There must be touching.

That is axiom that must be true.
In that case I don't know what you mean by "touching". Physicists call it an "interaction". They don't call it touching, in fact as you yourself pointed out when you bring two bar magnet north poles together, you see them repel before they "touch". I wouldn't call the interaction of those magnet fields a form of touch.

"Spooky action at a distance" refers to something else: quantum entanglement, not ordinary field interaction, which was formerly just called "action at a distance". I suppose it's not as "spooky" because there doesn't seem to be anything faster than light in electromagnetic or gravitational interactions, but there does appear to be something faster than light happening with "spooky action at a distance", as Einstein coined the term.

edit on 20151221 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What I mean by touching, is that;

That which is something (that which is not pure nothing), if moved by something other than its internal nature;

Must be touched, by something, for that movement to possibly occur. In all circumstances.

If light can move an object at all, light must touch something; and that object must be touching something, and that light must move something, and that object must be moved by something; and for all I know I think it is possible, that there may be no middle man in such a potential scenario, but that light might be able to actually touch that which it moves, as ultimately, that which moves must be touched by that which moves it.

Forgetting about spooky action at a distance for a moment; choose one action,movement, you believe occurs without touching involved; All action at a distance, to Einstein, and men of logic and reason, is spooky action at a distance; until it is comprehended there must be an underlying physical material, which allows the interaction to take place at a distance, which we cannot see.

Without Einstein geometry physical space gravity field theory, the proposition that the moon continually stays near the Earth, and we cannot see the physical reason as to why it does so, is the concept of spooky action at a distance;

If you truly believe that particles interact with particles, without any things touching any things, or any energy touching any energy or things, you believe that theoretically, the moon could stay near the earth, without einstein geometry physical space gravity field.

This forces me to posit, that any time anyone believes, that an object, can interact with anything that is not nothing, at a distance, without touching anything, they must be mistaken, and they must miscomprehend the history of science, physics and philosophy, logic, reason, and rational.
edit on 21-12-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, again, I return to my tower and brick example.

There must be something physically forcing the brick ground-ward, I have not thought or known it through enough to say whether it may be continuously forced downward, or given its velocity at the precise moment of from non fall to fall (given its, object put into motion stays in motion velocity... or if the former, object continuously forced to move by forceful contact; I presume it is that former, which in these parentheses is now the latter).
edit on 21-12-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
This forces me to posit, that any time anyone believes, that an object, can interact with anything that is not nothing, at a distance, without touching anything, they must be mistaken, and they must miscomprehend the history of science, physics and philosophy, logic, reason, and rational.
So you say. Philosophers question the ontology of fields but even they don't deny the existence and behavior of fields in some form as you apparently do. I still fail to see what any of this has to do with dark matter.

edit on 20151221 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, again, I return to my tower and brick example.

There must be something physically forcing the brick ground-ward, I have not thought or known it through enough to say whether it may be continuously forced downward, or given its velocity at the precise moment of from non fall to fall (given its, object put into motion stays in motion velocity... or if the former, object continuously forced to move by forceful contact; I presume it is that former, which in these parentheses is now the latter).


Nothing forces a brick anywhere.You start an object in motion and it follows the twists and curves of space tine. Gravity effects objects in motion changing their path. No force no touching of any kind involved. If I throw a ball an it returns to earth the ball created a straight line the space it travels through was curved. This curved space is caused by mass the greater the mass the more space is curved. Even you cause a curve in space time. Astronauts on eva will return with dust on their suit. What attracts this dust their mass.
edit on 12/22/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Here is eureka for you; Masses move; you say space time is warped, the warps correlate to masses, the masses move, this means the warp moves. If you are intelligent at all, ding ding ding.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Here is eureka for you; Masses move; you say space time is warped, the warps correlate to masses, the masses move, this means the warp moves. If you are intelligent at all, ding ding ding.


I fully understand the implications and how geodesics work just not convinced you do. You seem to have a problem grasping the fact that every object in the universe always moves in a straight line as their trajectory is set.
edit on 12/22/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You are just an animal attempting to think about one of the more difficult things an animal can attempt to think about, stop pretending you comprehend nature anywhere near so fully. Your last sentence leaves out vital information rendering it insufficient in relation to the point it is attempting to respond to. There is a mathematical perspective of simplified graphing that allows one to state that 'every object moves in a straight line', but there is another perspective, which suggests objects really move in relation to one another, and an object ideal grid of fixed points, that objects move relatively in 3 dimensions. This is even the meaning of 'warped space', that the 'straight' line objects travel, is really, a straight line, over curved spaces... If you ignore the real curvature, you are ignoring reality and my point. The warps of space do not exist without mass. If mass (mass which warps space) did not exist, we must presume, there would be 'no thing' to warp space. Mass moves at all. Mass warps space. The movements of mass must warp space differently then the non movements of mass (as the movements of mass, occur throughout more space, precisely because of movement). Therefore, mass moves. Mass moves space. Space moves mass. (space, of course referring to einstein warp-able space-time... I refer personally to is as the physical gravity force medium (or gravity material, or some other names I cant remember, aether grav))



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=20171678]ErosA433 Mainstream - burns doctorate and 10 years of real scientific experience, because clearly it is worthless compared to a part time confirmation bias


Personally id love someone to come along and fix all these issues, but, to do so requires mathematics and a solid theory without holes, or at least less holes than we currently have...

So far, no offerings, here or anywhere else have even come close to a theory... let alone maths
Lol, end rant



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

There must be something physically forcing the brick ground-ward, I have not thought or known it through enough to say whether it may be continuously forced downward, or given its velocity at the precise moment of from non fall to fall [...]


Would it tarnish the purity of your model if you took a look at observations made over the centuries? In junior high we measured the speed and change of speed of a falling object; it has been done over centuries probably thousands of times.

When you have thought enough to know how the brick behaves, will it invalidate the centuries of Galilean physics?



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pirvonen

Would it tarnish the purity of your model if you took a look at observations made over the centuries? In junior high we measured the speed and change of speed of a falling object; it has been done over centuries probably thousands of times.

When you have thought enough to know how the brick behaves, will it invalidate the centuries of Galilean physics?


There must be direct physical cause...a force... as to why and how the brick does not remain in the air at top of tower height when let go;

When the brick is let go, SOMETHING PHYSICAL/REAL, MUST BE, FORCING, the brick in the direction it travels.



posted on Dec, 22 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
It would be nice to know exactly why it works for the sake of knowing. However Newton said he didn't know why it works, only that he could describe the behavior of gravity. Einstein's description is a more accurate predictor but it still doesn't explain why mass bends space-time.

However, as long as the model is accurate in describing observed behaviors, the "why" it works isn't necessary to make predictions. I think that may be what Pirvonen was getting at. The model is so accurate that it took a long time to figure out the tiny discrepancy in the Pioneer anomaly, which I think has been solved and the model of gravity didn't need to be replaced to explain it as some were suggesting was one possibility.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 219  220  221    223  224  225 >>

log in

join